comparison john/english/John1.html @ 35:178aed5d2c3c

convert to XML
author ht
date Mon, 30 Nov 2009 22:05:42 +0000
parents 25a799388159
children
comparison
equal deleted inserted replaced
34:2bc1f3a24bc0 35:178aed5d2c3c
1 <html> 1 <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"
2 "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
3 <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
2 <head> 4 <head>
3 </style> 5 <meta name="generator" content=
6 "HTML Tidy for Cygwin (vers 25 March 2009), see www.w3.org" />
7 <title></title>
4 </head> 8 </head>
5 9 <body style="text-align:justify">
6 <body style=text-align:justify><blockquote> 10 <blockquote>
7 <CENTER><p style="text-align: center"><span style="font-size: 60pt">1</span></p> 11 <center>
12 <p style="text-align: center"><span style=
13 "font-size: 60pt">1</span></p>
8 <p>LECTURE I</p> 14 <p>LECTURE I</p>
9 <p>1 In the beginning was the Word;<BR> 15 <p>1 In the beginning was the Word;<br />
10 and the Word was with God;<BR> 16 and the Word was with God;<br />
11 and the Word was God.<BR> 17 and the Word was God.<br />
12 2 He was in the beginning with God.</CENTER> 18 2 He was in the beginning with God.</p>
13 <p>23 John the Evangelist, as already indicated, makes it his principal object to show the divinity 19 </center>
14 of the Incarnate Word. Accordingly, his Gospel is divided into two parts. In the first he states 20 <p>23 John the Evangelist, as already indicated, makes it his
15 the divinity of Christ; in the second he shows it by the things Christ did in the flesh (2:1). In 21 principal object to show the divinity of the Incarnate Word.
16 regard to the first, he does two things. First he shows the divinity of Christ; secondly he sets 22 Accordingly, his Gospel is divided into two parts. In the first he
17 forth the manner in which Christ&#8217;s divinity is made known to us (1:14). Concerning the first 23 states the divinity of Christ; in the second he shows it by the
18 he does two things. First he treats of the divinity of Christ; secondly of the incarnation of the 24 things Christ did in the flesh (2:1). In regard to the first, he
19 Word of God (1:6).</p> 25 does two things. First he shows the divinity of Christ; secondly he
20 <p>Because there are two items to be considered in each thing, namely, its existence and its 26 sets forth the manner in which Christ&rsquo;s divinity is made
21 operation or power, first he treats the existence of the Word as to his divine nature; secondly 27 known to us (1:14). Concerning the first he does two things. First
22 of his power or operation (1:3). In regard to the first he does four things. First he shows when 28 he treats of the divinity of Christ; secondly of the incarnation of
23 the Word was: <span style="font-weight: bold">In the beginning was the Word; </span>secondly where he was: <span style="font-weight: bold">and the Word was 29 the Word of God (1:6).</p>
24 with God; </span>thirdly what fie was: <span style="font-weight: bold">and the Word was God; </span>fourthly, in what way he was: <span style="font-weight: bold">He 30 <p>Because there are two items to be considered in each thing,
25 was in the beginning with God. </span>The first two pertain to the inquiry &#8220;whether something 31 namely, its existence and its operation or power, first he treats
26 exists&#8221;; the second two pertain to the inquiry &#8220;what something is.&#8221;</p> 32 the existence of the Word as to his divine nature; secondly of his
27 <p>24 With respect to the first of these four we must examine the meaning of the statement, <span style="font-weight: bold">In 33 power or operation (1:3). In regard to the first he does four
28 the beginning was the Word. </span>And here three things present themselves for careful study 34 things. First he shows when the Word was: <span style=
29 according to the three parts of this statement. First it is necessary to investigate the name 35 "font-weight: bold">In the beginning was the Word;</span> secondly
30 Word; secondly the phrase <span style="font-weight: bold">in the beginning; </span>thirdly the meaning of the Word <span style="font-weight: bold">was in the 36 where he was: <span style="font-weight: bold">and the Word was with
31 beginning.</span></p> 37 God;</span> thirdly what fie was: <span style=
32 <p>25 To understand the name <span style="font-weight: bold">Word </span>we should note that according to the Philosopher [<i>On 38 "font-weight: bold">and the Word was God;</span> fourthly, in what
33 Interpretation </i>16a3] vocal sounds are signs of the affections that exist in our soul. It is 39 way he was: <span style="font-weight: bold">He was in the beginning
34 customary in Scripture for the things signified to be themselves called by the names of their 40 with God.</span> The first two pertain to the inquiry
35 signs, as in the statement, &#8220;And the rock was Christ&#8221; ( 1 Cor 10:4). It is fitting that what is 41 &ldquo;whether something exists&rdquo;; the second two pertain to
36 within our soul, and which is signified by our external word, be called a &#8220;word.&#8221; But whether 42 the inquiry &ldquo;what something is.&rdquo;</p>
37 the name &#8220;word&#8221; belongs first to the exterior vocal sound or to the conception in our mind, is 43 <p>24 With respect to the first of these four we must examine the
38 not our concern at present. However, it is obvious that what is signified by the vocal sound, as 44 meaning of the statement, <span style="font-weight: bold">In the
39 existing interiorly in the soul, exists prior to the vocal expression inasmuch as it is its actual 45 beginning was the Word.</span> And here three things present
40 cause. Therefore if we wish to grasp the meaning of the interior word, we must first look at 46 themselves for careful study according to the three parts of this
41 the meaning of that which is exteriorly expressed in words.</p> 47 statement. First it is necessary to investigate the name Word;
42 <p>Now there are three things in our intellect: the intellectual power itself, the species of the 48 secondly the phrase <span style="font-weight: bold">in the
43 thing understood (and this species is its form, being to the intellect what the species of a color 49 beginning;</span> thirdly the meaning of the Word <span style=
44 is to the eye), and thirdly the very activity of the intellect, which is to understand. But none of 50 "font-weight: bold">was in the beginning.</span></p>
45 these is what is signified by the exterior vocal word: for the name &#8220;stone&#8221; does not signify the 51 <p>25 To understand the name <span style=
46 substance of the intellect because this is not what the one naming intends; nor does it signify 52 "font-weight: bold">Word</span> we should note that according to
47 the species, which is that by which the intellect understands, since this also is not the 53 the Philosopher [<i>On Interpretation</i> 16a3] vocal sounds are
48 intention of the one naming; nor does it signify the act itself of understanding since to 54 signs of the affections that exist in our soul. It is customary in
49 understand is not an action proceeding to the exterior from the one understanding, but an 55 Scripture for the things signified to be themselves called by the
50 action remaining within. Therefore, that is properly called an interior word which the one 56 names of their signs, as in the statement, &ldquo;And the rock was
51 understanding forms when understanding.</p> 57 Christ&rdquo; ( 1 Cor 10:4). It is fitting that what is within our
52 <p>Now the intellect forms two things, according to its two operations. According to its 58 soul, and which is signified by our external word, be called a
53 operation which is called &#8220;the understanding of indivisibles,&#8221; it forms a definition; while 59 &ldquo;word.&rdquo; But whether the name &ldquo;word&rdquo; belongs
54 according to its operation by which it unites and separates, it forms an enunciation or 60 first to the exterior vocal sound or to the conception in our mind,
55 something of that sort. Hence, what is thus formed and expressed by the operation of the 61 is not our concern at present. However, it is obvious that what is
56 intellect, whether by defining or enunciating, is what the exterior vocal sound signifies. So the 62 signified by the vocal sound, as existing interiorly in the soul,
57 Philosopher says that the notion (ratio) which a name signifies is a definition. Hence, what is 63 exists prior to the vocal expression inasmuch as it is its actual
58 thus expressed, i.e., formed in the soul, is called an interior word. Consequently it is 64 cause. Therefore if we wish to grasp the meaning of the interior
59 compared to the intellect, not as that by which the intellect understands, but as that in which it 65 word, we must first look at the meaning of that which is exteriorly
60 understands, because it is in what is thus expressed and formed that it sees the nature of the 66 expressed in words.</p>
61 thing understood. Thus we have the meaning of the name &#8220;word.&#8221;</p> 67 <p>Now there are three things in our intellect: the intellectual
62 <p>Secondly, from what has been said we are able to understand that a word is always something 68 power itself, the species of the thing understood (and this species
63 that proceeds from an intellect existing in act; and furthermore, that a word is always a notion 69 is its form, being to the intellect what the species of a color is
64 (ratio) and likeness of the thing understood. So if the one understanding and the thing 70 to the eye), and thirdly the very activity of the intellect, which
65 understood are the same, then the word is a notion and likeness of the intellect from which it 71 is to understand. But none of these is what is signified by the
66 proceeds. On the other hand, if the one understanding is other than the thing understood, then 72 exterior vocal word: for the name &ldquo;stone&rdquo; does not
67 the word is not a likeness and notion of the one understanding but of the thing understood, as 73 signify the substance of the intellect because this is not what the
68 the conception which one has of a stone is a likeness of only the stone. But when the intellect 74 one naming intends; nor does it signify the species, which is that
69 understands itself, its word is a likeness and notion of the intellect. And so Augustine (<i>On the 75 by which the intellect understands, since this also is not the
70 Trinity </i>IX, 5)<i> </i>sees a likeness of the Trinity in the Soul insofar as the mind understands itself, 76 intention of the one naming; nor does it signify the act itself of
71 but not insofar as it understands other things.</p> 77 understanding since to understand is not an action proceeding to
72 <p>It is clear then that it is necessary to have a word in any intellectual nature, for it is of the very 78 the exterior from the one understanding, but an action remaining
73 nature of understanding that the intellect in understanding should form something. Now what 79 within. Therefore, that is properly called an interior word which
74 is formed is called a word, and so it follows that in every being which understands there must 80 the one understanding forms when understanding.</p>
75 be a word.</p> 81 <p>Now the intellect forms two things, according to its two
76 <p>However, intellectual natures are of three kinds: human, angelic and divine; and so there are 82 operations. According to its operation which is called &ldquo;the
77 three kinds of words. The human word, about which it is said in the Psalm (13:1): &#8220;The fool 83 understanding of indivisibles,&rdquo; it forms a definition; while
78 said in his heart, &#8216;There is no God.&#8217; &#8220; The angelic word, about which it is said in Zechariah 84 according to its operation by which it unites and separates, it
79 (1:9), and in many places in Sacred Scripture, &#8220;And the angel said to me.&#8221; The third is the 85 forms an enunciation or something of that sort. Hence, what is thus
80 divine word, of which Genesis (1:3) says, &#8220;And God said, &#8216;Let there be light.&#8217; &#8220; So when the 86 formed and expressed by the operation of the intellect, whether by
81 Evangelist says, <span style="font-weight: bold">In the beginning was the Word, </span>we cannot understand this as a human or 87 defining or enunciating, is what the exterior vocal sound
82 angelic word, because both these words have been made since man and angel have a cause 88 signifies. So the Philosopher says that the notion (ratio) which a
83 and principle of their existence and operation, and the word of a man or an angel cannot exist 89 name signifies is a definition. Hence, what is thus expressed,
84 before they do. The word the Evangelist had in mind he shows by saying that this word was 90 i.e., formed in the soul, is called an interior word. Consequently
85 not made, since all things were made by it. Therefore, the word about which John speaks here 91 it is compared to the intellect, not as that by which the intellect
86 is the Word of God.</p> 92 understands, but as that in which it understands, because it is in
87 <p>26 We should note that this Word differs from our own word in three ways. The first 93 what is thus expressed and formed that it sees the nature of the
88 difference, according to Augustine, is that our word is formable before being formed, for 94 thing understood. Thus we have the meaning of the name
89 when I wish to conceive the notion of a stone, I must arrive at it by reasoning. And so it is in 95 &ldquo;word.&rdquo;</p>
90 all other things that are understood by us, with the sole possible exception of the first 96 <p>Secondly, from what has been said we are able to understand that
91 principles which, since they are known in a simple manner, are known at once without any 97 a word is always something that proceeds from an intellect existing
92 discourse of reason. So as long as the intellect, in so reasoning, casts about this way and that, 98 in act; and furthermore, that a word is always a notion (ratio) and
93 the formation is not yet complete. It is only when it has conceived the notion of the thing 99 likeness of the thing understood. So if the one understanding and
94 perfectly that for the first time it has the notion of the complete thing and a word. Thus in our 100 the thing understood are the same, then the word is a notion and
95 mind there is both a &#8220;cogitation,&#8221; meaning the discourse involved in an investigation, and a 101 likeness of the intellect from which it proceeds. On the other
96 word, which is formed according to a perfect contemplation of the truth. So our word is first 102 hand, if the one understanding is other than the thing understood,
97 in potency before it is in act. But the Word of God is always in act. In consequence, the term 103 then the word is not a likeness and notion of the one understanding
98 &#8220;cogitation&#8221; does not properly speaking apply to the Word of God. For Augustine says (<i>On 104 but of the thing understood, as the conception which one has of a
99 the Trinity</i> XV)<i>: </i>&#8220;The Word of God is spoken of in such a way that cogitation is not included, 105 stone is a likeness of only the stone. But when the intellect
100 lest anything changeable be supposed in God.&#8221; Anselm was speaking improperly when he 106 understands itself, its word is a likeness and notion of the
101 said: &#8220;For the supreme Spirit to speak is for him to look at something while cogitating.&#8221;</p> 107 intellect. And so Augustine (<i>On the Trinity</i> IX, 5) sees a
102 <p>27 The second difference is that our word is imperfect, but the divine Word is most perfect. 108 likeness of the Trinity in the Soul insofar as the mind understands
103 For since we cannot express all our conceptions in one word, we must form many imperfect 109 itself, but not insofar as it understands other things.</p>
104 words through which we separately express all that is in our knowledge. But it is not that way 110 <p>It is clear then that it is necessary to have a word in any
105 with God. For since he understands both himself and everything else through his essence, by 111 intellectual nature, for it is of the very nature of understanding
106 one act, the single divine Word is expressive of all that is in God, not only of the Persons but 112 that the intellect in understanding should form something. Now what
107 also of creatures; otherwise it would be imperfect. So Augustine says: &#8220;If there were less in 113 is formed is called a word, and so it follows that in every being
108 the Word than is contained in the knowledge of the One speaking it, the Word would be 114 which understands there must be a word.</p>
109 imperfect; but it is obvious that it is most perfect; therefore, it is only one.&#8221; &#8220;God speaks 115 <p>However, intellectual natures are of three kinds: human, angelic
110 once&#8221; (Jb 33:14).</p> 116 and divine; and so there are three kinds of words. The human word,
111 <p>28 The third difference is that our word is not of the same nature as we; but the divine Word 117 about which it is said in the Psalm (13:1): &ldquo;The fool said in
112 is of the same nature as God. And therefore it is something that subsists in the divine nature. 118 his heart, &lsquo;There is no God.&rsquo; &ldquo; The angelic word,
113 For the understood notion which the intellect is seen to fonn about some thing has only an 119 about which it is said in Zechariah (1:9), and in many places in
114 intelligible existence in our soul. Now in our soul, to understand is not the same as the nature 120 Sacred Scripture, &ldquo;And the angel said to me.&rdquo; The third
115 of the soul, because our soul is not its own operation. Consequently, the word which our 121 is the divine word, of which Genesis (1:3) says, &ldquo;And God
116 intellect forms is not of the essence of our soul, but is an accident of it. But in God, to 122 said, &lsquo;Let there be light.&rsquo; &ldquo; So when the
117 understand and to be are the same; and so the Word of the divine intellect is not an accident 123 Evangelist says, <span style="font-weight: bold">In the beginning
118 but belongs to its nature. Thus it must be subsistent, because whatever is in the nature of God 124 was the Word,</span> we cannot understand this as a human or
119 is God. Thus Damascene says that God is a substantial Word, and a hypostasis, but our words 125 angelic word, because both these words have been made since man and
120 are concepts in our mind.</p> 126 angel have a cause and principle of their existence and operation,
121 <p>29 From the above it is clear that the Word, properly speaking, is always understood as a 127 and the word of a man or an angel cannot exist before they do. The
122 Person in the Divinity, since it implies only something expressed, by the one understanding; 128 word the Evangelist had in mind he shows by saying that this word
123 also, that in the Divinity the Word is the likeness of that from which it issues; and that it is 129 was not made, since all things were made by it. Therefore, the word
124 co-eternal with that from which it issues, since it was not first formable before being formed, 130 about which John speaks here is the Word of God.</p>
125 but was always in act; and that it is equal to the Father, since it is perfect and expressive of 131 <p>26 We should note that this Word differs from our own word in
126 the whole being of the Father; and that it is co-essential and consubstantial with the Father, 132 three ways. The first difference, according to Augustine, is that
127 since it is his substance.</p> 133 our word is formable before being formed, for when I wish to
128 <p>It is also clear that since in every nature that which issues forth and has a likeness to the 134 conceive the notion of a stone, I must arrive at it by reasoning.
129 nature from which it issues is called a son, and since this Word issues forth in a likeness and 135 And so it is in all other things that are understood by us, with
130 identity to the nature from which it issues, it is suitably and appropriately called a &#8220;Son,&#8221; and 136 the sole possible exception of the first principles which, since
131 its production is called a generation.</p> 137 they are known in a simple manner, are known at once without any
132 <p>So now the first point is clear, the meaning of the <span style="font-weight: bold">term Word.</span></p> 138 discourse of reason. So as long as the intellect, in so reasoning,
133 <p>30 There are four questions on this point, two of them from Chrysostom. The first is: Why 139 casts about this way and that, the formation is not yet complete.
134 did John the Evangelist oinit the Father and begin at once with the Son, saying, <span style="font-weight: bold">In the 140 It is only when it has conceived the notion of the thing perfectly
135 beginning was the Word?</span></p> 141 that for the first time it has the notion of the complete thing and
136 <p>There are two answers to this. One is that the Father was known to everyone in the Old 142 a word. Thus in our mind there is both a &ldquo;cogitation,&rdquo;
137 Testament, although not under the aspect of Father, but as God; but the Son was not known. 143 meaning the discourse involved in an investigation, and a word,
138 And so in the New Testament, which is concerned with our knowledge of the Word, he 144 which is formed according to a perfect contemplation of the truth.
145 So our word is first in potency before it is in act. But the Word
146 of God is always in act. In consequence, the term
147 &ldquo;cogitation&rdquo; does not properly speaking apply to the
148 Word of God. For Augustine says (<i>On the Trinity</i> XV)<i>:</i>
149 &ldquo;The Word of God is spoken of in such a way that cogitation
150 is not included, lest anything changeable be supposed in
151 God.&rdquo; Anselm was speaking improperly when he said: &ldquo;For
152 the supreme Spirit to speak is for him to look at something while
153 cogitating.&rdquo;</p>
154 <p>27 The second difference is that our word is imperfect, but the
155 divine Word is most perfect. For since we cannot express all our
156 conceptions in one word, we must form many imperfect words through
157 which we separately express all that is in our knowledge. But it is
158 not that way with God. For since he understands both himself and
159 everything else through his essence, by one act, the single divine
160 Word is expressive of all that is in God, not only of the Persons
161 but also of creatures; otherwise it would be imperfect. So
162 Augustine says: &ldquo;If there were less in the Word than is
163 contained in the knowledge of the One speaking it, the Word would
164 be imperfect; but it is obvious that it is most perfect; therefore,
165 it is only one.&rdquo; &ldquo;God speaks once&rdquo; (Jb
166 33:14).</p>
167 <p>28 The third difference is that our word is not of the same
168 nature as we; but the divine Word is of the same nature as God. And
169 therefore it is something that subsists in the divine nature. For
170 the understood notion which the intellect is seen to fonn about
171 some thing has only an intelligible existence in our soul. Now in
172 our soul, to understand is not the same as the nature of the soul,
173 because our soul is not its own operation. Consequently, the word
174 which our intellect forms is not of the essence of our soul, but is
175 an accident of it. But in God, to understand and to be are the
176 same; and so the Word of the divine intellect is not an accident
177 but belongs to its nature. Thus it must be subsistent, because
178 whatever is in the nature of God is God. Thus Damascene says that
179 God is a substantial Word, and a hypostasis, but our words are
180 concepts in our mind.</p>
181 <p>29 From the above it is clear that the Word, properly speaking,
182 is always understood as a Person in the Divinity, since it implies
183 only something expressed, by the one understanding; also, that in
184 the Divinity the Word is the likeness of that from which it issues;
185 and that it is co-eternal with that from which it issues, since it
186 was not first formable before being formed, but was always in act;
187 and that it is equal to the Father, since it is perfect and
188 expressive of the whole being of the Father; and that it is
189 co-essential and consubstantial with the Father, since it is his
190 substance.</p>
191 <p>It is also clear that since in every nature that which issues
192 forth and has a likeness to the nature from which it issues is
193 called a son, and since this Word issues forth in a likeness and
194 identity to the nature from which it issues, it is suitably and
195 appropriately called a &ldquo;Son,&rdquo; and its production is
196 called a generation.</p>
197 <p>So now the first point is clear, the meaning of the <span style=
198 "font-weight: bold">term Word.</span></p>
199 <p>30 There are four questions on this point, two of them from
200 Chrysostom. The first is: Why did John the Evangelist oinit the
201 Father and begin at once with the Son, saying, <span style=
202 "font-weight: bold">In the beginning was the Word?</span></p>
203 <p>There are two answers to this. One is that the Father was known
204 to everyone in the Old Testament, although not under the aspect of
205 Father, but as God; but the Son was not known. And so in the New
206 Testament, which is concerned with our knowledge of the Word, he
139 begins with the Word or Son.</p> 207 begins with the Word or Son.</p>
140 <p>The other answer is that we are brought to know the Father through the Son: &#8220;Father, I have 208 <p>The other answer is that we are brought to know the Father
141 manifested your name to the men whom you have given to me&#8221; (below 17:6). And so wishing 209 through the Son: &ldquo;Father, I have manifested your name to the
142 to lead the faithful to a knowledge of the Father, the Evangelist fittingly began with the Son, 210 men whom you have given to me&rdquo; (below 17:6). And so wishing
143 at once adding something about the Father when he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">and the Word was with God.</span></p> 211 to lead the faithful to a knowledge of the Father, the Evangelist
144 <p>31 The second question is also from Chrysostom. Why did he say <span style="font-weight: bold">Word </span>and not &#8220;Son,&#8221; 212 fittingly began with the Son, at once adding something about the
145 since, as we have said, the Word proceeds as Son?</p> 213 Father when he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">and the Word
146 <p>There are also two answers to this. First, because &#8220;son&#8221; means something begotten, and when 214 was with God.</span></p>
147 we hear of the generation of the Son, someone might suppose that this generation is the kind 215 <p>31 The second question is also from Chrysostom. Why did he say
148 he can comprehend, that is, a material and changeable generation. Thus he did not say &#8220;Son,&#8221; 216 <span style="font-weight: bold">Word</span> and not
149 but <span style="font-weight: bold">Word, </span>which signifies an intelligible proceeding, so that it would not be understood as a 217 &ldquo;Son,&rdquo; since, as we have said, the Word proceeds as
150 material and changeable generation. And so in showing that the Son is born of the Father in 218 Son?</p>
151 an unchangeable way, he eliminates a faulty conjecture by using the name <span style="font-weight: bold">Word.</span></p> 219 <p>There are also two answers to this. First, because
152 <p>The second answer is this. The Evangelist was about to consider the Word as having come to 220 &ldquo;son&rdquo; means something begotten, and when we hear of the
153 manifest the Father. But since the idea of manifesting is implied better in the name &#8220;Word&#8221; 221 generation of the Son, someone might suppose that this generation
154 than in the name &#8220;Son,&#8221; he preferred to use the name <span style="font-weight: bold">Word.</span></p> 222 is the kind he can comprehend, that is, a material and changeable
155 <p>32 The third question is raised by Augustine in his book <i>Eighty-three Questions; </i>and it is this. 223 generation. Thus he did not say &ldquo;Son,&rdquo; but <span style=
156 In Greek, where we have &#8220;Word,&#8221; they have &#8220;Logos&#8221;; now since &#8220;Logos&#8221; signifies in Latin 224 "font-weight: bold">Word,</span> which signifies an intelligible
157 both &#8220;notion&#8221; and &#8220;word&#8221; [i.e., <i>ratio et verbum</i>],<i> </i>why did the translators render it as &#8220;word&#8221; 225 proceeding, so that it would not be understood as a material and
158 and not &#8220;notion,&#8221; since a notion is something interior just as a word is?</p> 226 changeable generation. And so in showing that the Son is born of
159 <p>I answer that &#8220;notion&#8221; [ratio], properly speaking, names a conception of the mind precisely as 227 the Father in an unchangeable way, he eliminates a faulty
160 in the mind, even if through it nothing exterior comes to be; but &#8220;word&#8221; signifies a reference 228 conjecture by using the name <span style=
161 to something exterior. And so because the Evangelist, when he said &#8220;Logos,&#8221; intended to 229 "font-weight: bold">Word.</span></p>
162 signify not only a reference to the Son&#8217;s existence in the Father, but also the operative power 230 <p>The second answer is this. The Evangelist was about to consider
163 of the Son, by which, through him, all things were made, our predecessors preferred to 231 the Word as having come to manifest the Father. But since the idea
164 translate it &#8220;Word,&#8221; which implies a reference to something exterior, rather than &#8220;notion &#8220; 232 of manifesting is implied better in the name &ldquo;Word&rdquo;
165 which implies merely a concept of the mind.</p> 233 than in the name &ldquo;Son,&rdquo; he preferred to use the name
166 <p>33 The fourth question is from Origen, and is this. In many passages, Scripture, when 234 <span style="font-weight: bold">Word.</span></p>
167 speaking of the Word of God, does not simply call him the Word, but adds &#8220;of God,&#8221; saying, 235 <p>32 The third question is raised by Augustine in his book
168 &#8220;the Word of God,&#8221; or &#8220;of the Lord&#8221;: &#8220;The Word of God on high is the foundation of 236 <i>Eighty-three Questions;</i> and it is this. In Greek, where we
169 wisdom&#8221; (Sir 1:5); &#8220;His name is the Word of God&#8221; (Rv 19:13). Why then did the Evangelist, 237 have &ldquo;Word,&rdquo; they have &ldquo;Logos&rdquo;; now since
170 when speaking here of the Word of God, not say, &#8220;In the beginning was the Word of God,&#8221; 238 &ldquo;Logos&rdquo; signifies in Latin both &ldquo;notion&rdquo;
171 but said <span style="font-weight: bold">In the beginning was the Word?</span></p> 239 and &ldquo;word&rdquo; [i.e., <i>ratio et verbum</i>], why did the
172 <p>I answer that although there are many participated truths, there is just one absolute Truth, 240 translators render it as &ldquo;word&rdquo; and not
173 which is Truth by its very essence, that is, the divine act of being (<i>esse</i>);<i> </i>and by this Truth all 241 &ldquo;notion,&rdquo; since a notion is something interior just as
174 words are words. Similarly, there is one absolute Wisdom elevated above all things, that is, 242 a word is?</p>
175 the divine Wisdom, by participating in which all wise persons are wise. Further, there is one 243 <p>I answer that &ldquo;notion&rdquo; [ratio], properly speaking,
176 absolute Word, by participating in which all persons having a word are called speakers. Now 244 names a conception of the mind precisely as in the mind, even if
177 this is the divine Word which of itself is the Word elevated above all words. So in order that 245 through it nothing exterior comes to be; but &ldquo;word&rdquo;
178 the Evangelist might signify this supereminence of the divine Word, he pointed out this Word 246 signifies a reference to something exterior. And so because the
179 to us absolutely without any addition.</p> 247 Evangelist, when he said &ldquo;Logos,&rdquo; intended to signify
180 <p>And because the Greeks, when they wished to signify something separate and elevated above 248 not only a reference to the Son&rsquo;s existence in the Father,
181 everything else, did this by affixing the article to the name (as the Platonists, wishing to 249 but also the operative power of the Son, by which, through him, all
182 signify the separated substances, such as the separated good or the separated man, called them 250 things were made, our predecessors preferred to translate it
183 the good <i>per se, </i>or man <i>per se</i>), so the Evangelist, wishing to signify the separation and 251 &ldquo;Word,&rdquo; which implies a reference to something
184 elevation of that Word above all things, affixed an article to the name &#8220;Logos,&#8221; so that if it 252 exterior, rather than &ldquo;notion &ldquo; which implies merely a
185 were stated in Latin we would say <i>&#8220;the </i>Word.&#8221;</p> 253 concept of the mind.</p>
186 <p>34 Secondly, we must consider the meaning of the phrase, <span style="font-weight: bold">In the beginning. </span>We must note 254 <p>33 The fourth question is from Origen, and is this. In many
187 that according to Origen, the word <i>principium </i>has many meanings [such as &#8220;principle,&#8221; 255 passages, Scripture, when speaking of the Word of God, does not
188 &#8220;source,&#8221; or &#8220;beginning&#8221;]. Since the word <i>principium </i>implies a certain order of one thing to 256 simply call him the Word, but adds &ldquo;of God,&rdquo; saying,
189 another, one can find a <i>principium </i>in all those things which have an order. First of all, order 257 &ldquo;the Word of God,&rdquo; or &ldquo;of the Lord&rdquo;:
190 is found in quantified things; and so there is a principle of number and lengths, as for 258 &ldquo;The Word of God on high is the foundation of wisdom&rdquo;
191 example, a line. Second, order is found in time; and so we speak of a &#8220;beginning&#8221; of time, or 259 (Sir 1:5); &ldquo;His name is the Word of God&rdquo; (Rv 19:13).
192 of duration. Third, order is found in learning; and this in two ways: as to nature, and as to 260 Why then did the Evangelist, when speaking here of the Word of God,
193 ourselves, and in both cases we can speak of a &#8220;beginning&#8221;: &#8220;By this time you ought to be 261 not say, &ldquo;In the beginning was the Word of God,&rdquo; but
194 teachers&#8221; (Heb 5:12). As to nature, in Christian doctrine the beginning and principle of our 262 said <span style="font-weight: bold">In the beginning was the
195 wisdom is Christ, inasmuch as he is the Wisdom and Word of God, i.e., in his divinity. But as 263 Word?</span></p>
196 to ourselves, the beginning is Christ himself inasmuch as the Word has become flesh, i.e., by 264 <p>I answer that although there are many participated truths, there
197 his incarnation. Fourth, in order is found in the production of a thing. In this perspective there 265 is just one absolute Truth, which is Truth by its very essence,
198 can be a <i>principium </i>on the part of the thing generated, that is, the first part of the thing 266 that is, the divine act of being (<i>esse</i>); and by this Truth
199 generated or made; as we say that the foundation is the beginning of a house. Another 267 all words are words. Similarly, there is one absolute Wisdom
200 <i>principium is </i>on the part of the generator, and in this perspective there are three &#8220;principles&#8221;: 268 elevated above all things, that is, the divine Wisdom, by
201 of intention, which is the purpose, which motivates the agent; of reason, which is the idea in 269 participating in which all wise persons are wise. Further, there is
202 the mind of the maker; and of execution, which is the operative faculty. Considering these 270 one absolute Word, by participating in which all persons having a
203 various ways of using the term, we now ask how <i>principium </i>is used here when it says, <span style="font-weight: bold">In the 271 word are called speakers. Now this is the divine Word which of
204 beginning was the Word.</span></p> 272 itself is the Word elevated above all words. So in order that the
205 <p>35 We should note that this word can be taken in three ways. In one way so that <i>principium is 273 Evangelist might signify this supereminence of the divine Word, he
206 </i>understood as the Person of the Son, who is the principle of creatures by reason of his active 274 pointed out this Word to us absolutely without any addition.</p>
207 power acting with wisdom, which is the conception of the things that are brought into 275 <p>And because the Greeks, when they wished to signify something
208 existence. Hence we read: &#8220;Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God&#8221; (1 Cor 1:24). 276 separate and elevated above everything else, did this by affixing
209 And so the Lord said about himself: &#8220;I am the <i>principium </i>who also speaks to you&#8221; (below 277 the article to the name (as the Platonists, wishing to signify the
210 8:25). Taking <i>principium </i>in this way, we should understand the statement, <span style="font-weight: bold">In the beginning 278 separated substances, such as the separated good or the separated
211 was the Word, </span>as though he were saying, &#8220;The Word was in the Son,&#8221; so that the sense 279 man, called them the good <i>per se,</i> or man <i>per se</i>), so
212 would be: The Word himself is the <i>principium, </i>principle, in the sense in which life is said to 280 the Evangelist, wishing to signify the separation and elevation of
213 be &#8220;in&#8221; God, when this life is not something other than God.</p> 281 that Word above all things, affixed an article to the name
214 <p>And this is the explanation of Origen. And so the Evangelist says <span style="font-weight: bold">In the beginning </span>here in 282 &ldquo;Logos,&rdquo; so that if it were stated in Latin we would
215 order, as Chrysostom says, to show at the very outset the divinity of the Word by asserting 283 say <i>&ldquo;the</i> Word.&rdquo;</p>
216 that he is a principle because, as determining all, a principle is most honored.</p> 284 <p>34 Secondly, we must consider the meaning of the phrase,
217 <p>36 In a second way <i>principium </i>can be understood as the Person of the Father, who is the 285 <span style="font-weight: bold">In the beginning.</span> We must
218 principle not only of creatures, but of every divine process. It is taken this way in, &#8220;Yours is 286 note that according to Origen, the word <i>principium</i> has many
219 princely power (<i>principium</i>)<i> </i>in the day of your birth&#8221; (Ps 110:3). In this second way one reads 287 meanings [such as &ldquo;principle,&rdquo; &ldquo;source,&rdquo; or
220 <span style="font-weight: bold">In the beginning was the Word </span>as though it means, &#8220;The Son was in the Father.&#8221; This is 288 &ldquo;beginning&rdquo;]. Since the word <i>principium</i> implies
221 Augustine&#8217;s understanding of it, as well as Origen&#8217;s. The Son, however, is said to be in the 289 a certain order of one thing to another, one can find a
222 Father because both have the same essence. Since the Son is his own essence, then the Son is 290 <i>principium</i> in all those things which have an order. First of
223 in whomsoever the Son&#8217;s essence is. Since, therefore, the essence of the Son is in the Father 291 all, order is found in quantified things; and so there is a
224 by consubstantiality, it is fitting that the Son be in the Father. Hence it says below (14:10): &#8220;I 292 principle of number and lengths, as for example, a line. Second,
225 am in the Father and the Father is in me.&#8221;</p> 293 order is found in time; and so we speak of a
226 <p>37 In a third way, <i>principium</i> can be taken for the beginning of duration, so that the sense of 294 &ldquo;beginning&rdquo; of time, or of duration. Third, order is
227 <span style="font-weight: bold">In the beginning was the Word </span>is that the Word was before all things, as Augustine 295 found in learning; and this in two ways: as to nature, and as to
228 explains it. According to Basil and Hilary, this phrase shows the eternity of the Word.</p> 296 ourselves, and in both cases we can speak of a
229 <p>The phrase <span style="font-weight: bold">In the beginning was the Word </span>shows that no matter which beginning of 297 &ldquo;beginning&rdquo;: &ldquo;By this time you ought to be
230 duration is taken, whether of temporal things which is time, or of aeviternal things which is 298 teachers&rdquo; (Heb 5:12). As to nature, in Christian doctrine the
231 the aeon, or of the whole world or any imagined span of time reaching back for many ages, at 299 beginning and principle of our wisdom is Christ, inasmuch as he is
232 that beginning the Word already was. Hence Hilary says (<i>On the Trinity </i>VII):<i> </i>&#8220;Go back 300 the Wisdom and Word of God, i.e., in his divinity. But as to
233 season by season, skip over the centuries, take away ages. Set down whatever you want as the 301 ourselves, the beginning is Christ himself inasmuch as the Word has
234 beginning in your opinion: the Word already was.&#8221; And this is what Proverbs (8:23) says: 302 become flesh, i.e., by his incarnation. Fourth, in order is found
235 &#8220;The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his ways, before he made anything.&#8221; But what is 303 in the production of a thing. In this perspective there can be a
236 prior to the beginning of duration is eternal.</p> 304 <i>principium</i> on the part of the thing generated, that is, the
237 <p>38 And thus the first explanation asserts the causality of the Word; the second explanation 305 first part of the thing generated or made; as we say that the
238 affirms the consubstantiality of the Word with the Father, who utters the Word; and the third 306 foundation is the beginning of a house. Another <i>principium
307 is</i> on the part of the generator, and in this perspective there
308 are three &ldquo;principles&rdquo;: of intention, which is the
309 purpose, which motivates the agent; of reason, which is the idea in
310 the mind of the maker; and of execution, which is the operative
311 faculty. Considering these various ways of using the term, we now
312 ask how <i>principium</i> is used here when it says, <span style=
313 "font-weight: bold">In the beginning was the Word.</span></p>
314 <p>35 We should note that this word can be taken in three ways. In
315 one way so that <i>principium is</i> understood as the Person of
316 the Son, who is the principle of creatures by reason of his active
317 power acting with wisdom, which is the conception of the things
318 that are brought into existence. Hence we read: &ldquo;Christ the
319 power of God and the wisdom of God&rdquo; (1 Cor 1:24). And so the
320 Lord said about himself: &ldquo;I am the <i>principium</i> who also
321 speaks to you&rdquo; (below 8:25). Taking <i>principium</i> in this
322 way, we should understand the statement, <span style=
323 "font-weight: bold">In the beginning was the Word,</span> as though
324 he were saying, &ldquo;The Word was in the Son,&rdquo; so that the
325 sense would be: The Word himself is the <i>principium,</i>
326 principle, in the sense in which life is said to be
327 &ldquo;in&rdquo; God, when this life is not something other than
328 God.</p>
329 <p>And this is the explanation of Origen. And so the Evangelist
330 says <span style="font-weight: bold">In the beginning</span> here
331 in order, as Chrysostom says, to show at the very outset the
332 divinity of the Word by asserting that he is a principle because,
333 as determining all, a principle is most honored.</p>
334 <p>36 In a second way <i>principium</i> can be understood as the
335 Person of the Father, who is the principle not only of creatures,
336 but of every divine process. It is taken this way in, &ldquo;Yours
337 is princely power (<i>principium</i>) in the day of your
338 birth&rdquo; (Ps 110:3). In this second way one reads <span style=
339 "font-weight: bold">In the beginning was the Word</span> as though
340 it means, &ldquo;The Son was in the Father.&rdquo; This is
341 Augustine&rsquo;s understanding of it, as well as Origen&rsquo;s.
342 The Son, however, is said to be in the Father because both have the
343 same essence. Since the Son is his own essence, then the Son is in
344 whomsoever the Son&rsquo;s essence is. Since, therefore, the
345 essence of the Son is in the Father by consubstantiality, it is
346 fitting that the Son be in the Father. Hence it says below (14:10):
347 &ldquo;I am in the Father and the Father is in me.&rdquo;</p>
348 <p>37 In a third way, <i>principium</i> can be taken for the
349 beginning of duration, so that the sense of <span style=
350 "font-weight: bold">In the beginning was the Word</span> is that
351 the Word was before all things, as Augustine explains it. According
352 to Basil and Hilary, this phrase shows the eternity of the
353 Word.</p>
354 <p>The phrase <span style="font-weight: bold">In the beginning was
355 the Word</span> shows that no matter which beginning of duration is
356 taken, whether of temporal things which is time, or of aeviternal
357 things which is the aeon, or of the whole world or any imagined
358 span of time reaching back for many ages, at that beginning the
359 Word already was. Hence Hilary says (<i>On the Trinity</i> VII):
360 &ldquo;Go back season by season, skip over the centuries, take away
361 ages. Set down whatever you want as the beginning in your opinion:
362 the Word already was.&rdquo; And this is what Proverbs (8:23) says:
363 &ldquo;The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his ways, before
364 he made anything.&rdquo; But what is prior to the beginning of
365 duration is eternal.</p>
366 <p>38 And thus the first explanation asserts the causality of the
367 Word; the second explanation affirms the consubstantiality of the
368 Word with the Father, who utters the Word; and the third
239 explanation affirms the co-eternity of the Word.</p> 369 explanation affirms the co-eternity of the Word.</p>
240 <p>39 Now we should consider that it says that the Word was (<i>erat</i>),<i> </i>which is stated in the past 370 <p>39 Now we should consider that it says that the Word was
241 imperfect tense. This tense is most appropriate for designating eternal things if we consider 371 (<i>erat</i>), which is stated in the past imperfect tense. This
242 the nature of time and of the things that exist in time. For what is future is not yet in act; but 372 tense is most appropriate for designating eternal things if we
243 what is at present is in act, and by the fact that it is in act what is present is not described as 373 consider the nature of time and of the things that exist in time.
244 having been. Now the past perfect tense indicates that something has existed, has already 374 For what is future is not yet in act; but what is at present is in
245 come to an end, and has now ceased to be. The past imperfect tense, on the other hand, 375 act, and by the fact that it is in act what is present is not
246 indicates that something has been, has not yet come to an end, nor has ceased to be, but still 376 described as having been. Now the past perfect tense indicates that
247 endures. Thus, whenever John mentions eternal things he expressly says &#8220;was&#8221; (<i>erat, </i>past 377 something has existed, has already come to an end, and has now
248 imperfect tense), but when he refers to anything temporal he says &#8220;has been&#8221; (<i>fuit, </i>past 378 ceased to be. The past imperfect tense, on the other hand,
249 perfect tense), as will be clear later.</p> 379 indicates that something has been, has not yet come to an end, nor
250 <p>But so far as concerns the notion of the present, the best way to designate eternity is the 380 has ceased to be, but still endures. Thus, whenever John mentions
251 present tense, which indicates that some thing is in act, and this is always the characteristic of 381 eternal things he expressly says &ldquo;was&rdquo; (<i>erat,</i>
252 eternal things. And so it says in Exodus (3:14): &#8220;I am who am.&#8221; And Augustine says: &#8220;He 382 past imperfect tense), but when he refers to anything temporal he
253 alone truly is whose being does not know a past and a future.</p> 383 says &ldquo;has been&rdquo; (<i>fuit,</i> past perfect tense), as
254 <p>40 We should also note that this verb was, according to the Gloss, is not understood here as 384 will be clear later.</p>
255 indicating temporal changes, as other verbs do, but as signifying the existence of a thing. 385 <p>But so far as concerns the notion of the present, the best way
256 Thus it is also called a substantive verb.</p> 386 to designate eternity is the present tense, which indicates that
257 <p>41 Someone may ask how the Word can be co-eternal with the Father since he is begotten by 387 some thing is in act, and this is always the characteristic of
258 the Father: for a human son, born from a human father, is subsequent to his father.</p> 388 eternal things. And so it says in Exodus (3:14): &ldquo;I am who
259 <p>I answer that there are three reasons why an originative principle is prior in duration to that 389 am.&rdquo; And Augustine says: &ldquo;He alone truly is whose being
260 which derives from that principle. First of all, if the originative principle of anything precedes 390 does not know a past and a future.</p>
261 in time the action by which it produces the thing of which it is the principle; thus a man does 391 <p>40 We should also note that this verb was, according to the
262 not begin to write as soon as he exists, and so he precedes his writing in time. Secondly, if an 392 Gloss, is not understood here as indicating temporal changes, as
263 action is successive; consequently, even if the action should happen to begin at the same time 393 other verbs do, but as signifying the existence of a thing. Thus it
264 as the agent, the termination of the action is nevertheless subsequent to the agent. Thus, as 394 is also called a substantive verb.</p>
265 soon as fire has been generated in a lower region, it begins to ascend; but the fire exists before 395 <p>41 Someone may ask how the Word can be co-eternal with the
266 it has ascended, because the motion by which it tends upward requires some time. Thirdly, by 396 Father since he is begotten by the Father: for a human son, born
267 the fact that sometimes the beginning of a thing depends on the will of its principle, just as 397 from a human father, is subsequent to his father.</p>
268 the beginning of a creature&#8217;s coming-to-be depends on the will of God, such that God existed 398 <p>I answer that there are three reasons why an originative
269 before any creature.</p> 399 principle is prior in duration to that which derives from that
270 <p>Yet none of these three is found in the generation of the divine Word. God did not first exist 400 principle. First of all, if the originative principle of anything
271 and then begin to generate the Word: for since the generation of the Word is nothing other 401 precedes in time the action by which it produces the thing of which
272 than an intelligible conception, it would follow that God would be understanding in potency 402 it is the principle; thus a man does not begin to write as soon as
273 before understanding in act, which is impossible. Again, it is impossible that the generation of 403 he exists, and so he precedes his writing in time. Secondly, if an
274 the Word involve succession: for then the divine Word would be unformed before it was 404 action is successive; consequently, even if the action should
275 formed (as happens in us who form words by &#8220;cogitating&#8221;), which is false, as was said. 405 happen to begin at the same time as the agent, the termination of
276 Again, we cannot say that the Father pre-established a beginning of duration for his Son by 406 the action is nevertheless subsequent to the agent. Thus, as soon
277 his own will, because God the Father does not generate the Son by his will, as the Arians 407 as fire has been generated in a lower region, it begins to ascend;
278 held, but naturally: for God the Father, understanding himself, conceives the Word; and so 408 but the fire exists before it has ascended, because the motion by
279 God the Father did not exist prior to the Son.</p> 409 which it tends upward requires some time. Thirdly, by the fact that
280 <p>An example of this, to a limited degree, appears in fire and in the brightness issuing from it: 410 sometimes the beginning of a thing depends on the will of its
281 for this brightness issues naturally and without succession from the fire. Again, if the fire 411 principle, just as the beginning of a creature&rsquo;s coming-to-be
282 were eternal, its brightness would be coeternal with it. This is why the Son is called the 412 depends on the will of God, such that God existed before any
283 brightness of the Father: &#8220;the brightness of his glory&#8221; (Heb 1:3). But this example lacks an 413 creature.</p>
284 illustration of the identity of nature. And so we call him Son, although in human sonship we 414 <p>Yet none of these three is found in the generation of the divine
285 do not find coeternity: for we must attain our knowledge of divine things from many 415 Word. God did not first exist and then begin to generate the Word:
286 likenesses in material things, for one likeness is not enough.</p> 416 for since the generation of the Word is nothing other than an
287 <p>The Council of Ephesus says that the Son always coexists with the Father: for &#8220;brightness&#8221; 417 intelligible conception, it would follow that God would be
288 indicates his unchangeability, &#8220;birth&#8221; points to the Word himself, but the name &#8220;Son&#8221; 418 understanding in potency before understanding in act, which is
289 suggests his consubstantiality.</p> 419 impossible. Again, it is impossible that the generation of the Word
290 <p>42 And so we give the Son various names to express his perfection, which cannot be 420 involve succession: for then the divine Word would be unformed
291 expressed by one name. We call him &#8220;Son&#8221; to show that he is of the same nature as the 421 before it was formed (as happens in us who form words by
292 Father; we call him &#8220;image&#8221; to show that he is not unlike the Father in any way; we call him 422 &ldquo;cogitating&rdquo;), which is false, as was said. Again, we
293 &#8220;brightness&#8221; to show that he is coeternal; and he is called the &#8220;Word&#8221; to show that he is 423 cannot say that the Father pre-established a beginning of duration
294 begotten in an immaterial manner.</p> 424 for his Son by his own will, because God the Father does not
295 <p>43 Then the Evangelist says, <span style="font-weight: bold">and the Word was with God, </span>which is the second clause in his 425 generate the Son by his will, as the Arians held, but naturally:
296 account. The first thing to consider is the meaning of the two words which did not appear in 426 for God the Father, understanding himself, conceives the Word; and
297 the first clause, that is, <span style="font-weight: bold">God</span>, and <span style="font-weight: bold">with; </span>for we have already explained the meanings of 427 so God the Father did not exist prior to the Son.</p>
298 &#8220;Word,&#8221; and &#8220;beginning. &#8220;Let us continue carefully by examining these two new words, and 428 <p>An example of this, to a limited degree, appears in fire and in
299 to better understand the explanation of this second clause, we must say something about the 429 the brightness issuing from it: for this brightness issues
300 meaning of each so far as it is relevant to our purpose.</p> 430 naturally and without succession from the fire. Again, if the fire
301 <p>44 At the outset, we should note that the name &#8220;God&#8221; signifies the divinity concretely and as 431 were eternal, its brightness would be coeternal with it. This is
302 inherent in a subject, while the name &#8220;deity&#8221; signifies the divinity in the abstract and 432 why the Son is called the brightness of the Father: &ldquo;the
303 absolutely. Thus the name &#8220;deity&#8221; cannot naturally and by its mode of signifying stand for a 433 brightness of his glory&rdquo; (Heb 1:3). But this example lacks an
304 [divine] person, but only for the [divine] nature. But the name &#8220;God&#8221; can, by its natural mode 434 illustration of the identity of nature. And so we call him Son,
305 of signifying, stand for any one of the [divine] persons, just as the name &#8220;man&#8221; stands for any 435 although in human sonship we do not find coeternity: for we must
306 individual (<i>suppositum</i>) possessing humanity. Therefore, whenever the truth of a statement or 436 attain our knowledge of divine things from many likenesses in
307 its predicate requires that the name &#8220;God&#8221; stand for the person, then it stands for the person, 437 material things, for one likeness is not enough.</p>
308 as when we say, &#8220;God begets God.&#8221; Thus, when it says here that <span style="font-weight: bold">the Word was with God, </span>it 438 <p>The Council of Ephesus says that the Son always coexists with
309 is necessary that God stand for the person of the Father, because the preposition <span style="font-weight: bold">with 439 the Father: for &ldquo;brightness&rdquo; indicates his
310 </span>signifies the distinction of the Word, which is said to be <span style="font-weight: bold">with God. </span>And although this 440 unchangeability, &ldquo;birth&rdquo; points to the Word himself,
311 preposition signifies a distinction in person, it does not signify a distinction in nature, since 441 but the name &ldquo;Son&rdquo; suggests his consubstantiality.</p>
312 the nature of the Father and of the Son is the same. Consequently, the Evangelist wished to 442 <p>42 And so we give the Son various names to express his
313 signify the person of the Father when he said God.</p> 443 perfection, which cannot be expressed by one name. We call him
314 <p>45 Here we should note that the preposition <span style="font-weight: bold">with </span>signifies a certain union of the thing 444 &ldquo;Son&rdquo; to show that he is of the same nature as the
315 signified by its grammatical antecedent to the thing signified by its grammatical object, just as 445 Father; we call him &ldquo;image&rdquo; to show that he is not
316 the preposition &#8220;in&#8221; does. However, there is a difference, because the preposition &#8220;in&#8221; 446 unlike the Father in any way; we call him &ldquo;brightness&rdquo;
317 signifies a certain intrinsic union, whereas the preposition <span style="font-weight: bold">with </span>implies in a certain way an 447 to show that he is coeternal; and he is called the
318 extrinsic union. And we state both in divine matters, namely, that the Son is <i>in </i>the Father and 448 &ldquo;Word&rdquo; to show that he is begotten in an immaterial
319 <i>with </i>the Father. Here the intrinsic union pertains to consubstantiality, but the extrinsic union 449 manner.</p>
320 (if we may use such an expression, since &#8220;extrinsic&#8221; is improperly employed in divine 450 <p>43 Then the Evangelist says, <span style="font-weight: bold">and
321 matters) refers only to a personal distinction, because the Son is distinguished from the Father 451 the Word was with God,</span> which is the second clause in his
322 by origin alone. And so these two words designate both a consubstantiality in nature and 452 account. The first thing to consider is the meaning of the two
323 distinction in person: consubstantiality inasmuch as a certain union is implied; but distinction, 453 words which did not appear in the first clause, that is,
324 inasmuch as a certain otherness is signified as was said above.</p> 454 <span style="font-weight: bold">God</span>, and <span style=
325 <p>The preposition &#8220;in,&#8221; as was said, principally signifies consubstantiality, as implying an 455 "font-weight: bold">with;</span> for we have already explained the
326 intrinsic union and, by way of consequence, a distinction of persons, inasmuch as every 456 meanings of &ldquo;Word,&rdquo; and &ldquo;beginning. &ldquo;Let us
327 preposition is transitive. The preposition &#8220;with&#8221; principally signifies a personal distinction, 457 continue carefully by examining these two new words, and to better
328 but also a consubstantiality inasmuch as it signifies a certain extrinsic, so to speak, union. For 458 understand the explanation of this second clause, we must say
329 these reasons the Evangelist specifically used here the preposition &#8220;with&#8221; in order to express 459 something about the meaning of each so far as it is relevant to our
330 the distinction of the person of the Son from the Father, saying, <span style="font-weight: bold">and the Word was with 460 purpose.</p>
331 God, </span>that is, the Son was with the Father as one person with another.</p> 461 <p>44 At the outset, we should note that the name &ldquo;God&rdquo;
332 <p>46 We should note further that this preposition <span style="font-weight: bold">with </span>has four meanings, and these eliminate 462 signifies the divinity concretely and as inherent in a subject,
333 four objections. First, the preposition with signifies the subsistence of its antecedent, because 463 while the name &ldquo;deity&rdquo; signifies the divinity in the
334 things that do not subsist of themselves are not properly said to be &#8220;with&#8221; another; thus we do 464 abstract and absolutely. Thus the name &ldquo;deity&rdquo; cannot
335 not say that a color is with a body, and the same applies to other things that do not subsist of 465 naturally and by its mode of signifying stand for a [divine]
336 themselves. But things that do subsist of themselves are properly said to be &#8220;with&#8221; another; 466 person, but only for the [divine] nature. But the name
337 thus we say that a man is with a man, and a stone with a stone.</p> 467 &ldquo;God&rdquo; can, by its natural mode of signifying, stand for
338 <p>Secondly, it signifies authority in its grammatical object. For we do not, properly speaking, 468 any one of the [divine] persons, just as the name &ldquo;man&rdquo;
339 say that a king is with a soldier, but that the soldier is with the king. Thirdly, it asserts a 469 stands for any individual (<i>suppositum</i>) possessing humanity.
340 distinction. For it is not proper to say that a person is with himself but rather that one man is 470 Therefore, whenever the truth of a statement or its predicate
341 with another. Fourthly, it signifies a certain union and fellowship. For when some person is 471 requires that the name &ldquo;God&rdquo; stand for the person, then
342 said to be with another, it suggests to us that there is some social union between them.</p> 472 it stands for the person, as when we say, &ldquo;God begets
343 <p>Considering these four conditions implied in the meaning of this preposition <span style="font-weight: bold">with, </span>the 473 God.&rdquo; Thus, when it says here that <span style=
344 Evangelist quite appropriately joins to the first clause, <span style="font-weight: bold">In the beginning was the Word, </span>this 474 "font-weight: bold">the Word was with God,</span> it is necessary
345 second clause, <span style="font-weight: bold">and the Word was with God. </span>For if we omit one of the three explanations of, 475 that God stand for the person of the Father, because the
346 <span style="font-weight: bold">In the beginning was the Word </span>(namely, the one in which <i>principium</i> was understood as the 476 preposition <span style="font-weight: bold">with</span> signifies
347 Son), certain heretics make a twofold objection against each of the other explanations 477 the distinction of the Word, which is said to be <span style=
348 (namely, the one in which <i>principium</i> means the same as &#8220;before all things,&#8221; and the one in 478 "font-weight: bold">with God.</span> And although this preposition
349 which it is understood as the Father). Thus there are four objections, and we can answer these 479 signifies a distinction in person, it does not signify a
350 by the four conditions indicated by this preposition <span style="font-weight: bold">with.</span></p> 480 distinction in nature, since the nature of the Father and of the
351 <p>47 The first of these objections is this. You say that the Word was in the beginning, i.e., 481 Son is the same. Consequently, the Evangelist wished to signify the
352 before all things. But before all things there was nothing. So if before all things there was 482 person of the Father when he said God.</p>
353 nothing, where then was the Word? This objection arises due to the imaginings of those who 483 <p>45 Here we should note that the preposition <span style=
354 think that whatever exists is somewhere and in some place. But this is rejected by John when 484 "font-weight: bold">with</span> signifies a certain union of the
355 he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">with God, </span>which indicates the union mentioned in the last four conditions. So, 485 thing signified by its grammatical antecedent to the thing
356 according to Basil, the meaning is this: Where was the Word? The answer is: <span style="font-weight: bold">with God; </span>not 486 signified by its grammatical object, just as the preposition
357 in some place, since he is unsurroundable, but he is with the Father, who is not enclosed by 487 &ldquo;in&rdquo; does. However, there is a difference, because the
358 any place.</p> 488 preposition &ldquo;in&rdquo; signifies a certain intrinsic union,
359 <p>48 The second objection against the same explanation is this. You say that the Word was in 489 whereas the preposition <span style="font-weight: bold">with</span>
360 the beginning, i.e., before all things. But whatever exists before all things appears to proceed 490 implies in a certain way an extrinsic union. And we state both in
361 from no one, since that from which something proceeds seems to be prior to that which 491 divine matters, namely, that the Son is <i>in</i> the Father and
362 proceeds from it. Therefore, the Word does not proceed from another. This objection is 492 <i>with</i> the Father. Here the intrinsic union pertains to
363 rejected when he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">the Word was with God, </span>taking &#8220;with&#8221; according to its second 493 consubstantiality, but the extrinsic union (if we may use such an
364 condition, as implying authority in what is causing. So the meaning, according to Hilary, is 494 expression, since &ldquo;extrinsic&rdquo; is improperly employed in
365 this: From whom is the Word if he exists before all things? The Evangelist answers: <span style="font-weight: bold">the 495 divine matters) refers only to a personal distinction, because the
366 Word was with God, </span>i.e., although the Word has no beginning of duration, still he does not 496 Son is distinguished from the Father by origin alone. And so these
367 lack a <i>principium </i>or author, for he was with God as his author.</p> 497 two words designate both a consubstantiality in nature and
368 <p>49 The third objection, directed to the explanation in which <i>principium</i> is understood as the 498 distinction in person: consubstantiality inasmuch as a certain
369 Father, is this. You say that <span style="font-weight: bold">In the beginning was the Word, </span>i.e., the Son was in the Father. 499 union is implied; but distinction, inasmuch as a certain otherness
370 But that which is in something does not seem to be subsistent, as a hypostasis; just as the 500 is signified as was said above.</p>
371 whiteness in a body does not subsist. This objection is solved by the statement, <span style="font-weight: bold">the Word 501 <p>The preposition &ldquo;in,&rdquo; as was said, principally
372 was with God, </span>taking &#8220;with&#8221; in its first condition, as implying the subsistence of its 502 signifies consubstantiality, as implying an intrinsic union and, by
373 grammatical antecedent. So according to Chrysostom, the meaning is this: <span style="font-weight: bold">In the beginning 503 way of consequence, a distinction of persons, inasmuch as every
374 was the Word, </span>not as an accident, but he was <span style="font-weight: bold">with God, </span>as subsisting, and a divine 504 preposition is transitive. The preposition &ldquo;with&rdquo;
375 hypostasis.</p> 505 principally signifies a personal distinction, but also a
376 <p>50 The fourth objection, against the same explanation, is this. You say that the Word was in 506 consubstantiality inasmuch as it signifies a certain extrinsic, so
377 the beginning, i.,e., in the Father. But whatever is in something is not distinct from it. So the 507 to speak, union. For these reasons the Evangelist specifically used
378 Son is not distinct from the Father. This objection is answered by the statement, <span style="font-weight: bold">and the 508 here the preposition &ldquo;with&rdquo; in order to express the
379 Word was with God, </span>taking &#8220;with&#8221; in its third condition, as indicating distinction. Thus the 509 distinction of the person of the Son from the Father, saying,
380 meaning, according to Alcuin and Bede, is this: <span style="font-weight: bold">The Word was with God, </span>and he was with 510 <span style="font-weight: bold">and the Word was with God,</span>
381 the Father by a consubstantiality of nature, while still being &#8220;with&#8221; him through a distinction 511 that is, the Son was with the Father as one person with
382 in person.</p> 512 another.</p>
383 <p>51 And so, <span style="font-weight: bold">and the Word was with God, </span>indicates: the union of the Word with the Father in 513 <p>46 We should note further that this preposition <span style=
384 nature, according to Basil; their distinction in person, according to Alcuin and Bede; the 514 "font-weight: bold">with</span> has four meanings, and these
385 subsistence of the Word in the divine nature, according to Chrysostom; and the authorship of 515 eliminate four objections. First, the preposition with signifies
386 the Father in relation to the Word, according to Hilary.</p> 516 the subsistence of its antecedent, because things that do not
387 <p>52 We should also note, according to Origen, that <span style="font-weight: bold">the Word was with God </span>shows that the 517 subsist of themselves are not properly said to be
388 Son has always been with the Father. For in the Old Testament it says that the word of the 518 &ldquo;with&rdquo; another; thus we do not say that a color is with
389 Lord &#8220;came&#8221; to Jeremiah or to someone else, as is plain in many passages of sacred Scripture. 519 a body, and the same applies to other things that do not subsist of
390 But it does not say that the word of the Lord was &#8220;with&#8221; Jeremiah or anyone else, because the 520 themselves. But things that do subsist of themselves are properly
391 word &#8220;comes&#8221; to those who begin to have the word after not having it. Thus the Evangelist 521 said to be &ldquo;with&rdquo; another; thus we say that a man is
392 did not say that the Word &#8220;came&#8221; to the Father, but was &#8220;with&#8221; the Father, because, given the 522 with a man, and a stone with a stone.</p>
523 <p>Secondly, it signifies authority in its grammatical object. For
524 we do not, properly speaking, say that a king is with a soldier,
525 but that the soldier is with the king. Thirdly, it asserts a
526 distinction. For it is not proper to say that a person is with
527 himself but rather that one man is with another. Fourthly, it
528 signifies a certain union and fellowship. For when some person is
529 said to be with another, it suggests to us that there is some
530 social union between them.</p>
531 <p>Considering these four conditions implied in the meaning of this
532 preposition <span style="font-weight: bold">with,</span> the
533 Evangelist quite appropriately joins to the first clause,
534 <span style="font-weight: bold">In the beginning was the
535 Word,</span> this second clause, <span style=
536 "font-weight: bold">and the Word was with God.</span> For if we
537 omit one of the three explanations of, <span style=
538 "font-weight: bold">In the beginning was the Word</span> (namely,
539 the one in which <i>principium</i> was understood as the Son),
540 certain heretics make a twofold objection against each of the other
541 explanations (namely, the one in which <i>principium</i> means the
542 same as &ldquo;before all things,&rdquo; and the one in which it is
543 understood as the Father). Thus there are four objections, and we
544 can answer these by the four conditions indicated by this
545 preposition <span style="font-weight: bold">with.</span></p>
546 <p>47 The first of these objections is this. You say that the Word
547 was in the beginning, i.e., before all things. But before all
548 things there was nothing. So if before all things there was
549 nothing, where then was the Word? This objection arises due to the
550 imaginings of those who think that whatever exists is somewhere and
551 in some place. But this is rejected by John when he says,
552 <span style="font-weight: bold">with God,</span> which indicates
553 the union mentioned in the last four conditions. So, according to
554 Basil, the meaning is this: Where was the Word? The answer is:
555 <span style="font-weight: bold">with God;</span> not in some place,
556 since he is unsurroundable, but he is with the Father, who is not
557 enclosed by any place.</p>
558 <p>48 The second objection against the same explanation is this.
559 You say that the Word was in the beginning, i.e., before all
560 things. But whatever exists before all things appears to proceed
561 from no one, since that from which something proceeds seems to be
562 prior to that which proceeds from it. Therefore, the Word does not
563 proceed from another. This objection is rejected when he says,
564 <span style="font-weight: bold">the Word was with God,</span>
565 taking &ldquo;with&rdquo; according to its second condition, as
566 implying authority in what is causing. So the meaning, according to
567 Hilary, is this: From whom is the Word if he exists before all
568 things? The Evangelist answers: <span style="font-weight: bold">the
569 Word was with God,</span> i.e., although the Word has no beginning
570 of duration, still he does not lack a <i>principium</i> or author,
571 for he was with God as his author.</p>
572 <p>49 The third objection, directed to the explanation in which
573 <i>principium</i> is understood as the Father, is this. You say
574 that <span style="font-weight: bold">In the beginning was the
575 Word,</span> i.e., the Son was in the Father. But that which is in
576 something does not seem to be subsistent, as a hypostasis; just as
577 the whiteness in a body does not subsist. This objection is solved
578 by the statement, <span style="font-weight: bold">the Word was with
579 God,</span> taking &ldquo;with&rdquo; in its first condition, as
580 implying the subsistence of its grammatical antecedent. So
581 according to Chrysostom, the meaning is this: <span style=
582 "font-weight: bold">In the beginning was the Word,</span> not as an
583 accident, but he was <span style="font-weight: bold">with
584 God,</span> as subsisting, and a divine hypostasis.</p>
585 <p>50 The fourth objection, against the same explanation, is this.
586 You say that the Word was in the beginning, i.,e., in the Father.
587 But whatever is in something is not distinct from it. So the Son is
588 not distinct from the Father. This objection is answered by the
589 statement, <span style="font-weight: bold">and the Word was with
590 God,</span> taking &ldquo;with&rdquo; in its third condition, as
591 indicating distinction. Thus the meaning, according to Alcuin and
592 Bede, is this: <span style="font-weight: bold">The Word was with
593 God,</span> and he was with the Father by a consubstantiality of
594 nature, while still being &ldquo;with&rdquo; him through a
595 distinction in person.</p>
596 <p>51 And so, <span style="font-weight: bold">and the Word was with
597 God,</span> indicates: the union of the Word with the Father in
598 nature, according to Basil; their distinction in person, according
599 to Alcuin and Bede; the subsistence of the Word in the divine
600 nature, according to Chrysostom; and the authorship of the Father
601 in relation to the Word, according to Hilary.</p>
602 <p>52 We should also note, according to Origen, that <span style=
603 "font-weight: bold">the Word was with God</span> shows that the Son
604 has always been with the Father. For in the Old Testament it says
605 that the word of the Lord &ldquo;came&rdquo; to Jeremiah or to
606 someone else, as is plain in many passages of sacred Scripture. But
607 it does not say that the word of the Lord was &ldquo;with&rdquo;
608 Jeremiah or anyone else, because the word &ldquo;comes&rdquo; to
609 those who begin to have the word after not having it. Thus the
610 Evangelist did not say that the Word &ldquo;came&rdquo; to the
611 Father, but was &ldquo;with&rdquo; the Father, because, given the
393 Father, the Word was with him.</p> 612 Father, the Word was with him.</p>
394 <p>53 Then he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">and the Word was God. </span>This is the third clause in John&#8217;s account, and it 613 <p>53 Then he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">and the Word
395 follows most appropriately considering the order of teaching. For since John had said both 614 was God.</span> This is the third clause in John&rsquo;s account,
396 <i>when </i>and <i>where </i>the Word was, it remained to inquire <i>what </i>the Word was, that is, <span style="font-weight: bold">the Word 615 and it follows most appropriately considering the order of
397 was God, </span>taking &#8220;Word&#8221; as the subject, and &#8220;God&#8221; as the predicate.</p> 616 teaching. For since John had said both <i>when</i> and <i>where</i>
398 <p>54 But since one should first inquire what a thing is before investigating where and when it is, 617 the Word was, it remained to inquire <i>what</i> the Word was, that
399 it seems that John violated this order by discussing these latter first.</p> 618 is, <span style="font-weight: bold">the Word was God,</span> taking
400 <p>Origen answers this by saying that the Word of God is with man and with God in different 619 &ldquo;Word&rdquo; as the subject, and &ldquo;God&rdquo; as the
401 ways. The Word is with man as perfecting him, because it is through him that man becomes 620 predicate.</p>
402 wise and good: &#8220;She makes friends of God and prophets&#8221; (Wis 7:27). But the Word is not 621 <p>54 But since one should first inquire what a thing is before
403 with God as though the Father were perfected and enlightened by him. Rather, the Word is 622 investigating where and when it is, it seems that John violated
404 with God as receiving natural divinity from him, who utters the Word, and from whom he has 623 this order by discussing these latter first.</p>
405 it that he is the same God with him. And so, since the Word was with God by origin, it was 624 <p>Origen answers this by saying that the Word of God is with man
406 necessary to show first that the Word was in the Father and with the Father before showing 625 and with God in different ways. The Word is with man as perfecting
407 that the Word was God.</p> 626 him, because it is through him that man becomes wise and good:
408 <p>55 This clause also enables us to answer two objections which arise from the foregoing. The 627 &ldquo;She makes friends of God and prophets&rdquo; (Wis 7:27). But
409 first is based on the name &#8220;Word,&#8221; and is this. You say that <span style="font-weight: bold">In the beginning was the Word, 628 the Word is not with God as though the Father were perfected and
410 </span>and that the Word was with God. Now it is obvious that &#8220;word&#8221; is generally understood to 629 enlightened by him. Rather, the Word is with God as receiving
411 signify a vocal sound and the statement of something necessary, a manifesting of thoughts. 630 natural divinity from him, who utters the Word, and from whom he
412 But these words pass away and do not subsist. Accordingly, someone could think that the 631 has it that he is the same God with him. And so, since the Word was
413 Evangelist was speaking of a word like these.</p> 632 with God by origin, it was necessary to show first that the Word
414 <p>According to Hilary and Augustine, this question is sufficiently answered by the above 633 was in the Father and with the Father before showing that the Word
415 account. Augustine says (Homily I <i>On John</i>)<i> </i>that it is obvious that in this passage &#8220;Word&#8221; 634 was God.</p>
416 cannot be understood as a statement because, since a statement is in motion and passes away, 635 <p>55 This clause also enables us to answer two objections which
417 it could not be said that <span style="font-weight: bold">In the beginning was the Word, </span>if this Word were something 636 arise from the foregoing. The first is based on the name
418 passing away and in motion. The same thing is clear from <span style="font-weight: bold">and the Word was with God: </span>for 637 &ldquo;Word,&rdquo; and is this. You say that <span style=
419 to be &#8220;in&#8221; another is not the same as to be &#8220;with&#8221; another. Our word, since it does not subsist, 638 "font-weight: bold">In the beginning was the Word,</span> and that
420 is not &#8220;with&#8221; us, but &#8220;in&#8221; us; but the Word of God is subsistent, and therefore &#8220;with&#8221; God. 639 the Word was with God. Now it is obvious that &ldquo;word&rdquo; is
421 And so the Evangelist expressly says, and the Word was with God. To entirely remove the 640 generally understood to signify a vocal sound and the statement of
422 ground of the objection, he adds the nature and being of the Word, saying, <span style="font-weight: bold">and the Word 641 something necessary, a manifesting of thoughts. But these words
423 was God.</span></p> 642 pass away and do not subsist. Accordingly, someone could think that
424 <p>56 The other question comes from his saying, <span style="font-weight: bold">with God. </span>For since &#8220;with&#8221; indicates a 643 the Evangelist was speaking of a word like these.</p>
425 distinction, it could be thought that <span style="font-weight: bold">the Word was with God, </span>i.e., the Father, as distinct from 644 <p>According to Hilary and Augustine, this question is sufficiently
426 him in nature. So to exclude this he adds at once the consubstantiality of the Word with the 645 answered by the above account. Augustine says (Homily I <i>On
427 Father, saying, <span style="font-weight: bold">and the Word was God. </span>As if to say: the Word is not separated from the 646 John</i>) that it is obvious that in this passage
428 Father by a diversity of nature, because the Word itself is God.</p> 647 &ldquo;Word&rdquo; cannot be understood as a statement because,
429 <p>57 Note also the special way of signifying, since he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">the Word was God, </span>using &#8220;God&#8221; 648 since a statement is in motion and passes away, it could not be
430 absolutely to show that he is not God in the same way in which the name of the deity is given 649 said that <span style="font-weight: bold">In the beginning was the
431 to a creature in Sacred Scripture. For a creature sometimes shares this name with some added 650 Word,</span> if this Word were something passing away and in
432 qualification, as when it says, &#8220;I have appointed you the God of Pharaoh&#8221; (Ex 7:1), in order to 651 motion. The same thing is clear from <span style=
433 indicate that he was not God absolutely or by nature, because he was appointed the god of 652 "font-weight: bold">and the Word was with God:</span> for to be
434 someone in a qualified sense. Again, it says in the Psalm (81:6): &#8220;I said, &#8216;You are gods.&#8217;&#8221; 653 &ldquo;in&rdquo; another is not the same as to be
435 &#8212;as if to say: in my opinion, but not in reality. Thus the Word is called God absolutely 654 &ldquo;with&rdquo; another. Our word, since it does not subsist, is
436 because he is God by his own essence, and not by participation, as men and angels are.</p> 655 not &ldquo;with&rdquo; us, but &ldquo;in&rdquo; us; but the Word of
437 <p>58 We should note that Origen disgracefully misunderstood this clause, led astray by the 656 God is subsistent, and therefore &ldquo;with&rdquo; God. And so the
438 Greek manner of speaking. It is the custom among the Greeks to put the article before every 657 Evangelist expressly says, and the Word was with God. To entirely
439 name in order to indicate a distinction. In the Greek version of John&#8217;s Gospel the name 658 remove the ground of the objection, he adds the nature and being of
440 &#8220;Word&#8221; in the statement, <span style="font-weight: bold">In the beginning was the Word, </span>and also the name &#8220;God&#8221; in the 659 the Word, saying, <span style="font-weight: bold">and the Word was
441 statement, <span style="font-weight: bold">and the Word was with God, </span>are prefixed by the article, so as to read &#8220;the Word&#8221; 660 God.</span></p>
442 and &#8220;the God,&#8221; in order to indicate the eminence and distinction of the Word from other 661 <p>56 The other question comes from his saying, <span style=
443 words, and the principality of the Father in the divinity. But in the statement, <span style="font-weight: bold">the Word was 662 "font-weight: bold">with God.</span> For since &ldquo;with&rdquo;
444 God, </span>the article is not prefixed to the noun &#8220;God,&#8221; which stands for the person of the Son. 663 indicates a distinction, it could be thought that <span style=
445 Because of this Origen blasphemed that the Word, although he was Word by essence, was not 664 "font-weight: bold">the Word was with God,</span> i.e., the Father,
446 God by essence, but is called God by participation; while the Father alone is God by essence. 665 as distinct from him in nature. So to exclude this he adds at once
447 And so he held that the Son is inferior to the Father.</p> 666 the consubstantiality of the Word with the Father, saying,
448 <p>59 Chrysostom proves that this is not true, because if the article used with the name &#8220;God&#8221; 667 <span style="font-weight: bold">and the Word was God.</span> As if
449 implied the superiority of the Father in respect to the Son, it would never be used with the 668 to say: the Word is not separated from the Father by a diversity of
450 name &#8220;God&#8221; when it is used as a predicate of another, but only when it is predicated of the 669 nature, because the Word itself is God.</p>
451 Father. Further, whenever said of the Father, it would be accompanied by the article. 670 <p>57 Note also the special way of signifying, since he says,
452 However, we find the opposite to be the case in two statements of the Apostle, who calls 671 <span style="font-weight: bold">the Word was God,</span> using
453 Christ &#8220;God,&#8221; using the article. For in Titus (2:13) he says, &#8220;the coming of the glory of the 672 &ldquo;God&rdquo; absolutely to show that he is not God in the same
454 great God and our Savior Jesus Christ,&#8221; where &#8220;God&#8221; stands for the Son, and in the Greek the 673 way in which the name of the deity is given to a creature in Sacred
455 article is used. Therefore, Christ is the great God. Again he says (Rom 9:5): &#8220;Christ, who is 674 Scripture. For a creature sometimes shares this name with some
456 God over all things, blessed forever,&#8221; and again the article is used with &#8220;God&#8221; in the Greek. 675 added qualification, as when it says, &ldquo;I have appointed you
457 Further, in 1 John (5:20) it says: &#8220;That we may be in his true Son, Jesus Christ; he is the true 676 the God of Pharaoh&rdquo; (Ex 7:1), in order to indicate that he
458 God and eternal life.&#8221; Thus, Christ is not God by participation, but truly God. And so the 677 was not God absolutely or by nature, because he was appointed the
459 theory of Origen is clearly false.</p> 678 god of someone in a qualified sense. Again, it says in the Psalm
460 <p>Chrysostom gives us the reason why the Evangelist did not use the article with the name 679 (81:6): &ldquo;I said, &lsquo;You are gods.&rsquo;&rdquo; &mdash;as
461 &#8220;God,&#8221; namely, because he had already mentioned God twice using the article, and so it was 680 if to say: in my opinion, but not in reality. Thus the Word is
462 not necessary to repeat it a third time, but it was implied. Or, a better reason would be that 681 called God absolutely because he is God by his own essence, and not
463 &#8220;God&#8221; is used here as the predicate and is taken formally. And it is not the custom for the 682 by participation, as men and angels are.</p>
464 article to accompany names used as predicates, since the article indicates separation. But if 683 <p>58 We should note that Origen disgracefully misunderstood this
465 &#8220;God&#8221; were used here as the subject, it could stand for any of the persons, as the Son or the 684 clause, led astray by the Greek manner of speaking. It is the
466 Holy Spirit; then, no doubt, the article would be used in the Greek.</p> 685 custom among the Greeks to put the article before every name in
467 <p>60 Then he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">He was in the beginning with God. </span>This is the fourth clause and is 686 order to indicate a distinction. In the Greek version of
468 introduced because of the preceding clause. For from the Evangelist&#8217;s statement that <span style="font-weight: bold">the 687 John&rsquo;s Gospel the name &ldquo;Word&rdquo; in the statement,
469 Word was God, </span>two false interpretations could be held by those who misunderstand. One of 688 <span style="font-weight: bold">In the beginning was the
470 these is by the pagans, who acknowledge many and different gods, and say that their wills are 689 Word,</span> and also the name &ldquo;God&rdquo; in the statement,
471 in opposition. For example, those who put out the fable of Jupiter fighting with Saturn; or as 690 <span style="font-weight: bold">and the Word was with God,</span>
472 the Manicheans, who have two contrary principles of nature. The Lord said against this error 691 are prefixed by the article, so as to read &ldquo;the Word&rdquo;
473 (Dt 6:4): &#8220;Hear O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord.&#8221;</p> 692 and &ldquo;the God,&rdquo; in order to indicate the eminence and
474 <p>Since the Evangelist had said, <span style="font-weight: bold">the Word was with God; and the Word was God, </span>they could 693 distinction of the Word from other words, and the principality of
475 adduce this in support of their error by understanding the God with whom the Word is to be 694 the Father in the divinity. But in the statement, <span style=
476 one [God],and the Word to be another, having another, or contrary, will to the former; and 695 "font-weight: bold">the Word was God,</span> the article is not
477 this is against the law of the Gospel. And so to exclude this he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">He was in the beginning 696 prefixed to the noun &ldquo;God,&rdquo; which stands for the person
478 with God, </span>as if to say, according to Hilary: I say that the Word is God, not as if he has a 697 of the Son. Because of this Origen blasphemed that the Word,
479 distinct divinity, but he is with God, that is, in the one same nature in which lie is. Further, 698 although he was Word by essence, was not God by essence, but is
480 lest his statement, <span style="font-weight: bold">and the Word was God, </span>be taken to mean that the Word has an opposed 699 called God by participation; while the Father alone is God by
481 will, he added that the Word <span style="font-weight: bold">was in the beginning with God, </span>namely, the Father; not as 700 essence. And so he held that the Son is inferior to the Father.</p>
482 divided from him or opposed, but having an identity of nature with him and a harmony of 701 <p>59 Chrysostom proves that this is not true, because if the
483 will. This union comes about by the sharing of the divine nature in the three persons, and by 702 article used with the name &ldquo;God&rdquo; implied the
484 the bond of the natural love of the Father and the Son.</p> 703 superiority of the Father in respect to the Son, it would never be
485 <p>61 The Arians were able to draw out another error from the above. They think that the Son is 704 used with the name &ldquo;God&rdquo; when it is used as a predicate
486 less than the Father because it says below (14:28): &#8220;The Father is greater than I&#8221; And they say 705 of another, but only when it is predicated of the Father. Further,
487 the Father is greater than the Son both as to eternity and as to divinity of nature. And so to 706 whenever said of the Father, it would be accompanied by the
488 exclude this the Evangelist added: <span style="font-weight: bold">He was in the beginning with God. </span>For Arius admits the 707 article. However, we find the opposite to be the case in two
489 first clause, <span style="font-weight: bold">In the beginning was the Word, </span>but he will not admit that <i>principium </i>should be 708 statements of the Apostle, who calls Christ &ldquo;God,&rdquo;
490 taken for the Father, but rather for the beginning of creatures. So he says that the Word was in 709 using the article. For in Titus (2:13) he says, &ldquo;the coming
491 the beginning of creatures, and consequently is in no sense coeternal with the Father. But this 710 of the glory of the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ,&rdquo;
492 is excluded, according to Chrysostom, by this clause, <span style="font-weight: bold">He was in the beginning, </span>not of 711 where &ldquo;God&rdquo; stands for the Son, and in the Greek the
493 creatures, but <span style="font-weight: bold">in the beginning with God, </span>i.e., whenever God existed. For the Father was 712 article is used. Therefore, Christ is the great God. Again he says
494 never alone without the Son or Word, but He, that is, the Word, was always <span style="font-weight: bold">with God.</span></p> 713 (Rom 9:5): &ldquo;Christ, who is God over all things, blessed
495 <p>62 Again, Arius admits that the Word was God, but nevertheless inferior to the Father. This is 714 forever,&rdquo; and again the article is used with
496 excluded by what follows. For there are two attributes proper to the great God which Arius 715 &ldquo;God&rdquo; in the Greek. Further, in 1 John (5:20) it says:
497 attributed solely to God the Father, that is, eternity and omnipotence. So in whomever these 716 &ldquo;That we may be in his true Son, Jesus Christ; he is the true
498 two attributes are found, he is the great God, than whom none is greater. But the Evangelist 717 God and eternal life.&rdquo; Thus, Christ is not God by
499 attributes these two to the Word. Therefore, the Word is the great God and not inferior. He 718 participation, but truly God. And so the theory of Origen is
500 says the Word is eternal when he states, <span style="font-weight: bold">He was in the beginning with God, </span>i.e., the Word 719 clearly false.</p>
501 was with God from eternity, and not only in the beginning of creatures (as Arius held) , but 720 <p>Chrysostom gives us the reason why the Evangelist did not use
502 with God, receiving being and divinity from him. Further, he attributes omnipotence to the 721 the article with the name &ldquo;God,&rdquo; namely, because he had
503 Word when he adds, <span style="font-weight: bold">Through him all things came into being.</span></p> 722 already mentioned God twice using the article, and so it was not
504 <p>63 Origen gives a rather beautiful explanation of this clause, <span style="font-weight: bold">He was in the beginning with 723 necessary to repeat it a third time, but it was implied. Or, a
505 God, </span>when he says that it is not separate from the first three, but is in a certain sense their 724 better reason would be that &ldquo;God&rdquo; is used here as the
506 epilogue. For the Evangelist, after he had indicated that truth was the Son&#8217;s and was about to 725 predicate and is taken formally. And it is not the custom for the
507 describe his power, in a way gathers together in a summary form, in this fourth clause, what 726 article to accompany names used as predicates, since the article
508 he had said in the first three. For in saying He, he understands the third clause; by adding <span style="font-weight: bold">was 727 indicates separation. But if &ldquo;God&rdquo; were used here as
509 in the beginning, </span>he recalls the first clause; and by adding <span style="font-weight: bold">with God, </span>he recalls the second, 728 the subject, it could stand for any of the persons, as the Son or
510 so that we do not think that the Word which was in the beginning is different than the Word 729 the Holy Spirit; then, no doubt, the article would be used in the
511 which was God; but this Word which was God <span style="font-weight: bold">was in the beginning with God.</span></p> 730 Greek.</p>
512 <p>64 If one considers these four propositions well, he will find that they clearly destroy all the 731 <p>60 Then he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">He was in the
513 errors of the heretics and of the philosophers. For some heretics, as Ebion and Cerinthus, said 732 beginning with God.</span> This is the fourth clause and is
514 that Christ did not exist before the Blessed Virgin, but took from her the beginning of his 733 introduced because of the preceding clause. For from the
515 being and duration; for they held that he was a mere man, who had merited divinity by his 734 Evangelist&rsquo;s statement that <span style=
516 good works. Photinus and Paul of Samosata, following them, said the same thing. But the 735 "font-weight: bold">the Word was God,</span> two false
517 Evangelist excludes their errors saying, <span style="font-weight: bold">In the beginning was the Word, </span>i.e., before all 736 interpretations could be held by those who misunderstand. One of
518 things, and in the Father from eternity. Thus he did not derive his beginning from the Virgin.</p> 737 these is by the pagans, who acknowledge many and different gods,
519 <p>Sabellius, on the other hand, although he admitted that the God who took flesh did not 738 and say that their wills are in opposition. For example, those who
520 receive his beginning from the Virgin, but existed from eternity, still said that the person of 739 put out the fable of Jupiter fighting with Saturn; or as the
521 the Father, who existed from eternity, was not distinct from the person of the Son, who took 740 Manicheans, who have two contrary principles of nature. The Lord
522 flesh from the Virgin. He maintained that the Father and Son were the same person; and so he 741 said against this error (Dt 6:4): &ldquo;Hear O Israel: The Lord
523 failed to distinguish the trinity of persons in the deity. The Evangelist says against this error, 742 our God is one Lord.&rdquo;</p>
524 <span style="font-weight: bold">and the Word was with God, </span>i.e., the Son was with the Father, as one person with another.</p> 743 <p>Since the Evangelist had said, <span style=
525 <p>Eunomius declared that the Son is entirely unlike the Father. The Evangelist rejects this when 744 "font-weight: bold">the Word was with God; and the Word was
526 he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">and the Word was God. </span>Finally, Arius said that the Son was less than the Father. 745 God,</span> they could adduce this in support of their error by
527 The Evangelist excludes this by saying, <span style="font-weight: bold">He was in the beginning with God, </span>as was 746 understanding the God with whom the Word is to be one [God],and the
528 explained above.</p> 747 Word to be another, having another, or contrary, will to the
529 <p>65 These words also exclude the errors of the philosophers. I`or some of the ancient 748 former; and this is against the law of the Gospel. And so to
530 philosophers, namely, the natural philosophers, maintained that the world did not come from 749 exclude this he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">He was in the
531 any intellect or through some purpose, but by chance. Consequently, they did not place at the 750 beginning with God,</span> as if to say, according to Hilary: I say
532 beginning as the cause of things a reason or intellect, but only matter in flux; for example, 751 that the Word is God, not as if he has a distinct divinity, but he
533 atoms, as Democritus thought, or other material principles of this kind as different 752 is with God, that is, in the one same nature in which lie is.
534 philosophers inaintained. Against these the Evangelist says, <span style="font-weight: bold">In the beginning was the Word, 753 Further, lest his statement, <span style="font-weight: bold">and
535 </span>from whom, and not from chance, things derive their beginning.</p> 754 the Word was God,</span> be taken to mean that the Word has an
536 <p>Plato, however, thought that the Ideas of all the things that were made were subsistent, i.e., 755 opposed will, he added that the Word <span style=
537 existing separately in their own natures; and material things exist by participating in these. 756 "font-weight: bold">was in the beginning with God,</span> namely,
538 For example, he thought men existed through the separated Idea of man, which he called Man 757 the Father; not as divided from him or opposed, but having an
539 <i>per se. </i>So lest you suppose, as did Plato, that this Idea through which all things were made be 758 identity of nature with him and a harmony of will. This union comes
540 Ideas separated from God, the Evangelist adds, <span style="font-weight: bold">and the Word was with God.</span></p> 759 about by the sharing of the divine nature in the three persons, and
541 <p>Other Platonists, as Chrysostom relates, maintained that God the Father was most eminent 760 by the bond of the natural love of the Father and the Son.</p>
542 and first, but under him they placed a certain mind in which there were the likenesses and 761 <p>61 The Arians were able to draw out another error from the
543 ideas of all things. So lest you think that the Word was with the Father in such a way as to be 762 above. They think that the Son is less than the Father because it
544 under him and less than he, the Evangelist adds, <span style="font-weight: bold">and the Word was God.</span></p> 763 says below (14:28): &ldquo;The Father is greater than I&rdquo; And
545 <p>Aristotle, however, thought that the ideas of all things are in God, and that in God, the 764 they say the Father is greater than the Son both as to eternity and
546 intellect, the one understanding, and what is understood, are the same. Nevertheless, he 765 as to divinity of nature. And so to exclude this the Evangelist
547 thought that the world is coeternal with him. Against this the Evangelist says, He, the Word 766 added: <span style="font-weight: bold">He was in the beginning with
548 alone, was <span style="font-weight: bold">in the beginning with God, </span>in such a way that He does not exclude another 767 God.</span> For Arius admits the first clause, <span style=
549 person, but only another coeternal nature.</p> 768 "font-weight: bold">In the beginning was the Word,</span> but he
550 <p>66 Note the difference in what has been said between John and the other Evangelists: how he 769 will not admit that <i>principium</i> should be taken for the
551 began his Gospel on a loftier plane than they. They announced Christ the Son of God born in 770 Father, but rather for the beginning of creatures. So he says that
552 time: &#8220;When Jesus was born in Bethlehem&#8221; (Mt 2:1); but John presents him existing from 771 the Word was in the beginning of creatures, and consequently is in
553 eternity: <span style="font-weight: bold">In the beginning was the Word. </span>They show him suddenly appearing among men: 772 no sense coeternal with the Father. But this is excluded, according
554 &#8220;Now you dismiss your servant, 0 Lord, in peace, according to your word; because my eyes 773 to Chrysostom, by this clause, <span style="font-weight: bold">He
555 have seen your salvation&#8221; (Lk 2:29); but John says that he always existed with the Father: and 774 was in the beginning,</span> not of creatures, but <span style=
556 the Word was with God. The others show him as a man: &#8220;They gave glory to God who had 775 "font-weight: bold">in the beginning with God,</span> i.e.,
557 given such authority to men&#8221; (Mt 9:8); but John says that he is God: and the Word was God. 776 whenever God existed. For the Father was never alone without the
558 The others say he lives with men: &#8220;While living in Galilee, Jesus said to them&#8221; (Mt 17:21); 777 Son or Word, but He, that is, the Word, was always <span style=
559 but John says that he has always been with the Father: <span style="font-weight: bold">He was in the beginning with God.</span></p> 778 "font-weight: bold">with God.</span></p>
560 <p>67 Note also how the Evangelist designedly uses the word was (<i>erat) </i>to show that the Word 779 <p>62 Again, Arius admits that the Word was God, but nevertheless
561 of God transcends all times: present, past and future. It is as though he were saying: He was 780 inferior to the Father. This is excluded by what follows. For there
781 are two attributes proper to the great God which Arius attributed
782 solely to God the Father, that is, eternity and omnipotence. So in
783 whomever these two attributes are found, he is the great God, than
784 whom none is greater. But the Evangelist attributes these two to
785 the Word. Therefore, the Word is the great God and not inferior. He
786 says the Word is eternal when he states, <span style=
787 "font-weight: bold">He was in the beginning with God,</span> i.e.,
788 the Word was with God from eternity, and not only in the beginning
789 of creatures (as Arius held) , but with God, receiving being and
790 divinity from him. Further, he attributes omnipotence to the Word
791 when he adds, <span style="font-weight: bold">Through him all
792 things came into being.</span></p>
793 <p>63 Origen gives a rather beautiful explanation of this clause,
794 <span style="font-weight: bold">He was in the beginning with
795 God,</span> when he says that it is not separate from the first
796 three, but is in a certain sense their epilogue. For the
797 Evangelist, after he had indicated that truth was the Son&rsquo;s
798 and was about to describe his power, in a way gathers together in a
799 summary form, in this fourth clause, what he had said in the first
800 three. For in saying He, he understands the third clause; by adding
801 <span style="font-weight: bold">was in the beginning,</span> he
802 recalls the first clause; and by adding <span style=
803 "font-weight: bold">with God,</span> he recalls the second, so that
804 we do not think that the Word which was in the beginning is
805 different than the Word which was God; but this Word which was God
806 <span style="font-weight: bold">was in the beginning with
807 God.</span></p>
808 <p>64 If one considers these four propositions well, he will find
809 that they clearly destroy all the errors of the heretics and of the
810 philosophers. For some heretics, as Ebion and Cerinthus, said that
811 Christ did not exist before the Blessed Virgin, but took from her
812 the beginning of his being and duration; for they held that he was
813 a mere man, who had merited divinity by his good works. Photinus
814 and Paul of Samosata, following them, said the same thing. But the
815 Evangelist excludes their errors saying, <span style=
816 "font-weight: bold">In the beginning was the Word,</span> i.e.,
817 before all things, and in the Father from eternity. Thus he did not
818 derive his beginning from the Virgin.</p>
819 <p>Sabellius, on the other hand, although he admitted that the God
820 who took flesh did not receive his beginning from the Virgin, but
821 existed from eternity, still said that the person of the Father,
822 who existed from eternity, was not distinct from the person of the
823 Son, who took flesh from the Virgin. He maintained that the Father
824 and Son were the same person; and so he failed to distinguish the
825 trinity of persons in the deity. The Evangelist says against this
826 error, <span style="font-weight: bold">and the Word was with
827 God,</span> i.e., the Son was with the Father, as one person with
828 another.</p>
829 <p>Eunomius declared that the Son is entirely unlike the Father.
830 The Evangelist rejects this when he says, <span style=
831 "font-weight: bold">and the Word was God.</span> Finally, Arius
832 said that the Son was less than the Father. The Evangelist excludes
833 this by saying, <span style="font-weight: bold">He was in the
834 beginning with God,</span> as was explained above.</p>
835 <p>65 These words also exclude the errors of the philosophers. I`or
836 some of the ancient philosophers, namely, the natural philosophers,
837 maintained that the world did not come from any intellect or
838 through some purpose, but by chance. Consequently, they did not
839 place at the beginning as the cause of things a reason or
840 intellect, but only matter in flux; for example, atoms, as
841 Democritus thought, or other material principles of this kind as
842 different philosophers inaintained. Against these the Evangelist
843 says, <span style="font-weight: bold">In the beginning was the
844 Word,</span> from whom, and not from chance, things derive their
845 beginning.</p>
846 <p>Plato, however, thought that the Ideas of all the things that
847 were made were subsistent, i.e., existing separately in their own
848 natures; and material things exist by participating in these. For
849 example, he thought men existed through the separated Idea of man,
850 which he called Man <i>per se.</i> So lest you suppose, as did
851 Plato, that this Idea through which all things were made be Ideas
852 separated from God, the Evangelist adds, <span style=
853 "font-weight: bold">and the Word was with God.</span></p>
854 <p>Other Platonists, as Chrysostom relates, maintained that God the
855 Father was most eminent and first, but under him they placed a
856 certain mind in which there were the likenesses and ideas of all
857 things. So lest you think that the Word was with the Father in such
858 a way as to be under him and less than he, the Evangelist adds,
859 <span style="font-weight: bold">and the Word was God.</span></p>
860 <p>Aristotle, however, thought that the ideas of all things are in
861 God, and that in God, the intellect, the one understanding, and
862 what is understood, are the same. Nevertheless, he thought that the
863 world is coeternal with him. Against this the Evangelist says, He,
864 the Word alone, was <span style="font-weight: bold">in the
865 beginning with God,</span> in such a way that He does not exclude
866 another person, but only another coeternal nature.</p>
867 <p>66 Note the difference in what has been said between John and
868 the other Evangelists: how he began his Gospel on a loftier plane
869 than they. They announced Christ the Son of God born in time:
870 &ldquo;When Jesus was born in Bethlehem&rdquo; (Mt 2:1); but John
871 presents him existing from eternity: <span style=
872 "font-weight: bold">In the beginning was the Word.</span> They show
873 him suddenly appearing among men: &ldquo;Now you dismiss your
874 servant, 0 Lord, in peace, according to your word; because my eyes
875 have seen your salvation&rdquo; (Lk 2:29); but John says that he
876 always existed with the Father: and the Word was with God. The
877 others show him as a man: &ldquo;They gave glory to God who had
878 given such authority to men&rdquo; (Mt 9:8); but John says that he
879 is God: and the Word was God. The others say he lives with men:
880 &ldquo;While living in Galilee, Jesus said to them&rdquo; (Mt
881 17:21); but John says that he has always been with the Father:
882 <span style="font-weight: bold">He was in the beginning with
883 God.</span></p>
884 <p>67 Note also how the Evangelist designedly uses the word was
885 (<i>erat)</i> to show that the Word of God transcends all times:
886 present, past and future. It is as though he were saying: He was
562 beyond time: present, past and future, as the Gloss says.</p> 887 beyond time: present, past and future, as the Gloss says.</p>
563 <p style="margin-bottom: 0.125in; margin-bottom: 0.125in">&#160;</p> 888 <p style="margin-bottom: 0.125in; margin-bottom: 0.125in">
564 <CENTER><p><span style="font-weight: bold">LECTURE 2</span></p> 889 &nbsp;</p>
565 <p>3 All things were made through him,<BR> 890 <center>
566 and without him nothing was made.<BR> 891 <p><span style="font-weight: bold">LECTURE 2</span></p>
567 What was made 4a in him was life.</CENTER> 892 <p>3 All things were made through him,<br />
568 <p>68 After the Evangelist has told of the existence and nature of the Divine Word, so far as it 893 and without him nothing was made.<br />
569 can be told by man, he then shows the might of his power. First, he shows his power with 894 What was made 4a in him was life.</p>
570 respect to all things that come into existence. Secondly, with respect to man. As to the first, 895 </center>
571 he uses three clauses; and we will not distinguish these at present because they will be 896 <p>68 After the Evangelist has told of the existence and nature of
572 distinguished in different ways according to the different explanations given by the saints.</p> 897 the Divine Word, so far as it can be told by man, he then shows the
573 <p>69 The first clause, <span style="font-weight: bold">All thifngs were made through him</span>, is used to show three things 898 might of his power. First, he shows his power with respect to all
574 concerning the Word. First, according to Chrysostom, to show the equality of the Word to the 899 things that come into existence. Secondly, with respect to man. As
575 Father. For as stated earlier, the error of Arius was rejected by the Evangelist when he showed 900 to the first, he uses three clauses; and we will not distinguish
576 the coeternity of the Son with the Father by saying, &#8220;He was in the beginning with God.&#8221; 901 these at present because they will be distinguished in different
577 Here he excludes the same error when he shows the omnipotence of the Son, saying, <span style="font-weight: bold">All 902 ways according to the different explanations given by the
578 things were made through him</span>. For to be the principle of all the things that are made is 903 saints.</p>
579 proper to the great omnipotent God, as the Psalm (134:6) says, &#8220;Whatever the Lord wills he 904 <p>69 The first clause, <span style="font-weight: bold">All thifngs
580 does, in heaven and on earth.&#8221;Thus the Word, through whom all things were made, is God, 905 were made through him</span>, is used to show three things
581 great and coequal to the Father.</p> 906 concerning the Word. First, according to Chrysostom, to show the
582 <p>70 Secondly, according to Hilary, this clause is used to show the coeternity of the Word with 907 equality of the Word to the Father. For as stated earlier, the
583 the Father. For since someone might understand the earlier statement, &#8220;In the beginning was 908 error of Arius was rejected by the Evangelist when he showed the
584 the Word,&#8221; as referring to the beginning of creatures, i.e., that before there were any creatures 909 coeternity of the Son with the Father by saying, &ldquo;He was in
585 there was a time in which the Word did not exist, the Evangelist rejects this by saying, <span style="font-weight: bold">All 910 the beginning with God.&rdquo; Here he excludes the same error when
586 things were made through him. </span>For if all things were made through the Word, then time 911 he shows the omnipotence of the Son, saying, <span style=
587 was also. From this we can form the following argument: If all time was made through him, 912 "font-weight: bold">All things were made through him</span>. For to
588 there was no time before him or with him, because before all these, he was. Therefore they 913 be the principle of all the things that are made is proper to the
589 [the Son and the Father] are eternally coeternal.</p> 914 great omnipotent God, as the Psalm (134:6) says, &ldquo;Whatever
590 <p>71 Thirdly, according to Augustine, this clause is used to show the consubstantiality of the 915 the Lord wills he does, in heaven and on earth.&rdquo;Thus the
591 Word with the Father. For if all things were made through the Word, the Word himself cannot 916 Word, through whom all things were made, is God, great and coequal
592 be said to have been made; because, if made, he was made through some Word, since all 917 to the Father.</p>
593 things were made through the Word. Consequently, there would have been another Word 918 <p>70 Secondly, according to Hilary, this clause is used to show
594 through whom was made the Word of whom the Evangelist is speaking. This Word, through 919 the coeternity of the Word with the Father. For since someone might
595 whom all things are made, we call the only begotten Son of God, because he is neither made 920 understand the earlier statement, &ldquo;In the beginning was the
596 nor is he a creature. And if he is not a creature, it is necessary to say that he is of the same 921 Word,&rdquo; as referring to the beginning of creatures, i.e., that
597 substance with the Father, since every substance other than the divine essence is made. But a 922 before there were any creatures there was a time in which the Word
598 substance that is not a creature is God. And so the Word, through whom all things were made, 923 did not exist, the Evangelist rejects this by saying, <span style=
599 is consubstantial with the Father, since he is neither made, nor is he a creature.</p> 924 "font-weight: bold">All things were made through him.</span> For if
600 <p>72 And so in saying <span style="font-weight: bold">All things were made through him, </span>you have, according to 925 all things were made through the Word, then time was also. From
601 Chrysostom, the equality of the Word with the Father; the coeternity of the Word with the 926 this we can form the following argument: If all time was made
602 Father, according to Hilary; and the consubstantiality of the Word with the Father, according 927 through him, there was no time before him or with him, because
603 to Augustine.</p> 928 before all these, he was. Therefore they [the Son and the Father]
604 <p>73 Here we must guard against three errors. First, the error of Valentine. He understood <span style="font-weight: bold">All 929 are eternally coeternal.</p>
605 things were made through him </span>to mean that the Word proferred to the Creator the cause of 930 <p>71 Thirdly, according to Augustine, this clause is used to show
606 his creating the world; so that all things were made through the Word as if the Father&#8217;s 931 the consubstantiality of the Word with the Father. For if all
607 creating the world came from the Word. This leads to the position of those who said that God 932 things were made through the Word, the Word himself cannot be said
608 created the world because of some exterior cause; and this is contrary to Proverbs (16:4), 933 to have been made; because, if made, he was made through some Word,
609 &#8220;The Lord made all things for himself.&#8221; The reason this is an error is that, as Origen says, if 934 since all things were made through the Word. Consequently, there
610 the Word had been a cause to the Creator by offering him the material for making things, he 935 would have been another Word through whom was made the Word of whom
611 would not have said, <span style="font-weight: bold">All things were made through him, </span>but on the contrary, that all things 936 the Evangelist is speaking. This Word, through whom all things are
612 were made through the Creator by the Word.</p> 937 made, we call the only begotten Son of God, because he is neither
613 <p>74 Secondly, we must avoid the error of Origen. He said that the Holy Spirit was included 938 made nor is he a creature. And if he is not a creature, it is
614 among all the things made through the Word; from which it follows that he is a creature. And 939 necessary to say that he is of the same substance with the Father,
615 this is what Origen thought. This is heretical and blasphemous, since the Holy Spirit has the 940 since every substance other than the divine essence is made. But a
616 same glory and substance and dignity as the Father and the Son, according to the words of 941 substance that is not a creature is God. And so the Word, through
617 Matthew (28:19), &#8220;Make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the 942 whom all things were made, is consubstantial with the Father, since
618 Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.&#8221; And, &#8220;There are three who give testimony&#8217; in 943 he is neither made, nor is he a creature.</p>
619 heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one&#8221; (l Jn 5:7). Thus 944 <p>72 And so in saying <span style="font-weight: bold">All things
620 when the Evangelist says, <span style="font-weight: bold">All things were made through him</span>, one should not understand 945 were made through him,</span> you have, according to Chrysostom,
621 &#8220;all things&#8221; absolutely, but in the realm of creatures and of things made. As if to say: All 946 the equality of the Word with the Father; the coeternity of the
622 things that were made, were made through him. Otherwise, if &#8220;all things&#8221; were taken 947 Word with the Father, according to Hilary; and the
623 absolutely, it would follow that the Father and the Holy Spirit were made through him; and 948 consubstantiality of the Word with the Father, according to
624 this is blasphemous. Consequently, neither the Father nor anything substantial with the Father 949 Augustine.</p>
625 was made through the Word.</p> 950 <p>73 Here we must guard against three errors. First, the error of
626 <p>75 Thirdly, we must avoid another of Origen&#8217;s errors. For he said that all things were made 951 Valentine. He understood <span style="font-weight: bold">All things
627 through the Word as something is made by a greater through a lesser, as if the Son were 952 were made through him</span> to mean that the Word proferred to the
628 inferior to, and an instrument of, the Father. But it is clear from many places in Scripture that 953 Creator the cause of his creating the world; so that all things
629 the preposition &#8220;through&#8221; (<i>per</i>)<i> </i>does not signify inferiority in the thing which is its 954 were made through the Word as if the Father&rsquo;s creating the
630 grammatical object, i.e., in the Son or Word. For the Apostle says, &#8220;God is faithful, through 955 world came from the Word. This leads to the position of those who
631 whom you were called into the fellowship of his Son&#8221; (1 Cor 1:9). If he &#8220;through&#8221; whom 956 said that God created the world because of some exterior cause; and
632 something is done has a superior, then the Father has a superior. But this is false. Therefore, 957 this is contrary to Proverbs (16:4), &ldquo;The Lord made all
633 the preposition &#8220;through&#8221; does not signify any inferiority in the Son when all things are said 958 things for himself.&rdquo; The reason this is an error is that, as
634 to have been made through him.</p> 959 Origen says, if the Word had been a cause to the Creator by
635 <p>76 To explain this point further, we should note that when something is said to be made 960 offering him the material for making things, he would not have
636 through someone, the preposition &#8220;through&#8221; (<i>per</i>)<i> </i>denotes some sort of causality in its object 961 said, <span style="font-weight: bold">All things were made through
637 with respect to an operation; but not always the same kind of causality. For since an 962 him,</span> but on the contrary, that all things were made through
638 operation, according to our manner of signifying, is considered to be medial between the one 963 the Creator by the Word.</p>
639 acting and the thing produced, the operation itself can be regarded in two ways. In one way, 964 <p>74 Secondly, we must avoid the error of Origen. He said that the
640 as issuing from the one operating, who is the cause of the action itself; in another way, as 965 Holy Spirit was included among all the things made through the
641 terminated in the thing produced. Accordingly, the preposition &#8220;through&#8221; sometimes signifies 966 Word; from which it follows that he is a creature. And this is what
642 the cause of the operation insofar as it issues from the one operating: but sometimes as 967 Origen thought. This is heretical and blasphemous, since the Holy
643 terminated in the thing which is produced. It signifies the cause of the operation as issuing 968 Spirit has the same glory and substance and dignity as the Father
644 from the one operating when the object of the preposition is either the efficient or formal 969 and the Son, according to the words of Matthew (28:19), &ldquo;Make
645 cause why the one operating is operating. For example, we have a formal cause when fire is 970 disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the
646 heating through heat; for heat is the formal cause of the fire&#8217;s heating. We have a movent or 971 Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.&rdquo; And,
647 efficient cause in cases where secondary agents act through primary agents; as when I say that 972 &ldquo;There are three who give testimony&rsquo; in heaven, the
648 the bailiff acts through the king, because the king is the efficient cause of the bailiff&#8217;s acting. 973 Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are
649 This is the way Valentine understood that all things were made through the Word: as though 974 one&rdquo; (l Jn 5:7). Thus when the Evangelist says, <span style=
650 the Word were the cause of the maker&#8217;s production of all things. The preposition &#8220;through&#8221; 975 "font-weight: bold">All things were made through him</span>, one
651 implies the causality of the operation as terminated in the thing produced when what is 976 should not understand &ldquo;all things&rdquo; absolutely, but in
652 signified through that causality is not the cause which operates, but the cause of the operation 977 the realm of creatures and of things made. As if to say: All things
653 precisely as terminated in the thing produced. So when I say, &#8220;The carpenter is making a 978 that were made, were made through him. Otherwise, if &ldquo;all
654 bench through [by means of] a hatchet,&#8221; the hatchet is not the cause of the carpenter&#8217;s 979 things&rdquo; were taken absolutely, it would follow that the
655 operating; but we do say that it is the cause of the bench&#8217;s being made by the one acting.</p> 980 Father and the Holy Spirit were made through him; and this is
656 <p>And so when it says that <span style="font-weight: bold">All things were made through him, </span>if the &#8220;through&#8221; denotes the 981 blasphemous. Consequently, neither the Father nor anything
657 efficient or movent cause, causing the Father to act, then in this sense the Father does nothing 982 substantial with the Father was made through the Word.</p>
658 through the Son, but he does all things through himself, as has been said. But if the &#8220;through&#8221; 983 <p>75 Thirdly, we must avoid another of Origen&rsquo;s errors. For
659 denotes a formal cause, as when the Father operates through his widsom, which is his 984 he said that all things were made through the Word as something is
660 essence, he operates through his wisdom as he operates through his essence. And because the 985 made by a greater through a lesser, as if the Son were inferior to,
661 wisdom and power of the Father are attributed to the Son, as when we say, &#8220;Christ, the power 986 and an instrument of, the Father. But it is clear from many places
662 of God and the wisdom of God&#8221; (1 Cor 1:24), then by appropriation we say that the Father 987 in Scripture that the preposition &ldquo;through&rdquo;
663 does all things through the Son, i.e., through his wisdom. And so Augustine says that the 988 (<i>per</i>) does not signify inferiority in the thing which is its
664 phrase &#8220;from whom all things,&#8221; is appropriated to the Father; &#8220;through whom all things,&#8221; is 989 grammatical object, i.e., in the Son or Word. For the Apostle says,
665 appropriated to the Son; and &#8220;in whom all things,&#8221; is appropriated to the Holy Spirit. But if 990 &ldquo;God is faithful, through whom you were called into the
666 the &#8220;through&#8221; denotes causality from the standpoint of the thing produced, then the statement, 991 fellowship of his Son&rdquo; (1 Cor 1:9). If he
667 &#8220;The Father does all things through the Son,&#8221; is not [mere] appropriation but proper to the 992 &ldquo;through&rdquo; whom something is done has a superior, then
668 Word, because the fact that he is a cause of creatures is had from someone else, namely the 993 the Father has a superior. But this is false. Therefore, the
669 Father, from whom he has being.</p> 994 preposition &ldquo;through&rdquo; does not signify any inferiority
670 <p>However, it does not follow from this that the Word is the instrument of the Father, although 995 in the Son when all things are said to have been made through
671 whatever is moved by another to effect something partakes of the nature of an instrument. For 996 him.</p>
672 when I say that someone works through a power received from another, this can be 997 <p>76 To explain this point further, we should note that when
673 understood in two ways. In one way, as meaning that the power of the giver and of the 998 something is said to be made through someone, the preposition
674 receiver is numerically one and the same power; and in this way the one operating through a 999 &ldquo;through&rdquo; (<i>per</i>) denotes some sort of causality
675 power received from another is not inferior but equal to the one from whom he receives it. 1000 in its object with respect to an operation; but not always the same
676 Therefore, since the same power which the Father has he gives to the Son, through which the 1001 kind of causality. For since an operation, according to our manner
677 Son works, when it is said that &#8220;the Father works through the Son,&#8221; one should not on that 1002 of signifying, is considered to be medial between the one acting
678 account say that the Son is inferior to the Father or is his instrument. This would be the case, 1003 and the thing produced, the operation itself can be regarded in two
679 rather, in those who receive from another not the same power, but another and created one. 1004 ways. In one way, as issuing from the one operating, who is the
680 And so it is plain that neither the Holy Spirit nor the Son are causes of the Father&#8217;s working, 1005 cause of the action itself; in another way, as terminated in the
681 and that neither is the minister or instrument of the Father, as Origen raved.</p> 1006 thing produced. Accordingly, the preposition &ldquo;through&rdquo;
682 <p>77 If we carefully consider the words, <span style="font-weight: bold">All things were made through him, </span>we can clearly 1007 sometimes signifies the cause of the operation insofar as it issues
683 see that the Evangelist spoke with the utmost exactitude. For whoever makes something must 1008 from the one operating: but sometimes as terminated in the thing
684 preconceive it in his wisdom, which is the form and pattern of the thing made: as the form 1009 which is produced. It signifies the cause of the operation as
685 preconceived in the mind of an artisan is the pattern of the cabinet to be made. So, God makes 1010 issuing from the one operating when the object of the preposition
686 nothing except through the conception of his intellect, which is an eternally conceived 1011 is either the efficient or formal cause why the one operating is
687 wisdom, that is, the Word of God, and the Son of God. Accordingly, it is impossible that he 1012 operating. For example, we have a formal cause when fire is heating
688 should make anything except through the Son. And so Augustine says, in <i>The Trinity, </i>that the 1013 through heat; for heat is the formal cause of the fire&rsquo;s
689 Word is the art full of the living patterns of all things. Thus it is clear that all things which the 1014 heating. We have a movent or efficient cause in cases where
690 Father makes, he makes through him.</p> 1015 secondary agents act through primary agents; as when I say that the
691 <p>78 It should be remarked that, according to Chrysostom, all the things which Moses 1016 bailiff acts through the king, because the king is the efficient
692 enumerates individually in God&#8217;s production of things, saying, &#8220;And God said, &#8216;Let there be 1017 cause of the bailiff&rsquo;s acting. This is the way Valentine
693 light&#8217;&#8221; (Gn 1:3) and so forth, all these the Evangelist transcends and embraces in one phrase, 1018 understood that all things were made through the Word: as though
694 saying, <span style="font-weight: bold">All things were made through him. </span>The reason is that Moses wished to teach the 1019 the Word were the cause of the maker&rsquo;s production of all
695 emanation of creatures from God; hence he enumerated them one by one. But John, hastening 1020 things. The preposition &ldquo;through&rdquo; implies the causality
696 toward loftier things, intends in this book to lead us specifically to a knowledge of the Creator 1021 of the operation as terminated in the thing produced when what is
697 himself.</p> 1022 signified through that causality is not the cause which operates,
698 <p>79 Then he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">and without him nothing was made. </span>This is the second clause which some 1023 but the cause of the operation precisely as terminated in the thing
699 have distorted, as Augustine says in his work, <i>The Nature of the Good. </i>Because of John&#8217;s 1024 produced. So when I say, &ldquo;The carpenter is making a bench
700 manner of speaking here, they believed that he was using &#8220;nothing&#8221; in an affirmative sense; 1025 through [by means of] a hatchet,&rdquo; the hatchet is not the
701 as though nothing was something which was made without the Word. And so they claimed 1026 cause of the carpenter&rsquo;s operating; but we do say that it is
702 that this clause was added by the Evangelist in order to exclude something which was not 1027 the cause of the bench&rsquo;s being made by the one acting.</p>
703 made by the Word. They say that the Evangelist, having said that <span style="font-weight: bold">All things were made 1028 <p>And so when it says that <span style="font-weight: bold">All
704 through him, </span>added <span style="font-weight: bold">and without him nothing was made. </span>It was as if to say: I say that all 1029 things were made through him,</span> if the &ldquo;through&rdquo;
705 things were made through him in such a way that still something was made without him, that 1030 denotes the efficient or movent cause, causing the Father to act,
706 is, the &#8220;nothing&#8221;.</p> 1031 then in this sense the Father does nothing through the Son, but he
707 <p>80 Three heresies came from this. First, that of Valentine. He affirmed, as Origen says, a 1032 does all things through himself, as has been said. But if the
708 multitude of principles, and taught that from them came thirty eras. The first principles he 1033 &ldquo;through&rdquo; denotes a formal cause, as when the Father
709 postulates are two: the Deep, which he calls God the Father, and Silence. And from these 1034 operates through his widsom, which is his essence, he operates
710 proceed ten eras. But from the Deep and from Silence, he says, there are two other principles, 1035 through his wisdom as he operates through his essence. And because
711 Mind and Truth; and from these issued eight eras. Then from Mind and Truth, there are two 1036 the wisdom and power of the Father are attributed to the Son, as
712 other principles, Word and Life; and from these issued twelve eras; thus making a total of 1037 when we say, &ldquo;Christ, the power of God and the wisdom of
713 thirty. Finally, from the Word and Life there proceeded in time, the man Christ and the 1038 God&rdquo; (1 Cor 1:24), then by appropriation we say that the
714 Church. In this way Valentine affirmed many eras previous to the issuing forth of the Word. 1039 Father does all things through the Son, i.e., through his wisdom.
715 And so he said that because the Evangelist had stated that <span style="font-weight: bold">all things were made through 1040 And so Augustine says that the phrase &ldquo;from whom all
716 him, </span>then, lest anyone think that those previous eras had been effected through the Word, he 1041 things,&rdquo; is appropriated to the Father; &ldquo;through whom
717 added, <span style="font-weight: bold">and without him nothing was made, </span>i.e., all the preceding eras and all that had 1042 all things,&rdquo; is appropriated to the Son; and &ldquo;in whom
718 existed in them. All of these John calls &#8220;nothing,&#8221; because they transcend human reason and 1043 all things,&rdquo; is appropriated to the Holy Spirit. But if the
719 cannot be grasped by the mind.</p> 1044 &ldquo;through&rdquo; denotes causality from the standpoint of the
720 <p>81 The second error to arise from this was that of Manichaeus, who affirmed two opposing 1045 thing produced, then the statement, &ldquo;The Father does all
721 principles: one is the source of incorruptible things, and the other of corruptible things. He 1046 things through the Son,&rdquo; is not [mere] appropriation but
722 said that after John had stated that <span style="font-weight: bold">All things were made through him, </span>then, lest it be 1047 proper to the Word, because the fact that he is a cause of
723 thought that the Word is the cause of corruptible things, he immediately added, <span style="font-weight: bold">and without 1048 creatures is had from someone else, namely the Father, from whom he
724 him nothing was made, </span>i.e., things subject to corruption, which are called &#8220;nothing&#8221; because 1049 has being.</p>
725 their being consists in being continually transformed into nothing.</p> 1050 <p>However, it does not follow from this that the Word is the
726 <p>82 The third error is that of those who claim that by &#8220;nothing&#8221; we should understand the 1051 instrument of the Father, although whatever is moved by another to
727 devil, according to Job (18:15), &#8220;May the companions of him who is not dwell in his house.&#8221; 1052 effect something partakes of the nature of an instrument. For when
728 And so they say that all things except the devil were made through the Word. In this way they 1053 I say that someone works through a power received from another,
729 explain, <span style="font-weight: bold">without him nothing was made, </span>that is, the devil.</p> 1054 this can be understood in two ways. In one way, as meaning that the
730 <p>83 All these three errors, arising as they do from the same source, namely, taking &#8220;nothing&#8221; in 1055 power of the giver and of the receiver is numerically one and the
731 a positive sense, are excluded by the fact that &#8220;nothing&#8221; in not used here in an affirmative, but 1056 same power; and in this way the one operating through a power
732 in a merely negative sense: the sense being that all things were made through the Word in 1057 received from another is not inferior but equal to the one from
733 such a way that there is nothing participating in existence that was not made through him.</p> 1058 whom he receives it. Therefore, since the same power which the
734 <p>84 Perhaps someone will object and say that it was superfluous to add this clause, if it is to be 1059 Father has he gives to the Son, through which the Son works, when
735 understood negatively, on the ground that the Evangelist, in stating that <span style="font-weight: bold">All things were 1060 it is said that &ldquo;the Father works through the Son,&rdquo; one
736 made through him, </span>seems to have already said adequately enough that there is not 1061 should not on that account say that the Son is inferior to the
737 something that was not made through the Word.</p> 1062 Father or is his instrument. This would be the case, rather, in
738 <p>The answer to this is that, according to many expositors, this clause was added in many ways 1063 those who receive from another not the same power, but another and
739 for a number of reasons. One of these reasons is, according to Chrysostom, so that no one 1064 created one. And so it is plain that neither the Holy Spirit nor
740 reading the Old Testament and finding only visible things listed by Moses in the creation of 1065 the Son are causes of the Father&rsquo;s working, and that neither
741 things, would think that these were the only things made through the Word. And so after he 1066 is the minister or instrument of the Father, as Origen raved.</p>
742 had said, <span style="font-weight: bold">All things were made through him, </span>namely, those that Moses listed, the 1067 <p>77 If we carefully consider the words, <span style=
743 Evangelist then added, <span style="font-weight: bold">and without him nothing was made, </span>as though he were saying: None 1068 "font-weight: bold">All things were made through him,</span> we can
744 of the things which exist, whether visible or invisible, was made without the Word. Indeed, 1069 clearly see that the Evangelist spoke with the utmost exactitude.
745 the Apostle also speaks in this way (Col 1:16), saying that all things, visible and invisible, 1070 For whoever makes something must preconceive it in his wisdom,
746 were created in Christ; and here the Apostle makes specific mention of invisible things 1071 which is the form and pattern of the thing made: as the form
747 because Moses had made no express mention of them on account of the lack of erudition of 1072 preconceived in the mind of an artisan is the pattern of the
748 that people, who could not be raised above the things of sense.</p> 1073 cabinet to be made. So, God makes nothing except through the
749 <p>Chrysostom also gives another reason why this clause was added. For someone reading in the 1074 conception of his intellect, which is an eternally conceived
750 Gospels of the many signs and miracles worked by Christ, such as, &#8220;The blind see, the lame 1075 wisdom, that is, the Word of God, and the Son of God. Accordingly,
751 walk, lepers are cleansed&#8221; (Mt 11:5), might believe that in saying, <span style="font-weight: bold">All things were made 1076 it is impossible that he should make anything except through the
752 through him, </span>John meant that only the things mentioned in those Gospels, and nothing else, 1077 Son. And so Augustine says, in <i>The Trinity,</i> that the Word is
753 were made through him. So lest anyone suspect this, the Evangelist adds, <span style="font-weight: bold">and without him 1078 the art full of the living patterns of all things. Thus it is clear
754 nothing was made. </span>As if to say: Not only all the things contained in the Gospels were made 1079 that all things which the Father makes, he makes through him.</p>
755 through him, but none of the things that were made, was made without him. And so, 1080 <p>78 It should be remarked that, according to Chrysostom, all the
756 according to Chrysostom, this clause is added to bring out his total causality, and serves, as it 1081 things which Moses enumerates individually in God&rsquo;s
757 were, to complete his previous statement.</p> 1082 production of things, saying, &ldquo;And God said, &lsquo;Let there
758 <p>85 According to Hilary, however, this clause is introduced to show that the Word has 1083 be light&rsquo;&rdquo; (Gn 1:3) and so forth, all these the
759 operative power from another. For since the Evangelist had said, <span style="font-weight: bold">All things were made 1084 Evangelist transcends and embraces in one phrase, saying,
760 through him, </span>it might be supposed that the Father is excluded from all causality. For that 1085 <span style="font-weight: bold">All things were made through
761 reason he added, <span style="font-weight: bold">and without him nothing was made. </span>As if to say: All things were made 1086 him.</span> The reason is that Moses wished to teach the emanation
762 through him, but in such a way that the Father made all things with him. For &#8220;without him&#8221; is 1087 of creatures from God; hence he enumerated them one by one. But
763 equivalent to saying, &#8220;not alone,&#8221; so that the meaning is: It is not he alone through whom all 1088 John, hastening toward loftier things, intends in this book to lead
764 things were made, but he is the other one without whom nothing was made. It is as if he said: 1089 us specifically to a knowledge of the Creator himself.</p>
765 <span style="font-weight: bold">Without him, </span>with another working, i.e., with the Father, <span style="font-weight: bold">nothing was made, </span>as it says, &#8220;I 1090 <p>79 Then he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">and without him
766 was with him forming all things&#8221; (Prv 8:30).</p> 1091 nothing was made.</span> This is the second clause which some have
767 <p>86 In a certain homily attributed to Origen, and which begins, &#8220;The spiritual voice of the 1092 distorted, as Augustine says in his work, <i>The Nature of the
768 eagle,&#8221; we find another rather beautiful exposition. It says there that the Greek has <i>thoris 1093 Good.</i> Because of John&rsquo;s manner of speaking here, they
769 </i>where the Latin has <i>sine </i>(without). Now <i>thoris</i> is the same as &#8220;outside&#8221; or &#8220;outside of.&#8221; It is 1094 believed that he was using &ldquo;nothing&rdquo; in an affirmative
770 as if he had said: <span style="font-weight: bold">All things were made through him </span>in such a way that outside him <span style="font-weight: bold">nothing 1095 sense; as though nothing was something which was made without the
771 was made. </span>And so he says this to show that all things are conserved through the Word and in 1096 Word. And so they claimed that this clause was added by the
772 the Word, as stated in Hebrews ( 1:3), &#8220;He sustains all things by his powerful word.&#8221; Now 1097 Evangelist in order to exclude something which was not made by the
773 there are certain things that do not need their producer except to bring them into existence, 1098 Word. They say that the Evangelist, having said that <span style=
774 since after they have been produced they are able to subsist without any further activity on the 1099 "font-weight: bold">All things were made through him,</span> added
775 part of the producer. For example, a house needs a builder if it is to come into existence, but 1100 <span style="font-weight: bold">and without him nothing was
776 it continues to exist without any further action on the part of the builder. So lest anyone 1101 made.</span> It was as if to say: I say that all things were made
777 suppose that all things were made through the Word in such a way that he is merely the cause 1102 through him in such a way that still something was made without
778 of their production and not of their continuation in existence, the Evangelist added, <span style="font-weight: bold">and 1103 him, that is, the &ldquo;nothing&rdquo;.</p>
779 without him nothing was made, </span>i.e., nothing was made outside of him, because he 1104 <p>80 Three heresies came from this. First, that of Valentine. He
780 encompasses all things, preserving them.</p> 1105 affirmed, as Origen says, a multitude of principles, and taught
781 <p>87 This clause is also explained by Augustine and Origen and several others in such a way 1106 that from them came thirty eras. The first principles he postulates
782 that &#8220;nothing&#8221; indicates sin. Accordingly, because <span style="font-weight: bold">All things were made through him </span>might 1107 are two: the Deep, which he calls God the Father, and Silence. And
783 be interpreted as including evil and sin, he added, <span style="font-weight: bold">and without him nothing, </span>i.e., sin, <span style="font-weight: bold">was 1108 from these proceed ten eras. But from the Deep and from Silence, he
784 made. </span>For just as art is not the principle or cause of the defects in its products, but is through 1109 says, there are two other principles, Mind and Truth; and from
785 itself the cause of their perfection and form, so the Word, who is the art of the Father, full of 1110 these issued eight eras. Then from Mind and Truth, there are two
786 living archetypes, is not the cause of any evil or disarrangement in things, particularly of the 1111 other principles, Word and Life; and from these issued twelve eras;
787 evil of sin, which carries the full notion of evil. The <i>per se </i>cause of this evil is the will of the 1112 thus making a total of thirty. Finally, from the Word and Life
788 creature, either a man or an angel, freely declining from the end to which it is ordained by its 1113 there proceeded in time, the man Christ and the Church. In this way
789 nature. One who can act in virtue of his art but purposely violates it, is the cause of the 1114 Valentine affirmed many eras previous to the issuing forth of the
790 defects occurring in his works, not by reason of his art, but by reason of his will. So in such 1115 Word. And so he said that because the Evangelist had stated that
791 cases, his art is not the source or cause of the defects, but his will is. Consequently, evil is a 1116 <span style="font-weight: bold">all things were made through
792 defect of the will and not of any art. And so to the extent that it is such [i.e., a defect], it is 1117 him,</span> then, lest anyone think that those previous eras had
1118 been effected through the Word, he added, <span style=
1119 "font-weight: bold">and without him nothing was made,</span> i.e.,
1120 all the preceding eras and all that had existed in them. All of
1121 these John calls &ldquo;nothing,&rdquo; because they transcend
1122 human reason and cannot be grasped by the mind.</p>
1123 <p>81 The second error to arise from this was that of Manichaeus,
1124 who affirmed two opposing principles: one is the source of
1125 incorruptible things, and the other of corruptible things. He said
1126 that after John had stated that <span style="font-weight: bold">All
1127 things were made through him,</span> then, lest it be thought that
1128 the Word is the cause of corruptible things, he immediately added,
1129 <span style="font-weight: bold">and without him nothing was
1130 made,</span> i.e., things subject to corruption, which are called
1131 &ldquo;nothing&rdquo; because their being consists in being
1132 continually transformed into nothing.</p>
1133 <p>82 The third error is that of those who claim that by
1134 &ldquo;nothing&rdquo; we should understand the devil, according to
1135 Job (18:15), &ldquo;May the companions of him who is not dwell in
1136 his house.&rdquo; And so they say that all things except the devil
1137 were made through the Word. In this way they explain, <span style=
1138 "font-weight: bold">without him nothing was made,</span> that is,
1139 the devil.</p>
1140 <p>83 All these three errors, arising as they do from the same
1141 source, namely, taking &ldquo;nothing&rdquo; in a positive sense,
1142 are excluded by the fact that &ldquo;nothing&rdquo; in not used
1143 here in an affirmative, but in a merely negative sense: the sense
1144 being that all things were made through the Word in such a way that
1145 there is nothing participating in existence that was not made
1146 through him.</p>
1147 <p>84 Perhaps someone will object and say that it was superfluous
1148 to add this clause, if it is to be understood negatively, on the
1149 ground that the Evangelist, in stating that <span style=
1150 "font-weight: bold">All things were made through him,</span> seems
1151 to have already said adequately enough that there is not something
1152 that was not made through the Word.</p>
1153 <p>The answer to this is that, according to many expositors, this
1154 clause was added in many ways for a number of reasons. One of these
1155 reasons is, according to Chrysostom, so that no one reading the Old
1156 Testament and finding only visible things listed by Moses in the
1157 creation of things, would think that these were the only things
1158 made through the Word. And so after he had said, <span style=
1159 "font-weight: bold">All things were made through him,</span>
1160 namely, those that Moses listed, the Evangelist then added,
1161 <span style="font-weight: bold">and without him nothing was
1162 made,</span> as though he were saying: None of the things which
1163 exist, whether visible or invisible, was made without the Word.
1164 Indeed, the Apostle also speaks in this way (Col 1:16), saying that
1165 all things, visible and invisible, were created in Christ; and here
1166 the Apostle makes specific mention of invisible things because
1167 Moses had made no express mention of them on account of the lack of
1168 erudition of that people, who could not be raised above the things
1169 of sense.</p>
1170 <p>Chrysostom also gives another reason why this clause was added.
1171 For someone reading in the Gospels of the many signs and miracles
1172 worked by Christ, such as, &ldquo;The blind see, the lame walk,
1173 lepers are cleansed&rdquo; (Mt 11:5), might believe that in saying,
1174 <span style="font-weight: bold">All things were made through
1175 him,</span> John meant that only the things mentioned in those
1176 Gospels, and nothing else, were made through him. So lest anyone
1177 suspect this, the Evangelist adds, <span style=
1178 "font-weight: bold">and without him nothing was made.</span> As if
1179 to say: Not only all the things contained in the Gospels were made
1180 through him, but none of the things that were made, was made
1181 without him. And so, according to Chrysostom, this clause is added
1182 to bring out his total causality, and serves, as it were, to
1183 complete his previous statement.</p>
1184 <p>85 According to Hilary, however, this clause is introduced to
1185 show that the Word has operative power from another. For since the
1186 Evangelist had said, <span style="font-weight: bold">All things
1187 were made through him,</span> it might be supposed that the Father
1188 is excluded from all causality. For that reason he added,
1189 <span style="font-weight: bold">and without him nothing was
1190 made.</span> As if to say: All things were made through him, but in
1191 such a way that the Father made all things with him. For
1192 &ldquo;without him&rdquo; is equivalent to saying, &ldquo;not
1193 alone,&rdquo; so that the meaning is: It is not he alone through
1194 whom all things were made, but he is the other one without whom
1195 nothing was made. It is as if he said: <span style=
1196 "font-weight: bold">Without him,</span> with another working, i.e.,
1197 with the Father, <span style="font-weight: bold">nothing was
1198 made,</span> as it says, &ldquo;I was with him forming all
1199 things&rdquo; (Prv 8:30).</p>
1200 <p>86 In a certain homily attributed to Origen, and which begins,
1201 &ldquo;The spiritual voice of the eagle,&rdquo; we find another
1202 rather beautiful exposition. It says there that the Greek has
1203 <i>thoris</i> where the Latin has <i>sine</i> (without). Now
1204 <i>thoris</i> is the same as &ldquo;outside&rdquo; or
1205 &ldquo;outside of.&rdquo; It is as if he had said: <span style=
1206 "font-weight: bold">All things were made through him</span> in such
1207 a way that outside him <span style="font-weight: bold">nothing was
1208 made.</span> And so he says this to show that all things are
1209 conserved through the Word and in the Word, as stated in Hebrews (
1210 1:3), &ldquo;He sustains all things by his powerful word.&rdquo;
1211 Now there are certain things that do not need their producer except
1212 to bring them into existence, since after they have been produced
1213 they are able to subsist without any further activity on the part
1214 of the producer. For example, a house needs a builder if it is to
1215 come into existence, but it continues to exist without any further
1216 action on the part of the builder. So lest anyone suppose that all
1217 things were made through the Word in such a way that he is merely
1218 the cause of their production and not of their continuation in
1219 existence, the Evangelist added, <span style=
1220 "font-weight: bold">and without him nothing was made,</span> i.e.,
1221 nothing was made outside of him, because he encompasses all things,
1222 preserving them.</p>
1223 <p>87 This clause is also explained by Augustine and Origen and
1224 several others in such a way that &ldquo;nothing&rdquo; indicates
1225 sin. Accordingly, because <span style="font-weight: bold">All
1226 things were made through him</span> might be interpreted as
1227 including evil and sin, he added, <span style=
1228 "font-weight: bold">and without him nothing,</span> i.e., sin,
1229 <span style="font-weight: bold">was made.</span> For just as art is
1230 not the principle or cause of the defects in its products, but is
1231 through itself the cause of their perfection and form, so the Word,
1232 who is the art of the Father, full of living archetypes, is not the
1233 cause of any evil or disarrangement in things, particularly of the
1234 evil of sin, which carries the full notion of evil. The <i>per
1235 se</i> cause of this evil is the will of the creature, either a man
1236 or an angel, freely declining from the end to which it is ordained
1237 by its nature. One who can act in virtue of his art but purposely
1238 violates it, is the cause of the defects occurring in his works,
1239 not by reason of his art, but by reason of his will. So in such
1240 cases, his art is not the source or cause of the defects, but his
1241 will is. Consequently, evil is a defect of the will and not of any
1242 art. And so to the extent that it is such [i.e., a defect], it is
793 nothing.</p> 1243 nothing.</p>
794 <p>88 So then, this clause is added to show the universal causality of the Word, according to 1244 <p>88 So then, this clause is added to show the universal causality
795 Chrysostom; his association with the Father, according to Hilary; the power of the Word in 1245 of the Word, according to Chrysostom; his association with the
796 the preserving of things, according to Origen; and finally, the purity of his causality, because 1246 Father, according to Hilary; the power of the Word in the
797 he is so the cause of good as not to be the cause of sin, according to Augustine, Origen, and a 1247 preserving of things, according to Origen; and finally, the purity
798 number of others.</p> 1248 of his causality, because he is so the cause of good as not to be
799 <p>89 Then he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">What was made in him was life; </span>and this is the third clause. Here we must 1249 the cause of sin, according to Augustine, Origen, and a number of
800 avoid the false interpretation of Manichaeus, who was led by this to maintain that everything 1250 others.</p>
801 that exists is alive: for example, stones, wood, men, and anything else in the world. He 1251 <p>89 Then he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">What was made
802 understood the clause this way: <span style="font-weight: bold">What was made in him, </span>comma, <span style="font-weight: bold">was life. </span>But it was not life 1252 in him was life;</span> and this is the third clause. Here we must
803 unless alive. Therefore, whatever was made in him is alive. He also claimed that &#8220;in him&#8221; is 1253 avoid the false interpretation of Manichaeus, who was led by this
804 the same as saying &#8220;through him,&#8221; since very often in Scripture &#8220;in him&#8221; and &#8220;through him&#8221; 1254 to maintain that everything that exists is alive: for example,
805 are interchangeable, as in &#8220;in him and through him all things were created&#8221; (Col 1:16). 1255 stones, wood, men, and anything else in the world. He understood
806 However, our present explanation shows that this interpretation is false.</p> 1256 the clause this way: <span style="font-weight: bold">What was made
807 <p>90 There are, nevertheless, a number of ways to explain it without error. In that homily, &#8220;The 1257 in him,</span> comma, <span style="font-weight: bold">was
808 spiritual voice,&#8221; we find this explanation: <span style="font-weight: bold">What was made in him, </span>i.e., through him, <span style="font-weight: bold">was 1258 life.</span> But it was not life unless alive. Therefore, whatever
809 life, </span>not in each thing itself, but in its cause. For in the case of all things that are caused, it is 1259 was made in him is alive. He also claimed that &ldquo;in him&rdquo;
810 always true that effects, whether produced by nature or by will, exist in their causes, not 1260 is the same as saying &ldquo;through him,&rdquo; since very often
811 according to their own existence, but according to the power of their appropriate cause. Thus, 1261 in Scripture &ldquo;in him&rdquo; and &ldquo;through him&rdquo; are
812 lower effects are in the sun as in their cause, not according to their respective existences but 1262 interchangeable, as in &ldquo;in him and through him all things
813 according to the power of the sun. Therefore, since the cause of all effects produced by God is 1263 were created&rdquo; (Col 1:16). However, our present explanation
814 a certain life and an art full of living archetypes, for this reason <span style="font-weight: bold">What was made in him, </span>i.e., 1264 shows that this interpretation is false.</p>
815 through him, <span style="font-weight: bold">was life, </span>in its cause, i.e., in God.</p> 1265 <p>90 There are, nevertheless, a number of ways to explain it
816 <p>91 Augustine reads this another way, as: <span style="font-weight: bold">What was made, </span>comma, <span style="font-weight: bold">in him was life. </span>For 1266 without error. In that homily, &ldquo;The spiritual voice,&rdquo;
817 things can be considered in two ways: as they are in themselves, and as they are in the Word. 1267 we find this explanation: <span style="font-weight: bold">What was
818 If they are considered as they are in themselves, then it is not true that all things are life or 1268 made in him,</span> i.e., through him, <span style=
819 even alive, but some lack life and some are alive. For example, the earth was made and 1269 "font-weight: bold">was life,</span> not in each thing itself, but
820 metals were made, but none is life, none is living; animals and men were made, and these, 1270 in its cause. For in the case of all things that are caused, it is
821 considered in themselves, are not life, but merely living. Yet considered as they are in the 1271 always true that effects, whether produced by nature or by will,
822 Word, they are not merely living, but also life. For the archetypes which exist spiritually in 1272 exist in their causes, not according to their own existence, but
823 the wisdom of God, and through which things were made by the Word, are life, just as a chest 1273 according to the power of their appropriate cause. Thus, lower
824 made by an artisan is in itself neither alive nor life, yet the exemplar of the chest in the 1274 effects are in the sun as in their cause, not according to their
825 artisan&#8217;s mind prior to the existence of the chest is in some sense living, insofar as it has an 1275 respective existences but according to the power of the sun.
826 intellectual existence in the mind of the artisan. Nevertheless it is not life, because it is neither 1276 Therefore, since the cause of all effects produced by God is a
827 in his essence nor is it his existence through the act of understanding of the artisan. But in 1277 certain life and an art full of living archetypes, for this reason
828 God, his act of understanding is his life and his essence. And so whatever is in God is not 1278 <span style="font-weight: bold">What was made in him,</span> i.e.,
829 only living, but is life itself, because whatever is in God is his essence. Hence the creature in 1279 through him, <span style="font-weight: bold">was life,</span> in
830 God is the creating essence. Thus, if things are considered as they are in the Word, they are 1280 its cause, i.e., in God.</p>
831 life. This is explained in another place.</p> 1281 <p>91 Augustine reads this another way, as: <span style=
832 <p>92 Origen, commenting on John, gives another reading, thus: <span style="font-weight: bold">That which was made in him; 1282 "font-weight: bold">What was made,</span> comma, <span style=
833 </span>and then, <span style="font-weight: bold">was life. </span>Here we should note that some things are said of the Son of God as such; 1283 "font-weight: bold">in him was life.</span> For things can be
834 for example, that he is God, omnipotent, and the like. And some things are said of him in 1284 considered in two ways: as they are in themselves, and as they are
835 relation to ourselves; for example, we say he is Savior and Redeemer. Some things are said in 1285 in the Word. If they are considered as they are in themselves, then
836 both ways, such as wisdom and justice. Now in all things said absolutely and of the Son as 1286 it is not true that all things are life or even alive, but some
837 such, it is not said that he was &#8220;made&#8221;, for example, we do not say that the Son was made 1287 lack life and some are alive. For example, the earth was made and
838 God or omnipotent. But in things said in reference to us, or in both ways, the notion of being 1288 metals were made, but none is life, none is living; animals and men
839 made can be used, as in, &#8220;God made him [Jesus Christ] our wisdom, our justice, our 1289 were made, and these, considered in themselves, are not life, but
840 sanctification and redemption&#8221; (1 Cor 1:30). And so, although he was always wisdom and 1290 merely living. Yet considered as they are in the Word, they are not
841 justice in himself, yet it can be said that he was newly made justice and wisdom for us.</p> 1291 merely living, but also life. For the archetypes which exist
842 <p>And so Origen, explaining it along these lines, says that although in himself the Son is life, 1292 spiritually in the wisdom of God, and through which things were
843 yet he was made life for us by the fact that he gave us life, as is said, &#8220;Just as in Adam all die, 1293 made by the Word, are life, just as a chest made by an artisan is
844 so in Christ all will come to life&#8221; (1 Cor 15:22). And so he says &#8220;the Word that was made&#8221; 1294 in itself neither alive nor life, yet the exemplar of the chest in
845 life for us <span style="font-weight: bold">in himself was life, </span>so that after a time he could become life for us; and so he 1295 the artisan&rsquo;s mind prior to the existence of the chest is in
846 immediately adds, <span style="font-weight: bold">and that life was the light of men.</span></p> 1296 some sense living, insofar as it has an intellectual existence in
847 <p>93 Hilary reads the clause differently, thus: <span style="font-weight: bold">And without him was made nothing, which 1297 the mind of the artisan. Nevertheless it is not life, because it is
848 was made in him, </span>and later it says, <span style="font-weight: bold">he was life. </span>For he says (<i>The Trinity </i>II) that when the 1298 neither in his essence nor is it his existence through the act of
849 Evangelist says <span style="font-weight: bold">without him nothing was made, </span>one might be perplexed and ask whether 1299 understanding of the artisan. But in God, his act of understanding
850 there are still other things made by him, that were not made through him, although not 1300 is his life and his essence. And so whatever is in God is not only
851 without him, but with respect to which he was associated with the maker; and this clause is 1301 living, but is life itself, because whatever is in God is his
852 added to correct the aforesaid error. Therefore lest this be so understood, when the Evangelist 1302 essence. Hence the creature in God is the creating essence. Thus,
853 says, <span style="font-weight: bold">All things were made through him, </span>he adds, <span style="font-weight: bold">and without him nothing was made, 1303 if things are considered as they are in the Word, they are life.
854 </span>which was made, in him, that is, through him; and the reason for this is that <span style="font-weight: bold">he was life.</span></p> 1304 This is explained in another place.</p>
855 <p>For it is plain that all things are said to have been made through the Word inasmuch as the 1305 <p>92 Origen, commenting on John, gives another reading, thus:
856 Word, who proceeds from the Father, is God. But let us suppose that some father has a son 1306 <span style="font-weight: bold">That which was made in him;</span>
857 who does not perfectly exercise the operations of a man, but reaches such a state gradually. In 1307 and then, <span style="font-weight: bold">was life.</span> Here we
858 that case the father will do many things, not through the son, yet not without [having] him. 1308 should note that some things are said of the Son of God as such;
859 Since, therefore, the Son of God has from all eternity the same life that the Father has&#8212;&#8220;Just 1309 for example, that he is God, omnipotent, and the like. And some
860 as the Father possesses life in himself, so has he granted it to the Son to have life in himself&#8221; 1310 things are said of him in relation to ourselves; for example, we
861 (below 5:26)&#8212;one cannot say that God the Father, although he made nothing without the 1311 say he is Savior and Redeemer. Some things are said in both ways,
862 Son, nevertheless made some things not through him, because he was life. For in living things 1312 such as wisdom and justice. Now in all things said absolutely and
863 which participate life, it can happen that imperfect life precedes perfect life; but in <i>per se </i>life, 1313 of the Son as such, it is not said that he was &ldquo;made&rdquo;,
864 which does not participate life but is simply and absolutely life, there can be no imperfection 1314 for example, we do not say that the Son was made God or omnipotent.
865 at all. Accordingly, because the Word is <i>per se </i>life, there was never imperfect life in him, but 1315 But in things said in reference to us, or in both ways, the notion
866 always perfect life. And so in such a way that nothing was made without him that was not 1316 of being made can be used, as in, &ldquo;God made him [Jesus
867 also made in him, i.e., through him.</p> 1317 Christ] our wisdom, our justice, our sanctification and
868 <p>94 Chrysostom has a different reading and punctuation, thus: <span style="font-weight: bold">And without him was made 1318 redemption&rdquo; (1 Cor 1:30). And so, although he was always
869 nothing that was made. </span>The reason for this is that someone might believe that the Holy 1319 wisdom and justice in himself, yet it can be said that he was newly
870 Spirit was made through the Word. So to exclude this, the Evangelist says, <span style="font-weight: bold">that was made, 1320 made justice and wisdom for us.</p>
871 </span>because the Holy Spirit is not something that is made. And afterward follows, <span style="font-weight: bold">In him was 1321 <p>And so Origen, explaining it along these lines, says that
872 life, </span>which is introduced for two reasons. First, to show that after the creation of all things his 1322 although in himself the Son is life, yet he was made life for us by
873 causality was indefectible not only with respect to the things already produced, but also with 1323 the fact that he gave us life, as is said, &ldquo;Just as in Adam
874 respect to things yet to be produced. As if to say: <span style="font-weight: bold">In him was life, </span>by which he could not only 1324 all die, so in Christ all will come to life&rdquo; (1 Cor 15:22).
875 produce all things, but which has an unfailing flow and a causality for producing things 1325 And so he says &ldquo;the Word that was made&rdquo; life for us
876 continually without undergoing any change, being a living fountain which is not diminished 1326 <span style="font-weight: bold">in himself was life,</span> so that
877 in spite of its continuous outflow; whereas collected water, that is not living [i..e., running] 1327 after a time he could become life for us; and so he immediately
878 water, is diminished when it flows out, and is used up. So the Psalm (35:10) says, &#8220;With you 1328 adds, <span style="font-weight: bold">and that life was the light
879 is the fountain of life.&#8221; The second reason is to show that things are governed by the: Word. 1329 of men.</span></p>
880 For since <span style="font-weight: bold">In him was life, </span>this shows that he produced things by his intellect and will, not by 1330 <p>93 Hilary reads the clause differently, thus: <span style=
881 a necessity of his nature, and that he governs the things he made. &#8220;The Word of God is 1331 "font-weight: bold">And without him was made nothing, which was
882 living&#8221; (Heb 4:12).</p> 1332 made in him,</span> and later it says, <span style=
883 <p>Chrysostom is held in such esteem by the Greeks in his explanations that they admit no other 1333 "font-weight: bold">he was life.</span> For he says (<i>The
884 where he expounded anything in Holy Scripture. For this reason, this passage in all the Greek 1334 Trinity</i> II) that when the Evangelist says <span style=
885 works is found to be punctuated exactly as Chrysostom did, namely, <span style="font-weight: bold">And without him was 1335 "font-weight: bold">without him nothing was made,</span> one might
886 made nothing that was made.</span></p> 1336 be perplexed and ask whether there are still other things made by
887 <p style="margin-bottom: 0.125in; margin-bottom: 0.125in">&#160;</p> 1337 him, that were not made through him, although not without him, but
888 <CENTER><p><span style="font-weight: bold">LECTURE 3</span></p> 1338 with respect to which he was associated with the maker; and this
889 <p>4b And that life was the light of men.<BR> 1339 clause is added to correct the aforesaid error. Therefore lest this
890 5 And the light shines in the darkness,<BR> 1340 be so understood, when the Evangelist says, <span style=
891 and the darkness did not overcome it.</p></CENTER> 1341 "font-weight: bold">All things were made through him,</span> he
892 <p>95 Above, the Evangelist described the power of the Word insofar as he brought all things 1342 adds, <span style="font-weight: bold">and without him nothing was
893 into existence; here he describes his power as it is related to men, saying that this Word is a 1343 made,</span> which was made, in him, that is, through him; and the
894 light to men. First, he introduces a certain light to us (v 4b); secondly, the light&#8217;s irradiation 1344 reason for this is that <span style="font-weight: bold">he was
895 (v 5a); thirdly, participation in the light (v 5b). This whole section may be explained in two 1345 life.</span></p>
896 ways: first, according to the influx of natural knowledge; secondly, according to participation 1346 <p>For it is plain that all things are said to have been made
897 in grace.</p> 1347 through the Word inasmuch as the Word, who proceeds from the
898 <p>As to the first point he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">And that life was the light of men.</span></p> 1348 Father, is God. But let us suppose that some father has a son who
899 <p>96 Here we should note first that, according to Augustine and many others, light is more 1349 does not perfectly exercise the operations of a man, but reaches
900 properly said of spiritual things than of sensible things. Ambrose, however, thinks that 1350 such a state gradually. In that case the father will do many
901 brightness is said metaphorically of God. But this is not a great issue, for in whatever way the 1351 things, not through the son, yet not without [having] him. Since,
902 name &#8220;light&#8221; is used, it implies a manifestation, whether that manifesting concerns intelligible 1352 therefore, the Son of God has from all eternity the same life that
903 or sensible things. If we compare sensible and intelligible manifestation, then, according to 1353 the Father has&mdash;&ldquo;Just as the Father possesses life in
904 the nature of things, light is found first in spiritual things. But for us, who give names to 1354 himself, so has he granted it to the Son to have life in
905 things on the basis of their properties as known to us, light is discovered first in sensible 1355 himself&rdquo; (below 5:26)&mdash;one cannot say that God the
906 things, because we first used this name to signify sensible light before intelligible light; 1356 Father, although he made nothing without the Son, nevertheless made
907 although as to power, light belongs to spiritual things in a prior and truer way than to sensible 1357 some things not through him, because he was life. For in living
908 things.</p> 1358 things which participate life, it can happen that imperfect life
909 <p>97 To clarify the statement, <span style="font-weight: bold">And that life was the light of men, </span>we should remark that there 1359 precedes perfect life; but in <i>per se</i> life, which does not
910 are many grades of life. For some things live, but do so without light, because they have no 1360 participate life but is simply and absolutely life, there can be no
911 knowledge; for example, plants. Hence their life is not light. Other things both live and know, 1361 imperfection at all. Accordingly, because the Word is <i>per se</i>
912 but their knowledge, since it is on the sense level, is concerned only with individual and 1362 life, there was never imperfect life in him, but always perfect
913 material things, as is the case with the brutes. So they have both life and a certain light. But 1363 life. And so in such a way that nothing was made without him that
914 they do not have the light of men, who live, and know, not only truths, but also the very 1364 was not also made in him, i.e., through him.</p>
915 nature of truth itself. Such are rational creatures, to whom not only this or that are made 1365 <p>94 Chrysostom has a different reading and punctuation, thus:
916 manifest, but truth itself, which can be manifested and is manifestive to all.</p> 1366 <span style="font-weight: bold">And without him was made nothing
917 <p>And so the Evangelist, speaking of the Word, not only says that he is life but also <span style="font-weight: bold">light, </span>lest 1367 that was made.</span> The reason for this is that someone might
918 anyone suppose he means life without knowledge. And he says that he is the <span style="font-weight: bold">light of men, 1368 believe that the Holy Spirit was made through the Word. So to
919 </span>lest anyone suppose he meant only sensible knowledge, such as exists in the brutes.</p> 1369 exclude this, the Evangelist says, <span style=
920 <p>98 But since he is also the light of angels, why did he say, of men? Two answers have been 1370 "font-weight: bold">that was made,</span> because the Holy Spirit
921 given to this. Chrysostom says that the Evangelist intended in this Gospel to give us a 1371 is not something that is made. And afterward follows, <span style=
922 knowledge of the Word precisely as directed to the salvation of men and therefore refers, in 1372 "font-weight: bold">In him was life,</span> which is introduced for
923 keeping with his aim, more to men than to angels. Origen, however, says that participation in 1373 two reasons. First, to show that after the creation of all things
924 this light pertains to men insofar as they have a rational nature; accordingly, when the 1374 his causality was indefectible not only with respect to the things
925 Evangelist says, <span style="font-weight: bold">the light of men, </span>he wants us to understand every rational nature. </p> 1375 already produced, but also with respect to things yet to be
926 <p>99 We also see from this the perfection and dignity of this life, because it is intellectual or 1376 produced. As if to say: <span style="font-weight: bold">In him was
927 rational. For whereas all things that in some way move themselves are called living, only 1377 life,</span> by which he could not only produce all things, but
928 those that perfectly move themselves are said to have perfect life; and among lower creatures 1378 which has an unfailing flow and a causality for producing things
929 only man moves himself, properly speaking, and perfectly. For although other things are 1379 continually without undergoing any change, being a living fountain
930 moved by themselves by some inner principle, that inner principle is nevertheless not open to 1380 which is not diminished in spite of its continuous outflow; whereas
931 opposite alternatives; hence they are not moved freely but from necessity. As a result, those 1381 collected water, that is not living [i..e., running] water, is
932 things that are moved by such a principle are more truly made to act than act themselves. But 1382 diminished when it flows out, and is used up. So the Psalm (35:10)
933 man, since he is master of his act, moves himself freely to all that he wills. Consequently, 1383 says, &ldquo;With you is the fountain of life.&rdquo; The second
934 man has perfect life, as does every intellectual nature. And so the life of the Word, which is 1384 reason is to show that things are governed by the: Word. For since
935 the light of men, is perfect life.</p> 1385 <span style="font-weight: bold">In him was life,</span> this shows
936 <p>100 We find a fitting order in the above. For in the natural order of things, existence is first; 1386 that he produced things by his intellect and will, not by a
937 and the Evangelist implies this in his first statement, <span style="font-weight: bold">In the beginning was the Word. 1387 necessity of his nature, and that he governs the things he made.
938 </span>Secondly, comes life; and this is mentioned next, <span style="font-weight: bold">In him was life. </span>Thirdly comes 1388 &ldquo;The Word of God is living&rdquo; (Heb 4:12).</p>
939 understanding; and that is mentioned next; <span style="font-weight: bold">And that life was the light of men. </span>And, 1389 <p>Chrysostom is held in such esteem by the Greeks in his
940 according to Origen, he fittingly attributes light to life because light can be attributed only to 1390 explanations that they admit no other where he expounded anything
941 the living.</p> 1391 in Holy Scripture. For this reason, this passage in all the Greek
942 <p>101 We should note that light can be related in two ways to what is living: as an object and as 1392 works is found to be punctuated exactly as Chrysostom did, namely,
943 something in which they participate, as is clear in external sight. For the eyes know external 1393 <span style="font-weight: bold">And without him was made nothing
944 light as an object, but if they are to see it, they must participate in an inner light by which the 1394 that was made.</span></p>
945 eyes are adapted and disposed for seeing the external light. And so his statement, <span style="font-weight: bold">And that 1395 <p style="margin-bottom: 0.125in; margin-bottom: 0.125in">
946 life was the light of men, </span>can be understood in two ways. First, that the <span style="font-weight: bold">light of men </span>is taken 1396 &nbsp;</p>
947 as an object that man alone can look upon, because the rational creature alone can see it, since 1397 <center>
948 he alone is capable of the vision of God who &#8220;teaches us more than the beasts of the earth, 1398 <p><span style="font-weight: bold">LECTURE 3</span></p>
949 and enlightens us more than the birds of the air&#8221; Jb 35:11); for although other animals may 1399 <p>4b And that life was the light of men.<br />
950 know certain things that are true, nevertheless, man alone knows the nature itself of truth.</p> 1400 5 And the light shines in the darkness,<br />
951 <p>The <span style="font-weight: bold">light of men </span>can also be taken as a light in which we participate. For we would never be 1401 and the darkness did not overcome it.</p>
952 able to look upon the Word and light itself except through a participation in it; and this 1402 </center>
953 participation is in man and is the superior part of our soul, i.e., the intellectual light, about 1403 <p>95 Above, the Evangelist described the power of the Word insofar
954 which the Psalm (4:7) says, &#8220;The light of your countenance, O Lord, is marked upon us,&#8221; i.e., 1404 as he brought all things into existence; here he describes his
955 of your Son, who is your face, by whom you are manifested.</p> 1405 power as it is related to men, saying that this Word is a light to
956 <p>102 Having introduced a certain light, the Evangelist now considers its irradiation, saying, 1406 men. First, he introduces a certain light to us (v 4b); secondly,
957 And the light shines in the darkness. This can be explained in two ways, according to the two 1407 the light&rsquo;s irradiation (v 5a); thirdly, participation in the
958 meanings of &#8220;darkness.&#8221;</p> 1408 light (v 5b). This whole section may be explained in two ways:
959 <p>First, we might take &#8220;darkness&#8221; as a natural defect, that of the created mind. For the mind is 1409 first, according to the influx of natural knowledge; secondly,
960 to that light of which the Evangelist speaks here as air is to the light of the sun; because, 1410 according to participation in grace.</p>
961 although air is receptive of the light of the sun, considered in itself it is a darkness. According 1411 <p>As to the first point he says, <span style=
962 to this the meaning is: the light, i.e., that life which is the light of men, shines in the darkness, 1412 "font-weight: bold">And that life was the light of men.</span></p>
963 i.e., in created souls and minds, by always shedding its light on all. &#8220;On a man from whom 1413 <p>96 Here we should note first that, according to Augustine and
964 the light is hidden&#8221; (Jb 3:23).</p> 1414 many others, light is more properly said of spiritual things than
965 <p><span style="font-weight: bold">And the darkness did not overcome it, </span>i.e., enclose it [i.e., intellectually]. For to overcome 1415 of sensible things. Ambrose, however, thinks that brightness is
966 something [<i>comprehendere, </i>to overcome, to comprehend, to seize or apprehend, and so 1416 said metaphorically of God. But this is not a great issue, for in
967 forth], is to enclose and understand its boundaries. As Augustine says, to reach God with the 1417 whatever way the name &ldquo;light&rdquo; is used, it implies a
968 mind is a great happiness; but to overcome [comprehend] him is impossible. And so, the 1418 manifestation, whether that manifesting concerns intelligible or
969 darkness did not overcome it. &#8220;Behold, God is great, exceeding our knowledge&#8221; (Jb 36:26); 1419 sensible things. If we compare sensible and intelligible
970 &#8220;Great in counsel, incomprehensible in thought&#8221; as Jeremiah (32:19) says. This explanation is 1420 manifestation, then, according to the nature of things, light is
971 found in that homily which begins, &#8220;The spiritual voice of the eagle.&#8221;</p> 1421 found first in spiritual things. But for us, who give names to
972 <p>103 We can explain this passage in another way by taking &#8220;darkness&#8221; as Augustine does, for 1422 things on the basis of their properties as known to us, light is
973 the natural lack of wisdom in man, which is called a darkness. &#8220;And I saw that wisdom 1423 discovered first in sensible things, because we first used this
974 excells folly as much as light excells knowledge&#8221; (Ecc 2:13). Someone is without wisdom, 1424 name to signify sensible light before intelligible light; although
975 therefore, because he lacks the light of divine wisdom. Consequently, just as the minds of the 1425 as to power, light belongs to spiritual things in a prior and truer
976 wise are lucid by reason of a participation in that divine light and wisdom, so by the lack of it 1426 way than to sensible things.</p>
977 they are darkness. Now the fact that some are darkness is not due to a defect in that light, 1427 <p>97 To clarify the statement, <span style="font-weight: bold">And
978 since on its part it shines in the darkness and radiates upon all. Rather, the foolish are 1428 that life was the light of men,</span> we should remark that there
979 &#8216;without that light because <span style="font-weight: bold">the darkness did not overcome it, </span>i.e., they did not apprehend it, 1429 are many grades of life. For some things live, but do so without
980 not being able to attain a participation in it due to their foolishness; after having been lifted 1430 light, because they have no knowledge; for example, plants. Hence
981 up, they did not persevere. &#8220;From the savage,&#8221; i.e., from the proud, &#8220;he hides his light,&#8221; i.e., 1431 their life is not light. Other things both live and know, but their
982 the light of wisdom, &#8220;and shows his friend that it belongs to him, and that he may approach 1432 knowledge, since it is on the sense level, is concerned only with
983 it&#8221; (Jb 36:32); &#8220;They did not know the way to wisdom, nor did they remember her paths&#8221; (Bar 1433 individual and material things, as is the case with the brutes. So
984 3:23).</p> 1434 they have both life and a certain light. But they do not have the
985 <p>Although some minds are darkness, i.e., they lack savory and lucid wisdom, nevertheless no 1435 light of men, who live, and know, not only truths, but also the
986 man is in such darkness as to be completely devoid of divine light, because whatever truth is 1436 very nature of truth itself. Such are rational creatures, to whom
987 know by anyone is due to a participation in that light which shines in the darkness; for every 1437 not only this or that are made manifest, but truth itself, which
988 truth, no matter by whom it is spoken, comes from the Holy Spirit. Yet the darkness, i.e., men 1438 can be manifested and is manifestive to all.</p>
989 in darkness, did not overcome it, apprehend it in truth. This is the way, [ i.e., with respect to 1439 <p>And so the Evangelist, speaking of the Word, not only says that
990 the natural influx of knowledge] that Origen and Augustine explain this clause.</p> 1440 he is life but also <span style="font-weight: bold">light,</span>
991 <p>104 Starting from <span style="font-weight: bold">And that life was the light of men, </span>we can explain this in another way, 1441 lest anyone suppose he means life without knowledge. And he says
992 according to the influx of grace, since we are illuminated by Christ.</p> 1442 that he is the <span style="font-weight: bold">light of men,</span>
993 <p>After he had considered the creation of things through the Word, the Evangelist considers 1443 lest anyone suppose he meant only sensible knowledge, such as
994 here the restoration of the rational creature through Christ, saying, <span style="font-weight: bold">And that life, </span>of the Word, 1444 exists in the brutes.</p>
995 was the <span style="font-weight: bold">light of </span>men, i.e., of all men in general, and not only of the Jews. For the Son of God 1445 <p>98 But since he is also the light of angels, why did he say, of
996 assumed flesh and came into the world to illumine all men with grace and truth. &#8220;I came into 1446 men? Two answers have been given to this. Chrysostom says that the
997 the world for this, to testify to the truth&#8221; (below 18:37); &#8220;As long as I am in the world I am 1447 Evangelist intended in this Gospel to give us a knowledge of the
998 the light of the world&#8221; (below 9:5). So he does not say, &#8220;the light of the Jews,&#8221; because 1448 Word precisely as directed to the salvation of men and therefore
999 although previously he had been known only in Judea, he later became known to the world. &#8220;I 1449 refers, in keeping with his aim, more to men than to angels.
1000 have given you as a light to the nations, that you might be my salvation to the ends of the 1450 Origen, however, says that participation in this light pertains to
1001 earth&#8221; (Is 49:6).</p> 1451 men insofar as they have a rational nature; accordingly, when the
1002 <p>It was fitting to join light and life by saying, <span style="font-weight: bold">And that life was the light of men, </span>in order to 1452 Evangelist says, <span style="font-weight: bold">the light of
1003 show that these two have come to us through Christ: life, through a participation in grace, 1453 men,</span> he wants us to understand every rational nature.</p>
1004 &#8220;Grace and truth have come through Jesus Christ&#8221; (below 1:17); and light, by a knowledge of 1454 <p>99 We also see from this the perfection and dignity of this
1005 truth and wisdom.</p> 1455 life, because it is intellectual or rational. For whereas all
1006 <p>105 According to this explanation, <span style="font-weight: bold">the light shines in the darkness, </span>can be expounded in 1456 things that in some way move themselves are called living, only
1007 three ways, in the light of the three meanings of &#8220;darkness.&#8221;</p> 1457 those that perfectly move themselves are said to have perfect life;
1008 <p>In one way, we can take &#8220;darkness&#8221; for punishment. For any sadness and suffering of heart 1458 and among lower creatures only man moves himself, properly
1009 can be called a darkness, just as any joy can be called a light. &#8220;When I sit in darkness and in 1459 speaking, and perfectly. For although other things are moved by
1010 suffering the Lord is my light,&#8221; i.e., my joy and consolation (Mi 7:8). And so Origen says: In 1460 themselves by some inner principle, that inner principle is
1011 this explanation, <span style="font-weight: bold">the light shines in the darkness, </span>is Christ coming into the world, having a 1461 nevertheless not open to opposite alternatives; hence they are not
1012 body capable of suffering and without sin, but &#8220;in the likeness of sinful flesh&#8221; (Rom 8:3). The 1462 moved freely but from necessity. As a result, those things that are
1013 light is in the flesh, that is, the flesh of Christ, which is called a darkness insofar as it has a 1463 moved by such a principle are more truly made to act than act
1014 likeness to sinful flesh. As if to say: The light, i.e., the Word of God, veiled about by the 1464 themselves. But man, since he is master of his act, moves himself
1015 darkness of the flesh, shines on the world; &#8220;I will cover the sun with a cloud&#8221; (Ez 32:7).</p> 1465 freely to all that he wills. Consequently, man has perfect life, as
1016 <p>106 Secondly, we can take &#8220;darkness&#8221; to mean the devils, as in Ephesians (6:12), &#8220;Our 1466 does every intellectual nature. And so the life of the Word, which
1017 struggle is not against flesh and blood; but against principalities and powers, against the 1467 is the light of men, is perfect life.</p>
1018 rulers of the world of this darkness.&#8221; Looked at this way he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">the light, </span>i.e., the Son of 1468 <p>100 We find a fitting order in the above. For in the natural
1019 God, <span style="font-weight: bold">shines in the darkness, </span>i.e., has descended into the world where darkness, i.e., the 1469 order of things, existence is first; and the Evangelist implies
1020 devils, hold sway: &#8220;Now the prince of this world will be cast out&#8221; (below 12:31). <span style="font-weight: bold">And the 1470 this in his first statement, <span style="font-weight: bold">In the
1021 darkness, </span>i.e., the devils, <span style="font-weight: bold">did not overcome it, </span>i.e., were unable to obscure him by their 1471 beginning was the Word.</span> Secondly, comes life; and this is
1022 temptations, as is plain in Matthew (c 4)</p> 1472 mentioned next, <span style="font-weight: bold">In him was
1023 <p>107 Thirdly, we can take &#8220;darkness&#8221; for the error or ignorance which filled the whole world 1473 life.</span> Thirdly comes understanding; and that is mentioned
1024 before the coming of Christ, &#8220;You were at one time darkness&#8221; (Eph 5:8). And so he says that 1474 next; <span style="font-weight: bold">And that life was the light
1025 <span style="font-weight: bold">the light, </span>i.e., the incarnate Word of God, <span style="font-weight: bold">shines in the darkness, </span>i.e., upon the men of the 1475 of men.</span> And, according to Origen, he fittingly attributes
1026 world, who are blinded by the darkness or error and ignorance. &#8220;To enlighten those who sit in 1476 light to life because light can be attributed only to the
1027 darkness and in the shadow of death&#8221; (Lk 1:79), &#8220;The people who were sitting in darkness 1477 living.</p>
1028 saw a great light&#8221; (Is 9:2).</p> 1478 <p>101 We should note that light can be related in two ways to what
1029 <p><span style="font-weight: bold">And the darkness did not overcome it, </span>i.e., did not overcome him. For in spite of the 1479 is living: as an object and as something in which they participate,
1030 number of men darkened by sin, blinded by envy, shadowed over by pride, who have 1480 as is clear in external sight. For the eyes know external light as
1031 struggled against Christ (as is plain from the Gospel) by upbraiding him, heaping insults and 1481 an object, but if they are to see it, they must participate in an
1032 calumnies upon him, and finally killing him, nevertheless they did not overcome it, i.e., gain 1482 inner light by which the eyes are adapted and disposed for seeing
1033 the victory of so obscuring him that his brightness would not shine throughout the whole 1483 the external light. And so his statement, <span style=
1034 world. Wisdom (7:30) says, &#8220;Compared to light, she takes precedence, for night supplants it, 1484 "font-weight: bold">And that life was the light of men,</span> can
1035 but wisdom,&#8221; that is, the incarnate Son of God, &#8220;is not overcome by wickedness,&#8221; that is, of 1485 be understood in two ways. First, that the <span style=
1036 the Jews and of heretics, because it says, &#8220;She gave him the prize for his stern struggle that he 1486 "font-weight: bold">light of men</span> is taken as an object that
1037 might know that wisdom is mightier than all else&#8221; (Wis 10:12).</p> 1487 man alone can look upon, because the rational creature alone can
1038 <p style="margin-bottom: 0.125in; margin-bottom: 0.125in">&#160;</p> 1488 see it, since he alone is capable of the vision of God who
1039 <CENTER><p>LECTURE 4</p> 1489 &ldquo;teaches us more than the beasts of the earth, and enlightens
1040 <p>6 There was a man sent by God, whose name was John.<BR> 1490 us more than the birds of the air&rdquo; Jb 35:11); for although
1041 7 He came as a witness, that he might bear witness to the light,<BR> 1491 other animals may know certain things that are true, nevertheless,
1042 so that through him all men might believe. 8 He was not the light,<BR> 1492 man alone knows the nature itself of truth.</p>
1043 but [he came] in order to bear witness to the light.</CENTER> 1493 <p>The <span style="font-weight: bold">light of men</span> can also
1044 <p>108 Above, the Evangelist considered the divinity of the Word; here he begins to consider the 1494 be taken as a light in which we participate. For we would never be
1045 incarnation of the Word. And he does two things concerning this: first, he treats of the 1495 able to look upon the Word and light itself except through a
1046 witness to the incarnate Word, or the precursor; secondly, of the coming of the Word ( 1:9). 1496 participation in it; and this participation is in man and is the
1047 As to the first, he does two things: first, he describes the precursor who comes to bear 1497 superior part of our soul, i.e., the intellectual light, about
1048 witness; secondly, he shows that he was incapable of the work of our salvation (1:8).</p> 1498 which the Psalm (4:7) says, &ldquo;The light of your countenance, O
1049 <p>He describes the precursor in four ways. First, according to his nature, <span style="font-weight: bold">There was a man. 1499 Lord, is marked upon us,&rdquo; i.e., of your Son, who is your
1050 </span>Secondly, as to his authority, <span style="font-weight: bold">sent by God. </span>I&#8217;hirdly, as to his suitability for the office, <span style="font-weight: bold">whose 1500 face, by whom you are manifested.</p>
1051 name was John. </span>Fourthly, as to the dignity of his office, <span style="font-weight: bold">He came as a witness.</span></p> 1501 <p>102 Having introduced a certain light, the Evangelist now
1052 <p>109 We should note with respect to the first that, as soon as the Evangelist begins speaking of 1502 considers its irradiation, saying, And the light shines in the
1053 something temporal, he changes his manner of speech. When speaking above of eternal 1503 darkness. This can be explained in two ways, according to the two
1054 things, he used the word &#8220;was&#8221; (<i>erat</i>), which is the past imperfect tense; and this indicates 1504 meanings of &ldquo;darkness.&rdquo;</p>
1055 that eternal things are without end. But now, when he is speaking of temporal things, he uses 1505 <p>First, we might take &ldquo;darkness&rdquo; as a natural defect,
1056 &#8220;was&#8221; (<i>fuit</i>, i.e., &#8220;has been&#8221;); this indicates temporal things as having taken place in the past 1506 that of the created mind. For the mind is to that light of which
1057 and coming to an end there.</p> 1507 the Evangelist speaks here as air is to the light of the sun;
1058 <p>110 And so he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">There was a man </span>(<i>Fuit homo</i>). This excludes at the very start the 1508 because, although air is receptive of the light of the sun,
1059 incorrect opinion of certain heretics who were in error on the condition or nature of John. 1509 considered in itself it is a darkness. According to this the
1060 They believed that John was an angel in nature, basing themselves on the words of the Lord, 1510 meaning is: the light, i.e., that life which is the light of men,
1061 &#8220;I send my messenger [in Greek, <i>angelos</i>]<i> </i>before you, who will prepare your way&#8221; (Mt 1511 shines in the darkness, i.e., in created souls and minds, by always
1062 11:10); and the same thing is found in Mark (1:2). But the Evangelist rejects this, saying, 1512 shedding its light on all. &ldquo;On a man from whom the light is
1063 <span style="font-weight: bold">There was a man </span>by nature, not an angel. &#8220;The nature of man is known, and that he cannot 1513 hidden&rdquo; (Jb 3:23).</p>
1064 contend in judgment with one who is stronger than himself&#8221; (Ecc 6:10).</p> 1514 <p><span style="font-weight: bold">And the darkness did not
1065 <p>Now it &#8220; is fitting that a man be sent to men, for men are more easily drawn to a man, since 1515 overcome it,</span> i.e., enclose it [i.e., intellectually]. For to
1066 he is like themselves. So in Hebrews (7:28) it says, &#8220;The law appoints men, who have 1516 overcome something [<i>comprehendere,</i> to overcome, to
1067 weakness, priests.&#8221; God could have governed men through angels, but he preferred men so 1517 comprehend, to seize or apprehend, and so forth], is to enclose and
1068 that we could be more instructed by their example. And so John was a man, and not an angel.</p> 1518 understand its boundaries. As Augustine says, to reach God with the
1069 <p>11 1 John is described by his authority when it says, sent by God. Indeed, although John was 1519 mind is a great happiness; but to overcome [comprehend] him is
1070 not an angel in nature, he was so by his office, because he was sent by God. For the 1520 impossible. And so, the darkness did not overcome it.
1071 distinctive office of angels is that they are sent by God and are messengers of God. &#8220;All are 1521 &ldquo;Behold, God is great, exceeding our knowledge&rdquo; (Jb
1072 ministering spirits, sent to serve&#8221; (Heb 1:14). Hence it is that &#8220;angel&#8221; means &#8220;messenger.&#8221; 1522 36:26); &ldquo;Great in counsel, incomprehensible in thought&rdquo;
1073 And so men who are sent by God to announce something can be called angels. &#8220;Haggai the 1523 as Jeremiah (32:19) says. This explanation is found in that homily
1074 messenger of the Lord&#8221; (Hg 1:13).</p> 1524 which begins, &ldquo;The spiritual voice of the eagle.&rdquo;</p>
1075 <p>If someone is to bear witness to God, it is necessary that he be sent by God. &#8220;How can they 1525 <p>103 We can explain this passage in another way by taking
1076 preach unless they are sent?&#8221; as is said in Romans (10:15). And since they are sent by God, 1526 &ldquo;darkness&rdquo; as Augustine does, for the natural lack of
1077 they seek the things of Jesus Christ, not their own. &#8220;We do not preach ourselves, but Jesus 1527 wisdom in man, which is called a darkness. &ldquo;And I saw that
1078 Christ&#8221; (2 Cor 4:5). On the other hand, one who sends himself, and is not sent by God, seeks 1528 wisdom excells folly as much as light excells knowledge&rdquo; (Ecc
1079 his own things or those of man, and not the things of Christ. And so he says here, <span style="font-weight: bold">There was 1529 2:13). Someone is without wisdom, therefore, because he lacks the
1080 a man sent by God, </span>so that we would understand that John proclaimed something divine, not 1530 light of divine wisdom. Consequently, just as the minds of the wise
1081 human.</p> 1531 are lucid by reason of a participation in that divine light and
1082 <p>112 Note that there are three ways in which we see men sent by God. First, by an inward 1532 wisdom, so by the lack of it they are darkness. Now the fact that
1083 inspiration. &#8220;And now the Lord God has sent me, and his spirit&#8221; (Is 48:16). As if to say: I 1533 some are darkness is not due to a defect in that light, since on
1084 have been sent by God through an inward inspiration of the spirit. Secondly, by an expressed 1534 its part it shines in the darkness and radiates upon all. Rather,
1085 and clear command, perceived by the bodily senses or the imagination. Isaiah was also sent in 1535 the foolish are &lsquo;without that light because <span style=
1086 this way; and so he says, &#8220;And I heard the voice of the Lord saying, &#8216;Whom shall I send, and 1536 "font-weight: bold">the darkness did not overcome it,</span> i.e.,
1087 who will go for us?&#8217; Then I said, &#8216;Here I am! Send me&#8217;&#8221; (Is 6:8). Thirdly, by the order of a 1537 they did not apprehend it, not being able to attain a participation
1088 prelate, who acts in the place of God in this matter. &#8220;I have pardoned in the person of Christ 1538 in it due to their foolishness; after having been lifted up, they
1089 for your sake&#8221; as it says in 2 Corinthians (2:10). This is why those who are sent by a prelate 1539 did not persevere. &ldquo;From the savage,&rdquo; i.e., from the
1090 are sent by God, as Barnabas and Timothy were sent by the Apostle.</p> 1540 proud, &ldquo;he hides his light,&rdquo; i.e., the light of wisdom,
1091 <p>When it is said here, <span style="font-weight: bold">There was a man sent by </span>God, we should understand that he was sent 1541 &ldquo;and shows his friend that it belongs to him, and that he may
1092 by God through an inward inspiration, or perhaps even by an outward command. &#8220;He who 1542 approach it&rdquo; (Jb 36:32); &ldquo;They did not know the way to
1093 sent me to baptize with water had said to me: &#8216;The man on whom you see the Spirit come 1543 wisdom, nor did they remember her paths&rdquo; (Bar 3:23).</p>
1094 down and rest is the one who is to baptize with the Holy Spirit&#8217; &#8220; (below 1:33).</p> 1544 <p>Although some minds are darkness, i.e., they lack savory and
1095 <p>113 We should not understand, <span style="font-weight: bold">There was a man sent by God, </span>as some heretics did, who 1545 lucid wisdom, nevertheless no man is in such darkness as to be
1096 believed that from the very beginning human souls were created without bodies along with 1546 completely devoid of divine light, because whatever truth is know
1097 the angels, and that one&#8217;s soul is sent into the body when he is born, and that John was sent to 1547 by anyone is due to a participation in that light which shines in
1098 life, i.e., his soul was sent to a body. Rather, we should understand that he was sent by God to 1548 the darkness; for every truth, no matter by whom it is spoken,
1099 baptize and preach.</p> 1549 comes from the Holy Spirit. Yet the darkness, i.e., men in
1100 <p>114 John&#8217;s fitness is given when he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">whose name was John. </span>One must be qualified for 1550 darkness, did not overcome it, apprehend it in truth. This is the
1101 the office of bearing witness, because unless a witness is qualified, then no matter in what 1551 way, [ i.e., with respect to the natural influx of knowledge] that
1102 way he is sent by another, his testimony is not acceptable. Now a man becomes qualified by 1552 Origen and Augustine explain this clause.</p>
1103 the grace, of God. &#8220;By the grace of God I am what I am&#8221; (1 Cor 15:10); &#8220;who has made us fit 1553 <p>104 Starting from <span style="font-weight: bold">And that life
1104 ministers of a new covenant&#8221; (2 Cor 3:6). So, the Evangelist appropriately implies the 1554 was the light of men,</span> we can explain this in another way,
1105 precursor&#8217;s fitness from his name when he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">whose name was John, </span>which is interpreted, 1555 according to the influx of grace, since we are illuminated by
1106 &#8220;in whom is grace.&#8221;</p> 1556 Christ.</p>
1107 <p>This name was not given to him meaninglessly, but by divine preordination and before he was 1557 <p>After he had considered the creation of things through the Word,
1108 born, as is clear from Luke (1:13), &#8220;You will name him John,&#8221; as the angel said to Zechariah. 1558 the Evangelist considers here the restoration of the rational
1109 Hence he can say what is said in Isaiah (49:1), &#8220;The Lord called me from the womb&#8221;; &#8220;He 1559 creature through Christ, saying, <span style=
1110 who will be, his name is already called&#8221; (Ecc 6:10). The Evangelist also indicates this from 1560 "font-weight: bold">And that life,</span> of the Word, was the
1111 his manner of speaking, when he says was, as to God&#8217;s preordination.</p> 1561 <span style="font-weight: bold">light of</span> men, i.e., of all
1112 <p>115 Then he is described by the dignity of his office. First, his office is mentioned. Secondly, 1562 men in general, and not only of the Jews. For the Son of God
1113 the reason for his office, <span style="font-weight: bold">to bear witness to the light.</span></p> 1563 assumed flesh and came into the world to illumine all men with
1114 <p>116 Now his office is to bear witness; hence he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">He came as a witness.</span></p> 1564 grace and truth. &ldquo;I came into the world for this, to testify
1115 <p>Here it should be remarked that God makes men, and everything else he makes, for himself. 1565 to the truth&rdquo; (below 18:37); &ldquo;As long as I am in the
1116 &#8220;The Lord made all things for himself&#8221; (Prv 16:4). Not, indeed, to add anything to himself, 1566 world I am the light of the world&rdquo; (below 9:5). So he does
1117 since he has no need of our good, but so that his goodness might be made manifest in all of 1567 not say, &ldquo;the light of the Jews,&rdquo; because although
1118 the things made by him, in that &#8220;his eternal power and divinity are clearly seen, being 1568 previously he had been known only in Judea, he later became known
1119 understood through the things that are made&#8221;(Rom 1:20). Thus, each creature is made as a 1569 to the world. &ldquo;I have given you as a light to the nations,
1120 witness to God in so far as each creature is a certain witness of the divine goodness. So, the 1570 that you might be my salvation to the ends of the earth&rdquo; (Is
1121 vastness of creation is a witness to God&#8217;s power and omnipotence; and its beauty is a witness 1571 49:6).</p>
1122 to the divine wisdom. But certain men are ordained by God in a special way, so that they hear 1572 <p>It was fitting to join light and life by saying, <span style=
1123 witness to God not only naturally by their existence, but also spiritually by their good works. 1573 "font-weight: bold">And that life was the light of men,</span> in
1124 Hence all holy men are witnesses to God inasmuch as God is glorified among men by their 1574 order to show that these two have come to us through Christ: life,
1125 good works. &#8220;Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and 1575 through a participation in grace, &ldquo;Grace and truth have come
1126 glorify your Father who is in heaven&#8221; (Mt 5:16). But those who not only share in God&#8217;s gifts 1576 through Jesus Christ&rdquo; (below 1:17); and light, by a knowledge
1127 in themselves by acting well through the grace of God, but also spread them to others by their 1577 of truth and wisdom.</p>
1128 teaching, influencing and encouraging others, are in a more special way witnesses to God. 1578 <p>105 According to this explanation, <span style=
1129 &#8220;Everyone who calls upon my name, I have created for my glory&#8221; (Is 43:7). And so John 1579 "font-weight: bold">the light shines in the darkness,</span> can be
1130 came as a witness in order to spread to others the gifts of God and to proclaim his praise.</p> 1580 expounded in three ways, in the light of the three meanings of
1131 <p>117 This office of John, that of bearing witness, is very great, because no one can testify 1581 &ldquo;darkness.&rdquo;</p>
1132 about something except in the manner in which he has shared in it. &#8220;We know of what we 1582 <p>In one way, we can take &ldquo;darkness&rdquo; for punishment.
1133 speak, and we bear witness of what we see&#8221; (below 3:11). Hence, to bear witness to divine 1583 For any sadness and suffering of heart can be called a darkness,
1134 truth indicates a knowledge of that truth. So Christ also had this office: &#8220;I have come into the 1584 just as any joy can be called a light. &ldquo;When I sit in
1135 world for this, to testify to the truth&#8221; (below 18:37). But Christ testifies in one way and John 1585 darkness and in suffering the Lord is my light,&rdquo; i.e., my joy
1136 in another. Christ bears witness as the light who comprehends all things, indeed, as the 1586 and consolation (Mi 7:8). And so Origen says: In this explanation,
1137 existing light itself. John bears witness only as participating in that light. And so Christ gives 1587 <span style="font-weight: bold">the light shines in the
1138 testimony in a perfect manner and perfectly manifests the truth, while John and other holy 1588 darkness,</span> is Christ coming into the world, having a body
1139 men give testimony in so far as they have a share of divine truth. John&#8217;s office, therefore, is 1589 capable of suffering and without sin, but &ldquo;in the likeness of
1140 great both because of his participation in the divine light and because of a likeness to Christ, 1590 sinful flesh&rdquo; (Rom 8:3). The light is in the flesh, that is,
1141 who carried out this office. &#8220;I made him a witness to the peoples, a leader and a commander 1591 the flesh of Christ, which is called a darkness insofar as it has a
1142 of the nations&#8221; (Is 55:4).</p> 1592 likeness to sinful flesh. As if to say: The light, i.e., the Word
1143 <p>118 The purpose of this office is given when he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">that he might bear witness to the 1593 of God, veiled about by the darkness of the flesh, shines on the
1144 light. </span>Here we should understand that there are two reasons for bearing witness about 1594 world; &ldquo;I will cover the sun with a cloud&rdquo; (Ez
1145 something. One reason can be on the part of the thing with which the witness is concerned; 1595 32:7).</p>
1146 for example, if there is some doubt or uncertainty about that thing. The other is on the part of 1596 <p>106 Secondly, we can take &ldquo;darkness&rdquo; to mean the
1147 those who hear it; if they are hard of heart and slow to believe. John came as a witness, not 1597 devils, as in Ephesians (6:12), &ldquo;Our struggle is not against
1148 because of the thing about which he bore witness, for it was light. Hence he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">bear 1598 flesh and blood; but against principalities and powers, against the
1149 witness to the light, </span>i.e., not to something obscure, but to something clear. He came, 1599 rulers of the world of this darkness.&rdquo; Looked at this way he
1150 therefore, to bear witness on account of those to whom he testified, <span style="font-weight: bold">so that through him </span>(i.e., 1600 says, <span style="font-weight: bold">the light,</span> i.e., the
1151 John) <span style="font-weight: bold">all men might believe. </span>For as light is not only visible in itself and of itself, but through 1601 Son of God, <span style="font-weight: bold">shines in the
1152 it all else can be seen, so the Word of God is not only light in himself, but he makes known 1602 darkness,</span> i.e., has descended into the world where darkness,
1153 all things that are known. For since a thing is made known and understood through its form, 1603 i.e., the devils, hold sway: &ldquo;Now the prince of this world
1154 and all forms exist through the Word, who is the art full of living forms, the Word is light not 1604 will be cast out&rdquo; (below 12:31). <span style=
1155 only in himself, but as making known all things; &#8220;all that appears is light&#8221; (Eph 5:13).</p> 1605 "font-weight: bold">And the darkness,</span> i.e., the devils,
1156 <p>And so it was fitting for the Evangelist to call the Son &#8220;light,&#8221; because he came as &#8220;a 1606 <span style="font-weight: bold">did not overcome it,</span> i.e.,
1157 revealing light to the Gentiles&#8221; (Lk 2:32). Above, he called the Son of God the Word, by 1607 were unable to obscure him by their temptations, as is plain in
1158 which the Father expresses himself and every creature. Now since he is, properly speaking, 1608 Matthew (c 4)</p>
1159 the light of men, and the Evangelist is considering him here as coming to accomplish the 1609 <p>107 Thirdly, we can take &ldquo;darkness&rdquo; for the error or
1160 salvation of men, he fittingly interrupts the use of the name &#8220;Word&#8221; when speaking of the 1610 ignorance which filled the whole world before the coming of Christ,
1161 Son, and says, &#8220;light.&#8221;</p> 1611 &ldquo;You were at one time darkness&rdquo; (Eph 5:8). And so he
1162 <p>119 But if that light is adequate of itself to make known all things, and not only itself, what 1612 says that <span style="font-weight: bold">the light,</span> i.e.,
1163 need does it have of any witness? This was the objection of the Manichaeans, who wanted to 1613 the incarnate Word of God, <span style="font-weight: bold">shines
1164 destroy the Old Testament. Consequently, the saints gave many reasons, against their opinion, 1614 in the darkness,</span> i.e., upon the men of the world, who are
1165 why Christ wanted to have the testimony of the prophets.</p> 1615 blinded by the darkness or error and ignorance. &ldquo;To enlighten
1166 <p>Origen gives three reasons. The first is that God wanted to have certain witnesses, not 1616 those who sit in darkness and in the shadow of death&rdquo; (Lk
1167 because he needed their testimony, but to ennoble those whom he appointed witnesses. Thus 1617 1:79), &ldquo;The people who were sitting in darkness saw a great
1168 we see in the order of the universe that God produces certain effects by means of intermediate 1618 light&rdquo; (Is 9:2).</p>
1169 causes, not because he himself is unable to produce them without these intermediaries, but he 1619 <p><span style="font-weight: bold">And the darkness did not
1170 deigns to confer oil them the dignity of causality because he wishes to-ennoble these 1620 overcome it,</span> i.e., did not overcome him. For in spite of the
1171 intermediate causes. Similarly, even though God could have enlightened all men by himself 1621 number of men darkened by sin, blinded by envy, shadowed over by
1172 and lead them to a knowledge of himself, yet to preserve due order in things and to ennoble 1622 pride, who have struggled against Christ (as is plain from the
1173 certain men, he willed that divine knowledge reach men through certain other men. &#8220;&#8216;You are 1623 Gospel) by upbraiding him, heaping insults and calumnies upon him,
1174 my witnesses,&#8217; says the Lord&#8221; (Is 43:10).</p> 1624 and finally killing him, nevertheless they did not overcome it,
1175 <p>A second reason is that Christ was a light to the world through his miracles. Yet, because they 1625 i.e., gain the victory of so obscuring him that his brightness
1176 were performed in time, they passed away with time and did not reach everyone. But the 1626 would not shine throughout the whole world. Wisdom (7:30) says,
1177 words of the prophets, preserved in Scripture, could reach not only those present, but could 1627 &ldquo;Compared to light, she takes precedence, for night supplants
1178 also reach those to come after. Hence the Lord willed that men come to a knowledge of the 1628 it, but wisdom,&rdquo; that is, the incarnate Son of God, &ldquo;is
1179 Word through the testimony of the prophets, in order that not only those present, but also men 1629 not overcome by wickedness,&rdquo; that is, of the Jews and of
1180 yet lo come, might be enlightened about him. So it says expressly, <span style="font-weight: bold">so that through him all 1630 heretics, because it says, &ldquo;She gave him the prize for his
1181 men might believe, </span>i.e., not only those present, but also future generations.</p> 1631 stern struggle that he might know that wisdom is mightier than all
1182 <p>The third reason is that not all men are in the same condition, and all are not led or disposed 1632 else&rdquo; (Wis 10:12).</p>
1183 to a knowledge of the truth in the same way. For some are brought to a knowledge of the truth 1633 <p style="margin-bottom: 0.125in; margin-bottom: 0.125in">
1184 by signs and miracles; others are brought more by wisdom. &#8220;The Jews require signs, and the 1634 &nbsp;</p>
1185 Greeks seek wisdom&#8221; (1 Cor 1:22). And so the Lord, m order to show the path of salvation to 1635 <center>
1186 all, willed both ways to be open. i.e., the way of signs and the way of wisdom, so that those 1636 <p>LECTURE 4</p>
1187 who would not be brought to the path of salvation by the miracles of the Old and New 1637 <p>6 There was a man sent by God, whose name was John.<br />
1188 Testaments, might be brought to a knowledge of the truth by the path of wisdom, as in the 1638 7 He came as a witness, that he might bear witness to the
1189 prophets and other books of Sacred Scripture.</p> 1639 light,<br />
1190 <p>A fourth reason, given by Chrysostom, is that certain men of weak understanding are unable 1640 so that through him all men might believe. 8 He was not the
1191 to grasp the truth and knowledge of God by themselves. And so the Lord chose to come down 1641 light,<br />
1192 to them and to enlighten certain men before others about divine matters, so that these others 1642 but [he came] in order to bear witness to the light.</p>
1193 might obtain from them in a human way the knowledge of divine things they could not reach 1643 </center>
1194 by themselves. And so he says, that <span style="font-weight: bold">through him all men might believe. </span>As if to say: he 1644 <p>108 Above, the Evangelist considered the divinity of the Word;
1195 came as a witness, not for the sake of the light, but for the sake of men, so <span style="font-weight: bold">that through him 1645 here he begins to consider the incarnation of the Word. And he does
1196 all men might believe. </span>And so it is plain that the testimonies of the prophets are fitting and 1646 two things concerning this: first, he treats of the witness to the
1197 proper, and should be received as something needed by us for the knowledge of the truth.</p> 1647 incarnate Word, or the precursor; secondly, of the coming of the
1198 <p>120 He says believe, because there are two ways of participating in the divine light. One is the 1648 Word ( 1:9). As to the first, he does two things: first, he
1199 perfect participation which is present in glory, &#8220;In your light, we shall see the light&#8221; (Ps 3 1649 describes the precursor who comes to bear witness; secondly, he
1200 5:10). The other in imperfect and is acquired through faith, since he came as a witness. Of 1650 shows that he was incapable of the work of our salvation (1:8).</p>
1201 these two ways it is said, &#8220;Now we see through a mirror, in an obscure manner, but then we 1651 <p>He describes the precursor in four ways. First, according to his
1202 shall see face to face&#8221; (1 Cor 13:12). And in the same place we find, &#8220;Now I know in part, but 1652 nature, <span style="font-weight: bold">There was a man.</span>
1203 then I shall know even as I am known.&#8221; Among these two ways, the first is the way of 1653 Secondly, as to his authority, <span style="font-weight: bold">sent
1204 participation through faith, because through it we are brought to vision. So in Isaiah (7:9) 1654 by God.</span> I&rsquo;hirdly, as to his suitability for the
1205 where our version has, &#8220;If you do not believe, you will not persist,&#8221; another version has, &#8220;If 1655 office, <span style="font-weight: bold">whose name was John.</span>
1206 you do not believe, you will not understand.&#8221; &#8220;All of us, gazing on the Lord&#8217;s glory with 1656 Fourthly, as to the dignity of his office, <span style=
1207 unveiled faces, are being transformed from glory to glory into his very image,&#8221; which we 1657 "font-weight: bold">He came as a witness.</span></p>
1208 have lost (2 Cor 3:18). &#8220;From the glory of faith to the glory of vision,&#8221; as a Gloss says.</p> 1658 <p>109 We should note with respect to the first that, as soon as
1209 <p>And so he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">that through him all men might believe, </span>not as though all would see him 1659 the Evangelist begins speaking of something temporal, he changes
1210 perfectly at once, but first they would believe through faith, and later enjoy him through 1660 his manner of speech. When speaking above of eternal things, he
1211 vision in heaven.</p> 1661 used the word &ldquo;was&rdquo; (<i>erat</i>), which is the past
1212 <p>121 He says through him, to show that John is different than Christ. For Christ came so that 1662 imperfect tense; and this indicates that eternal things are without
1213 all might believe in him. &#8220;He who believes in me, as Scripture says, &#8220;Out of his heart shall 1663 end. But now, when he is speaking of temporal things, he uses
1214 flow rivers of living water&#8221; (below 7:38). John, on the other hand, <span style="font-weight: bold">came that all men might 1664 &ldquo;was&rdquo; (<i>fuit</i>, i.e., &ldquo;has been&rdquo;); this
1215 believe, </span>not in him, but in Christ <span style="font-weight: bold">through him.</span></p> 1665 indicates temporal things as having taken place in the past and
1216 <p>One may object that not all have believed. So if John came to that all might believe through 1666 coming to an end there.</p>
1217 him, he failed. I answer that both on the part of God, who sent John, and of John, who came, 1667 <p>110 And so he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">There was a
1218 the method used is adequate to bring all to the truth. But on the <span style="font-weight: bold">part </span>of those &#8220;who have fixed 1668 man</span> (<i>Fuit homo</i>). This excludes at the very start the
1219 their eyes on the ground&#8221; (Ps 16:11 ), and refused to see the light, there was a failure, because 1669 incorrect opinion of certain heretics who were in error on the
1220 all did not believe.</p> 1670 condition or nature of John. They believed that John was an angel
1221 <p>122 Now although John, of whom so much has been said, even including that he was sent by 1671 in nature, basing themselves on the words of the Lord, &ldquo;I
1222 God, is an eminent person, his coming is not sufficient to save men, because the salvation of 1672 send my messenger [in Greek, <i>angelos</i>] before you, who will
1223 man lies in participating in the light. If John had been the light, his coming would have 1673 prepare your way&rdquo; (Mt 11:10); and the same thing is found in
1224 sufficed to save men; but he was not the light. So he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">he was not the light</span>. 1674 Mark (1:2). But the Evangelist rejects this, saying, <span style=
1225 Consequently, a light was needed that would suffice to save men.</p> 1675 "font-weight: bold">There was a man</span> by nature, not an angel.
1226 <p>Or, we could look at it another way. John came to bear witness to the light. Now it is the 1676 &ldquo;The nature of man is known, and that he cannot contend in
1227 custom that the one who testifies is of greater authority than the one for whom he bears 1677 judgment with one who is stronger than himself&rdquo; (Ecc
1228 witness. So, lest John be considered to have greater authority than Christ, the Evangelist says, 1678 6:10).</p>
1229 he was <span style="font-weight: bold">not the light, but he came in order to bear witness to the light. </span>For he bears 1679 <p>Now it &ldquo; is fitting that a man be sent to men, for men are
1230 witness not because he is greater, but because he is better known, even though he is not as 1680 more easily drawn to a man, since he is like themselves. So in
1231 great.</p> 1681 Hebrews (7:28) it says, &ldquo;The law appoints men, who have
1232 <p>123 There is a difficulty about his saying, he was not the light. Conflicting with this is, &#8220;You 1682 weakness, priests.&rdquo; God could have governed men through
1233 were at one time darkness, but now you are light in the Lord&#8221; (Eph 5:8); and &#8220;You are the 1683 angels, but he preferred men so that we could be more instructed by
1234 light of the world&#8221; (Mt 5:14). Therefore, John and the apostles and all good men are a light.</p> 1684 their example. And so John was a man, and not an angel.</p>
1235 <p>I answer that some say that John was not the light, because this belongs to God alone. But if 1685 <p>11 1 John is described by his authority when it says, sent by
1236 &#8220;light&#8221; is taken without the article, then John and all holy men were made lights. The 1686 God. Indeed, although John was not an angel in nature, he was so by
1237 meaning is this: the Son of God is light by his very essence; but John and all the saints are 1687 his office, because he was sent by God. For the distinctive office
1238 light by participation. So, because John participated in the true light, it was fitting that he bear 1688 of angels is that they are sent by God and are messengers of God.
1239 witness to the light; for fire is better exhibited by something afire than by anything else, and 1689 &ldquo;All are ministering spirits, sent to serve&rdquo; (Heb
1240 color by something colored.</p> 1690 1:14). Hence it is that &ldquo;angel&rdquo; means
1241 <p style="margin-bottom: 0.125in; margin-bottom: 0.125in">&#160;</p> 1691 &ldquo;messenger.&rdquo; And so men who are sent by God to announce
1242 <CENTER><p><span style="font-weight: bold">LECTURE 5</span></p> 1692 something can be called angels. &ldquo;Haggai the messenger of the
1243 <p>9 He [the Word] was the true light,<BR> 1693 Lord&rdquo; (Hg 1:13).</p>
1244 which enlightens every man coming into this world.<BR> 1694 <p>If someone is to bear witness to God, it is necessary that he be
1245 10 He was in the world, and through him the world was made,<BR> 1695 sent by God. &ldquo;How can they preach unless they are
1246 and the world did not know him.</CENTER> 1696 sent?&rdquo; as is said in Romans (10:15). And since they are sent
1247 <p>124 Above, the Evangelist considered the precursor and his witness to the incarnate Word; in 1697 by God, they seek the things of Jesus Christ, not their own.
1248 the present section he considers the incarnate Word himself. As to this he does three things. 1698 &ldquo;We do not preach ourselves, but Jesus Christ&rdquo; (2 Cor
1249 First, he shows why it was necessary for the Word to come. Secondly, the benefit we received 1699 4:5). On the other hand, one who sends himself, and is not sent by
1250 from the coming of the Word (I:11). And thirdly, the way he came (1:14).</p> 1700 God, seeks his own things or those of man, and not the things of
1251 <p>The necessity for the Word&#8217;s coming is seen be the lack of divine knowledge in the world. He 1701 Christ. And so he says here, <span style="font-weight: bold">There
1252 points out this need for his coming when he says, &#8220;For this was I born, and I came into the 1702 was a man sent by God,</span> so that we would understand that John
1253 world for this, to testify to the truth&#8221; (below 18:37). To indicate this lack of divine 1703 proclaimed something divine, not human.</p>
1254 knowledge, the Evangelist does two things. First, he shows that this lack does not pertain to 1704 <p>112 Note that there are three ways in which we see men sent by
1255 God or the Word. Secondly, that it does pertain to men (v 10b).</p> 1705 God. First, by an inward inspiration. &ldquo;And now the Lord God
1256 <p>He shows in three ways that there was no defect in God or in the Word that prevented men 1706 has sent me, and his spirit&rdquo; (Is 48:16). As if to say: I have
1257 from knowing God and from being enlightened by the Word. First, from the efficacy of the 1707 been sent by God through an inward inspiration of the spirit.
1258 divine light itself, because <span style="font-weight: bold">He was the true light, which enlightens every man coming into 1708 Secondly, by an expressed and clear command, perceived by the
1259 this world. </span>Secondly, from the presence of the divine light, because <span style="font-weight: bold">He was in the world. 1709 bodily senses or the imagination. Isaiah was also sent in this way;
1260 </span>Thirdly, from the obviousness of the light, because <span style="font-weight: bold">through him the world was made. </span>So 1710 and so he says, &ldquo;And I heard the voice of the Lord saying,
1261 the lack of divine knowledge in the world was not due to the Word, because it is sufficient. 1711 &lsquo;Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?&rsquo; Then I
1262 First, he shows the nature of this efficiency, that is, <span style="font-weight: bold">He was the true light. </span>Secondly, its very 1712 said, &lsquo;Here I am! Send me&rsquo;&rdquo; (Is 6:8). Thirdly, by
1263 efficiency, <span style="font-weight: bold">which enlightens every man.</span></p> 1713 the order of a prelate, who acts in the place of God in this
1264 <p>125 The divine Word is efficacious in enlightening because <span style="font-weight: bold">He was the true light. </span>How the 1714 matter. &ldquo;I have pardoned in the person of Christ for your
1265 Word is light, and how he is the light of men need not be discussed again, because it was 1715 sake&rdquo; as it says in 2 Corinthians (2:10). This is why those
1266 sufficiently explained above. What we must discuss at present is how he is the true light. To 1716 who are sent by a prelate are sent by God, as Barnabas and Timothy
1267 explain this, we should note that in Scripture the &#8220;true&#8221; is contrasted with three things. 1717 were sent by the Apostle.</p>
1268 Sometimes it is contrasted with the false, as in &#8220;Put an end to lying, and let everyone speak 1718 <p>When it is said here, <span style="font-weight: bold">There was
1269 the truth&#8221; (Eph 4:25). Sometimes it is contrasted with what is figurative, as in &#8220;The law was 1719 a man sent by</span> God, we should understand that he was sent by
1270 given through Moses; grace and truth have come through Jesus Christ&#8221; (below 1:17), because 1720 God through an inward inspiration, or perhaps even by an outward
1271 the truth of the figures contained in the law was fulfilled by Christ. Sometimes it is contrasted 1721 command. &ldquo;He who sent me to baptize with water had said to
1272 with what is something by participation, as in &#8220;that we may be in his true Son&#8221; (1 Jn 5:20), 1722 me: &lsquo;The man on whom you see the Spirit come down and rest is
1273 who is not his Son by participation.</p> 1723 the one who is to baptize with the Holy Spirit&rsquo; &ldquo;
1274 <p>Before the Word came there was in the world a certain light which the philosophers prided 1724 (below 1:33).</p>
1275 themselves on having; but this was a false light, because as is said, &#8220;They became stultified in 1725 <p>113 We should not understand, <span style=
1276 their speculations, and their foolish hearts were darkened; claiming to be wise, they became 1726 "font-weight: bold">There was a man sent by God,</span> as some
1277 fools&#8221; (Rom 1:21); &#8220;Every man is made foolish by his knowledge&#8221; (Jer 10:14). There was 1727 heretics did, who believed that from the very beginning human souls
1278 another light from the teaching of the law which the Jews boasted of having; but this was a 1728 were created without bodies along with the angels, and that
1279 symbolic light, &#8220;The law has a shadow of the good things to come, not the image itself of 1729 one&rsquo;s soul is sent into the body when he is born, and that
1280 them&#8221; (Heb 10:1). There was also a certain light in the angels and in holy men in so far as 1730 John was sent to life, i.e., his soul was sent to a body. Rather,
1281 they knew God in a more special way by grace; but this was a participated light, &#8220;Upon whom 1731 we should understand that he was sent by God to baptize and
1282 does his light not shine?&#8221; (Jb 25:3), which is like saying: Whoever shine, shine to the extent 1732 preach.</p>
1283 that they participate in his light, i.e., God&#8217;s light.</p> 1733 <p>114 John&rsquo;s fitness is given when he says, <span style=
1284 <p>But the Word of God was not a false light, nor a symbolic light, nor a participated light, but 1734 "font-weight: bold">whose name was John.</span> One must be
1285 the true light, i.e., light by his essence. Therefore he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">He was the true light.</span></p> 1735 qualified for the office of bearing witness, because unless a
1286 <p>126 This excludes two errors. First, that of Photinus, who believed that Christ derived his 1736 witness is qualified, then no matter in what way he is sent by
1287 beginning from the Virgin. So, lest anyone suppose this, the Evangelist, speaking of the 1737 another, his testimony is not acceptable. Now a man becomes
1288 incarnation of the Word, says, <span style="font-weight: bold">He was the true light, </span>i.e., eternally, not only before the 1738 qualified by the grace, of God. &ldquo;By the grace of God I am
1289 Virgin, but before every creature. This also excludes the error of Arius and Origen; they said 1739 what I am&rdquo; (1 Cor 15:10); &ldquo;who has made us fit
1290 that Christ was not true God, but God by participation. If this were so, he could not be the 1740 ministers of a new covenant&rdquo; (2 Cor 3:6). So, the Evangelist
1291 true light, as the Evangelist says here, and as in &#8220;God is light&#8221; (1 Jn 1:5), i.e., not by 1741 appropriately implies the precursor&rsquo;s fitness from his name
1292 participation, but <span style="font-weight: bold">the true light. </span>So if the Word was the true light, it is plain that he is true 1742 when he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">whose name was
1293 God. Now it is clear how the divine Word is effective in causing divine knowledge.</p> 1743 John,</span> which is interpreted, &ldquo;in whom is
1294 <p>127 The effectiveness or efficiency of the Word lies in the fact that he <span style="font-weight: bold">enlightens every man 1744 grace.&rdquo;</p>
1295 coming into this world. </span>For everything which is what it is by participation is derived from 1745 <p>This name was not given to him meaninglessly, but by divine
1296 that which is such by its essence; just as everything afire is so by participation in fire, which 1746 preordination and before he was born, as is clear from Luke (1:13),
1297 is fire by its very essence. Then since the Word is the true light by his very essence, then 1747 &ldquo;You will name him John,&rdquo; as the angel said to
1298 everything that shines must do so through him, insofar as it participates in him. And so he 1748 Zechariah. Hence he can say what is said in Isaiah (49:1),
1299 <span style="font-weight: bold">enlightens every man coming into this world.</span></p> 1749 &ldquo;The Lord called me from the womb&rdquo;; &ldquo;He who will
1300 <p>128 To understand this, we should know that &#8220;world&#8221; is taken in three ways in Scripture. 1750 be, his name is already called&rdquo; (Ecc 6:10). The Evangelist
1301 Sometimes, from the point of view of its creation, as when the Evangelist says here, &#8220;through 1751 also indicates this from his manner of speaking, when he says was,
1302 him the world was made&#8221; (v 10). Sometimes, from the point of view of its perfection, which 1752 as to God&rsquo;s preordination.</p>
1303 it reaches through Christ, as in &#8220;God was, in Christ, reconciling the world to himself&#8221; (2 Cor 1753 <p>115 Then he is described by the dignity of his office. First,
1304 5:19). And sometimes it is taken from the point of view of its perversity, as in &#8220;The whole 1754 his office is mentioned. Secondly, the reason for his office,
1305 world lies under the power of the evil one&#8221; (1 Jn 5:19).</p> 1755 <span style="font-weight: bold">to bear witness to the
1306 <p>On the other hand, &#8220;enlightenment&#8221; or &#8220;being enlightened&#8221; by the Word is taken in two ways. 1756 light.</span></p>
1307 First, in relation to the light of natural knowledge, as in &#8220;The light of your countenance, O 1757 <p>116 Now his office is to bear witness; hence he says,
1308 Lord, is marked upon us&#8221; (Ps 4:7). Secondly, as the light of grace, &#8220;Be enlightened, O 1758 <span style="font-weight: bold">He came as a witness.</span></p>
1309 Jerusalem&#8221; (Is 60:1).</p> 1759 <p>Here it should be remarked that God makes men, and everything
1310 <p>129 With these two sets of distinctions in mind, it is easy to solve a difficulty which arises 1760 else he makes, for himself. &ldquo;The Lord made all things for
1311 here. For when the Evangelist says, he <span style="font-weight: bold">enlightens every man, </span>this seems to be false, because 1761 himself&rdquo; (Prv 16:4). Not, indeed, to add anything to himself,
1312 there are still many in darkness in the world. However, if we bear in mind these distinctions 1762 since he has no need of our good, but so that his goodness might be
1313 and take &#8220;world&#8221; from the standpoint of its creation, and &#8220;enlighten&#8221; as referring to the light 1763 made manifest in all of the things made by him, in that &ldquo;his
1314 of natural reason, the statement of the Evangelist is beyond reproach. For all men coming into 1764 eternal power and divinity are clearly seen, being understood
1315 this visible world are enlightened by the light of natural knowledge through participating in 1765 through the things that are made&rdquo;(Rom 1:20). Thus, each
1316 this true light, which is the source of all the light of natural knowledge participated in by men.</p> 1766 creature is made as a witness to God in so far as each creature is
1317 <p>When the Evangelist speaks of <span style="font-weight: bold">man coming into this world, </span>he does not mean that men had 1767 a certain witness of the divine goodness. So, the vastness of
1318 lived for a certain time outside the world and then came into the world, since this is contrary 1768 creation is a witness to God&rsquo;s power and omnipotence; and its
1319 to the teaching of the Apostle in Romans (9:11), &#8220;When the children were not yet born nor 1769 beauty is a witness to the divine wisdom. But certain men are
1320 had they done anything good or evil.&#8221; Therefore, since they had done nothing before they 1770 ordained by God in a special way, so that they hear witness to God
1321 were born, it is plain that the soul does not exist p3or to its union with the body. He refers to 1771 not only naturally by their existence, but also spiritually by
1322 <span style="font-weight: bold">every man coming into this world, </span>to show that men are enlightened by God with respect to 1772 their good works. Hence all holy men are witnesses to God inasmuch
1323 that according to which they came into the world, i.e., with respect to the intellect, which is 1773 as God is glorified among men by their good works. &ldquo;Let your
1324 something external [to the world]. For man is constituted of a twofold nature, bodily and 1774 light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and
1325 intellectual. According to his bodily or sensible nature, man is enlightened by a bodily and 1775 glorify your Father who is in heaven&rdquo; (Mt 5:16). But those
1326 sensible light; but according to his soul and intellectual nature, he is enlightened by an 1776 who not only share in God&rsquo;s gifts in themselves by acting
1327 intellectual and spiritual light. Now man does not come into this world according to his 1777 well through the grace of God, but also spread them to others by
1328 bodily nature, but under this aspect, he is from the world. His intellectual nature is derived 1778 their teaching, influencing and encouraging others, are in a more
1329 from a source external to the world, as has been said, i.e., from God through creation; as in 1779 special way witnesses to God. &ldquo;Everyone who calls upon my
1330 &#8220;Until all flesh returns to its origin, and the spirit is directed to God, who made it&#8221; (Ecc 12:7). 1780 name, I have created for my glory&rdquo; (Is 43:7). And so John
1331 For these reasons, when the Evangelist speaks of <span style="font-weight: bold">every man coming into this world</span>, he is 1781 came as a witness in order to spread to others the gifts of God and
1332 showing that this enlightenment refers to what is from without, that is, the intellect.</p> 1782 to proclaim his praise.</p>
1333 <p>130 If we understand &#8220;enlightenment&#8221; with respect to the light of grace, then <span style="font-weight: bold">he enlightens 1783 <p>117 This office of John, that of bearing witness, is very great,
1334 every man</span> may be explained in three ways. The first way is by Origen in his homily, &#8220;The 1784 because no one can testify about something except in the manner in
1335 great eagle,&#8221; and is this. &#8220;World&#8221; is understood from the point of view of its perfection, 1785 which he has shared in it. &ldquo;We know of what we speak, and we
1336 which man attains by his reconciliation through Christ. And so we have, he enlightens every 1786 bear witness of what we see&rdquo; (below 3:11). Hence, to bear
1337 man coming, by faith, into this world, i.e., this spiritual world, that is, the Church, which has 1787 witness to divine truth indicates a knowledge of that truth. So
1338 been enlightened by the light of grace.</p> 1788 Christ also had this office: &ldquo;I have come into the world for
1339 <p>Chrysostom explains it another way. He takes &#8220;world&#8221; under the aspect of creation. Then the 1789 this, to testify to the truth&rdquo; (below 18:37). But Christ
1340 sense is: He <span style="font-weight: bold">enlightens, </span>i.e., the Word does, in so far as it depends on him, because he fails 1790 testifies in one way and John in another. Christ bears witness as
1341 no one, but rather &#8220;wants all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth&#8221; (1 1791 the light who comprehends all things, indeed, as the existing light
1342 Tim 2:4); <span style="font-weight: bold">every man coming</span>, i.e., who is born into this sensible world. If anyone is not 1792 itself. John bears witness only as participating in that light. And
1343 enlightened, it is due to himself, because he turns from the light that enlightens.</p> 1793 so Christ gives testimony in a perfect manner and perfectly
1344 <p>Augustine explains it a third way. For him, &#8220;every&#8221; has a restricted application, so that the 1794 manifests the truth, while John and other holy men give testimony
1345 sense is: He <span style="font-weight: bold">enlightens every man coming into this world, </span>not every man universally, but 1795 in so far as they have a share of divine truth. John&rsquo;s
1346 every man who is enlightened, since no one is enlightened except by the Word. According to 1796 office, therefore, is great both because of his participation in
1347 Augustine, the Evangelist says, <span style="font-weight: bold">coming into this world, </span>in order to give the reason why man 1797 the divine light and because of a likeness to Christ, who carried
1348 needs to be enlightened, and he is taking &#8220;world&#8221; from the point of view of its perversity and 1798 out this office. &ldquo;I made him a witness to the peoples, a
1349 defect. It is as though he were saying: Man needs to be enlightened because he is coming into 1799 leader and a commander of the nations&rdquo; (Is 55:4).</p>
1350 this world which is darkened by perversity and defects and is full of ignorance. (This 1800 <p>118 The purpose of this office is given when he says,
1351 followed the spiritual world of the first man.) As Luke says (1:79), &#8220;To enlighten those who 1801 <span style="font-weight: bold">that he might bear witness to the
1352 sit in darkness and in the shadow of death.&#8221;</p> 1802 light.</span> Here we should understand that there are two reasons
1353 <p>131 The above statement refutes the error of the Manichaeans, who think than men were 1803 for bearing witness about something. One reason can be on the part
1354 created in the world from an opposing principle, i.e., the devil. For if man were a creature of 1804 of the thing with which the witness is concerned; for example, if
1355 the devil when coming into this world, he would not be enlightened by God or by the Word, 1805 there is some doubt or uncertainty about that thing. The other is
1356 for &#8220;Christ came into the world to destroy the works of the devil&#8221; (1 Jn 3:8).</p> 1806 on the part of those who hear it; if they are hard of heart and
1357 <p>132 So it is clear, from the efficacy of the divine Word, that the lack of knowledge in men is 1807 slow to believe. John came as a witness, not because of the thing
1358 not due to the Word, because he is effective in enlightening all, being <span style="font-weight: bold">the true light, which 1808 about which he bore witness, for it was light. Hence he says,
1359 enlightens </span>every <span style="font-weight: bold">man coming into this world.</span></p> 1809 <span style="font-weight: bold">bear witness to the light,</span>
1360 <p>But so you do not suppose this lack arose from the withdrawal or absence of the true light, the 1810 i.e., not to something obscure, but to something clear. He came,
1361 Evangelist rules this out adding, <span style="font-weight: bold">He was in the world</span>. A comparable statement is found in 1811 therefore, to bear witness on account of those to whom he
1362 &#8220;He is not far from any one of us,&#8221; that is, God, &#8220;for in him we live, and move, and are&#8221; (Acts 1812 testified, <span style="font-weight: bold">so that through
1363 17:28). It is as though the Evangelist were saying: The divine Word is effective and is at hand 1813 him</span> (i.e., John) <span style="font-weight: bold">all men
1364 in order to enlighten us.</p> 1814 might believe.</span> For as light is not only visible in itself
1365 <p>133 We should remark that something is said to be &#8220;in the world&#8221; in three ways. In one way, 1815 and of itself, but through it all else can be seen, so the Word of
1366 by being contained, as a thing in place exists in a place: &#8220;They are in the world&#8221; (below 1816 God is not only light in himself, but he makes known all things
1367 17:11). In another way, as a part in a whole; for a part of the world is said to be in the world 1817 that are known. For since a thing is made known and understood
1368 even though it is not in a place. For example, supernatural substances, although not in the 1818 through its form, and all forms exist through the Word, who is the
1369 world as in a place, are nevertheless in it as parts: &#8220;God ... who made heaven and earth, the 1819 art full of living forms, the Word is light not only in himself,
1370 sea, and all things that are in them&#8221; (Ps 145:6). But the true light was not in the world in 1820 but as making known all things; &ldquo;all that appears is
1371 either of these ways, because that light is neither localized nor is it a part of the universe. 1821 light&rdquo; (Eph 5:13).</p>
1372 Indeed, if we can speak this way, the entire universe is in a certain sense a part, since it 1822 <p>And so it was fitting for the Evangelist to call the Son
1373 participates in a partial way in his goodness.</p> 1823 &ldquo;light,&rdquo; because he came as &ldquo;a revealing light to
1374 <p>Accordingly, the true light was in the world in a third way, i.e., as an efficient and preserving 1824 the Gentiles&rdquo; (Lk 2:32). Above, he called the Son of God the
1375 cause: &#8220;I fill heaven and earth&#8221; as said in Jeremiah (23:24). However, there is a difference 1825 Word, by which the Father expresses himself and every creature. Now
1376 between the way the Word acts and causes all things and the way in which other agents act. 1826 since he is, properly speaking, the light of men, and the
1377 For other agents act as existing externally: since they do not act except by moving and 1827 Evangelist is considering him here as coming to accomplish the
1378 altering a thing qualitatively in some way with respect to its exterior, they work from without. 1828 salvation of men, he fittingly interrupts the use of the name
1379 But God acts in all things from within, because he acts by creating. Now to create is to give 1829 &ldquo;Word&rdquo; when speaking of the Son, and says,
1380 existence (<i>esse</i>) to the thing created. So, since esse is innermost in each thing, God, who by 1830 &ldquo;light.&rdquo;</p>
1381 acting gives <i>esse </i>acts in things from within. Hence God was in the world as one giving <i>esse </i>to 1831 <p>119 But if that light is adequate of itself to make known all
1382 the world.</p> 1832 things, and not only itself, what need does it have of any witness?
1383 <p>134 It is customary to say that God is in all things by his essence, presence and power. To 1833 This was the objection of the Manichaeans, who wanted to destroy
1384 understand what this means, we should know that someone is said to be by his power in all 1834 the Old Testament. Consequently, the saints gave many reasons,
1385 the things that are subject to his power; as a king is said to be in the entire kingdom subject to 1835 against their opinion, why Christ wanted to have the testimony of
1386 him, by his power. He is not there, however, by presence or essence., Someone is said to be 1836 the prophets.</p>
1387 by presence in all the things that are within his range of vision; as a king is said to be in his 1837 <p>Origen gives three reasons. The first is that God wanted to have
1388 house by presence. And someone is said to be by essence in those things in which his 1838 certain witnesses, not because he needed their testimony, but to
1389 substance is; as a king is in one determinate place.</p> 1839 ennoble those whom he appointed witnesses. Thus we see in the order
1390 <p>Now we say that God is everywhere by his power, since all things are subject to his power: 1840 of the universe that God produces certain effects by means of
1391 &#8220;If I ascend into heaven, you are there.... If I take my wings early in the morning, and dwell in 1841 intermediate causes, not because he himself is unable to produce
1392 the furthest part of the sea, even there your hand will lead me, and your right hand will hold 1842 them without these intermediaries, but he deigns to confer oil them
1393 me&#8221; (Ps 138:8). He is also everywhere by his presence, because &#8220;all things are bare and open 1843 the dignity of causality because he wishes to-ennoble these
1394 to his eyes,&#8221; as is said in Hebrews (4:13). He is present everywhere by his essence, be cause 1844 intermediate causes. Similarly, even though God could have
1395 his essence is innermost in all things. For every agent, as acting, has to be immediately joined 1845 enlightened all men by himself and lead them to a knowledge of
1396 to its effect, because mover and moved must be together. Now God is the maker and 1846 himself, yet to preserve due order in things and to ennoble certain
1397 preserver of all things with respect to the <i>esse </i>of each. Hence, since the <i>esse </i>of a thing is 1847 men, he willed that divine knowledge reach men through certain
1398 innermost in that thing, it is plain that God, by his essence, through which he creates all 1848 other men. &ldquo;&lsquo;You are my witnesses,&rsquo; says the
1399 things, is in all things.</p> 1849 Lord&rdquo; (Is 43:10).</p>
1400 <p>135 It should be noted that the Evangelist significantly uses the word &#8220;was,&#8221; when he says, 1850 <p>A second reason is that Christ was a light to the world through
1401 <span style="font-weight: bold">He was in the world, </span>showing that from the beginning of creation he was always in the 1851 his miracles. Yet, because they were performed in time, they passed
1402 world, causing and preserving all things; because if God for even a moment were to withhold 1852 away with time and did not reach everyone. But the words of the
1403 his power from the things he established, all would return to nothing and cease to be. Hence 1853 prophets, preserved in Scripture, could reach not only those
1404 Origen uses an apt example to show this, when he says that as a human vocal sound is to a 1854 present, but could also reach those to come after. Hence the Lord
1405 human word conceived in the mind, so is, the creature to the divine Word; for as our vocal 1855 willed that men come to a knowledge of the Word through the
1406 sound is the effect of the word conceived in our mind, so the creature is the effect of the 1856 testimony of the prophets, in order that not only those present,
1407 Word conceived in the divine mind. &#8220;For he spoke, and they were created&#8221; (Ps 148:5). Hence, 1857 but also men yet lo come, might be enlightened about him. So it
1408 just as we notice that as soon as our inner word vanishes, the sensible vocal sound also 1858 says expressly, <span style="font-weight: bold">so that through him
1409 ceases, so, if the power of the divine Word were withdrawn from things, all of them would 1859 all men might believe,</span> i.e., not only those present, but
1410 immediately cease to be at that moment. And this is because he is &#8220;sustaining all things by his 1860 also future generations.</p>
1411 powerful word&#8221; (Heb 1:3).</p> 1861 <p>The third reason is that not all men are in the same condition,
1412 <p>136 So it is plain that a lack of divine knowledge in minds is not due to the absence of the 1862 and all are not led or disposed to a knowledge of the truth in the
1413 Word, because <span style="font-weight: bold">He was in the world</span>;<span style="font-weight: bold"> </span>nor is it due to the invisibility or concealment of the 1863 same way. For some are brought to a knowledge of the truth by signs
1414 Word, because he has produced a work in which his likeness is clearly reflected, that is, the 1864 and miracles; others are brought more by wisdom. &ldquo;The Jews
1415 world: &#8220;For from the greatness and beauty of creatures, their creator can be seen accordingly&#8221; 1865 require signs, and the Greeks seek wisdom&rdquo; (1 Cor 1:22). And
1416 (Wis 13:5), and &#8220;The invisible things of God are clearly seen, being understood through the 1866 so the Lord, m order to show the path of salvation to all, willed
1417 things that are made&#8221; (Rom 1:20). And so the Evangelist at once adds, <span style="font-weight: bold">and through him the 1867 both ways to be open. i.e., the way of signs and the way of wisdom,
1418 world was made, </span>in order that that light might be manifested in it. For as a work of art 1868 so that those who would not be brought to the path of salvation by
1419 manifests the art of the artisan, so the whole world is nothing else than a certain 1869 the miracles of the Old and New Testaments, might be brought to a
1420 representation of the divine wisdom conceived within the mind of the Father, &#8220;He poured her 1870 knowledge of the truth by the path of wisdom, as in the prophets
1421 [wisdom] out upon all his works,&#8221; as is said in Sirach (1:10).</p> 1871 and other books of Sacred Scripture.</p>
1422 <p>Now it is clear that the lack of divine knowledge is not due to the Word, because he is 1872 <p>A fourth reason, given by Chrysostom, is that certain men of
1423 efficacious, being <span style="font-weight: bold">the true light; </span>and he is at hand, since he <span style="font-weight: bold">was in the world; </span>and he is 1873 weak understanding are unable to grasp the truth and knowledge of
1424 knowable, since <span style="font-weight: bold">through him the world was made.</span></p> 1874 God by themselves. And so the Lord chose to come down to them and
1425 <p>137 The Evangelist indicates the source of this lack when he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">and the world did not 1875 to enlighten certain men before others about divine matters, so
1426 know him. </span>As if to say: It is not due to him, but to the world, who did not know him.</p> 1876 that these others might obtain from them in a human way the
1427 <p>He says him in the singular, because earlier he had called the Word not only the &#8220;light of 1877 knowledge of divine things they could not reach by themselves. And
1428 men,&#8221; but also &#8220;God&#8221;; and so when he says him, he means God. Again, he uses &#8220;world&#8221; for 1878 so he says, that <span style="font-weight: bold">through him all
1429 man. For the angels knew him by their understanding, and the elements by their obeying him; 1879 men might believe.</span> As if to say: he came as a witness, not
1430 but <span style="font-weight: bold">the world, </span>i.e., man, who lives in the world, <span style="font-weight: bold">did not know him.</span></p> 1880 for the sake of the light, but for the sake of men, so <span style=
1431 <p>138 We attribute this lack of divine knowledge either to the nature of man or to his guilt. To 1881 "font-weight: bold">that through him all men might believe.</span>
1432 his nature, indeed, because although all the aforesaid aids were given to man to lead him to 1882 And so it is plain that the testimonies of the prophets are fitting
1433 the knowledge of God, human reason in itself lacks this knowledge. &#8220;Man beholds him from 1883 and proper, and should be received as something needed by us for
1434 afar&#8221; (Jb 36:25), and immediately after, &#8220;God is great beyond our knowledge.&#8221; But if some 1884 the knowledge of the truth.</p>
1435 have known him, this was not insofar as they were in the world, but above the world; and the 1885 <p>120 He says believe, because there are two ways of participating
1436 kind for whom the world was not worthy, because <span style="font-weight: bold">the world did not know him. </span>Hence if 1886 in the divine light. One is the perfect participation which is
1437 they mentally perceived anything eternal, that was insofar as they were not of this world.</p> 1887 present in glory, &ldquo;In your light, we shall see the
1438 <p>But if this lack is attributed to man&#8217;s guilt, then the phrase, <span style="font-weight: bold">the world did not know him, </span>is a 1888 light&rdquo; (Ps 3 5:10). The other in imperfect and is acquired
1439 kind of reason why God was not known by man; in this sense <span style="font-weight: bold">world </span>is taken for inordinate 1889 through faith, since he came as a witness. Of these two ways it is
1440 lovers of the world. It is as though it said, <span style="font-weight: bold">The world did not know him, </span>because they were 1890 said, &ldquo;Now we see through a mirror, in an obscure manner, but
1441 lovers of the world. For the love of the world, as Augustine says, is what chiefly withdraws us 1891 then we shall see face to face&rdquo; (1 Cor 13:12). And in the
1442 from the knowledge of God, because &#8220;Love of the world makes one an enemy to God&#8221; (Jas 1892 same place we find, &ldquo;Now I know in part, but then I shall
1443 4:4); &#8220;The sensual man does not perceive the things that pertain to the Spirit of God&#8221; ( 1 Cor 1893 know even as I am known.&rdquo; Among these two ways, the first is
1444 2:14).</p> 1894 the way of participation through faith, because through it we are
1445 <p>139 From this we call answer the question of the Gentiles who futilely ask this: If it is only 1895 brought to vision. So in Isaiah (7:9) where our version has,
1446 recently that the Son of God is set before the world as the Savior of men, does it not seem that 1896 &ldquo;If you do not believe, you will not persist,&rdquo; another
1447 before that time he scorned human nature? We should say to them that he did not scorn the 1897 version has, &ldquo;If you do not believe, you will not
1448 world but was always in the world, and on his part is knowable by men; but it was due to their 1898 understand.&rdquo; &ldquo;All of us, gazing on the Lord&rsquo;s
1449 own fault that some have not known him, because they were lovers of the world.</p> 1899 glory with unveiled faces, are being transformed from glory to
1450 <p>140 We should also note that the Evangelist speaks of the incarnation of the Word to show 1900 glory into his very image,&rdquo; which we have lost (2 Cor 3:18).
1451 that the incarnate Word and that which &#8220;was in the beginning with God,&#8221; and God, are the 1901 &ldquo;From the glory of faith to the glory of vision,&rdquo; as a
1452 same. He repeats what he had said of him earlier. For above he had said he [the Word] &#8220;was 1902 Gloss says.</p>
1453 the light of men&#8221;; here he says he was <span style="font-weight: bold">the true light. </span>Above, he said that &#8220;all things were 1903 <p>And so he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">that through him
1454 made through him&#8221;; here he says that through him the world was made. Earlier he had said, 1904 all men might believe,</span> not as though all would see him
1455 &#8220;without him nothing was made,&#8221; i.e., according to one explanation, he conserves all things; 1905 perfectly at once, but first they would believe through faith, and
1456 here he says, he was in the world, creating and conserving the world and all things. There he 1906 later enjoy him through vision in heaven.</p>
1457 had said, &#8220;the darkness did not overcome it&#8221;; here he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">the world did not know him. 1907 <p>121 He says through him, to show that John is different than
1458 </span>And so, all he says after he was the <span style="font-weight: bold">true light, </span>is an explanation of what he had said before.</p> 1908 Christ. For Christ came so that all might believe in him. &ldquo;He
1459 <p>141 We can gather three reasons from the above why God willed to become incarnate. One is 1909 who believes in me, as Scripture says, &ldquo;Out of his heart
1460 because of the perversity of human nature which, because of its own malice, had been 1910 shall flow rivers of living water&rdquo; (below 7:38). John, on the
1461 darkened by vices and the obscurity of its own ignorance. And so he said before, the darkness 1911 other hand, <span style="font-weight: bold">came that all men might
1462 did not overcome it. Therefore, God came in the flesh so that the darkness might apprehend 1912 believe,</span> not in him, but in Christ <span style=
1463 the light, i.e., obtain a knowledge of it. &#8220;The people who walked in darkness saw a great 1913 "font-weight: bold">through him.</span></p>
1464 light&#8221; (Is 9:2).</p> 1914 <p>One may object that not all have believed. So if John came to
1465 <p>The second reason is that the testimony of the prophets was not enough. For the prophets 1915 that all might believe through him, he failed. I answer that both
1466 came and John had come; but they were not able to give sufficient enlightenment, because <span style="font-weight: bold">he 1916 on the part of God, who sent John, and of John, who came, the
1467 was not the light. </span>And so, after the prophecies of the prophets and the coming of John, it was 1917 method used is adequate to bring all to the truth. But on the
1468 necessary that the light itself come and give the world a knowledge of itself. And this is what 1918 <span style="font-weight: bold">part</span> of those &ldquo;who
1469 the Apostle says: &#8220;In past times, God spoke in many ways and degrees to our fathers through 1919 have fixed their eyes on the ground&rdquo; (Ps 16:11 ), and refused
1470 the prophets; in these days he has spoken to us in his Son&#8221; as we find in Hebrews (1:1). &#8220;We 1920 to see the light, there was a failure, because all did not
1471 have the prophetic message, to which you do well to give attention, until the day dawns&#8221; (2 Pt 1921 believe.</p>
1472 1:19).</p> 1922 <p>122 Now although John, of whom so much has been said, even
1473 <p>The third reason is because of the shortcomings of creatures. For creatures were not sufficient 1923 including that he was sent by God, is an eminent person, his coming
1474 to lead to a knowledge of the Creator; hence he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">through him the world was made, and 1924 is not sufficient to save men, because the salvation of man lies in
1475 the world did not know him. </span>Thus it was necessary that the Creator himself come into the 1925 participating in the light. If John had been the light, his coming
1476 world in the flesh, and be known through himself. And this is what the Apostle says: &#8220;Since 1926 would have sufficed to save men; but he was not the light. So he
1477 in the wisdom of God the world did not know God by its wisdom, it pleased God to save 1927 says, <span style="font-weight: bold">he was not the light</span>.
1478 those who believe by the foolishness of our preaching&#8221; (1 Cor 1:21).</p> 1928 Consequently, a light was needed that would suffice to save
1479 <p style="margin-bottom: 0.125in; margin-bottom: 0.125in">&#160;</p> 1929 men.</p>
1480 <CENTER><p style="text-align: center; margin-bottom: 0.125in"><span style="font-weight: bold">LECTURE 6</span></p> 1930 <p>Or, we could look at it another way. John came to bear witness
1481 <p>11 He came unto his own, and his own did not receive him;<BR> 1931 to the light. Now it is the custom that the one who testifies is of
1482 12 but whoever received him, he gave them power to become<BR> 1932 greater authority than the one for whom he bears witness. So, lest
1483 the sons of God, to all who believe in his name,<BR> 1933 John be considered to have greater authority than Christ, the
1484 13 who are born not from blood, nor from the desires of the flesh,<BR> 1934 Evangelist says, he was <span style="font-weight: bold">not the
1485 nor from man&#8217;s willing it, but from God.</CENTER> 1935 light, but he came in order to bear witness to the light.</span>
1486 <p>142 Having given the necessity for the incarnation of the Word, the Evangelist then shows the 1936 For he bears witness not because he is greater, but because he is
1487 advantage men gained from that incarnation. First, he shows the coming of the light (v 11); 1937 better known, even though he is not as great.</p>
1488 secondly, its reception by men (v 11b); thirdly, the fruit brought by the coming of the light (v 1938 <p>123 There is a difficulty about his saying, he was not the
1489 12).</p> 1939 light. Conflicting with this is, &ldquo;You were at one time
1490 <p>143 He shows that the light which was present in the world and evident, i.e., disclosed by its 1940 darkness, but now you are light in the Lord&rdquo; (Eph 5:8); and
1491 effect, was nevertheless not known by the world. Hence, he came unto his own, in order to be 1941 &ldquo;You are the light of the world&rdquo; (Mt 5:14). Therefore,
1492 known. The Evangelist says, <span style="font-weight: bold">unto his own, </span>i.e., to things that were his own, which he had 1942 John and the apostles and all good men are a light.</p>
1493 made. And he says this so that you do not think that when he says, he came, he means a local 1943 <p>I answer that some say that John was not the light, because this
1494 motion in the sense that he came as though ceasing to be where he previously was and newly 1944 belongs to God alone. But if &ldquo;light&rdquo; is taken without
1495 beginning to be where he formerly had not been. He came where he already was. &#8220;I came 1945 the article, then John and all holy men were made lights. The
1496 forth from the Father, and have come into the world,&#8221; as said below ( 16:2 8).</p> 1946 meaning is this: the Son of God is light by his very essence; but
1497 <p>He came, I say, unto his own, i.e., to Judea, according to some, because it was in a special 1947 John and all the saints are light by participation. So, because
1498 way his own. &#8220;In Judea God is known&#8221; (Ps 75:1); &#8220;The vineyard of the Lord of hosts is the 1948 John participated in the true light, it was fitting that he bear
1499 house of Israel&#8221; (Is 5:7). But it is better to say, unto his own, i.e., into the world created by 1949 witness to the light; for fire is better exhibited by something
1500 him. &#8220;The earth is the Lord&#8217;s&#8221; (Ps 23:1).</p> 1950 afire than by anything else, and color by something colored.</p>
1501 <p>144 But if he was previously in the world, how could he come into the world? I answer that 1951 <p style="margin-bottom: 0.125in; margin-bottom: 0.125in">
1502 &#8220;coming to some place&#8221; is understood in two ways. First, that someone comes where he 1952 &nbsp;</p>
1503 absolutely had not been before. Or, secondly, that someone begins to be in a new way where 1953 <center>
1504 he was before. For example, a king, who up to a certain time was in a city of his kingdom by 1954 <p><span style="font-weight: bold">LECTURE 5</span></p>
1505 his power and later visits it in person, is said to have come where he previously was: for he 1955 <p>9 He [the Word] was the true light,<br />
1506 comes by his substance where previously he was present only by his power. It was in this way 1956 which enlightens every man coming into this world.<br />
1507 that the Son of God came into the world and yet was in the world. For he was there, indeed, 1957 10 He was in the world, and through him the world was made,<br />
1508 by his essence, power and presence, but he came by assuming flesh. He was there invisibly, 1958 and the world did not know him.</p>
1509 and he came in order to be visible.</p> 1959 </center>
1510 <p>145 Then when he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">and his own did not receive him, </span>we have the reception given him 1960 <p>124 Above, the Evangelist considered the precursor and his
1511 by men, who reacted in different ways. For some did receive him, but these were not his own; 1961 witness to the incarnate Word; in the present section he considers
1512 hence he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">his own did not receive him. </span>&#8220;His own&#8221; are men, because they were formed 1962 the incarnate Word himself. As to this he does three things. First,
1513 by him. &#8220;The Lord God formed man&#8221; (Gn 2:7); &#8220;Know that the Lord is God: he made us&#8221; (Ps 1963 he shows why it was necessary for the Word to come. Secondly, the
1514 99:3). And he made them to his own image, &#8220;Let us make man to our image&#8221; (Gn 1:26).</p> 1964 benefit we received from the coming of the Word (I:11). And
1515 <p>But it is better to say, <span style="font-weight: bold">his own, </span>i.e., the Jews, <span style="font-weight: bold">did not receive him, </span>through faith by believing, 1965 thirdly, the way he came (1:14).</p>
1516 and by showing honor to him. &#8220;I have come in the name of my Father, and you do not receive 1966 <p>The necessity for the Word&rsquo;s coming is seen be the lack of
1517 me&#8221; (below 5:43), and &#8220;I honor my Father and you have dishonored me&#8221; (below 8:49). Now 1967 divine knowledge in the world. He points out this need for his
1518 the Jews are his own because they were chosen by him to be his special people. &#8220;The Lord 1968 coming when he says, &ldquo;For this was I born, and I came into
1519 chose you to be his special people&#8221; (Dt 26:18). They are his own because related according to 1969 the world for this, to testify to the truth&rdquo; (below 18:37).
1520 the flesh, &#8220;from whom is Christ, according to the flesh,&#8221; as said in Romans (9:3). They are 1970 To indicate this lack of divine knowledge, the Evangelist does two
1521 also his own because enriched by his kindness, &#8220;I have reared and brought up sons&#8221; (Is 1:2). 1971 things. First, he shows that this lack does not pertain to God or
1972 the Word. Secondly, that it does pertain to men (v 10b).</p>
1973 <p>He shows in three ways that there was no defect in God or in the
1974 Word that prevented men from knowing God and from being enlightened
1975 by the Word. First, from the efficacy of the divine light itself,
1976 because <span style="font-weight: bold">He was the true light,
1977 which enlightens every man coming into this world.</span> Secondly,
1978 from the presence of the divine light, because <span style=
1979 "font-weight: bold">He was in the world.</span> Thirdly, from the
1980 obviousness of the light, because <span style=
1981 "font-weight: bold">through him the world was made.</span> So the
1982 lack of divine knowledge in the world was not due to the Word,
1983 because it is sufficient. First, he shows the nature of this
1984 efficiency, that is, <span style="font-weight: bold">He was the
1985 true light.</span> Secondly, its very efficiency, <span style=
1986 "font-weight: bold">which enlightens every man.</span></p>
1987 <p>125 The divine Word is efficacious in enlightening because
1988 <span style="font-weight: bold">He was the true light.</span> How
1989 the Word is light, and how he is the light of men need not be
1990 discussed again, because it was sufficiently explained above. What
1991 we must discuss at present is how he is the true light. To explain
1992 this, we should note that in Scripture the &ldquo;true&rdquo; is
1993 contrasted with three things. Sometimes it is contrasted with the
1994 false, as in &ldquo;Put an end to lying, and let everyone speak the
1995 truth&rdquo; (Eph 4:25). Sometimes it is contrasted with what is
1996 figurative, as in &ldquo;The law was given through Moses; grace and
1997 truth have come through Jesus Christ&rdquo; (below 1:17), because
1998 the truth of the figures contained in the law was fulfilled by
1999 Christ. Sometimes it is contrasted with what is something by
2000 participation, as in &ldquo;that we may be in his true Son&rdquo;
2001 (1 Jn 5:20), who is not his Son by participation.</p>
2002 <p>Before the Word came there was in the world a certain light
2003 which the philosophers prided themselves on having; but this was a
2004 false light, because as is said, &ldquo;They became stultified in
2005 their speculations, and their foolish hearts were darkened;
2006 claiming to be wise, they became fools&rdquo; (Rom 1:21);
2007 &ldquo;Every man is made foolish by his knowledge&rdquo; (Jer
2008 10:14). There was another light from the teaching of the law which
2009 the Jews boasted of having; but this was a symbolic light,
2010 &ldquo;The law has a shadow of the good things to come, not the
2011 image itself of them&rdquo; (Heb 10:1). There was also a certain
2012 light in the angels and in holy men in so far as they knew God in a
2013 more special way by grace; but this was a participated light,
2014 &ldquo;Upon whom does his light not shine?&rdquo; (Jb 25:3), which
2015 is like saying: Whoever shine, shine to the extent that they
2016 participate in his light, i.e., God&rsquo;s light.</p>
2017 <p>But the Word of God was not a false light, nor a symbolic light,
2018 nor a participated light, but the true light, i.e., light by his
2019 essence. Therefore he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">He was
2020 the true light.</span></p>
2021 <p>126 This excludes two errors. First, that of Photinus, who
2022 believed that Christ derived his beginning from the Virgin. So,
2023 lest anyone suppose this, the Evangelist, speaking of the
2024 incarnation of the Word, says, <span style="font-weight: bold">He
2025 was the true light,</span> i.e., eternally, not only before the
2026 Virgin, but before every creature. This also excludes the error of
2027 Arius and Origen; they said that Christ was not true God, but God
2028 by participation. If this were so, he could not be the true light,
2029 as the Evangelist says here, and as in &ldquo;God is light&rdquo;
2030 (1 Jn 1:5), i.e., not by participation, but <span style=
2031 "font-weight: bold">the true light.</span> So if the Word was the
2032 true light, it is plain that he is true God. Now it is clear how
2033 the divine Word is effective in causing divine knowledge.</p>
2034 <p>127 The effectiveness or efficiency of the Word lies in the fact
2035 that he <span style="font-weight: bold">enlightens every man coming
2036 into this world.</span> For everything which is what it is by
2037 participation is derived from that which is such by its essence;
2038 just as everything afire is so by participation in fire, which is
2039 fire by its very essence. Then since the Word is the true light by
2040 his very essence, then everything that shines must do so through
2041 him, insofar as it participates in him. And so he <span style=
2042 "font-weight: bold">enlightens every man coming into this
2043 world.</span></p>
2044 <p>128 To understand this, we should know that &ldquo;world&rdquo;
2045 is taken in three ways in Scripture. Sometimes, from the point of
2046 view of its creation, as when the Evangelist says here,
2047 &ldquo;through him the world was made&rdquo; (v 10). Sometimes,
2048 from the point of view of its perfection, which it reaches through
2049 Christ, as in &ldquo;God was, in Christ, reconciling the world to
2050 himself&rdquo; (2 Cor 5:19). And sometimes it is taken from the
2051 point of view of its perversity, as in &ldquo;The whole world lies
2052 under the power of the evil one&rdquo; (1 Jn 5:19).</p>
2053 <p>On the other hand, &ldquo;enlightenment&rdquo; or &ldquo;being
2054 enlightened&rdquo; by the Word is taken in two ways. First, in
2055 relation to the light of natural knowledge, as in &ldquo;The light
2056 of your countenance, O Lord, is marked upon us&rdquo; (Ps 4:7).
2057 Secondly, as the light of grace, &ldquo;Be enlightened, O
2058 Jerusalem&rdquo; (Is 60:1).</p>
2059 <p>129 With these two sets of distinctions in mind, it is easy to
2060 solve a difficulty which arises here. For when the Evangelist says,
2061 he <span style="font-weight: bold">enlightens every man,</span>
2062 this seems to be false, because there are still many in darkness in
2063 the world. However, if we bear in mind these distinctions and take
2064 &ldquo;world&rdquo; from the standpoint of its creation, and
2065 &ldquo;enlighten&rdquo; as referring to the light of natural
2066 reason, the statement of the Evangelist is beyond reproach. For all
2067 men coming into this visible world are enlightened by the light of
2068 natural knowledge through participating in this true light, which
2069 is the source of all the light of natural knowledge participated in
2070 by men.</p>
2071 <p>When the Evangelist speaks of <span style=
2072 "font-weight: bold">man coming into this world,</span> he does not
2073 mean that men had lived for a certain time outside the world and
2074 then came into the world, since this is contrary to the teaching of
2075 the Apostle in Romans (9:11), &ldquo;When the children were not yet
2076 born nor had they done anything good or evil.&rdquo; Therefore,
2077 since they had done nothing before they were born, it is plain that
2078 the soul does not exist p3or to its union with the body. He refers
2079 to <span style="font-weight: bold">every man coming into this
2080 world,</span> to show that men are enlightened by God with respect
2081 to that according to which they came into the world, i.e., with
2082 respect to the intellect, which is something external [to the
2083 world]. For man is constituted of a twofold nature, bodily and
2084 intellectual. According to his bodily or sensible nature, man is
2085 enlightened by a bodily and sensible light; but according to his
2086 soul and intellectual nature, he is enlightened by an intellectual
2087 and spiritual light. Now man does not come into this world
2088 according to his bodily nature, but under this aspect, he is from
2089 the world. His intellectual nature is derived from a source
2090 external to the world, as has been said, i.e., from God through
2091 creation; as in &ldquo;Until all flesh returns to its origin, and
2092 the spirit is directed to God, who made it&rdquo; (Ecc 12:7). For
2093 these reasons, when the Evangelist speaks of <span style=
2094 "font-weight: bold">every man coming into this world</span>, he is
2095 showing that this enlightenment refers to what is from without,
2096 that is, the intellect.</p>
2097 <p>130 If we understand &ldquo;enlightenment&rdquo; with respect to
2098 the light of grace, then <span style="font-weight: bold">he
2099 enlightens every man</span> may be explained in three ways. The
2100 first way is by Origen in his homily, &ldquo;The great
2101 eagle,&rdquo; and is this. &ldquo;World&rdquo; is understood from
2102 the point of view of its perfection, which man attains by his
2103 reconciliation through Christ. And so we have, he enlightens every
2104 man coming, by faith, into this world, i.e., this spiritual world,
2105 that is, the Church, which has been enlightened by the light of
2106 grace.</p>
2107 <p>Chrysostom explains it another way. He takes &ldquo;world&rdquo;
2108 under the aspect of creation. Then the sense is: He <span style=
2109 "font-weight: bold">enlightens,</span> i.e., the Word does, in so
2110 far as it depends on him, because he fails no one, but rather
2111 &ldquo;wants all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of
2112 the truth&rdquo; (1 Tim 2:4); <span style="font-weight: bold">every
2113 man coming</span>, i.e., who is born into this sensible world. If
2114 anyone is not enlightened, it is due to himself, because he turns
2115 from the light that enlightens.</p>
2116 <p>Augustine explains it a third way. For him, &ldquo;every&rdquo;
2117 has a restricted application, so that the sense is: He <span style=
2118 "font-weight: bold">enlightens every man coming into this
2119 world,</span> not every man universally, but every man who is
2120 enlightened, since no one is enlightened except by the Word.
2121 According to Augustine, the Evangelist says, <span style=
2122 "font-weight: bold">coming into this world,</span> in order to give
2123 the reason why man needs to be enlightened, and he is taking
2124 &ldquo;world&rdquo; from the point of view of its perversity and
2125 defect. It is as though he were saying: Man needs to be enlightened
2126 because he is coming into this world which is darkened by
2127 perversity and defects and is full of ignorance. (This followed the
2128 spiritual world of the first man.) As Luke says (1:79), &ldquo;To
2129 enlighten those who sit in darkness and in the shadow of
2130 death.&rdquo;</p>
2131 <p>131 The above statement refutes the error of the Manichaeans,
2132 who think than men were created in the world from an opposing
2133 principle, i.e., the devil. For if man were a creature of the devil
2134 when coming into this world, he would not be enlightened by God or
2135 by the Word, for &ldquo;Christ came into the world to destroy the
2136 works of the devil&rdquo; (1 Jn 3:8).</p>
2137 <p>132 So it is clear, from the efficacy of the divine Word, that
2138 the lack of knowledge in men is not due to the Word, because he is
2139 effective in enlightening all, being <span style=
2140 "font-weight: bold">the true light, which enlightens</span> every
2141 <span style="font-weight: bold">man coming into this
2142 world.</span></p>
2143 <p>But so you do not suppose this lack arose from the withdrawal or
2144 absence of the true light, the Evangelist rules this out adding,
2145 <span style="font-weight: bold">He was in the world</span>. A
2146 comparable statement is found in &ldquo;He is not far from any one
2147 of us,&rdquo; that is, God, &ldquo;for in him we live, and move,
2148 and are&rdquo; (Acts 17:28). It is as though the Evangelist were
2149 saying: The divine Word is effective and is at hand in order to
2150 enlighten us.</p>
2151 <p>133 We should remark that something is said to be &ldquo;in the
2152 world&rdquo; in three ways. In one way, by being contained, as a
2153 thing in place exists in a place: &ldquo;They are in the
2154 world&rdquo; (below 17:11). In another way, as a part in a whole;
2155 for a part of the world is said to be in the world even though it
2156 is not in a place. For example, supernatural substances, although
2157 not in the world as in a place, are nevertheless in it as parts:
2158 &ldquo;God ... who made heaven and earth, the sea, and all things
2159 that are in them&rdquo; (Ps 145:6). But the true light was not in
2160 the world in either of these ways, because that light is neither
2161 localized nor is it a part of the universe. Indeed, if we can speak
2162 this way, the entire universe is in a certain sense a part, since
2163 it participates in a partial way in his goodness.</p>
2164 <p>Accordingly, the true light was in the world in a third way,
2165 i.e., as an efficient and preserving cause: &ldquo;I fill heaven
2166 and earth&rdquo; as said in Jeremiah (23:24). However, there is a
2167 difference between the way the Word acts and causes all things and
2168 the way in which other agents act. For other agents act as existing
2169 externally: since they do not act except by moving and altering a
2170 thing qualitatively in some way with respect to its exterior, they
2171 work from without. But God acts in all things from within, because
2172 he acts by creating. Now to create is to give existence
2173 (<i>esse</i>) to the thing created. So, since esse is innermost in
2174 each thing, God, who by acting gives <i>esse</i> acts in things
2175 from within. Hence God was in the world as one giving <i>esse</i>
2176 to the world.</p>
2177 <p>134 It is customary to say that God is in all things by his
2178 essence, presence and power. To understand what this means, we
2179 should know that someone is said to be by his power in all the
2180 things that are subject to his power; as a king is said to be in
2181 the entire kingdom subject to him, by his power. He is not there,
2182 however, by presence or essence., Someone is said to be by presence
2183 in all the things that are within his range of vision; as a king is
2184 said to be in his house by presence. And someone is said to be by
2185 essence in those things in which his substance is; as a king is in
2186 one determinate place.</p>
2187 <p>Now we say that God is everywhere by his power, since all things
2188 are subject to his power: &ldquo;If I ascend into heaven, you are
2189 there.... If I take my wings early in the morning, and dwell in the
2190 furthest part of the sea, even there your hand will lead me, and
2191 your right hand will hold me&rdquo; (Ps 138:8). He is also
2192 everywhere by his presence, because &ldquo;all things are bare and
2193 open to his eyes,&rdquo; as is said in Hebrews (4:13). He is
2194 present everywhere by his essence, be cause his essence is
2195 innermost in all things. For every agent, as acting, has to be
2196 immediately joined to its effect, because mover and moved must be
2197 together. Now God is the maker and preserver of all things with
2198 respect to the <i>esse</i> of each. Hence, since the <i>esse</i> of
2199 a thing is innermost in that thing, it is plain that God, by his
2200 essence, through which he creates all things, is in all things.</p>
2201 <p>135 It should be noted that the Evangelist significantly uses
2202 the word &ldquo;was,&rdquo; when he says, <span style=
2203 "font-weight: bold">He was in the world,</span> showing that from
2204 the beginning of creation he was always in the world, causing and
2205 preserving all things; because if God for even a moment were to
2206 withhold his power from the things he established, all would return
2207 to nothing and cease to be. Hence Origen uses an apt example to
2208 show this, when he says that as a human vocal sound is to a human
2209 word conceived in the mind, so is, the creature to the divine Word;
2210 for as our vocal sound is the effect of the word conceived in our
2211 mind, so the creature is the effect of the Word conceived in the
2212 divine mind. &ldquo;For he spoke, and they were created&rdquo; (Ps
2213 148:5). Hence, just as we notice that as soon as our inner word
2214 vanishes, the sensible vocal sound also ceases, so, if the power of
2215 the divine Word were withdrawn from things, all of them would
2216 immediately cease to be at that moment. And this is because he is
2217 &ldquo;sustaining all things by his powerful word&rdquo; (Heb
2218 1:3).</p>
2219 <p>136 So it is plain that a lack of divine knowledge in minds is
2220 not due to the absence of the Word, because <span style=
2221 "font-weight: bold">He was in the world</span>; nor is it due to
2222 the invisibility or concealment of the Word, because he has
2223 produced a work in which his likeness is clearly reflected, that
2224 is, the world: &ldquo;For from the greatness and beauty of
2225 creatures, their creator can be seen accordingly&rdquo; (Wis 13:5),
2226 and &ldquo;The invisible things of God are clearly seen, being
2227 understood through the things that are made&rdquo; (Rom 1:20). And
2228 so the Evangelist at once adds, <span style="font-weight: bold">and
2229 through him the world was made,</span> in order that that light
2230 might be manifested in it. For as a work of art manifests the art
2231 of the artisan, so the whole world is nothing else than a certain
2232 representation of the divine wisdom conceived within the mind of
2233 the Father, &ldquo;He poured her [wisdom] out upon all his
2234 works,&rdquo; as is said in Sirach (1:10).</p>
2235 <p>Now it is clear that the lack of divine knowledge is not due to
2236 the Word, because he is efficacious, being <span style=
2237 "font-weight: bold">the true light;</span> and he is at hand, since
2238 he <span style="font-weight: bold">was in the world;</span> and he
2239 is knowable, since <span style="font-weight: bold">through him the
2240 world was made.</span></p>
2241 <p>137 The Evangelist indicates the source of this lack when he
2242 says, <span style="font-weight: bold">and the world did not know
2243 him.</span> As if to say: It is not due to him, but to the world,
2244 who did not know him.</p>
2245 <p>He says him in the singular, because earlier he had called the
2246 Word not only the &ldquo;light of men,&rdquo; but also
2247 &ldquo;God&rdquo;; and so when he says him, he means God. Again, he
2248 uses &ldquo;world&rdquo; for man. For the angels knew him by their
2249 understanding, and the elements by their obeying him; but
2250 <span style="font-weight: bold">the world,</span> i.e., man, who
2251 lives in the world, <span style="font-weight: bold">did not know
2252 him.</span></p>
2253 <p>138 We attribute this lack of divine knowledge either to the
2254 nature of man or to his guilt. To his nature, indeed, because
2255 although all the aforesaid aids were given to man to lead him to
2256 the knowledge of God, human reason in itself lacks this knowledge.
2257 &ldquo;Man beholds him from afar&rdquo; (Jb 36:25), and immediately
2258 after, &ldquo;God is great beyond our knowledge.&rdquo; But if some
2259 have known him, this was not insofar as they were in the world, but
2260 above the world; and the kind for whom the world was not worthy,
2261 because <span style="font-weight: bold">the world did not know
2262 him.</span> Hence if they mentally perceived anything eternal, that
2263 was insofar as they were not of this world.</p>
2264 <p>But if this lack is attributed to man&rsquo;s guilt, then the
2265 phrase, <span style="font-weight: bold">the world did not know
2266 him,</span> is a kind of reason why God was not known by man; in
2267 this sense <span style="font-weight: bold">world</span> is taken
2268 for inordinate lovers of the world. It is as though it said,
2269 <span style="font-weight: bold">The world did not know him,</span>
2270 because they were lovers of the world. For the love of the world,
2271 as Augustine says, is what chiefly withdraws us from the knowledge
2272 of God, because &ldquo;Love of the world makes one an enemy to
2273 God&rdquo; (Jas 4:4); &ldquo;The sensual man does not perceive the
2274 things that pertain to the Spirit of God&rdquo; ( 1 Cor 2:14).</p>
2275 <p>139 From this we call answer the question of the Gentiles who
2276 futilely ask this: If it is only recently that the Son of God is
2277 set before the world as the Savior of men, does it not seem that
2278 before that time he scorned human nature? We should say to them
2279 that he did not scorn the world but was always in the world, and on
2280 his part is knowable by men; but it was due to their own fault that
2281 some have not known him, because they were lovers of the world.</p>
2282 <p>140 We should also note that the Evangelist speaks of the
2283 incarnation of the Word to show that the incarnate Word and that
2284 which &ldquo;was in the beginning with God,&rdquo; and God, are the
2285 same. He repeats what he had said of him earlier. For above he had
2286 said he [the Word] &ldquo;was the light of men&rdquo;; here he says
2287 he was <span style="font-weight: bold">the true light.</span>
2288 Above, he said that &ldquo;all things were made through him&rdquo;;
2289 here he says that through him the world was made. Earlier he had
2290 said, &ldquo;without him nothing was made,&rdquo; i.e., according
2291 to one explanation, he conserves all things; here he says, he was
2292 in the world, creating and conserving the world and all things.
2293 There he had said, &ldquo;the darkness did not overcome it&rdquo;;
2294 here he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">the world did not
2295 know him.</span> And so, all he says after he was the <span style=
2296 "font-weight: bold">true light,</span> is an explanation of what he
2297 had said before.</p>
2298 <p>141 We can gather three reasons from the above why God willed to
2299 become incarnate. One is because of the perversity of human nature
2300 which, because of its own malice, had been darkened by vices and
2301 the obscurity of its own ignorance. And so he said before, the
2302 darkness did not overcome it. Therefore, God came in the flesh so
2303 that the darkness might apprehend the light, i.e., obtain a
2304 knowledge of it. &ldquo;The people who walked in darkness saw a
2305 great light&rdquo; (Is 9:2).</p>
2306 <p>The second reason is that the testimony of the prophets was not
2307 enough. For the prophets came and John had come; but they were not
2308 able to give sufficient enlightenment, because <span style=
2309 "font-weight: bold">he was not the light.</span> And so, after the
2310 prophecies of the prophets and the coming of John, it was necessary
2311 that the light itself come and give the world a knowledge of
2312 itself. And this is what the Apostle says: &ldquo;In past times,
2313 God spoke in many ways and degrees to our fathers through the
2314 prophets; in these days he has spoken to us in his Son&rdquo; as we
2315 find in Hebrews (1:1). &ldquo;We have the prophetic message, to
2316 which you do well to give attention, until the day dawns&rdquo; (2
2317 Pt 1:19).</p>
2318 <p>The third reason is because of the shortcomings of creatures.
2319 For creatures were not sufficient to lead to a knowledge of the
2320 Creator; hence he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">through him
2321 the world was made, and the world did not know him.</span> Thus it
2322 was necessary that the Creator himself come into the world in the
2323 flesh, and be known through himself. And this is what the Apostle
2324 says: &ldquo;Since in the wisdom of God the world did not know God
2325 by its wisdom, it pleased God to save those who believe by the
2326 foolishness of our preaching&rdquo; (1 Cor 1:21).</p>
2327 <p style="margin-bottom: 0.125in; margin-bottom: 0.125in">
2328 &nbsp;</p>
2329 <center>
2330 <p style="text-align: center; margin-bottom: 0.125in"><span style=
2331 "font-weight: bold">LECTURE 6</span></p>
2332 <p>11 He came unto his own, and his own did not receive him;<br />
2333 12 but whoever received him, he gave them power to become<br />
2334 the sons of God, to all who believe in his name,<br />
2335 13 who are born not from blood, nor from the desires of the
2336 flesh,<br />
2337 nor from man&rsquo;s willing it, but from God.</p>
2338 </center>
2339 <p>142 Having given the necessity for the incarnation of the Word,
2340 the Evangelist then shows the advantage men gained from that
2341 incarnation. First, he shows the coming of the light (v 11);
2342 secondly, its reception by men (v 11b); thirdly, the fruit brought
2343 by the coming of the light (v 12).</p>
2344 <p>143 He shows that the light which was present in the world and
2345 evident, i.e., disclosed by its effect, was nevertheless not known
2346 by the world. Hence, he came unto his own, in order to be known.
2347 The Evangelist says, <span style="font-weight: bold">unto his
2348 own,</span> i.e., to things that were his own, which he had made.
2349 And he says this so that you do not think that when he says, he
2350 came, he means a local motion in the sense that he came as though
2351 ceasing to be where he previously was and newly beginning to be
2352 where he formerly had not been. He came where he already was.
2353 &ldquo;I came forth from the Father, and have come into the
2354 world,&rdquo; as said below ( 16:2 8).</p>
2355 <p>He came, I say, unto his own, i.e., to Judea, according to some,
2356 because it was in a special way his own. &ldquo;In Judea God is
2357 known&rdquo; (Ps 75:1); &ldquo;The vineyard of the Lord of hosts is
2358 the house of Israel&rdquo; (Is 5:7). But it is better to say, unto
2359 his own, i.e., into the world created by him. &ldquo;The earth is
2360 the Lord&rsquo;s&rdquo; (Ps 23:1).</p>
2361 <p>144 But if he was previously in the world, how could he come
2362 into the world? I answer that &ldquo;coming to some place&rdquo; is
2363 understood in two ways. First, that someone comes where he
2364 absolutely had not been before. Or, secondly, that someone begins
2365 to be in a new way where he was before. For example, a king, who up
2366 to a certain time was in a city of his kingdom by his power and
2367 later visits it in person, is said to have come where he previously
2368 was: for he comes by his substance where previously he was present
2369 only by his power. It was in this way that the Son of God came into
2370 the world and yet was in the world. For he was there, indeed, by
2371 his essence, power and presence, but he came by assuming flesh. He
2372 was there invisibly, and he came in order to be visible.</p>
2373 <p>145 Then when he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">and his
2374 own did not receive him,</span> we have the reception given him by
2375 men, who reacted in different ways. For some did receive him, but
2376 these were not his own; hence he says, <span style=
2377 "font-weight: bold">his own did not receive him.</span> &ldquo;His
2378 own&rdquo; are men, because they were formed by him. &ldquo;The
2379 Lord God formed man&rdquo; (Gn 2:7); &ldquo;Know that the Lord is
2380 God: he made us&rdquo; (Ps 99:3). And he made them to his own
2381 image, &ldquo;Let us make man to our image&rdquo; (Gn 1:26).</p>
2382 <p>But it is better to say, <span style="font-weight: bold">his
2383 own,</span> i.e., the Jews, <span style="font-weight: bold">did not
2384 receive him,</span> through faith by believing, and by showing
2385 honor to him. &ldquo;I have come in the name of my Father, and you
2386 do not receive me&rdquo; (below 5:43), and &ldquo;I honor my Father
2387 and you have dishonored me&rdquo; (below 8:49). Now the Jews are
2388 his own because they were chosen by him to be his special people.
2389 &ldquo;The Lord chose you to be his special people&rdquo; (Dt
2390 26:18). They are his own because related according to the flesh,
2391 &ldquo;from whom is Christ, according to the flesh,&rdquo; as said
2392 in Romans (9:3). They are also his own because enriched by his
2393 kindness, &ldquo;I have reared and brought up sons&rdquo; (Is 1:2).
1522 But although the Jews were his own, they did not receive him.</p> 2394 But although the Jews were his own, they did not receive him.</p>
1523 <p>146 However, there were not lacking those who did receive him. Hence he adds, <span style="font-weight: bold">but 2395 <p>146 However, there were not lacking those who did receive him.
1524 whoever received him. </span>The Evangelist uses this manner of speaking, saying, but whoever, to 2396 Hence he adds, <span style="font-weight: bold">but whoever received
1525 indicate that the deliverance would be more extensive than the promise, which had been made 2397 him.</span> The Evangelist uses this manner of speaking, saying,
1526 only to his own, i.e., to the Jews. &#8220;The Lord is our law giver, the Lord is our king; he will 2398 but whoever, to indicate that the deliverance would be more
1527 save us&#8221; (Is 33:22). But this deliverance was not only for his own, but for <span style="font-weight: bold">whoever received 2399 extensive than the promise, which had been made only to his own,
1528 him, </span>i.e., whoever believe in him. &#8220;For I say that Christ was a minister to the circumcised, for 2400 i.e., to the Jews. &ldquo;The Lord is our law giver, the Lord is
1529 the sake of God&#8217;s truth, to confirm the promises made to the fathers&#8221; (Rom 15:8). The 2401 our king; he will save us&rdquo; (Is 33:22). But this deliverance
1530 Gentiles, however, [are delivered] by his mercy, because they were received through his 2402 was not only for his own, but for <span style=
1531 mercy.</p> 2403 "font-weight: bold">whoever received him,</span> i.e., whoever
1532 <p>147 He says, whoever, to show that God&#8217;s grace is given without distinction to all who 2404 believe in him. &ldquo;For I say that Christ was a minister to the
1533 receive Christ. &#8220;The grace of the Holy Spirit has been poured out upon the Gentiles&#8221;(Acts 2405 circumcised, for the sake of God&rsquo;s truth, to confirm the
1534 10:45). And not only to free men, but to slaves as well; not only to men, but to women also. 2406 promises made to the fathers&rdquo; (Rom 15:8). The Gentiles,
1535 &#8220;In Christ Jesus there is neither male nor female, Jew or Greek, the circumcised or 2407 however, [are delivered] by his mercy, because they were received
1536 uncircumcised&#8221; (Gal 3:28).</p> 2408 through his mercy.</p>
1537 <p>148 Then when he says, he gave them power to become the sons of God, we have the fruit of 2409 <p>147 He says, whoever, to show that God&rsquo;s grace is given
1538 his coming. First, he mentions the grandeur of the fruit, for he gave them power. Secondly, he 2410 without distinction to all who receive Christ. &ldquo;The grace of
1539 shows to whom it is given, <span style="font-weight: bold">to all who believe. </span>Thirdly, he indicates the way it is given, <span style="font-weight: bold">not 2411 the Holy Spirit has been poured out upon the Gentiles&rdquo;(Acts
1540 from blood, </span>and so forth.</p> 2412 10:45). And not only to free men, but to slaves as well; not only
1541 <p>149 The fruit of the coming of the Son of God is great, because by it men are made sons of 2413 to men, but to women also. &ldquo;In Christ Jesus there is neither
1542 God. &#8220;God sent his Son made from a woman ... so that we might receive our adoption as 2414 male nor female, Jew or Greek, the circumcised or
1543 sons&#8221; (Gal 4:5). And it was fitting that we, who. are sons of God by the fact that we are made 2415 uncircumcised&rdquo; (Gal 3:28).</p>
1544 like the Son, should be reformed through the Son.</p> 2416 <p>148 Then when he says, he gave them power to become the sons of
1545 <p>150 So he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">he gave them power to become the sons of God. </span>To understand this we 2417 God, we have the fruit of his coming. First, he mentions the
1546 should remark that men become sons of God by being made like God. Hence men are sons of 2418 grandeur of the fruit, for he gave them power. Secondly, he shows
1547 God according to a threefold likeness to God. First, by the infusion of grace; hence anyone 2419 to whom it is given, <span style="font-weight: bold">to all who
1548 having sanctifying grace is made a son of God. &#8220;You did not receive the spirit of slavery ... 2420 believe.</span> Thirdly, he indicates the way it is given,
1549 but the spirit of adoption as sons,&#8221; as said in Romans (8:15). &#8220;Because you are sons of God, 2421 <span style="font-weight: bold">not from blood,</span> and so
1550 God sent the Spirit of his Son into your hearts&#8221; (Gal 4:6).</p> 2422 forth.</p>
1551 <p>Secondly, we are like God by the perfection of our actions, because one who acts justly is a 2423 <p>149 The fruit of the coming of the Son of God is great, because
1552 son: &#8220;Love your enemies ... so that you may be the children of your Father&#8221; (Mt 5:44).</p> 2424 by it men are made sons of God. &ldquo;God sent his Son made from a
1553 <p>Thirdly, we are made like God by the attainment of glory. The glory of the soul by the light of 2425 woman ... so that we might receive our adoption as sons&rdquo; (Gal
1554 glory, &#8220;When he appears we shall be like him&#8221; (1 Jn 3:2); and the glory of the body, &#8220;He will 2426 4:5). And it was fitting that we, who. are sons of God by the fact
1555 reform our lowly body&#8221; (Phil 3:21). Of these two it is said in Romans (8:23), &#8220;We are waiting 2427 that we are made like the Son, should be reformed through the
1556 for our adoption as sons of God.&#8221;</p> 2428 Son.</p>
1557 <p>151 If we take the power to become the sons of God as referring to the perfection of our 2429 <p>150 So he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">he gave them
1558 actions and the attainment of glory, the statement offers no difficulty. For then when he says, 2430 power to become the sons of God.</span> To understand this we
1559 he gave them power, he is referring to the power of grace; and when a man possesses this, he 2431 should remark that men become sons of God by being made like God.
1560 can perform works of perfection and attain glory, since &#8220;The grace of God is eternal life&#8221; 2432 Hence men are sons of God according to a threefold likeness to God.
1561 (Rom 6:23). According to this way we have, he gave them, to those who received him, power, 2433 First, by the infusion of grace; hence anyone having sanctifying
1562 i.e., the infusion of grace, to become the sons of God, by acting well and acquiring glory.</p> 2434 grace is made a son of God. &ldquo;You did not receive the spirit
1563 <p>152 But if this statement refers to the infusion of grace, then his saying, <span style="font-weight: bold">he gave them power, 2435 of slavery ... but the spirit of adoption as sons,&rdquo; as said
1564 </span>gives rise to a difficulty. And this is because it is not in our power to be made sons of God, 2436 in Romans (8:15). &ldquo;Because you are sons of God, God sent the
1565 since it is not in our power to possess grace. We can understand, he gave them power, as a 2437 Spirit of his Son into your hearts&rdquo; (Gal 4:6).</p>
1566 power of nature; but this does not seem to be true since the infusion of grace is above our 2438 <p>Secondly, we are like God by the perfection of our actions,
1567 nature. Or we can understand it as the power of grace, and then to have grace is to have power 2439 because one who acts justly is a son: &ldquo;Love your enemies ...
1568 to <span style="font-weight: bold">become the sons of God. </span>And in this sense he did not give them power to become sons of 2440 so that you may be the children of your Father&rdquo; (Mt
1569 God, but to be sons of God.</p> 2441 5:44).</p>
1570 <p>153 The answer to this is that when grace is given to an adult, his justification requires an act 2442 <p>Thirdly, we are made like God by the attainment of glory. The
1571 of consent by a movement of his free will. So, because it is in the power of men to consent 2443 glory of the soul by the light of glory, &ldquo;When he appears we
1572 and not to consent, <span style="font-weight: bold">he gave them power. </span>However, he gives this power of accepting grace in 2444 shall be like him&rdquo; (1 Jn 3:2); and the glory of the body,
1573 two ways: by preparing it, and by offering it to him. For just as one who writes a book and 2445 &ldquo;He will reform our lowly body&rdquo; (Phil 3:21). Of these
1574 offers it to a man to read is said to give the power to read it, so Christ, through whom grace 2446 two it is said in Romans (8:23), &ldquo;We are waiting for our
1575 was produced (as will be said below), and who &#8220;accomplished salvation on the earth&#8221; (Ps 2447 adoption as sons of God.&rdquo;</p>
1576 73:12), <span style="font-weight: bold">gave us power to become the sons of God </span>by offering grace.</p> 2448 <p>151 If we take the power to become the sons of God as referring
1577 <p>154 Yet this is not sufficient since even free will, if it is to be moved to receive grace, needs 2449 to the perfection of our actions and the attainment of glory, the
1578 the help of divine grace, not indeed habitual grace, but movent grace. For this reason, 2450 statement offers no difficulty. For then when he says, he gave them
1579 secondly, he gives power by moving the free will of man to consent to the reception of grace, 2451 power, he is referring to the power of grace; and when a man
1580 as in &#8220;Convert us to yourself, 0 Lord,&#8221; by moving our will to your love, &#8220;and we will be 2452 possesses this, he can perform works of perfection and attain
1581 converted&#8221; (Lam 5:21). And in this sense we speak of an interior call, of which it is said, 2453 glory, since &ldquo;The grace of God is eternal life&rdquo; (Rom
1582 &#8220;Those whom he called,&#8221; by inwardly moving the will to consent to grace, &#8220;he justified,&#8221; by 2454 6:23). According to this way we have, he gave them, to those who
1583 infusing grace (Rom 8:3).</p> 2455 received him, power, i.e., the infusion of grace, to become the
1584 <p>155 Since by this grace man has the power of maintaining himself in the divine sonship, one 2456 sons of God, by acting well and acquiring glory.</p>
1585 may read these words in another way. He gave them, i.e., those who receive him, <span style="font-weight: bold">power to 2457 <p>152 But if this statement refers to the infusion of grace, then
1586 become the sons of God, </span>i.e., the grace by which they are able to be maintained in the divine 2458 his saying, <span style="font-weight: bold">he gave them
1587 sonship. &#8220;Everyone who is born from God does not sin, but the grace of God,&#8221; through which 2459 power,</span> gives rise to a difficulty. And this is because it is
1588 we are reborn as children of God, &#8220;preserves him&#8221; (1 Jn 5:18).</p> 2460 not in our power to be made sons of God, since it is not in our
1589 <p>156 Thus, <span style="font-weight: bold">he gave them power to become the sons of God, </span>through sanctifying grace, 2461 power to possess grace. We can understand, he gave them power, as a
1590 through the perfection of their actions, and through the attainment of glory; and he did this by 2462 power of nature; but this does not seem to be true since the
1591 preparing this grace, moving their wills, and preserving this grace.</p> 2463 infusion of grace is above our nature. Or we can understand it as
1592 <p>157 Then when he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">to all who believe in his name, </span>he shows those on whom the fruit of 2464 the power of grace, and then to have grace is to have power to
1593 his coming is conferred. We can understand this in two ways: either as explaining what was 2465 <span style="font-weight: bold">become the sons of God.</span> And
1594 said before, or as qualifying it. We can regard it as explaining as the Evangelist had said, 2466 in this sense he did not give them power to become sons of God, but
1595 whoever received him, and now to show what it is to receive him, he adds by way of 2467 to be sons of God.</p>
1596 explanation, <span style="font-weight: bold">who believe in his name. </span>It is as though he were saying: To receive him is to 2468 <p>153 The answer to this is that when grace is given to an adult,
1597 believe in him, because it is through faith that Christ dwells in your hearts, as in &#8220;that Christ 2469 his justification requires an act of consent by a movement of his
1598 may dwell in your hearts through faith&#8221; (Eph 3:17). Therefore, they <span style="font-weight: bold">received him, who 2470 free will. So, because it is in the power of men to consent and not
1599 believe in his name.</span></p> 2471 to consent, <span style="font-weight: bold">he gave them
1600 <p>158 Origen regards this as a qualifying statement, in his homily, &#8220;The spiritual voice.&#8221; In this 2472 power.</span> However, he gives this power of accepting grace in
1601 sense, many receive Christ, declaring that they are Christians, but they are not sons of God, 2473 two ways: by preparing it, and by offering it to him. For just as
1602 because they do not truly believe in his name; for they propose false dogmas about Christ by 2474 one who writes a book and offers it to a man to read is said to
1603 taking away something from his divinity or humanity, as in &#8220;Every spirit that denies Christ is 2475 give the power to read it, so Christ, through whom grace was
1604 not from God&#8221; (1 Jn 4:3). And so the Evangelist says, as though contracting his meaning, <span style="font-weight: bold">he 2476 produced (as will be said below), and who &ldquo;accomplished
1605 gave them, </span>i.e., those who receive him by faith, <span style="font-weight: bold">power to become the sons of God, </span>to those, 2477 salvation on the earth&rdquo; (Ps 73:12), <span style=
1606 however, <span style="font-weight: bold">who believe in his name, </span>i.e., who keep the name of Christ whole, in such a way as 2478 "font-weight: bold">gave us power to become the sons of God</span>
1607 not to lessen anything of the divinity or humanity of Christ.</p> 2479 by offering grace.</p>
1608 <p>159 We can also refer this to formed faith, in the sense that to all, that is, <span style="font-weight: bold">he gave power to 2480 <p>154 Yet this is not sufficient since even free will, if it is to
1609 become the sons of God, who believe in his name, </span>i.e., those who do the works of salvation 2481 be moved to receive grace, needs the help of divine grace, not
1610 through a faith formed by charity. For those who have only an unformed faith do not believe 2482 indeed habitual grace, but movent grace. For this reason, secondly,
1611 in his name because they do not work unto salvation.</p> 2483 he gives power by moving the free will of man to consent to the
1612 <p>However, the first exposition, which is taken as explaining what preceded, is better.</p> 2484 reception of grace, as in &ldquo;Convert us to yourself, 0
1613 <p>160 Then when he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">who are born not from blood, </span>he shows the way in which so great a 2485 Lord,&rdquo; by moving our will to your love, &ldquo;and we will be
1614 fruit is conferred on men. For since he had said that the fruit of the light&#8217;s coming is the 2486 converted&rdquo; (Lam 5:21). And in this sense we speak of an
1615 power given to men to become the sons of God, then to forestall the supposition that they are 2487 interior call, of which it is said, &ldquo;Those whom he
1616 born through a material generation he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">not from blood. </span>And although the word &#8220;blood&#8221; 2488 called,&rdquo; by inwardly moving the will to consent to grace,
1617 (<i>sanguis</i>)<i> </i>has no plural in Latin, but does in Greek, the translator [from Greek into Latin] 2489 &ldquo;he justified,&rdquo; by infusing grace (Rom 8:3).</p>
1618 ignored a rule of grammar in order to teach the truth more perfectly. So he does not say, 2490 <p>155 Since by this grace man has the power of maintaining himself
1619 &#8220;from blood,&#8221; in the Latin manner, but &#8220;from bloods&#8221; (<i>ex sanguinibus</i>)<i>. </i>This indicates 2491 in the divine sonship, one may read these words in another way. He
1620 whatever is generated from blood, serving as the matter in carnal generation. According to the 2492 gave them, i.e., those who receive him, <span style=
1621 Philosopher [<i>On the Generation of Animals, 1, </i>c 18, 726a26-8], &#8220;semen is a residue derived 2493 "font-weight: bold">power to become the sons of God,</span> i.e.,
1622 from useful nourishment in its final form.&#8221; So &#8220;blood&#8221; indicates either the seed of the male or 2494 the grace by which they are able to be maintained in the divine
1623 the menses of the female.</p> 2495 sonship. &ldquo;Everyone who is born from God does not sin, but the
1624 <p>The cause moving to the carnal act is the will of those coming together, the man and the 2496 grace of God,&rdquo; through which we are reborn as children of
1625 woman. For although the act of the generative power as such is not subject to the will, the 2497 God, &ldquo;preserves him&rdquo; (1 Jn 5:18).</p>
1626 preliminaries to it are subject to the will. So he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">nor from the desires of the flesh, 2498 <p>156 Thus, <span style="font-weight: bold">he gave them power to
1627 </span>referring to the woman; <span style="font-weight: bold">nor from man&#8217;s willing it, </span>as from an efficient cause; <span style="font-weight: bold">but from 2499 become the sons of God,</span> through sanctifying grace, through
1628 God. </span>It is as though he were saying: They became sons of God, not carnally, but spiritually.</p> 2500 the perfection of their actions, and through the attainment of
1629 <p>According to Augustine, &#8220;flesh&#8221; is taken here for the woman, because as the flesh obeys the 2501 glory; and he did this by preparing this grace, moving their wills,
1630 spirit, so woman should obey man. Adam (Gn 2:23) said of the woman, &#8220;This, at last, is bone 2502 and preserving this grace.</p>
1631 of my bones.&#8221; And note, according to Augustine, that just as the possessions of a household 2503 <p>157 Then when he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">to all
1632 are wasted away if the woman rules and the man is subject, so a man is wasted away when the 2504 who believe in his name,</span> he shows those on whom the fruit of
1633 flesh rules the spirit. For this reason the Apostle says, &#8220;We are not debtors to the flesh, so that 2505 his coming is conferred. We can understand this in two ways: either
1634 we should live according to the flesh&#8221; (Rom 8:12). Concerning the manner of this carnal 2506 as explaining what was said before, or as qualifying it. We can
1635 generation, we read, &#8220;In the womb of my mother I was molded into flesh&#8221; (Wis 7:1).</p> 2507 regard it as explaining as the Evangelist had said, whoever
1636 <p>161 Or, we might say that the moving force to carnal generation is twofold: the intellectual 2508 received him, and now to show what it is to receive him, he adds by
1637 appetite on the one hand, that is, the will; and on the other hand, the sense appetite, which is 2509 way of explanation, <span style="font-weight: bold">who believe in
1638 concupiscence. So, to indicate the material cause he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">not from blood. </span>To indicate the 2510 his name.</span> It is as though he were saying: To receive him is
1639 efficient cause, in respect to concupiscence, he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">nor from the desires of the flesh</span> [<i>ex 2511 to believe in him, because it is through faith that Christ dwells
1640 voluntate carnis</i>, literally, &#8220;from the will of the flesh&#8221;], even though the concupiscence of the 2512 in your hearts, as in &ldquo;that Christ may dwell in your hearts
1641 flesh is improperly called a &#8220;will&#8221; in the sense of Galatians (5:17), &#8220;The flesh lusts against the 2513 through faith&rdquo; (Eph 3:17). Therefore, they <span style=
1642 spirit.&#8221; Finally, to indicate the intellectual appetite he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">nor from man&#8217;s willing it. </span>So, 2514 "font-weight: bold">received him, who believe in his
1643 the generation of the sons of God is not carnal but spiritual, because they were born <span style="font-weight: bold">from 2515 name.</span></p>
1644 God. </span>&#8220;Every one who is born from God conquers the world&#8221; (1 Jn 5:4).</p> 2516 <p>158 Origen regards this as a qualifying statement, in his
1645 <p>162 Note, however, that this preposition <i>de </i>(&#8220;of,&#8221; or &#8220;from&#8221;), always signifies a material 2517 homily, &ldquo;The spiritual voice.&rdquo; In this sense, many
1646 cause as well as an efficient and even a consubstantial cause. Thus we say a blacksmith 2518 receive Christ, declaring that they are Christians, but they are
1647 makes a knife <i>de ferro </i>(&#8220;from&#8221; iron), and a father generates his son <i>de seipso </i>(&#8220;from&#8221; 2519 not sons of God, because they do not truly believe in his name; for
1648 himself), because something of his concurs somehow in begetting. But the preposition <i>a 2520 they propose false dogmas about Christ by taking away something
1649 </i>(&#8220;by&#8221;) always signifies a moving cause. The preposition <i>ex </i>(&#8220;from,&#8221; or &#8220;by&#8221;)&#8212;[in the sense 2521 from his divinity or humanity, as in &ldquo;Every spirit that
1650 of &#8220;out of&#8221; or &#8220;by reason of&#8221;]&#8212;is taken as something common, since it implies an efficient as 2522 denies Christ is not from God&rdquo; (1 Jn 4:3). And so the
1651 well as a material cause, although not a consubstantial cause.</p> 2523 Evangelist says, as though contracting his meaning, <span style=
1652 <p>Consequently, since only the Son of God, who is the Word, is &#8220;<i>of</i>&#8221;<i> </i>(<i>de</i>)<i> </i>the substance of the 2524 "font-weight: bold">he gave them,</span> i.e., those who receive
1653 Father and indeed is one substance with the Father, while the saints, who are adopted sons, 2525 him by faith, <span style="font-weight: bold">power to become the
1654 are not of his substance, the Evangelist uses the preposition <i>ex, </i>saying of others that they are 2526 sons of God,</span> to those, however, <span style=
1655 born <span style="font-weight: bold">from God </span>(<i>ex Deo</i>)<i>, </i>but of the natural Son, he says that he is born of the Father (<i>de 2527 "font-weight: bold">who believe in his name,</span> i.e., who keep
1656 Patre</i>)<i>.</i></p> 2528 the name of Christ whole, in such a way as not to lessen anything
1657 <p>163 Note also that in the light of our last exposition of carnal generation, we can discern the 2529 of the divinity or humanity of Christ.</p>
1658 difference between carnal and spiritual generation. For since the former is from blood, it is 2530 <p>159 We can also refer this to formed faith, in the sense that to
1659 carnal; but the latter, because it is not from blood, is spiritual. &#8220;What is born from flesh is 2531 all, that is, <span style="font-weight: bold">he gave power to
1660 itself flesh; and what is born from Spirit is itself spirit&#8221; (below 3:6). Again, because material 2532 become the sons of God, who believe in his name,</span> i.e., those
1661 generation is from the desires of the flesh, i.e., from concupiscence, it is unclean and begets 2533 who do the works of salvation through a faith formed by charity.
1662 children who are sinners: &#8220;We were by nature children of wrath&#8221; as it says in Ephesians (2:3). 2534 For those who have only an unformed faith do not believe in his
1663 Again, because the former is <span style="font-weight: bold">from man&#8217;s willing it, </span>that is, from man, it makes children of 2535 name because they do not work unto salvation.</p>
1664 men; but the latter, because it is from God, makes children of God.</p> 2536 <p>However, the first exposition, which is taken as explaining what
1665 <p>164 But if he intends to refer his statement, <span style="font-weight: bold">he gave them power, </span>to baptism, in virtue of 2537 preceded, is better.</p>
1666 which we are reborn as sons of God, we can detect in his words the order of baptism: that is, 2538 <p>160 Then when he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">who are
1667 the first thing required is faith, as shown in the case of catechumens, who must first be 2539 born not from blood,</span> he shows the way in which so great a
1668 instructed about the faith so that they may believe in his name; then through baptism they are 2540 fruit is conferred on men. For since he had said that the fruit of
1669 reborn, not carnally froin blood, but spiritually from God.</p> 2541 the light&rsquo;s coming is the power given to men to become the
1670 <p style="margin-bottom: 0.125in; margin-bottom: 0.125in">&#160;</p> 2542 sons of God, then to forestall the supposition that they are born
1671 <CENTER><p><span style="font-weight: bold">LECTURE 7</span></p> 2543 through a material generation he says, <span style=
1672 <p>14a And the Word was made flesh, and made his dwelling among us.</CENTER> 2544 "font-weight: bold">not from blood.</span> And although the word
1673 <p>165 Having explained the necessity for the Word&#8217;s coming in the flesh as well as the benefits 2545 &ldquo;blood&rdquo; (<i>sanguis</i>) has no plural in Latin, but
1674 this conferred, the Evangelist now shows the way he came (v 14a). He thus resumes the 2546 does in Greek, the translator [from Greek into Latin] ignored a
1675 thread with his earlier statement, <span style="font-weight: bold">he came unto his own. </span>As if to say: The Word of God came 2547 rule of grammar in order to teach the truth more perfectly. So he
1676 unto his own. But lest anyone suppose that he came by changing his location, he shows the 2548 does not say, &ldquo;from blood,&rdquo; in the Latin manner, but
1677 manner in which he came, that is, by an incarnation. For he came in the manner in which he 2549 &ldquo;from bloods&rdquo; (<i>ex sanguinibus</i>)<i>.</i> This
1678 was sent by the Father, by whom he was sent, i.e., he was made flesh. &#8220;God sent his Son 2550 indicates whatever is generated from blood, serving as the matter
1679 made from a woman&#8221; (Gal 4:4). And Augustine says about this that &#8220;He was sent in the 2551 in carnal generation. According to the Philosopher [<i>On the
1680 manner in which he was made.&#8221;</p> 2552 Generation of Animals, 1,</i> c 18, 726a26-8], &ldquo;semen is a
1681 <p>According to Chrysostom, however, he is here continuing the earlier statement, <span style="font-weight: bold">he gave them 2553 residue derived from useful nourishment in its final form.&rdquo;
1682 power to become the sons of God. </span>As if to say: If you wonder how he was able to give this 2554 So &ldquo;blood&rdquo; indicates either the seed of the male or the
1683 power to men, i.e., that they become sons of God, the Evangelist answers: because <span style="font-weight: bold">the Word 2555 menses of the female.</p>
1684 was made flesh, </span>he made it possible for us to be made sons of God. &#8220;God sent his Son ... so 2556 <p>The cause moving to the carnal act is the will of those coming
1685 that we might receive our adoption as sons&#8221; (Gal 4:5).</p> 2557 together, the man and the woman. For although the act of the
1686 <p>But according to Augustine, he is continuing the earlier statement, <span style="font-weight: bold">who are born from God. 2558 generative power as such is not subject to the will, the
1687 </span>For since it seemed a hard saying that men be born from God, then, as though arguing in 2559 preliminaries to it are subject to the will. So he says,
1688 support of this and to produce belief in the existence of the Word, the Evangelist adds 2560 <span style="font-weight: bold">nor from the desires of the
1689 something which seems less seemly, namely, that <span style="font-weight: bold">the Word was made flesh. </span>As if to say: Do 2561 flesh,</span> referring to the woman; <span style=
1690 not wonder if men are born from God, because <span style="font-weight: bold">the Word was made flesh, </span>i.e., God became 2562 "font-weight: bold">nor from man&rsquo;s willing it,</span> as from
1691 man.</p> 2563 an efficient cause; <span style="font-weight: bold">but from
1692 <p>166 It should be noted that this statement, <span style="font-weight: bold">the Word was made flesh, </span>has been 2564 God.</span> It is as though he were saying: They became sons of
1693 misinterpreted by some and made the occasion of error. For certain ones have presumed that 2565 God, not carnally, but spiritually.</p>
1694 the Word became flesh in the sense that he or something of him was turned into flesh, as 2566 <p>According to Augustine, &ldquo;flesh&rdquo; is taken here for
1695 when flour is made into bread, and air becomes fire. One of these was Eutyches, who 2567 the woman, because as the flesh obeys the spirit, so woman should
1696 postulated a mixture of natures in Christ, saying that in him the nature of God and of man was 2568 obey man. Adam (Gn 2:23) said of the woman, &ldquo;This, at last,
1697 the same. We can clearly see that this is false because, as was said above, &#8220;the Word was 2569 is bone of my bones.&rdquo; And note, according to Augustine, that
1698 God.&#8221; Now God is immutable, as is said, &#8220;I am the Lord, and I do not change&#8221; (Mal 3:6). 2570 just as the possessions of a household are wasted away if the woman
1699 Hence in no way can it be said that he was turned into another nature. Therefore, one must 2571 rules and the man is subject, so a man is wasted away when the
1700 say in opposition to <span style="font-weight: bold">Eutyches, the Word was made flesh, </span>i.e., the Word assumed flesh, but 2572 flesh rules the spirit. For this reason the Apostle says, &ldquo;We
1701 not in the sense that the Word himself is that flesh. It is as if we were to say: &#8220;The man 2573 are not debtors to the flesh, so that we should live according to
1702 became white,&#8221; not that he is that whiteness, but that he asstinled whiteness.</p> 2574 the flesh&rdquo; (Rom 8:12). Concerning the manner of this carnal
1703 <p>167 There were others who, although they believed that the Word was not changed into flesh 2575 generation, we read, &ldquo;In the womb of my mother I was molded
1704 but assumed it, nevertheless said that he assumed flesh without a soul; for if he had assumed 2576 into flesh&rdquo; (Wis 7:1).</p>
1705 flesh with a soul, the Evangelist would have said, &#8220;the Word was made flesh with a soul.&#8221; 2577 <p>161 Or, we might say that the moving force to carnal generation
1706 This was the error of Arius, who said that there was no soul in Christ, but that the Word of 2578 is twofold: the intellectual appetite on the one hand, that is, the
1707 God was there in place of a soul.</p> 2579 will; and on the other hand, the sense appetite, which is
1708 <p>The falsity of this opinion is obvious, both because it is in conflict with Sacred Scripture, 2580 concupiscence. So, to indicate the material cause he says,
1709 which often mentions the soul of Christ, as: &#8220;My soul is sad, even to the point of death&#8221; (Mt 2581 <span style="font-weight: bold">not from blood.</span> To indicate
1710 26:38), and because certain affections of the soul are observed in Christ which can not 2582 the efficient cause, in respect to concupiscence, he says,
1711 possibly exist in the Word of God or in flesh alone: &#8220;He began to be sorrowful and troubled&#8221; 2583 <span style="font-weight: bold">nor from the desires of the
1712 (Mt 26:37). Also, God cannot be the form of a body. Nor can an angel be united to a body as 2584 flesh</span> [<i>ex voluntate carnis</i>, literally, &ldquo;from
1713 its form, since an angel, according to its very nature, is separated from body, whereas a soul is 2585 the will of the flesh&rdquo;], even though the concupiscence of the
1714 united to a body as its form. Consequently, the Word of God cannot be the form of a body.</p> 2586 flesh is improperly called a &ldquo;will&rdquo; in the sense of
1715 <p>Furthermore, it is plain that flesh does not acquire the specific nature of flesh except through 2587 Galatians (5:17), &ldquo;The flesh lusts against the spirit.&rdquo;
1716 its soul. This is shown by the fact that when the soul has withdrawn from the body of a man 2588 Finally, to indicate the intellectual appetite he says,
1717 or a cow, the flesh of the man or the cow is called flesh only in an equivocal sense. So if the 2589 <span style="font-weight: bold">nor from man&rsquo;s willing
1718 Word did not assume flesh with a soul, it is obvious that he did not assume flesh. <span style="font-weight: bold">But the 2590 it.</span> So, the generation of the sons of God is not carnal but
1719 Word was made flesh; </span>therefore, he assumed flesh with a soul.</p> 2591 spiritual, because they were born <span style=
1720 <p>168 And there were others who, influenced by this, said that the Word did indeed assume 2592 "font-weight: bold">from God.</span> &ldquo;Every one who is born
1721 flesh with a soul, but this soul was only a sensitive soul, not an intellectual one; the Word 2593 from God conquers the world&rdquo; (1 Jn 5:4).</p>
1722 took the place of the intellectual soul in Christ&#8217;s body. This was the error of Apollinaris. He 2594 <p>162 Note, however, that this preposition <i>de</i>
1723 followed Arius for a time, but later in the face of the [scriptural] authorities cited above, was 2595 (&ldquo;of,&rdquo; or &ldquo;from&rdquo;), always signifies a
1724 forced to admit a soul in Christ which could be the subject of these emotions. But he said this 2596 material cause as well as an efficient and even a consubstantial
1725 soul lacked reason and intellect, and that in the man Christ their place was taken by the Word.</p> 2597 cause. Thus we say a blacksmith makes a knife <i>de ferro</i>
1726 <p>This too is obviously false, because it conflicts with the authority of Sacred Scripture in 2598 (&ldquo;from&rdquo; iron), and a father generates his son <i>de
1727 which certain things are said of Christ that cannot be found in his divinity, nor in a sensitive 2599 seipso</i> (&ldquo;from&rdquo; himself), because something of his
1728 soul, nor in flesh alone; for example, that Christ marvelled, as in Matthew (8:10). For to 2600 concurs somehow in begetting. But the preposition <i>a</i>
1729 marvel or wonder is a state which arises in a rational and intellectual soul when a desire arises 2601 (&ldquo;by&rdquo;) always signifies a moving cause. The preposition
1730 to know the hidden cause of an observed effect. Therefore, just as sadness compels one to 2602 <i>ex</i> (&ldquo;from,&rdquo; or &ldquo;by&rdquo;)&mdash;[in the
1731 place a sensitive element in the soul of Christ, against Arius, so marvelling or amazement 2603 sense of &ldquo;out of&rdquo; or &ldquo;by reason
1732 forces one to admit, against Apollinaris, an intellectual element in Christ.</p> 2604 of&rdquo;]&mdash;is taken as something common, since it implies an
1733 <p>The same conclusion can be reached by reason. For as there is no flesh without a soul, so 2605 efficient as well as a material cause, although not a
1734 there is no human flesh without a human soul, which is an intellectual soul. So if the Word 2606 consubstantial cause.</p>
1735 assumed flesh which was animated with a merely sensitive soul to the exclusion of a rational 2607 <p>Consequently, since only the Son of God, who is the Word, is
1736 soul, he did not assume human flesh; consequently, one could not say: &#8220;God became man.&#8221;</p> 2608 &ldquo;<i>of</i>&rdquo; (<i>de</i>) the substance of the Father and
1737 <p>Besides, the Word assumed human nature in order to repair it. Therefore, he repaired what he 2609 indeed is one substance with the Father, while the saints, who are
1738 assumed. But if he did not assume a rational soul, he would not have repaired it. 2610 adopted sons, are not of his substance, the Evangelist uses the
1739 Consequently, no fruit would have accrued to us from the incarnation of the Word; and this is 2611 preposition <i>ex,</i> saying of others that they are born
1740 false. <span style="font-weight: bold">Therefore, the Word was made flesh, </span>i.e., assumed flesh which was animated by a 2612 <span style="font-weight: bold">from God</span> (<i>ex
1741 rational soul.</p> 2613 Deo</i>)<i>,</i> but of the natural Son, he says that he is born of
1742 <p>169 But you may say: If the Word did assume flesh with such a soul, why did the Evangelist 2614 the Father (<i>de Patre</i>)<i>.</i></p>
1743 not mention &#8220;rational soul,&#8221; instead of only &#8220;flesh,&#8221; saying, <span style="font-weight: bold">the Word was made flesh? </span>I 2615 <p>163 Note also that in the light of our last exposition of carnal
2616 generation, we can discern the difference between carnal and
2617 spiritual generation. For since the former is from blood, it is
2618 carnal; but the latter, because it is not from blood, is spiritual.
2619 &ldquo;What is born from flesh is itself flesh; and what is born
2620 from Spirit is itself spirit&rdquo; (below 3:6). Again, because
2621 material generation is from the desires of the flesh, i.e., from
2622 concupiscence, it is unclean and begets children who are sinners:
2623 &ldquo;We were by nature children of wrath&rdquo; as it says in
2624 Ephesians (2:3). Again, because the former is <span style=
2625 "font-weight: bold">from man&rsquo;s willing it,</span> that is,
2626 from man, it makes children of men; but the latter, because it is
2627 from God, makes children of God.</p>
2628 <p>164 But if he intends to refer his statement, <span style=
2629 "font-weight: bold">he gave them power,</span> to baptism, in
2630 virtue of which we are reborn as sons of God, we can detect in his
2631 words the order of baptism: that is, the first thing required is
2632 faith, as shown in the case of catechumens, who must first be
2633 instructed about the faith so that they may believe in his name;
2634 then through baptism they are reborn, not carnally froin blood, but
2635 spiritually from God.</p>
2636 <p style="margin-bottom: 0.125in; margin-bottom: 0.125in">
2637 &nbsp;</p>
2638 <center>
2639 <p><span style="font-weight: bold">LECTURE 7</span></p>
2640 <p>14a And the Word was made flesh, and made his dwelling among
2641 us.</p>
2642 </center>
2643 <p>165 Having explained the necessity for the Word&rsquo;s coming
2644 in the flesh as well as the benefits this conferred, the Evangelist
2645 now shows the way he came (v 14a). He thus resumes the thread with
2646 his earlier statement, <span style="font-weight: bold">he came unto
2647 his own.</span> As if to say: The Word of God came unto his own.
2648 But lest anyone suppose that he came by changing his location, he
2649 shows the manner in which he came, that is, by an incarnation. For
2650 he came in the manner in which he was sent by the Father, by whom
2651 he was sent, i.e., he was made flesh. &ldquo;God sent his Son made
2652 from a woman&rdquo; (Gal 4:4). And Augustine says about this that
2653 &ldquo;He was sent in the manner in which he was made.&rdquo;</p>
2654 <p>According to Chrysostom, however, he is here continuing the
2655 earlier statement, <span style="font-weight: bold">he gave them
2656 power to become the sons of God.</span> As if to say: If you wonder
2657 how he was able to give this power to men, i.e., that they become
2658 sons of God, the Evangelist answers: because <span style=
2659 "font-weight: bold">the Word was made flesh,</span> he made it
2660 possible for us to be made sons of God. &ldquo;God sent his Son ...
2661 so that we might receive our adoption as sons&rdquo; (Gal 4:5).</p>
2662 <p>But according to Augustine, he is continuing the earlier
2663 statement, <span style="font-weight: bold">who are born from
2664 God.</span> For since it seemed a hard saying that men be born from
2665 God, then, as though arguing in support of this and to produce
2666 belief in the existence of the Word, the Evangelist adds something
2667 which seems less seemly, namely, that <span style=
2668 "font-weight: bold">the Word was made flesh.</span> As if to say:
2669 Do not wonder if men are born from God, because <span style=
2670 "font-weight: bold">the Word was made flesh,</span> i.e., God
2671 became man.</p>
2672 <p>166 It should be noted that this statement, <span style=
2673 "font-weight: bold">the Word was made flesh,</span> has been
2674 misinterpreted by some and made the occasion of error. For certain
2675 ones have presumed that the Word became flesh in the sense that he
2676 or something of him was turned into flesh, as when flour is made
2677 into bread, and air becomes fire. One of these was Eutyches, who
2678 postulated a mixture of natures in Christ, saying that in him the
2679 nature of God and of man was the same. We can clearly see that this
2680 is false because, as was said above, &ldquo;the Word was
2681 God.&rdquo; Now God is immutable, as is said, &ldquo;I am the Lord,
2682 and I do not change&rdquo; (Mal 3:6). Hence in no way can it be
2683 said that he was turned into another nature. Therefore, one must
2684 say in opposition to <span style="font-weight: bold">Eutyches, the
2685 Word was made flesh,</span> i.e., the Word assumed flesh, but not
2686 in the sense that the Word himself is that flesh. It is as if we
2687 were to say: &ldquo;The man became white,&rdquo; not that he is
2688 that whiteness, but that he asstinled whiteness.</p>
2689 <p>167 There were others who, although they believed that the Word
2690 was not changed into flesh but assumed it, nevertheless said that
2691 he assumed flesh without a soul; for if he had assumed flesh with a
2692 soul, the Evangelist would have said, &ldquo;the Word was made
2693 flesh with a soul.&rdquo; This was the error of Arius, who said
2694 that there was no soul in Christ, but that the Word of God was
2695 there in place of a soul.</p>
2696 <p>The falsity of this opinion is obvious, both because it is in
2697 conflict with Sacred Scripture, which often mentions the soul of
2698 Christ, as: &ldquo;My soul is sad, even to the point of
2699 death&rdquo; (Mt 26:38), and because certain affections of the soul
2700 are observed in Christ which can not possibly exist in the Word of
2701 God or in flesh alone: &ldquo;He began to be sorrowful and
2702 troubled&rdquo; (Mt 26:37). Also, God cannot be the form of a body.
2703 Nor can an angel be united to a body as its form, since an angel,
2704 according to its very nature, is separated from body, whereas a
2705 soul is united to a body as its form. Consequently, the Word of God
2706 cannot be the form of a body.</p>
2707 <p>Furthermore, it is plain that flesh does not acquire the
2708 specific nature of flesh except through its soul. This is shown by
2709 the fact that when the soul has withdrawn from the body of a man or
2710 a cow, the flesh of the man or the cow is called flesh only in an
2711 equivocal sense. So if the Word did not assume flesh with a soul,
2712 it is obvious that he did not assume flesh. <span style=
2713 "font-weight: bold">But the Word was made flesh;</span> therefore,
2714 he assumed flesh with a soul.</p>
2715 <p>168 And there were others who, influenced by this, said that the
2716 Word did indeed assume flesh with a soul, but this soul was only a
2717 sensitive soul, not an intellectual one; the Word took the place of
2718 the intellectual soul in Christ&rsquo;s body. This was the error of
2719 Apollinaris. He followed Arius for a time, but later in the face of
2720 the [scriptural] authorities cited above, was forced to admit a
2721 soul in Christ which could be the subject of these emotions. But he
2722 said this soul lacked reason and intellect, and that in the man
2723 Christ their place was taken by the Word.</p>
2724 <p>This too is obviously false, because it conflicts with the
2725 authority of Sacred Scripture in which certain things are said of
2726 Christ that cannot be found in his divinity, nor in a sensitive
2727 soul, nor in flesh alone; for example, that Christ marvelled, as in
2728 Matthew (8:10). For to marvel or wonder is a state which arises in
2729 a rational and intellectual soul when a desire arises to know the
2730 hidden cause of an observed effect. Therefore, just as sadness
2731 compels one to place a sensitive element in the soul of Christ,
2732 against Arius, so marvelling or amazement forces one to admit,
2733 against Apollinaris, an intellectual element in Christ.</p>
2734 <p>The same conclusion can be reached by reason. For as there is no
2735 flesh without a soul, so there is no human flesh without a human
2736 soul, which is an intellectual soul. So if the Word assumed flesh
2737 which was animated with a merely sensitive soul to the exclusion of
2738 a rational soul, he did not assume human flesh; consequently, one
2739 could not say: &ldquo;God became man.&rdquo;</p>
2740 <p>Besides, the Word assumed human nature in order to repair it.
2741 Therefore, he repaired what he assumed. But if he did not assume a
2742 rational soul, he would not have repaired it. Consequently, no
2743 fruit would have accrued to us from the incarnation of the Word;
2744 and this is false. <span style="font-weight: bold">Therefore, the
2745 Word was made flesh,</span> i.e., assumed flesh which was animated
2746 by a rational soul.</p>
2747 <p>169 But you may say: If the Word did assume flesh with such a
2748 soul, why did the Evangelist not mention &ldquo;rational
2749 soul,&rdquo; instead of only &ldquo;flesh,&rdquo; saying,
2750 <span style="font-weight: bold">the Word was made flesh?</span> I
1744 answer that the Evangelist had four reasons for doing this.</p> 2751 answer that the Evangelist had four reasons for doing this.</p>
1745 <p>First, to show the truth of the incarnation against the Manichaeans, who said that the Word 2752 <p>First, to show the truth of the incarnation against the
1746 did not assume true flesh, but only imaginary flesh, since it would not have been becoming 2753 Manichaeans, who said that the Word did not assume true flesh, but
1747 for the Word of the good God to assume flesh, which they regarded as a creature of the devil. 2754 only imaginary flesh, since it would not have been becoming for the
1748 And so to exclude this the Evangelist made special mention of the flesh, just as Christ 2755 Word of the good God to assume flesh, which they regarded as a
1749 showed the truth of the resurrection to the disciples when they took him for a spirit, saying: 2756 creature of the devil. And so to exclude this the Evangelist made
1750 &#8220;A spirit does not have flesh and bones, as you see that I have&#8221; (Lk 24:39).</p> 2757 special mention of the flesh, just as Christ showed the truth of
1751 <p>Secondly, to show the greatness of God&#8217;s kindness to us. For it is evident that the rational 2758 the resurrection to the disciples when they took him for a spirit,
1752 soul has a greater conformity to God than does flesh, and that it would have been a great sign 2759 saying: &ldquo;A spirit does not have flesh and bones, as you see
1753 of compassion if the Word had assumed a human soul, as being conformed to himself. But to 2760 that I have&rdquo; (Lk 24:39).</p>
1754 assume flesh too, which is something far removed from the simplicity of his nature, was a 2761 <p>Secondly, to show the greatness of God&rsquo;s kindness to us.
1755 sign of a much greater, indeed, of an incomprehensible compassion. As the Apostle says (1 2762 For it is evident that the rational soul has a greater conformity
1756 Tim 3:16): &#8220;Obviously great is the mystery of godliness which appeared in the flesh.&#8221; And so 2763 to God than does flesh, and that it would have been a great sign of
1757 to indicate this, the Evangelist mentioned only flesh.</p> 2764 compassion if the Word had assumed a human soul, as being conformed
1758 <p>Thirdly, to demonstrate the truth and uniqueness of the union in Christ. For God is indeed 2765 to himself. But to assume flesh too, which is something far removed
1759 united to other holy men, but only with respect to their soul; so it is said: &#8220;She [wisdom] 2766 from the simplicity of his nature, was a sign of a much greater,
1760 passes into holy souls, making them friends of God and prophets&#8221; (Wis 7:27). But that the 2767 indeed, of an incomprehensible compassion. As the Apostle says (1
1761 Word of God is united to flesh is unique to Christ, according to the Psalmist: &#8220;I am alone 2768 Tim 3:16): &ldquo;Obviously great is the mystery of godliness which
1762 until I pass&#8221; (Ps 140:10). &#8220;Gold cannot equal it&#8221; (Jb 28:17). So the Evangelist, wishing to 2769 appeared in the flesh.&rdquo; And so to indicate this, the
1763 show the uniqueness of the union in Christ, mentioned only the flesh, saying, <span style="font-weight: bold">the Word was 2770 Evangelist mentioned only flesh.</p>
1764 made flesh.</span></p> 2771 <p>Thirdly, to demonstrate the truth and uniqueness of the union in
1765 <p>Fourthly, to suggest its relevance to man&#8217;s restoration For man was weak because of the flesh. 2772 Christ. For God is indeed united to other holy men, but only with
1766 And thus the Evangelist, wishing to suggest that the coming of&#8217; the Word was suited to the 2773 respect to their soul; so it is said: &ldquo;She [wisdom] passes
1767 task of our restoration, made special mention of the flesh in order to show that the weak flesh 2774 into holy souls, making them friends of God and prophets&rdquo;
1768 was repaired by the flesh of the Word. And this is what the Apostle says: &#8220;The law was 2775 (Wis 7:27). But that the Word of God is united to flesh is unique
1769 powerless because it was weakened by the flesh. God, sending his Son in the likeness of 2776 to Christ, according to the Psalmist: &ldquo;I am alone until I
1770 sinful flesh and in reparation for sin, condemned sin in his flesh&#8221; (Rom 83).</p> 2777 pass&rdquo; (Ps 140:10). &ldquo;Gold cannot equal it&rdquo; (Jb
1771 <p>170 A question arises as to why the Evangelist did not say that the Word assumed flesh, but 2778 28:17). So the Evangelist, wishing to show the uniqueness of the
1772 rather that <span style="font-weight: bold">the Word was made flesh. </span>I answer that he did this to exclude the error of 2779 union in Christ, mentioned only the flesh, saying, <span style=
1773 Nestorius. He said that in Christ there were two persons and two sons, [one being the Son of 2780 "font-weight: bold">the Word was made flesh.</span></p>
1774 God] the other being the son of the Virgin. Thus he did not admit that the Blessed Virgin was 2781 <p>Fourthly, to suggest its relevance to man&rsquo;s restoration
1775 the mother of God.</p> 2782 For man was weak because of the flesh. And thus the Evangelist,
1776 <p>But if this were so, it would mean that God did not become man, for one particular 2783 wishing to suggest that the coming of&rsquo; the Word was suited to
1777 <i>suppositum </i>cannot be predicated of another. Accordingly, if the person or <i>suppositum </i>of the 2784 the task of our restoration, made special mention of the flesh in
1778 Word is different than the person or <i>suppositum </i>of the man, in Christ, then what the 2785 order to show that the weak flesh was repaired by the flesh of the
1779 Evangelist says is not true, namely, <span style="font-weight: bold">the Word was made flesh. </span>For a thing is made or 2786 Word. And this is what the Apostle says: &ldquo;The law was
1780 becomes something in order to be it; if, then, the Word is not man, it could not be said that 2787 powerless because it was weakened by the flesh. God, sending his
1781 the Word became man. And so the Evangelist expressly said was made, and not &#8220;assumed,&#8221; 2788 Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and in reparation for sin,
1782 to show that the union of the Word to flesh is not such as was the &#8220;lifting up&#8221; of the prophets, 2789 condemned sin in his flesh&rdquo; (Rom 83).</p>
1783 who were not &#8220;taken up&#8221; into a unity of person, but for the prophetic act. This union is such 2790 <p>170 A question arises as to why the Evangelist did not say that
1784 as would truly make God man and man God, i.e., that God would be man.</p> 2791 the Word assumed flesh, but rather that <span style=
1785 <p>171 There were some, too, who, misunderstanding the manner of the incarnation, did indeed 2792 "font-weight: bold">the Word was made flesh.</span> I answer that
1786 admit that the aforesaid assumption was terminated at a oneness of person, acknowledging in 2793 he did this to exclude the error of Nestorius. He said that in
1787 God one person of God and man. But they said that in him there were two hypostases, i.e., 2794 Christ there were two persons and two sons, [one being the Son of
1788 two <i>supposita; </i>one of a human nature, created and non-eternal, &#8216;and the other of the divine 2795 God] the other being the son of the Virgin. Thus he did not admit
1789 nature, non-created and eternal. This is the first opinion presented in the <i>Sentences </i>(III, d6).</p> 2796 that the Blessed Virgin was the mother of God.</p>
1790 <p>According to this opinion the proposition, &#8220;God was made man and man was made God,&#8221; is 2797 <p>But if this were so, it would mean that God did not become man,
1791 not true. Consequently, this opinion was condemned as heretical by the Fifth Council, where 2798 for one particular <i>suppositum</i> cannot be predicated of
1792 it is said: &#8220;If anyone shall assert one person and two hypostases in the Lord Jesus Christ, let 2799 another. Accordingly, if the person or <i>suppositum</i> of the
1793 him be anathema.&#8221; And so the Evangelist, to exclude any assumption not terminated at a 2800 Word is different than the person or <i>suppositum</i> of the man,
1794 oneness of person, says, was made.</p> 2801 in Christ, then what the Evangelist says is not true, namely,
1795 <p>172 If you ask how the Word is man, it must be said that he is man in the way that anyone is, 2802 <span style="font-weight: bold">the Word was made flesh.</span> For
1796 man, namely, as having human nature. Not that the Word is human nature itself, but he is a 2803 a thing is made or becomes something in order to be it; if, then,
1797 divine suppo<i>situm </i>united to a human nature. The statement, <span style="font-weight: bold">the Word was made flesh, </span>does 2804 the Word is not man, it could not be said that the Word became man.
1798 not indicate any change in the Word, but only in the nature newly assumed into the oneness of 2805 And so the Evangelist expressly said was made, and not
1799 a divine person. <span style="font-weight: bold">And the Word was made flesh </span>through a union to flesh. Now a union is a 2806 &ldquo;assumed,&rdquo; to show that the union of the Word to flesh
1800 relation. And relations newly said of God with respect to creatures do not imply a change on 2807 is not such as was the &ldquo;lifting up&rdquo; of the prophets,
1801 the side of God, but on the side of the creature relating in a new way to God.</p> 2808 who were not &ldquo;taken up&rdquo; into a unity of person, but for
1802 <p>173 Now follows, <span style="font-weight: bold">and made his dwelling among us. </span>This is distinguished in two ways from 2809 the prophetic act. This union is such as would truly make God man
1803 what went before. The first consists in stating that above the Evangelist dealt with the 2810 and man God, i.e., that God would be man.</p>
1804 incarnation of the Word when he said, <span style="font-weight: bold">the Word was made flesh; </span>but now he touches on the 2811 <p>171 There were some, too, who, misunderstanding the manner of
1805 manner of the incarnation, saying, <span style="font-weight: bold">and made his dwelling among us. </span>For according to 2812 the incarnation, did indeed admit that the aforesaid assumption was
1806 Chrysostom and Hilary, by the Evangelist saying <span style="font-weight: bold">the Word was made flesh, </span>someone might 2813 terminated at a oneness of person, acknowledging in God one person
1807 think that he was converted into flesh and that there are not two distinct natures in Christ, but 2814 of God and man. But they said that in him there were two
1808 only one nature compounded from the human and divine natures. And so the Evangelist, 2815 hypostases, i.e., two <i>supposita;</i> one of a human nature,
1809 excluding this, added, <span style="font-weight: bold">and made his dwelling among us, </span>i.e., in our nature, yet so as to 2816 created and non-eternal, &lsquo;and the other of the divine nature,
1810 remain distinct in his own. For what is converted into something does not remain distinct in 2817 non-created and eternal. This is the first opinion presented in the
1811 its nature from that into which it is converted.</p> 2818 <i>Sentences</i> (III, d6).</p>
1812 <p>Furthermore, something which is not distinct from another does not dwell in it, because to 2819 <p>According to this opinion the proposition, &ldquo;God was made
1813 dwell implies a distinction between the dweller and that in which it dwells. But the Word 2820 man and man was made God,&rdquo; is not true. Consequently, this
1814 dwelt in our nature; therefore, he is distinct in nature from it. And so, inasmuch as human 2821 opinion was condemned as heretical by the Fifth Council, where it
1815 nature was distinct from the nature of the Word in Christ, the former is called the dwelling 2822 is said: &ldquo;If anyone shall assert one person and two
1816 place and temple of the divinity, according to John (2:21): &#8220;But he spoke of the temple of his 2823 hypostases in the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be anathema.&rdquo;
1817 body.&#8221;</p> 2824 And so the Evangelist, to exclude any assumption not terminated at
1818 <p>174 Now although what is said here by these holy men is orthodox, care must be taken to 2825 a oneness of person, says, was made.</p>
1819 avoid the reproach which some receive for this. For the early doctors and saints were so intent 2826 <p>172 If you ask how the Word is man, it must be said that he is
1820 upon refuting the emerging errors concerning the faith that they seemed meanwhile to fall 2827 man in the way that anyone is, man, namely, as having human nature.
1821 into the opposite ones. For example, Augustine, speaking against the Manichaeans, who 2828 Not that the Word is human nature itself, but he is a divine
1822 destroyed the freedom of the will, disputed in such terms that he seemed to have fallen into 2829 suppo<i>situm</i> united to a human nature. The statement,
1823 the heresy of Pelagius. Along these lines, John the Evangelist added, <span style="font-weight: bold">and made his dwelling 2830 <span style="font-weight: bold">the Word was made flesh,</span>
1824 among us, </span>so that we would not think there was a mingling or transformation of natures in 2831 does not indicate any change in the Word, but only in the nature
1825 Christ because he had said, <span style="font-weight: bold">the Word was made flesh.</span></p> 2832 newly assumed into the oneness of a divine person. <span style=
1826 <p>Nestorius misunderstood this phrase, <span style="font-weight: bold">and made his dwelling among us, </span>and said that the 2833 "font-weight: bold">And the Word was made flesh</span> through a
1827 Son of God was united to man in such a way that there was not one person of God and of 2834 union to flesh. Now a union is a relation. And relations newly said
1828 man. For he held that the Word was united to human nature only by an indwelling through 2835 of God with respect to creatures do not imply a change on the side
1829 grace. From this, however, it follows that the Son of God is not man.</p> 2836 of God, but on the side of the creature relating in a new way to
1830 <p>175 To clarify this we should know that we can consider two things in Christ: his nature and
1831 person. In Christ there is a distinction in nature, but not in person, which is one and the same
1832 in the two natures, since the human nature in Christ was assumed into a oneness of person.
1833 Therefore, the indwelling which the saints speak of must be referred to the nature, so as to
1834 say, he <span style="font-weight: bold">made his dwelling among us, </span>i.e., the nature of the Word inhabited our nature; not
1835 according to the hypostasis or person, which is the same for both natures in Christ.</p>
1836 <p>176 The blasphemy of Nestorius is further refuted by the authority of Sacred Scripture. For
1837 the Apostle calls the union of God and man an emptying, saying of the Son of God: &#8220;He,
1838 being in the form of God ... emptied himself, taking the form of a servant&#8221; (Phil 2:6). Clearly,
1839 God is not said to empty himself insofar as he dwells in the rational creature by grace,
1840 because then the Father and the Holy Spirit would be emptying themselves, since they too are
1841 said to dwell in man through grace: for Christ, speaking of himself and of the Father says,
1842 &#8220;We will come to him and make our home with him&#8221; (below 14:23); and of the Holy Spirit
1843 the Apostle says: &#8220;The Spirit of God dwells in us&#8221; (1 Cor 3:16).</p>
1844 <p>Furthermore, if Christ was not God as to his person, he would have been most presumptuous
1845 to say: &#8220;I and the Father are one&#8221; (below 10:30), and &#8220;Before Abraham came to be, I am,&#8221; as
1846 is said below (8:58). Now &#8220;I&#8221; refers to the person of the speaker. And the one who was
1847 speaking was a man, who, as one with the Father, existed before Abraham.</p>
1848 <p>177 However, another connection [besides that given in 173] with what went before is
1849 possible, by saying that above he dealt with the incarnation of the Word, but that now he is
1850 treating the manner of life of the incarnate Word, saying, he <span style="font-weight: bold">made his dwelling among us,
1851 </span>i.e., he lived on familiar terms with us apostles. Peter alludes to this when he says, &#8220;During all
1852 the time that the Lord Jesus came and went among us&#8221; (Acts 1:21). &#8220;Afterwards, he was seen
1853 on earth&#8221; (Bar 3:38).</p>
1854 <p>178 The Evangelist added this for two reasons. First, to show the marvelous likeness of the
1855 Word to men, among whom he lived in such a way as to seem one of them. For he not only
1856 willed to be like men in nature, but also in living with them on close terms without sin, in
1857 order to draw to himself men won over by the charm of his way of life.</p>
1858 <p>Secondly, to show the truthfulness of his [the Evangelist&#8217;s] statements. For the Evangelist had
1859 already said many great things about the Word, and was yet to mention more wonderful
1860 things about him; and so that his testimony would be more credible he took as a proof of his
1861 truthfulness the fact that he had lived with Christ, saying, he <span style="font-weight: bold">made his dwelling among us.
1862 </span>As if to say: I can well bear witness to him, because I lived on close terms with him. &#8220;We tell
1863 you ... what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes&#8221; (1 Jn 1:1); &#8220;God raised him up
1864 on the third day, and granted that he be seen, not by all the people, but by witnesses
1865 preordained by God,&#8221; that is, &#8220;to us who ate and drank with him&#8221; (Acts 10:40).</p>
1866 <p style="margin-bottom: 0.125in; margin-bottom: 0.125in">&#160;</p>
1867 <CENTER><p><span style="font-weight: bold">LECTURE 8</span></p>
1868 <p>l4b And we have seen his glory,<BR>
1869 the glory as of the Only Begotten of the Father,<BR>
1870 full of grace and truth.</CENTER>
1871 <p>179 Having set forth the incarnation of the Word, the Evangelist then begins to give the
1872 evidence for the incarnate Word. He does two things about this. First, he shows the ways in
1873 which the incarnate Word was made known. Secondly, he clarifies each way, below (1:16).
1874 Now the incarnate Word was made known to the apostles in two ways: first of all, they
1875 obtained knowledge of him by what they saw; secondly, by what they heard of the testimony
1876 of John the Baptist. So first, he states what they saw about the Word; secondly, what they
1877 heard from John (v 15).</p>
1878 <p>He states three things about the Word. First, the manifestation of his glory; hence he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">we
1879 have seen his glory. </span>Secondly, the uniqueness of his glory, when he adds, as <span style="font-weight: bold">of the Only
1880 Begotten. </span>Thirdly, the precise nature of this glory, because <span style="font-weight: bold">full of grace and truth.</span></p>
1881 <p>180 <span style="font-weight: bold">And we have seen his glory, </span>can be connected in three ways with what went before.
1882 First, it can be taken as an argument for his having said, <span style="font-weight: bold">the Word was made flesh. </span>As if to
1883 say: I hold and know that the Word of God was incarnate because I and the other apostles
1884 have seen his glory. &#8220;We know of what we speak, and we bear witness of what we see&#8221;
1885 (below 3:11). &#8220;We tell you ... what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes&#8221; (1 Jn
1886 1:1).</p>
1887 <p>181 Secondly, according to Chrysostom, the connection is made by taking this statement as
1888 expressing many benefits. As if to say: The incarnation of the Word not only conferred on us
1889 the benefit of becoming sons of God, but also the good of seeing his glory. For dull and feeble
1890 eyes cannot see the light of the sun; but they can see it when it shines in a cloud or on some
1891 opaque body. Now before the incarnation of the Word, human minds were incapable of
1892 seeing the divine light in itself, the light which enlightens every rational nature. And so, in
1893 order that it might be more easily seen and contemplated by us, he covered it with the cloud
1894 of our flesh: &#8220;They looked towards the desert, and saw the glory of the Lord in a cloud&#8221; (Ex
1895 16:10), i.e., the Word of God in the flesh.</p>
1896 <p>182 According to Augustine, however, the connection refers to the gift of grace. For the
1897 failure of the spiritual eyes of men to contemplate the divine light is due not only to their
1898 natural limitations but also to the defects incurred by sin: &#8220;Fire,&#8221; that is, of concupiscence,
1899 &#8220;fell on them, and they did not see the sun,&#8221; of justice (Ps 57:9). Hence in order that the
1900 divine light might be seen by us, he healed our eyes, making an eye salve of his flesh, so that
1901 with the salve of his flesh the Word might heal our eyes, weakened by the concupiscence of
1902 the flesh. And this is why just after saying, <span style="font-weight: bold">the Word was made flesh, </span>he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">we have seen
1903 his glory. </span>To indicate this the Lord made clay from his saliva and spread the clay upon the
1904 eyes of the man born blind (below 9:6). For clay is from the earth, but saliva comes from the
1905 head. Similarly, in the person of Christ, his human nature was assumed from the earth; but the
1906 incarnate Word is from the head, i.e., from God the Father. So, when this clay was spread on
1907 the eyes of men, <span style="font-weight: bold">we saw his glory.</span></p>
1908 <p>183 This is the glory of the Word Moses longed to see, saying, &#8220;Show me your glory&#8221; (Ex
1909 32:18). But he did not deserve to see it; indeed, he was answered by the Lord: &#8220;You shall see
1910 my back&#8221; (Ex 33:23), i.e., shadows and figures. But the apostles saw his brightness: &#8220;All of
1911 us, gazing on the Lord&#8217;s glory with unveiled faces, are being transformed from glory to glory
1912 into his very image&#8221; (2 Cor 3:18). For Moses and the other prophets saw in an obscure
1913 manner and in figures the glory of the Word that was to be manifested to the world at the end
1914 of their times; hence the Apostle says: &#8220;Now we see through a mirror,,in an obscure manner,
1915 but then face to face&#8221; in 1 Corinthians (13:12); and below (12:41), &#8220;Isaiah said this when he
1916 saw his glory.&#8221; But the apostles saw the very brilliance of the Word through his bodily
1917 presence: &#8220;All of us, gazing on the Lord&#8217;s glory,&#8221; and so forth (2 Cor 3:18); &#8220;Blessed are the
1918 eyes which see what you see. For many kings and prophets desired to see what you see, and
1919 did not see it&#8221; (Lk 10:23).</p>
1920 <p>184 Then when he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">the glory as of the Only Begotten, </span>he shows the uniqueness of his
1921 glory. For since it is written of certain men that they were in glory, as of Moses it says that
1922 &#8220;his face shone&#8221; (Ex 34:29), or was &#8220;horned,&#8221; according to another text, someone might say
1923 that from the fact that they saw him [Jesus] in glory, it should not be said that the Word of
1924 God was made flesh. But the Evangelist excludes this when he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">the glory as of the Only
1925 Begotten of the Father. </span>As if to say: His glory is not like the glory of an angel, or of Moses,
1926 or Elijah, or Elisha, or anything like that. but <span style="font-weight: bold">the glory as of the Only Begotten; </span>for as it is
1927 said, &#8220;He [Jesus] was counted worthy of more glory than Moses&#8221; (Heb 3:3); &#8220;Who among the
1928 sons of God is like God?&#8221; (Ps 88:7).</p>
1929 <p>185 The word as, according to Gregory, is used to express the fact. But according to
1930 Chrysostom, it expresses the manner of the fact: as if someone were to see a king approaching
1931 in great glory and being asked by another to describe the king he saw, he could, if he wanted
1932 to be brief, express the grandeur of his glory in one word, and say that he approached &#8220;as&#8221; a
1933 king, i.e., as became a king. So too, here, the Evangelist, as though asked by someone to
1934 describe the glory of the Word which he had seen, and being unable to fully express it, said
1935 that it was &#8220;as&#8221; of the Only Begotten of the Father, i.e., such as became the Only Begotten of
1936 God.</p> 2837 God.</p>
1937 <p>186 The uniqueness of the glory of the Word is brought out in four ways. First, in the 2838 <p>173 Now follows, <span style="font-weight: bold">and made his
1938 testimony which the Father gave to the Son. For John was one of the three who had seen 2839 dwelling among us.</span> This is distinguished in two ways from
1939 Christ transfigured on the mountain and heard the , voice of the Father saying: &#8220;This is my 2840 what went before. The first consists in stating that above the
1940 beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased&#8221; (Mt 17:5). Of this glory it is said, &#8220;He received 2841 Evangelist dealt with the incarnation of the Word when he said,
1941 honor and glory from God the Father ... &#8216;This is my beloved Son&#8217;&#8221; (2 Pt 1:17)</p> 2842 <span style="font-weight: bold">the Word was made flesh;</span> but
1942 <p>Secondly, it is brought out by the service of the angels. For prior to the incarnation of Christ, 2843 now he touches on the manner of the incarnation, saying,
1943 men were subject to the angels. But after it, angels ministered, as subjects, to Christ. &#8220;Angels 2844 <span style="font-weight: bold">and made his dwelling among
1944 came and ministered to him&#8221; (Mt 4:11).</p> 2845 us.</span> For according to Chrysostom and Hilary, by the
1945 <p>Thirdly, it is brought out by the submission of nature. For all nature obeyed Christ and heeded 2846 Evangelist saying <span style="font-weight: bold">the Word was made
1946 his slightest command, as something established by him, because &#8220;All things were made 2847 flesh,</span> someone might think that he was converted into flesh
1947 through him&#8221; (above 1:3). This is something granted neither to angels nor to any creature, but 2848 and that there are not two distinct natures in Christ, but only one
1948 to the incarnate Word alone. And this is what we read, &#8220;What kind of man is this, for the 2849 nature compounded from the human and divine natures. And so the
1949 winds and the sea obey him?&#8221; (Mt 8:27).</p> 2850 Evangelist, excluding this, added, <span style=
1950 <p>Fourthly, we see it in the way he taught and acted. For Moses and the other prophets gave 2851 "font-weight: bold">and made his dwelling among us,</span> i.e., in
1951 commands to men and taught them not on their own authority, but on the authority of God. 2852 our nature, yet so as to remain distinct in his own. For what is
1952 So they said: &#8220;The Lord says this&#8221;; and &#8220;The Lord spoke to Moses.&#8221; But Christ speaks as the 2853 converted into something does not remain distinct in its nature
1953 Lord, and as one having power, i.e., by reason of his own power. Hence he says, &#8220;I say to 2854 from that into which it is converted.</p>
1954 you&#8221; (Mt 5:22). This is the reason why, at the end of the Sermon on the Mountain, it is said 2855 <p>Furthermore, something which is not distinct from another does
1955 that he taught as one &#8220;having authority&#8221; (Mt 7:29). Furthermore, other holy men worked 2856 not dwell in it, because to dwell implies a distinction between the
1956 miracles, but not by their own power. But Christ worked them by his own power. In these 2857 dweller and that in which it dwells. But the Word dwelt in our
1957 ways, then, the glory of the Word is unique.</p> 2858 nature; therefore, he is distinct in nature from it. And so,
1958 <p>187 Note that sometimes in Scripture we call Christ the Only Begotten, as here, and below (1 2859 inasmuch as human nature was distinct from the nature of the Word
1959 :18): &#8220;it is the Only Begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, who has made him 2860 in Christ, the former is called the dwelling place and temple of
1960 known.&#8221; At other times we call him the First-born: &#8220;When he brings the Firstborn into the 2861 the divinity, according to John (2:21): &ldquo;But he spoke of the
1961 world, he says, &#8216;Let all the angels of God adore him&#8217; &#8220; (Heb 1:6). The reason for this is that 2862 temple of his body.&rdquo;</p>
1962 just as it belongs to the whole Blessed Trinity to be God, so it belongs to the Word of God to 2863 <p>174 Now although what is said here by these holy men is
1963 be God Begotten. Sometimes, too, he is called God according to what he is in himself; and in 2864 orthodox, care must be taken to avoid the reproach which some
1964 this way he alone is uniquely God by his own essence. It is in this way that we say there is but 2865 receive for this. For the early doctors and saints were so intent
1965 one God: &#8220;Hear, O Israel: the Lord your God is one&#8221; (Dt 6:4). At times, we even apply the 2866 upon refuting the emerging errors concerning the faith that they
1966 name of deity to others, insofar as a certain likeness of the divinity is given to men; in this 2867 seemed meanwhile to fall into the opposite ones. For example,
1967 sense we speak of many gods: &#8220;Indeed, there are many gods and many lords&#8221; (1 Cor 8:5).</p> 2868 Augustine, speaking against the Manichaeans, who destroyed the
1968 <p>Along these lines, if we consider what is proper to the Son as Begotten, and consider the way 2869 freedom of the will, disputed in such terms that he seemed to have
1969 in which this sonship is attributed to him, that is, through nature, we say that he is the Only 2870 fallen into the heresy of Pelagius. Along these lines, John the
1970 Begotten of God: because, since he alone is naturally begotten by the Father, the Begotten of 2871 Evangelist added, <span style="font-weight: bold">and made his
1971 the Father is one only. But if we consider the Son, insofar as sonship is conferred on others 2872 dwelling among us,</span> so that we would not think there was a
1972 through a likeness to him, then there are many sons of God through participation. And 2873 mingling or transformation of natures in Christ because he had
1973 because they are called sons of God by a likeness to him, he is called the First-born of all. 2874 said, <span style="font-weight: bold">the Word was made
1974 &#8220;Those whom he foreknew, he predestined to become conformed to the image of his Son, so 2875 flesh.</span></p>
1975 that he might be the First-born of many brothers&#8221; (Rom 8:29).</p> 2876 <p>Nestorius misunderstood this phrase, <span style=
1976 <p>So, Christ is called the Only Begotten of God by nature; but he is called the First-born insofar 2877 "font-weight: bold">and made his dwelling among us,</span> and said
1977 as from his natural sonship, by means of a certain likeness and participation, a sonship is 2878 that the Son of God was united to man in such a way that there was
1978 granted to many.</p> 2879 not one person of God and of man. For he held that the Word was
1979 <p>188 Then when he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">full of grace and truth, </span>he determines the glory of the Word. As if 2880 united to human nature only by an indwelling through grace. From
1980 to say: His glory is such that he is full of grace and divinity. Now these words can be applied 2881 this, however, it follows that the Son of God is not man.</p>
1981 to Christ in three ways.</p> 2882 <p>175 To clarify this we should know that we can consider two
1982 <p>First, from the point of view of union. For grace is given to someone so that he might be 2883 things in Christ: his nature and person. In Christ there is a
1983 united to God through it. So he who is most perfectly united to God is full of grace. Now 2884 distinction in nature, but not in person, which is one and the same
1984 some are joined to God by participating in a natural likeness: &#8220;Let us make man to our image 2885 in the two natures, since the human nature in Christ was assumed
1985 and likeness&#8221; (Gn 1:26). Some are joined by faith: &#8220;That Christ may dwell in your hearts 2886 into a oneness of person. Therefore, the indwelling which the
1986 through faith&#8221; (Eph 3:17). And others are united by charity, because &#8220;He who abides in love 2887 saints speak of must be referred to the nature, so as to say, he
1987 abides in God&#8221; (1 Jn 4:16). But all these ways are partial: because one is not perfectly united 2888 <span style="font-weight: bold">made his dwelling among us,</span>
1988 to God by participating a natural likeness; nor is God seen as he is by faith; nor is he loved to 2889 i.e., the nature of the Word inhabited our nature; not according to
1989 the extent that he is lovable by charity&#8212;for since he is the infinite Good, his lovableness is 2890 the hypostasis or person, which is the same for both natures in
1990 infinite, and the love of no creature is able to love this infinitely. And so these unions are not 2891 Christ.</p>
1991 full.</p> 2892 <p>176 The blasphemy of Nestorius is further refuted by the
1992 <p>But in Christ, in whom human nature is united to the divinity in the unity of a <i>suppositum</i>, we 2893 authority of Sacred Scripture. For the Apostle calls the union of
1993 find a full and perfect union with God. The reason for this is that this union was such that all 2894 God and man an emptying, saying of the Son of God: &ldquo;He, being
1994 the acts not only of his divine but also of his human nature were acts of the <i>suppositum</i> [or 2895 in the form of God ... emptied himself, taking the form of a
1995 person]. So he was <span style="font-weight: bold">full of grace </span>insofar he did not receive any special gratuitous gift from 2896 servant&rdquo; (Phil 2:6). Clearly, God is not said to empty
1996 God, but that he should be God himself. &#8220;He gave him,&#8221; i.e., God the Father gave to the Son, 2897 himself insofar as he dwells in the rational creature by grace,
1997 &#8220;a name which is above every name&#8221; (Phil 2:9). &#8220;He was foreordained to be the Son of God 2898 because then the Father and the Holy Spirit would be emptying
1998 in power&#8221; (Rom 1:4). He was also <span style="font-weight: bold">full of truth, </span>because the human nature in Christ attained 2899 themselves, since they too are said to dwell in man through grace:
1999 to the divine truth itself, that is, that this man should be the divine Truth itself. In other men 2900 for Christ, speaking of himself and of the Father says, &ldquo;We
2000 we find many participated truths, insofar as the First Truth gleams back into their minds 2901 will come to him and make our home with him&rdquo; (below 14:23);
2001 through many likenesses; but Christ is Truth itself. Thus it is said: &#8220;In whom all the treasures 2902 and of the Holy Spirit the Apostle says: &ldquo;The Spirit of God
2002 of wisdom are hidden&#8221; (Col 2:3).</p> 2903 dwells in us&rdquo; (1 Cor 3:16).</p>
2003 <p>189 Secondly, these words can be applied in relation to the perfection of his soul. Then he is 2904 <p>Furthermore, if Christ was not God as to his person, he would
2004 said to be <span style="font-weight: bold">full of grace and truth </span>inasmuch as in his soul there was the fulness of all graces 2905 have been most presumptuous to say: &ldquo;I and the Father are
2005 without measure: &#8220;God does not bestow the Spirit in fractions,&#8221; as we read below (3:34). Yet 2906 one&rdquo; (below 10:30), and &ldquo;Before Abraham came to be, I
2006 it was given in fractions to all rational creatures, both angels and men. For according to 2907 am,&rdquo; as is said below (8:58). Now &ldquo;I&rdquo; refers to
2007 Augustine, just as there is one sense common to all the parts of the body, namely, the sense of 2908 the person of the speaker. And the one who was speaking was a man,
2008 touch, while all the senses are found in the head, so in Christ, who is the head of every 2909 who, as one with the Father, existed before Abraham.</p>
2009 rational creature (and in a special way of the saints who are united to him by faith and 2910 <p>177 However, another connection [besides that given in 173] with
2010 charity), all virtues and graces and gifts are found superabundantly; but in others, i.e., the 2911 what went before is possible, by saying that above he dealt with
2011 saints, we find participations of the graces and gifts, although there is a gift common to all the 2912 the incarnation of the Word, but that now he is treating the manner
2012 saints, and that is charity. We read about this fulness of Christ&#8217;s grace: &#8220;There shall come 2913 of life of the incarnate Word, saying, he <span style=
2013 forth a shoot out of the root of Jesse, and a flower shall spring up out of his root. And the 2914 "font-weight: bold">made his dwelling among us,</span> i.e., he
2014 spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him: the spirit of wisdom and of understanding, the spirit of 2915 lived on familiar terms with us apostles. Peter alludes to this
2015 counsel and of fortitude, the spirit of knowledge and of piety&#8221; (Is 11:1).</p> 2916 when he says, &ldquo;During all the time that the Lord Jesus came
2016 <p>Further, Christ was also <span style="font-weight: bold">full of truth </span>because his precious and h1essed soul knew every truth, 2917 and went among us&rdquo; (Acts 1:21). &ldquo;Afterwards, he was
2017 human and divine, from the instant of his conception. And so Peter said to him, &#8220;You know 2918 seen on earth&rdquo; (Bar 3:38).</p>
2018 all things&#8221; (below 21:17). And the Psalm (88:25) says: &#8220;My truth,&#8221; i.e., the knowledge of 2919 <p>178 The Evangelist added this for two reasons. First, to show
2019 every truth, &#8220;and my mercy,&#8221; i.e., the fulness of all graces, &#8220;shall be with him.&#8221;</p> 2920 the marvelous likeness of the Word to men, among whom he lived in
2020 <p>190 In a third way these words can be explained in relation to his dignity as head, i.e., 2921 such a way as to seem one of them. For he not only willed to be
2021 inasmuch as Christ is the head of the Church. In this way it is his prerogative to communicate 2922 like men in nature, but also in living with them on close terms
2022 grace to others, both by producing virtue in the minds of men through the inpouring of grace 2923 without sin, in order to draw to himself men won over by the charm
2023 and by meriting, through his teaching and works and the sufferings of his death, 2924 of his way of life.</p>
2024 superabundant grace for an infinite number of worlds, if there were such. Therefore, he is <span style="font-weight: bold">full 2925 <p>Secondly, to show the truthfulness of his [the
2025 of grace </span>insofar as he conferred perfect justice upon us. We could not acquire this perfect 2926 Evangelist&rsquo;s] statements. For the Evangelist had already said
2026 justice through the law, which was infirm and could make no one just or bring anyone to 2927 many great things about the Word, and was yet to mention more
2027 perfection. As we read: &#8220;The law was powerless because it was weakened by the flesh. God, 2928 wonderful things about him; and so that his testimony would be more
2028 sending his Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and in reparation for sin, condemned sin in his 2929 credible he took as a proof of his truthfulness the fact that he
2029 flesh&#8221; (Rom 8:3).</p> 2930 had lived with Christ, saying, he <span style=
2030 <p>Again, he was <span style="font-weight: bold">full of truth </span>insofar as he fulfilled the figures of the Old Law and the promises 2931 "font-weight: bold">made his dwelling among us.</span> As if to
2031 made to the fathers. &#8220;Christ was a minister to the circumcised to confirm the promises made 2932 say: I can well bear witness to him, because I lived on close terms
2032 to the fathers&#8221; (Rom 15:8); &#8220;All the promises of God are fulfilled in him&#8221; (2 Cor 1:20).</p> 2933 with him. &ldquo;We tell you ... what we have heard, what we have
2033 <p>Further, he is said to be <span style="font-weight: bold">full of grace </span>because his teaching and manner of life were most 2934 seen with our eyes&rdquo; (1 Jn 1:1); &ldquo;God raised him up on
2034 gracious. &#8220;Grace is poured out upon your lips&#8221; (Ps 44:3). And so it is said, &#8220;All the people 2935 the third day, and granted that he be seen, not by all the people,
2035 came to him early in the morning,&#8221; i.e., in the morning they were eager to come (Lk 21:38). 2936 but by witnesses preordained by God,&rdquo; that is, &ldquo;to us
2036 He was <span style="font-weight: bold">full of truth, </span>because he did not teach in enigmas and figures, nor gloss over the 2937 who ate and drank with him&rdquo; (Acts 10:40).</p>
2037 vices of men, but preached the truth to all, openly and without deception. As it says below: 2938 <p style="margin-bottom: 0.125in; margin-bottom: 0.125in">
2038 &#8220;Now you are speaking plainly&#8221; (16:29).</p> 2939 &nbsp;</p>
2039 <p style="margin-bottom: 0.125in; margin-bottom: 0.125in">&#160;</p> 2940 <center>
2040 <CENTER><p><span style="font-weight: bold">LECTURE 9</span></p> 2941 <p><span style="font-weight: bold">LECTURE 8</span></p>
2041 <p>15 John bore witness to him, and he cried out saying:<BR> 2942 <p>l4b And we have seen his glory,<br />
2042 &#8220;This is the one of whom I said:<BR> 2943 the glory as of the Only Begotten of the Father,<br />
2043 &#8216;He who comes after me, ranks ahead of me,<BR> 2944 full of grace and truth.</p>
2044 because he existed before me.&#8217;&#8221;</CENTER> 2945 </center>
2045 <p>191 Having given the evidence by which the Word was made known to the apostles by sight, 2946 <p>179 Having set forth the incarnation of the Word, the Evangelist
2046 the Evangelist then presents the evidence by which the Word was made known to persons 2947 then begins to give the evidence for the incarnate Word. He does
2047 other than the apostles by their hearing the testimony of John. He does three things about this. 2948 two things about this. First, he shows the ways in which the
2048 First, the witness is presented. Secondly, his manner of testifying is indicated. Thirdly, his 2949 incarnate Word was made known. Secondly, he clarifies each way,
2049 testimony is given.</p> 2950 below (1:16). Now the incarnate Word was made known to the apostles
2050 <p>192 So he says: We indeed have seen his glory, the glory as of the Only Begotten of the 2951 in two ways: first of all, they obtained knowledge of him by what
2051 Father. But we are not believed, perhaps because we are held in suspicion. So let his witness 2952 they saw; secondly, by what they heard of the testimony of John the
2052 come forth, that is, John the Baptist, who bears witness to Christ. He is a faithful witness who 2953 Baptist. So first, he states what they saw about the Word;
2053 will not lie: &#8220;A faithful witness will not lie&#8221; (Prv 14:5), &#8220;You sent [messengers] to John, and 2954 secondly, what they heard from John (v 15).</p>
2054 he bore witness to the truth&#8221; (below 5:33). John gives his testimony here and fulfills his office 2955 <p>He states three things about the Word. First, the manifestation
2055 with perseverance because he came as a witness. As Proverbs (12:19) says, &#8220;Truthful lips 2956 of his glory; hence he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">we
2056 endure forever.&#8221;</p> 2957 have seen his glory.</span> Secondly, the uniqueness of his glory,
2057 <p>193 Then when he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">John bore witness to him, and he cried out, </span>he describes the way 2958 when he adds, as <span style="font-weight: bold">of the Only
2058 he bore witness, that is, it was with a cry. So he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">he cried out, </span>i.e., freely without fear. 2959 Begotten.</span> Thirdly, the precise nature of this glory, because
2059 &#8220;Cry out in a loud voice.... Say to the cities of Judah: Here is your God&#8221; (Is 40:9). He cried 2960 <span style="font-weight: bold">full of grace and truth.</span></p>
2060 out ardently and with great fervor, because it is said, &#8220;His word burned like a torch&#8221; (Si 48:1); 2961 <p>180 <span style="font-weight: bold">And we have seen his
2061 &#8220;Seraphim cried one to another&#8221; (Is 6:3), which is expressive of a more interior eagerness of 2962 glory,</span> can be connected in three ways with what went before.
2062 spirit. The use of a cry shows that the statements of the witness are not made to a few in 2963 First, it can be taken as an argument for his having said,
2063 figurative language or secretly, but that a truth is being declared openly and publicly, and told 2964 <span style="font-weight: bold">the Word was made flesh.</span> As
2064 not to a few but to many. &#8220;Cry out, and do not stop&#8221; (Is 58:1).</p> 2965 if to say: I hold and know that the Word of God was incarnate
2065 <p>194 Then he adds his testimony. And he does two things. First, he shows that his testimony 2966 because I and the other apostles have seen his glory. &ldquo;We
2066 was continuous. Secondly, he describes the person to whom he bore witness.</p> 2967 know of what we speak, and we bear witness of what we see&rdquo;
2067 <p>195 The testimony of the Baptist was continuous because he bore witness to him not only 2968 (below 3:11). &ldquo;We tell you ... what we have heard, what we
2068 once but many times, and even before Christ had come to him. And so he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">This is the 2969 have seen with our eyes&rdquo; (1 Jn 1:1).</p>
2069 one of whom I </span>said, i.e., before I saw him in the flesh I bore witness to him. &#8220;And you, child, 2970 <p>181 Secondly, according to Chrysostom, the connection is made by
2070 shall be called the prophet of the Most High&#8221; (Lk 1:76). He pointed him out both as present 2971 taking this statement as expressing many benefits. As if to say:
2071 and when about to come. And his testimony is certain because he not only predicted that he 2972 The incarnation of the Word not only conferred on us the benefit of
2072 would come, but pointed him out when he was present, saying, <span style="font-weight: bold">Look! There is the Lamb of 2973 becoming sons of God, but also the good of seeing his glory. For
2073 God. </span>This implies that Christ was physically present to John; for he had often come to John 2974 dull and feeble eyes cannot see the light of the sun; but they can
2074 before being baptized.</p> 2975 see it when it shines in a cloud or on some opaque body. Now before
2075 <p>196 Then he describes the one to whom he bore witness, saying, <span style="font-weight: bold">He who comes after me, 2976 the incarnation of the Word, human minds were incapable of seeing
2076 ranks ahead of me. </span>Here we should note that John does not at once preach to his disciples 2977 the divine light in itself, the light which enlightens every
2077 that Christ is the Son of God, but he draws them little by little to higher things: first, by 2978 rational nature. And so, in order that it might be more easily seen
2078 preferring Christ to himself, even though John had such a great reputation and authority as to 2979 and contemplated by us, he covered it with the cloud of our flesh:
2079 be considered the Christ or one of the great prophets. Now he compares Christ to himself: 2980 &ldquo;They looked towards the desert, and saw the glory of the
2080 first, with regard to the order of their preaching; secondly, as to the order of dignity; and 2981 Lord in a cloud&rdquo; (Ex 16:10), i.e., the Word of God in the
2081 thirdly, as to the time of their existence.</p> 2982 flesh.</p>
2082 <p>197 With respect to the order of their preaching, John preceded Christ as a servant precedes 2983 <p>182 According to Augustine, however, the connection refers to
2083 his master, and as a soldier his king, or as the morning star the sun: &#8220;See, I am sending my 2984 the gift of grace. For the failure of the spiritual eyes of men to
2084 messenger, and he will prepare the way before me&#8221; (Mal 3:1 ). So, He comes after me, in 2985 contemplate the divine light is due not only to their natural
2085 being known to men, through my preaching. Observe that <span style="font-weight: bold">comes</span> is in the present tense, 2986 limitations but also to the defects incurred by sin:
2086 became in Greek the present participle is used.</p> 2987 &ldquo;Fire,&rdquo; that is, of concupiscence, &ldquo;fell on them,
2087 <p>Now John preceded Christ for two reasons. First, according to Chrysostom, because John was 2988 and they did not see the sun,&rdquo; of justice (Ps 57:9). Hence in
2088 a blood relation of Christ according to the flesh: &#8220;your relative, Elizabeth&#8221; (Lk 1.36). 2989 order that the divine light might be seen by us, he healed our
2089 Therefore, had he borne witness to Christ after knowing him, his testimony might have been 2990 eyes, making an eye salve of his flesh, so that with the salve of
2090 open to question; accordingly, John came preaching before he was acquainted with Christ, in 2991 his flesh the Word might heal our eyes, weakened by the
2091 order that his testimony might have more force. Hence he says, &#8220;And I did not know him! 2992 concupiscence of the flesh. And this is why just after saying,
2092 And yet it was to reveal him to Israel that I came baptizing with water&#8221; (below 1:31).</p> 2993 <span style="font-weight: bold">the Word was made flesh,</span> he
2093 <p>Secondly, John preceded Christ because in things that pass into act from potency, the 2994 says, <span style="font-weight: bold">we have seen his
2094 imperfect is naturally prior to the perfect; hence it is said in 1 Corinthians (15:46): &#8220;The 2995 glory.</span> To indicate this the Lord made clay from his saliva
2095 spiritual is not first, but the animal.&#8221; Accordingly, the perfect doctrine of Christ should have 2996 and spread the clay upon the eyes of the man born blind (below
2096 been preceded by the less perfect teaching of John, which was in a certain manner midway 2997 9:6). For clay is from the earth, but saliva comes from the head.
2097 between the doctrine of the law and the prophets (which announced the coming of Christ 2998 Similarly, in the person of Christ, his human nature was assumed
2098 from afar), and the doctrine of Christ, which was clear and plainly made Christ known.</p> 2999 from the earth; but the incarnate Word is from the head, i.e., from
2099 <p>198 He [John] compares him to himself with respect to dignity when he says, he <span style="font-weight: bold">ranks ahead 3000 God the Father. So, when this clay was spread on the eyes of men,
2100 of me </span>[<i>ante me factus est, </i>literally, he &#8220;was made before me&#8221;]. It should be noted that it is 3001 <span style="font-weight: bold">we saw his glory.</span></p>
2101 from this text that the Arians took occasion for their error. For they said that &#8220;He who comes 3002 <p>183 This is the glory of the Word Moses longed to see, saying,
2102 after me,&#8221; is to be understood of Christ as to the flesh he assumed, but what follows, &#8220;was 3003 &ldquo;Show me your glory&rdquo; (Ex 32:18). But he did not deserve
2103 made before me,&#8221; can only be understood of the Word of God, who existed before the flesh; 3004 to see it; indeed, he was answered by the Lord: &ldquo;You shall
2104 and for this reason Christ as the Word was made, and was not coeternal with the Father.</p> 3005 see my back&rdquo; (Ex 33:23), i.e., shadows and figures. But the
2105 <p>According to Chrysostom, however, this exposition is stupid, because if it were true, the 3006 apostles saw his brightness: &ldquo;All of us, gazing on the
2106 Baptist would not have said, he &#8220;was made before me, because he existed before me,&#8221; since 3007 Lord&rsquo;s glory with unveiled faces, are being transformed from
2107 no one is unaware that if he was before him, he was made before him. He rather would have 3008 glory to glory into his very image&rdquo; (2 Cor 3:18). For Moses
2108 said the opposite: &#8220;He was before me, because he was made before me.&#8221; And so, according to 3009 and the other prophets saw in an obscure manner and in figures the
2109 Chrysostom, these words should be taken as referring to his [Christ&#8217;s] dignity, that is, he was 3010 glory of the Word that was to be manifested to the world at the end
2110 preferred to me and placed ahead of me. It is as though he said: Although Jesus came to 3011 of their times; hence the Apostle says: &ldquo;Now we see through a
2111 preach after me, he was made more worthy than I both in eminence of authority and in the 3012 mirror,,in an obscure manner, but then face to face&rdquo; in 1
2112 repute of men: &#8220;Gold will not be equal to it&#8221; (Jb 28:17). Or alternatively: he is preferred 3013 Corinthians (13:12); and below (12:41), &ldquo;Isaiah said this
2113 <span style="font-weight: bold">ahead of me, </span>that is, before my eyes, as the Gloss says and as the Greek text reads. As if to 3014 when he saw his glory.&rdquo; But the apostles saw the very
2114 say: Before my eyes, i.e., in my sight, because he came into my view and was recognized.</p> 3015 brilliance of the Word through his bodily presence: &ldquo;All of
2115 <p>199 He compares him to himself with respect to their duration, saying, <span style="font-weight: bold">because he existed 3016 us, gazing on the Lord&rsquo;s glory,&rdquo; and so forth (2 Cor
2116 before me. </span>As if to say: He was God from all eternity, I am a frail man of time. And 3017 3:18); &ldquo;Blessed are the eyes which see what you see. For many
2117 therefore, even though I came to preach ahead of him, yet it was fitting that he rank before me 3018 kings and prophets desired to see what you see, and did not see
2118 in the reputation and opinion of men, because he preceded all things by his eternity: &#8220;Jesus 3019 it&rdquo; (Lk 10:23).</p>
2119 Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever&#8221; (Heb 13:8). &#8220;Before Abraham came to be, I 3020 <p>184 Then when he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">the glory
2120 am,&#8221; as we read below (8:58).</p> 3021 as of the Only Begotten,</span> he shows the uniqueness of his
2121 <p>If we understand this passage as saying that he &#8220;was made before me,&#8221; it can be explained as 3022 glory. For since it is written of certain men that they were in
2122 referring to the order of time according to the flesh. For in the instant of his conception Christ 3023 glory, as of Moses it says that &ldquo;his face shone&rdquo; (Ex
2123 was perfect God and perfect man, having a rational soul perfected by the virtues, and a body 3024 34:29), or was &ldquo;horned,&rdquo; according to another text,
2124 possessed of all its distinctive features, except that it lacked perfect size: &#8220;A woman shall 3025 someone might say that from the fact that they saw him [Jesus] in
2125 enclose a man,&#8221; i.e., a perfect man (Jer 31:22). Now it is evident that Christ was conceived as 3026 glory, it should not be said that the Word of God was made flesh.
2126 a perfect man before John was born; consequently he says that he &#8220;was made before me,&#8221; 3027 But the Evangelist excludes this when he says, <span style=
2127 because he was a perfect man before I came forth from the womb.</p> 3028 "font-weight: bold">the glory as of the Only Begotten of the
2128 <p style="margin-bottom: 0.125in; margin-bottom: 0.125in">&#160;</p> 3029 Father.</span> As if to say: His glory is not like the glory of an
2129 <CENTER><p><span style="font-weight: bold">LECTURE10</span></p> 3030 angel, or of Moses, or Elijah, or Elisha, or anything like that.
2130 <p>16 Of his fullness we have all received&#8212;indeed, grace upon grace;<BR> 3031 but <span style="font-weight: bold">the glory as of the Only
2131 17 because, while the law was given through Moses,<BR> 3032 Begotten;</span> for as it is said, &ldquo;He [Jesus] was counted
2132 grace and truth have come through Jesus Christ.</CENTER> 3033 worthy of more glory than Moses&rdquo; (Heb 3:3); &ldquo;Who among
2133 <p>200 He follows with, <span style="font-weight: bold">Of his fullness we have all received </span>words and those that follow to (v 3034 the sons of God is like God?&rdquo; (Ps 88:7).</p>
2134 19), &#8220;This is the testimony of John,&#8221; are taken in two ways. According to Origen, these are 3035 <p>185 The word as, according to Gregory, is used to express the
2135 the words of John the Baptist and are added by him to support what he had said previously. It 3036 fact. But according to Chrysostom, it expresses the manner of the
2136 is as though he said: Truly, <span style="font-weight: bold">he existed before me, </span>because <span style="font-weight: bold">of his fullness, </span>i.e., of his grace, 3037 fact: as if someone were to see a king approaching in great glory
2137 not only I but all, including the prophets and patriarchs, <span style="font-weight: bold">have received, </span>because all had the 3038 and being asked by another to describe the king he saw, he could,
2138 grace they possessed by faith in the incarnate Word. According to this explanation, John the 3039 if he wanted to be brief, express the grandeur of his glory in one
2139 Baptist began weaving the story of the incarnation at, &#8220;John bore witness to him&#8221; (v 15).</p> 3040 word, and say that he approached &ldquo;as&rdquo; a king, i.e., as
2140 <p>But according to Augustine and Chrysostom, the words from &#8220;John bore witness to him&#8221; (v 3041 became a king. So too, here, the Evangelist, as though asked by
2141 15), are those of John the Evangelist. And they are connected with the previous words, &#8220;full 3042 someone to describe the glory of the Word which he had seen, and
2142 of grace and truth,&#8221; as though he were saying: Above, the Evangelist gave the evidence for 3043 being unable to fully express it, said that it was &ldquo;as&rdquo;
2143 the Word which was learned through sight and by hearing, but here he explains each. First, 3044 of the Only Begotten of the Father, i.e., such as became the Only
2144 how he was made known to the apostles through sight, which was tantamount to receiving the 3045 Begotten of God.</p>
2145 evidence from Christ. Secondly, how John bore witness to him, at &#8220;This is the testimony of 3046 <p>186 The uniqueness of the glory of the Word is brought out in
2146 John&#8221; (v 19). As to the first he does two <span style="font-weight: bold">things. </span>First, he shows that Christ is the origin, as a 3047 four ways. First, in the testimony which the Father gave to the
2147 fountain, of every spiritual grace. Secondly, he shows that grace is dispensed to us through 3048 Son. For John was one of the three who had seen Christ transfigured
2148 him and from him.</p> 3049 on the mountain and heard the , voice of the Father saying:
2149 <p>201 He says first of all: We know from our own experience that we have seen him full of 3050 &ldquo;This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased&rdquo;
2150 grace and truth, because <span style="font-weight: bold">of his fullness we have all received. </span>Now one fullness is that of 3051 (Mt 17:5). Of this glory it is said, &ldquo;He received honor and
2151 sufficiency, by which one is able to perform acts that are meritorious and excellent, as in the 3052 glory from God the Father ... &lsquo;This is my beloved
2152 case of Stephen. Again, there is a fullness of superabundance, by which the Blessed Virgin 3053 Son&rsquo;&rdquo; (2 Pt 1:17)</p>
2153 excels all the saints because of the eminence and abundance of her merits. Further, there is a 3054 <p>Secondly, it is brought out by the service of the angels. For
2154 fullness of efficiency and overflow, which belongs only to the man Christ as the author of 3055 prior to the incarnation of Christ, men were subject to the angels.
2155 grace. For although the Blessed Virgin superabounds her grace into us, it is never as authoress 3056 But after it, angels ministered, as subjects, to Christ.
2156 of grace. But grace flowed over from her soul into her body: for through the grace of the Holy 3057 &ldquo;Angels came and ministered to him&rdquo; (Mt 4:11).</p>
2157 Spirit, not only was the mind of the Virgin perfectly united to God by love, but her womb was 3058 <p>Thirdly, it is brought out by the submission of nature. For all
2158 supernaturally impregnated by the Holy Spirit. And so after Gabriel said, &#8220;Hail, full of grace,&#8221; 3059 nature obeyed Christ and heeded his slightest command, as something
2159 he refers at once to the fullness of her womb, adding, &#8220;the Lord is with you&#8221; (Lk 1:28). And 3060 established by him, because &ldquo;All things were made through
2160 so the Evangelist, in order to show this unique fullness of efficiency and overflow in Christ, 3061 him&rdquo; (above 1:3). This is something granted neither to angels
2161 said, <span style="font-weight: bold">Of his fullness we have all received, </span>i.e., all the apostles and patriarchs and prophets 3062 nor to any creature, but to the incarnate Word alone. And this is
2162 and just men who have existed, do now exist, and will exist, and even all the angels.</p> 3063 what we read, &ldquo;What kind of man is this, for the winds and
2163 <p>202 Note that the preposition <i>de </i>[of, from] sometimes signifies efficiency, i.e., an originative 3064 the sea obey him?&rdquo; (Mt 8:27).</p>
2164 cause, as when it is said that a ray is or proceeds &#8220;from&#8221; the sun. In this way it signifies the 3065 <p>Fourthly, we see it in the way he taught and acted. For Moses
2165 efficiency of grace in Christ, i.e., authorship, because the fullness of grace in Christ is the 3066 and the other prophets gave commands to men and taught them not on
2166 cause of all graces that are in intellectual creatures. &#8220;Come to me, all you who desire me, and 3067 their own authority, but on the authority of God. So they said:
2167 be filled with my fruits,&#8221; that is to say, share in the fullness of those fruits which come from 3068 &ldquo;The Lord says this&rdquo;; and &ldquo;The Lord spoke to
2168 me (Si 24:26).</p> 3069 Moses.&rdquo; But Christ speaks as the Lord, and as one having
2169 <p>But sometimes this preposition <i>de </i>signifies consubstantiality, as when it is said that the Son is 3070 power, i.e., by reason of his own power. Hence he says, &ldquo;I
2170 &#8220;of&#8221; the Father [<i>de Patre</i>]<i>. </i>In this usage, the fullness of Christ is the Holy Spirit, who 3071 say to you&rdquo; (Mt 5:22). This is the reason why, at the end of
2171 proceeds from him, consubstantial with him in nature, in power and in majesty. For although 3072 the Sermon on the Mountain, it is said that he taught as one
2172 the habitual gifts in the soul of Christ are other than those in us, nevertheless it is one and the 3073 &ldquo;having authority&rdquo; (Mt 7:29). Furthermore, other holy
2173 same Holy Spirit who is in him and who fills all those to be sanctified. &#8220;One and the same 3074 men worked miracles, but not by their own power. But Christ worked
2174 Spirit produces all these&#8221; (1 Cor 12:11); &#8220;I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh&#8221; (JI 2:28); 3075 them by his own power. In these ways, then, the glory of the Word
2175 &#8220;If anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to him&#8221; (Rom 8:9). For the 3076 is unique.</p>
2176 unity of the Holy Spirit produces unity in the Church: &#8220;The Spirit of the Lord filled the whole 3077 <p>187 Note that sometimes in Scripture we call Christ the Only
2177 world&#8221; (Wis 1:7).</p> 3078 Begotten, as here, and below (1 :18): &ldquo;it is the Only
2178 <p>In a third way, the preposition de [of, from] can signify it portion, as when we say &#8220;take 3079 Begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, who has made him
2179 &#8216;from&#8217; this bread or wine [<i>de hoc pane, vel vino</i>],&#8221; i.e., take a portion and not the whole. 3080 known.&rdquo; At other times we call him the First-born:
2180 Taken in this way it signifies that those who take a part derive it from the fullness. For he 3081 &ldquo;When he brings the Firstborn into the world, he says,
2181 [Christ] received all the gifts of the Holy Spirit without measure, according to a perfect 3082 &lsquo;Let all the angels of God adore him&rsquo; &ldquo; (Heb
2182 fullness; but we participate through him some portion of his fullness; and this is according to 3083 1:6). The reason for this is that just as it belongs to the whole
2183 the measure which God grants to each. &#8220;Grace has been given to each of us according to the 3084 Blessed Trinity to be God, so it belongs to the Word of God to be
2184 degree to which Christ gives it&#8221; (Eph 4:7).</p> 3085 God Begotten. Sometimes, too, he is called God according to what he
2185 <p>203 Then when he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">grace upon grace, </span>he shows the distribution of graces into us 3086 is in himself; and in this way he alone is uniquely God by his own
2186 through Christ. Here he does two things. First, he shows that we receive grace from Christ, as 3087 essence. It is in this way that we say there is but one God:
2187 its author. Secondly, that we receive wisdom from him (1:18). As to the first he does two 3088 &ldquo;Hear, O Israel: the Lord your God is one&rdquo; (Dt 6:4). At
2188 things. First, he shows that we have received of his fullness. Secondly, our need to receive it.</p> 3089 times, we even apply the name of deity to others, insofar as a
2189 <p>204 First, he says that we have received of the fullness of Christ what is described as <span style="font-weight: bold">grace 3090 certain likeness of the divinity is given to men; in this sense we
2190 upon grace. </span>In the light of what is said, we are forced to understand that of his fullness we 3091 speak of many gods: &ldquo;Indeed, there are many gods and many
2191 have received grace, and that upon that grace we have received another. Accordingly, we 3092 lords&rdquo; (1 Cor 8:5).</p>
2192 must see what that first grace is upon which we have received a second one, and also what 3093 <p>Along these lines, if we consider what is proper to the Son as
2193 that second grace is.</p> 3094 Begotten, and consider the way in which this sonship is attributed
2194 <p>According to Chrysostom, the first grace, which was received by the whole human race, was 3095 to him, that is, through nature, we say that he is the Only
2195 the grace of the Old Testament received in the law. And this was indeed a great grace: &#8220;I will 3096 Begotten of God: because, since he alone is naturally begotten by
2196 give you a good gift&#8221; (Prv 4:2). For it was a great benefit for idolatrous men to receive 3097 the Father, the Begotten of the Father is one only. But if we
2197 precepts from God, and a true knowledge of the one true God. &#8220;What is the advantage of 3098 consider the Son, insofar as sonship is conferred on others through
2198 being a Jew, or the benefit of circumcision? It is great in every way. First indeed, because the 3099 a likeness to him, then there are many sons of God through
2199 words of God were entrusted to them&#8221; (Rom 3:1). Upon that grace, then, which was first, we 3100 participation. And because they are called sons of God by a
2200 have received a second far better. &#8220;He will follow grace with grace&#8221; (Zec 4:7).</p> 3101 likeness to him, he is called the First-born of all. &ldquo;Those
2201 <p>But was not the first grace sufficient? I answer that it was not, because the law gives only a 3102 whom he foreknew, he predestined to become conformed to the image
2202 knowledge of sin, but does not take it away. &#8220;The law brought nothing to perfection&#8221; (Heb 3103 of his Son, so that he might be the First-born of many
2203 7:19). Hence it was necessary that another grace come that would take away sin and reconcile 3104 brothers&rdquo; (Rom 8:29).</p>
2204 one with God.</p> 3105 <p>So, Christ is called the Only Begotten of God by nature; but he
2205 <p>205 And so he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">because, while the law was given through Moses, grace and truth 3106 is called the First-born insofar as from his natural sonship, by
2206 have come through Jesus Christ. </span>Here the Evangelist ranks Christ above Moses the 3107 means of a certain likeness and participation, a sonship is granted
2207 lawgiver, whom the Baptist ranked above himself. Now Moses was regarded as the greatest 3108 to many.</p>
2208 of the prophets: &#8220;There did not arise again in Israel a prophet like Moses&#8221; (Dt 34:10). But he 3109 <p>188 Then when he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">full of
2209 ranks Christ above Moses in excellence Mid in dignity of&#8217; works, <span style="font-weight: bold">because the law was given 3110 grace and truth,</span> he determines the glory of the Word. As if
2210 through Moses; </span>and between these two, the One excels the other as the reality excels the 3111 to say: His glory is such that he is full of grace and divinity.
2211 symbol and the truth the shadow: &#8220;The law had a shadow of the good things to come&#8221; (Heb 3112 Now these words can be applied to Christ in three ways.</p>
2212 10:1). Further, Christ excels him in the way he works, because the law was given by Moses as 3113 <p>First, from the point of view of union. For grace is given to
2213 by one proclaiming it, but not originating it; for &#8220;The Lord alone is our lawgiver&#8221; (Is 33:22). 3114 someone so that he might be united to God through it. So he who is
2214 But <span style="font-weight: bold">grace and truth have come through Jesus Christ, </span>as through the Lord and Author of 3115 most perfectly united to God is full of grace. Now some are joined
2215 truth and grace, as was explained above.</p> 3116 to God by participating in a natural likeness: &ldquo;Let us make
2216 <p>206 According to Augustine, however, the first grace is justifying and prevenient grace, 3117 man to our image and likeness&rdquo; (Gn 1:26). Some are joined by
2217 which is not given to us because of our works: &#8220;If it is by grace, it is not now by works&#8221; (Rom 3118 faith: &ldquo;That Christ may dwell in your hearts through
2218 11:6). Upon that grace, then, which is imperfect, we have received another grace which is 3119 faith&rdquo; (Eph 3:17). And others are united by charity, because
2219 perfect, i.e., the grace of eternal life. And although eternal life is in some way acquired by 3120 &ldquo;He who abides in love abides in God&rdquo; (1 Jn 4:16). But
2220 merits, nevertheless, because the principle of meriting in everyone is prevenient grace, eternal 3121 all these ways are partial: because one is not perfectly united to
2221 life is called a grace: &#8220;The grace of God is eternal life&#8221; (Rom 6:23). To be brief, whatever 3122 God by participating a natural likeness; nor is God seen as he is
2222 grace is added to prevenient grace, the whole is called <span style="font-weight: bold">grace upon grace.</span></p> 3123 by faith; nor is he loved to the extent that he is lovable by
2223 <p>The need for this second grace arises from the insufficiency of the law, which showed what 3124 charity&mdash;for since he is the infinite Good, his lovableness is
2224 was to be done and what avoided; but it gave no help to fulfill what was commanded. Indeed, 3125 infinite, and the love of no creature is able to love this
2225 what seemed to have been directed to life was the occasion for producing death. Hence the 3126 infinitely. And so these unions are not full.</p>
2226 Apostle says that the law was a minister of death: &#8220;If the ministry that condemned had glory, 3127 <p>But in Christ, in whom human nature is united to the divinity in
2227 the ministry that justifies has much more glory&#8221; (2 Cor 3:9). Also, it promised the help of 3128 the unity of a <i>suppositum</i>, we find a full and perfect union
2228 grace but did not fulfill, because &#8220;The law brought nothing to perfection&#8221; (Heb 7:19). Again, 3129 with God. The reason for this is that this union was such that all
2229 it prefigured the truth of the new grace by its sacrifices and ceremonies; indeed, its very rites 3130 the acts not only of his divine but also of his human nature were
2230 proclaimed that it was a figure. Hence is was necessary that Christ come, who by his own 3131 acts of the <i>suppositum</i> [or person]. So he was <span style=
2231 death would destroy other deaths and grant the help of new grace, in order that we might both 3132 "font-weight: bold">full of grace</span> insofar he did not receive
2232 fulfill his precepts with ease and joy, and die to our sins and our old way of life: &#8220;Our old self 3133 any special gratuitous gift from God, but that he should be God
2233 was crucified with him&#8221; (Rom 6:6), and in order that the truth of the figures contained in the 3134 himself. &ldquo;He gave him,&rdquo; i.e., God the Father gave to
2234 law might be revealed and the promises made to the fathers be fulfilled.</p> 3135 the Son, &ldquo;a name which is above every name&rdquo; (Phil 2:9).
2235 <p>This can be explained in another way: <span style="font-weight: bold">truth has come through Jesus Christ, </span>as to the 3136 &ldquo;He was foreordained to be the Son of God in power&rdquo;
2236 wisdom and truth which was hidden for centuries, and which he openly taught when he came 3137 (Rom 1:4). He was also <span style="font-weight: bold">full of
2237 into the world: &#8220;I came into the world for this, to testify to the truth,&#8221; as we read below 3138 truth,</span> because the human nature in Christ attained to the
2238 (18:37).</p> 3139 divine truth itself, that is, that this man should be the divine
2239 <p>207 But if Christ is the Truth, as it says below (14:6), how did truth come [i.e., come to be, be 3140 Truth itself. In other men we find many participated truths,
2240 made] through him, because nothing can make itself? I answer that by his essence he is the 3141 insofar as the First Truth gleams back into their minds through
2241 uncreated Truth, which is eternal and not made, but is begotten of the Father; but all created 3142 many likenesses; but Christ is Truth itself. Thus it is said:
2242 truths were made through him, and these are certain participations and reflections of the first 3143 &ldquo;In whom all the treasures of wisdom are hidden&rdquo; (Col
2243 Truth, which shines out in those souls who are holy.</p> 3144 2:3).</p>
2244 <p style="margin-bottom: 0.125in; margin-bottom: 0.125in">&#160;</p> 3145 <p>189 Secondly, these words can be applied in relation to the
2245 <CENTER><p><span style="font-weight: bold">LECTURE 11</span></p> 3146 perfection of his soul. Then he is said to be <span style=
2246 <p>18 No one has ever seen God;<BR> 3147 "font-weight: bold">full of grace and truth</span> inasmuch as in
2247 it is the Only Begotten Son,<BR> 3148 his soul there was the fulness of all graces without measure:
2248 who is in the bosom of the Father,<BR> 3149 &ldquo;God does not bestow the Spirit in fractions,&rdquo; as we
2249 who has made him known.</CENTER> 3150 read below (3:34). Yet it was given in fractions to all rational
2250 <p>208 Above, the Evangelist showed how the apostles received grace from Christ as its author; 3151 creatures, both angels and men. For according to Augustine, just as
2251 here he shows how they received it from him as a teacher. About this he does three things. 3152 there is one sense common to all the parts of the body, namely, the
2252 First, he shows the need for this teaching. Secondly, the competency of the teacher. Thirdly, 3153 sense of touch, while all the senses are found in the head, so in
2253 the teaching itself.</p> 3154 Christ, who is the head of every rational creature (and in a
2254 <p>209 The need for this teaching arose from the lack of wisdom among men, which the 3155 special way of the saints who are united to him by faith and
2255 Evangelist implies by alluding to the ignorance concerning God which prevailed among men, 3156 charity), all virtues and graces and gifts are found
2256 saying: <span style="font-weight: bold">No one has ever seen God. </span>And he does this fittingly, for wisdom consists properly 3157 superabundantly; but in others, i.e., the saints, we find
2257 in the knowledge of God and of divine things. Hence Augustine says that wisdom is the 3158 participations of the graces and gifts, although there is a gift
2258 knowledge of divine things, as science is the knowledge of human things.</p> 3159 common to all the saints, and that is charity. We read about this
2259 <p>2 10 But this statement of the Evangelist, <span style="font-weight: bold">No one has ever seen God, </span>seems to contradict 3160 fulness of Christ&rsquo;s grace: &ldquo;There shall come forth a
2260 many passages of divine Scripture. For it is said in Isaiah (6:1): &#8220;I saw the Lord seated on a 3161 shoot out of the root of Jesse, and a flower shall spring up out of
2261 high and lofty throne.&#8221; And about the same is found in 2 Samuel (6:2). Again in Matthew 3162 his root. And the spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him: the
2262 (5:8), the Lord says: &#8220;Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.&#8221;If someone were 3163 spirit of wisdom and of understanding, the spirit of counsel and of
2263 to answer this last statement by saying that it is true that in the past no one has seen God, but 3164 fortitude, the spirit of knowledge and of piety&rdquo; (Is
2264 will see him in the future, as the Lord promises, the Apostle would exclude this, saying, &#8220;He 3165 11:1).</p>
2265 dwells in unapproachable light, whom no man has seen or can see&#8221; (1 Tim 6:16).</p> 3166 <p>Further, Christ was also <span style="font-weight: bold">full of
2266 <p>Because the Apostle says, &#8220;no man has seen,&#8221; someone might say that if he cannot be seen by 3167 truth</span> because his precious and h1essed soul knew every
2267 men, then at least he can be seen by angels; especially since God says, &#8220;Their angels in 3168 truth, human and divine, from the instant of his conception. And so
2268 heaven always see the face of my Father&#8221; (Mt 18:10). But it cannot be taken in this way 3169 Peter said to him, &ldquo;You know all things&rdquo; (below 21:17).
2269 either, because it is said, &#8220;The sons of the resurrection will be like the angels of God in 3170 And the Psalm (88:25) says: &ldquo;My truth,&rdquo; i.e., the
2270 heaven&#8221; (Mt 22:30). If, therefore, the angels see God in heaven, then it is plain that the sons 3171 knowledge of every truth, &ldquo;and my mercy,&rdquo; i.e., the
2271 of the resurrection also see him: &#8220;When he appears we shall be like him, and we shall see him 3172 fulness of all graces, &ldquo;shall be with him.&rdquo;</p>
2272 as he is&#8221; (1 Jn 3:2).</p> 3173 <p>190 In a third way these words can be explained in relation to
2273 <p>211 How then are we to understand what the Evangelist says: <span style="font-weight: bold">No one has ever seen God</span>? To 3174 his dignity as head, i.e., inasmuch as Christ is the head of the
2274 understand it we must know that God is said to be seen in three ways. First, through a created 3175 Church. In this way it is his prerogative to communicate grace to
2275 substitute presented to the bodily sight; as Abraham is believed to have seen God when he 3176 others, both by producing virtue in the minds of men through the
2276 saw three [men] and adored one (Gn 18). He adored one because he recognized the mystery 3177 inpouring of grace and by meriting, through his teaching and works
2277 of the Trinity in the three, whom he first thought to be men, and later believed to be angels. In 3178 and the sufferings of his death, superabundant grace for an
2278 a second way, through a representation in the imagination; and in this way Isaiah saw the 3179 infinite number of worlds, if there were such. Therefore, he is
2279 Lord seated on a high and lofty throne. Many visions of this sort are recorded in the 3180 <span style="font-weight: bold">full of grace</span> insofar as he
2280 Scriptures. In a third way, he is seen through an intelligible species abstracted from material 3181 conferred perfect justice upon us. We could not acquire this
2281 things; and in this way he is seen by those who, considering the greatness of creatures, see 3182 perfect justice through the law, which was infirm and could make no
2282 with their intellect the greatness of the Creator, as it is said: &#8220;From the greatness and beauty 3183 one just or bring anyone to perfection. As we read: &ldquo;The law
2283 of creatures, their Creator can be seen accordingly&#8221; (Wis 13:5); &#8220;The invisible things of God 3184 was powerless because it was weakened by the flesh. God, sending
2284 are clearly seen, being understood through the things that are made,&#8221; as found in Romans 3185 his Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and in reparation for sin,
2285 (1:20). In another way, God is seen through a certain spiritual light infused by God into 3186 condemned sin in his flesh&rdquo; (Rom 8:3).</p>
2286 spiritual minds during contemplation; and this is the way Jacob saw God face to face, as it 3187 <p>Again, he was <span style="font-weight: bold">full of
2287 says in Genesis (32:30). According to Gregory, this vision came about through his lofty 3188 truth</span> insofar as he fulfilled the figures of the Old Law and
3189 the promises made to the fathers. &ldquo;Christ was a minister to
3190 the circumcised to confirm the promises made to the fathers&rdquo;
3191 (Rom 15:8); &ldquo;All the promises of God are fulfilled in
3192 him&rdquo; (2 Cor 1:20).</p>
3193 <p>Further, he is said to be <span style="font-weight: bold">full
3194 of grace</span> because his teaching and manner of life were most
3195 gracious. &ldquo;Grace is poured out upon your lips&rdquo; (Ps
3196 44:3). And so it is said, &ldquo;All the people came to him early
3197 in the morning,&rdquo; i.e., in the morning they were eager to come
3198 (Lk 21:38). He was <span style="font-weight: bold">full of
3199 truth,</span> because he did not teach in enigmas and figures, nor
3200 gloss over the vices of men, but preached the truth to all, openly
3201 and without deception. As it says below: &ldquo;Now you are
3202 speaking plainly&rdquo; (16:29).</p>
3203 <p style="margin-bottom: 0.125in; margin-bottom: 0.125in">
3204 &nbsp;</p>
3205 <center>
3206 <p><span style="font-weight: bold">LECTURE 9</span></p>
3207 <p>15 John bore witness to him, and he cried out saying:<br />
3208 &ldquo;This is the one of whom I said:<br />
3209 &lsquo;He who comes after me, ranks ahead of me,<br />
3210 because he existed before me.&rsquo;&rdquo;</p>
3211 </center>
3212 <p>191 Having given the evidence by which the Word was made known
3213 to the apostles by sight, the Evangelist then presents the evidence
3214 by which the Word was made known to persons other than the apostles
3215 by their hearing the testimony of John. He does three things about
3216 this. First, the witness is presented. Secondly, his manner of
3217 testifying is indicated. Thirdly, his testimony is given.</p>
3218 <p>192 So he says: We indeed have seen his glory, the glory as of
3219 the Only Begotten of the Father. But we are not believed, perhaps
3220 because we are held in suspicion. So let his witness come forth,
3221 that is, John the Baptist, who bears witness to Christ. He is a
3222 faithful witness who will not lie: &ldquo;A faithful witness will
3223 not lie&rdquo; (Prv 14:5), &ldquo;You sent [messengers] to John,
3224 and he bore witness to the truth&rdquo; (below 5:33). John gives
3225 his testimony here and fulfills his office with perseverance
3226 because he came as a witness. As Proverbs (12:19) says,
3227 &ldquo;Truthful lips endure forever.&rdquo;</p>
3228 <p>193 Then when he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">John bore
3229 witness to him, and he cried out,</span> he describes the way he
3230 bore witness, that is, it was with a cry. So he says, <span style=
3231 "font-weight: bold">he cried out,</span> i.e., freely without fear.
3232 &ldquo;Cry out in a loud voice.... Say to the cities of Judah: Here
3233 is your God&rdquo; (Is 40:9). He cried out ardently and with great
3234 fervor, because it is said, &ldquo;His word burned like a
3235 torch&rdquo; (Si 48:1); &ldquo;Seraphim cried one to another&rdquo;
3236 (Is 6:3), which is expressive of a more interior eagerness of
3237 spirit. The use of a cry shows that the statements of the witness
3238 are not made to a few in figurative language or secretly, but that
3239 a truth is being declared openly and publicly, and told not to a
3240 few but to many. &ldquo;Cry out, and do not stop&rdquo; (Is
3241 58:1).</p>
3242 <p>194 Then he adds his testimony. And he does two things. First,
3243 he shows that his testimony was continuous. Secondly, he describes
3244 the person to whom he bore witness.</p>
3245 <p>195 The testimony of the Baptist was continuous because he bore
3246 witness to him not only once but many times, and even before Christ
3247 had come to him. And so he says, <span style=
3248 "font-weight: bold">This is the one of whom I</span> said, i.e.,
3249 before I saw him in the flesh I bore witness to him. &ldquo;And
3250 you, child, shall be called the prophet of the Most High&rdquo; (Lk
3251 1:76). He pointed him out both as present and when about to come.
3252 And his testimony is certain because he not only predicted that he
3253 would come, but pointed him out when he was present, saying,
3254 <span style="font-weight: bold">Look! There is the Lamb of
3255 God.</span> This implies that Christ was physically present to
3256 John; for he had often come to John before being baptized.</p>
3257 <p>196 Then he describes the one to whom he bore witness, saying,
3258 <span style="font-weight: bold">He who comes after me, ranks ahead
3259 of me.</span> Here we should note that John does not at once preach
3260 to his disciples that Christ is the Son of God, but he draws them
3261 little by little to higher things: first, by preferring Christ to
3262 himself, even though John had such a great reputation and authority
3263 as to be considered the Christ or one of the great prophets. Now he
3264 compares Christ to himself: first, with regard to the order of
3265 their preaching; secondly, as to the order of dignity; and thirdly,
3266 as to the time of their existence.</p>
3267 <p>197 With respect to the order of their preaching, John preceded
3268 Christ as a servant precedes his master, and as a soldier his king,
3269 or as the morning star the sun: &ldquo;See, I am sending my
3270 messenger, and he will prepare the way before me&rdquo; (Mal 3:1 ).
3271 So, He comes after me, in being known to men, through my preaching.
3272 Observe that <span style="font-weight: bold">comes</span> is in the
3273 present tense, became in Greek the present participle is used.</p>
3274 <p>Now John preceded Christ for two reasons. First, according to
3275 Chrysostom, because John was a blood relation of Christ according
3276 to the flesh: &ldquo;your relative, Elizabeth&rdquo; (Lk 1.36).
3277 Therefore, had he borne witness to Christ after knowing him, his
3278 testimony might have been open to question; accordingly, John came
3279 preaching before he was acquainted with Christ, in order that his
3280 testimony might have more force. Hence he says, &ldquo;And I did
3281 not know him! And yet it was to reveal him to Israel that I came
3282 baptizing with water&rdquo; (below 1:31).</p>
3283 <p>Secondly, John preceded Christ because in things that pass into
3284 act from potency, the imperfect is naturally prior to the perfect;
3285 hence it is said in 1 Corinthians (15:46): &ldquo;The spiritual is
3286 not first, but the animal.&rdquo; Accordingly, the perfect doctrine
3287 of Christ should have been preceded by the less perfect teaching of
3288 John, which was in a certain manner midway between the doctrine of
3289 the law and the prophets (which announced the coming of Christ from
3290 afar), and the doctrine of Christ, which was clear and plainly made
3291 Christ known.</p>
3292 <p>198 He [John] compares him to himself with respect to dignity
3293 when he says, he <span style="font-weight: bold">ranks ahead of
3294 me</span> [<i>ante me factus est,</i> literally, he &ldquo;was made
3295 before me&rdquo;]. It should be noted that it is from this text
3296 that the Arians took occasion for their error. For they said that
3297 &ldquo;He who comes after me,&rdquo; is to be understood of Christ
3298 as to the flesh he assumed, but what follows, &ldquo;was made
3299 before me,&rdquo; can only be understood of the Word of God, who
3300 existed before the flesh; and for this reason Christ as the Word
3301 was made, and was not coeternal with the Father.</p>
3302 <p>According to Chrysostom, however, this exposition is stupid,
3303 because if it were true, the Baptist would not have said, he
3304 &ldquo;was made before me, because he existed before me,&rdquo;
3305 since no one is unaware that if he was before him, he was made
3306 before him. He rather would have said the opposite: &ldquo;He was
3307 before me, because he was made before me.&rdquo; And so, according
3308 to Chrysostom, these words should be taken as referring to his
3309 [Christ&rsquo;s] dignity, that is, he was preferred to me and
3310 placed ahead of me. It is as though he said: Although Jesus came to
3311 preach after me, he was made more worthy than I both in eminence of
3312 authority and in the repute of men: &ldquo;Gold will not be equal
3313 to it&rdquo; (Jb 28:17). Or alternatively: he is preferred
3314 <span style="font-weight: bold">ahead of me,</span> that is, before
3315 my eyes, as the Gloss says and as the Greek text reads. As if to
3316 say: Before my eyes, i.e., in my sight, because he came into my
3317 view and was recognized.</p>
3318 <p>199 He compares him to himself with respect to their duration,
3319 saying, <span style="font-weight: bold">because he existed before
3320 me.</span> As if to say: He was God from all eternity, I am a frail
3321 man of time. And therefore, even though I came to preach ahead of
3322 him, yet it was fitting that he rank before me in the reputation
3323 and opinion of men, because he preceded all things by his eternity:
3324 &ldquo;Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and
3325 forever&rdquo; (Heb 13:8). &ldquo;Before Abraham came to be, I
3326 am,&rdquo; as we read below (8:58).</p>
3327 <p>If we understand this passage as saying that he &ldquo;was made
3328 before me,&rdquo; it can be explained as referring to the order of
3329 time according to the flesh. For in the instant of his conception
3330 Christ was perfect God and perfect man, having a rational soul
3331 perfected by the virtues, and a body possessed of all its
3332 distinctive features, except that it lacked perfect size: &ldquo;A
3333 woman shall enclose a man,&rdquo; i.e., a perfect man (Jer 31:22).
3334 Now it is evident that Christ was conceived as a perfect man before
3335 John was born; consequently he says that he &ldquo;was made before
3336 me,&rdquo; because he was a perfect man before I came forth from
3337 the womb.</p>
3338 <p style="margin-bottom: 0.125in; margin-bottom: 0.125in">
3339 &nbsp;</p>
3340 <center>
3341 <p><span style="font-weight: bold">LECTURE10</span></p>
3342 <p>16 Of his fullness we have all received&mdash;indeed, grace upon
3343 grace;<br />
3344 17 because, while the law was given through Moses,<br />
3345 grace and truth have come through Jesus Christ.</p>
3346 </center>
3347 <p>200 He follows with, <span style="font-weight: bold">Of his
3348 fullness we have all received</span> words and those that follow to
3349 (v 19), &ldquo;This is the testimony of John,&rdquo; are taken in
3350 two ways. According to Origen, these are the words of John the
3351 Baptist and are added by him to support what he had said
3352 previously. It is as though he said: Truly, <span style=
3353 "font-weight: bold">he existed before me,</span> because
3354 <span style="font-weight: bold">of his fullness,</span> i.e., of
3355 his grace, not only I but all, including the prophets and
3356 patriarchs, <span style="font-weight: bold">have received,</span>
3357 because all had the grace they possessed by faith in the incarnate
3358 Word. According to this explanation, John the Baptist began weaving
3359 the story of the incarnation at, &ldquo;John bore witness to
3360 him&rdquo; (v 15).</p>
3361 <p>But according to Augustine and Chrysostom, the words from
3362 &ldquo;John bore witness to him&rdquo; (v 15), are those of John
3363 the Evangelist. And they are connected with the previous words,
3364 &ldquo;full of grace and truth,&rdquo; as though he were saying:
3365 Above, the Evangelist gave the evidence for the Word which was
3366 learned through sight and by hearing, but here he explains each.
3367 First, how he was made known to the apostles through sight, which
3368 was tantamount to receiving the evidence from Christ. Secondly, how
3369 John bore witness to him, at &ldquo;This is the testimony of
3370 John&rdquo; (v 19). As to the first he does two <span style=
3371 "font-weight: bold">things.</span> First, he shows that Christ is
3372 the origin, as a fountain, of every spiritual grace. Secondly, he
3373 shows that grace is dispensed to us through him and from him.</p>
3374 <p>201 He says first of all: We know from our own experience that
3375 we have seen him full of grace and truth, because <span style=
3376 "font-weight: bold">of his fullness we have all received.</span>
3377 Now one fullness is that of sufficiency, by which one is able to
3378 perform acts that are meritorious and excellent, as in the case of
3379 Stephen. Again, there is a fullness of superabundance, by which the
3380 Blessed Virgin excels all the saints because of the eminence and
3381 abundance of her merits. Further, there is a fullness of efficiency
3382 and overflow, which belongs only to the man Christ as the author of
3383 grace. For although the Blessed Virgin superabounds her grace into
3384 us, it is never as authoress of grace. But grace flowed over from
3385 her soul into her body: for through the grace of the Holy Spirit,
3386 not only was the mind of the Virgin perfectly united to God by
3387 love, but her womb was supernaturally impregnated by the Holy
3388 Spirit. And so after Gabriel said, &ldquo;Hail, full of
3389 grace,&rdquo; he refers at once to the fullness of her womb,
3390 adding, &ldquo;the Lord is with you&rdquo; (Lk 1:28). And so the
3391 Evangelist, in order to show this unique fullness of efficiency and
3392 overflow in Christ, said, <span style="font-weight: bold">Of his
3393 fullness we have all received,</span> i.e., all the apostles and
3394 patriarchs and prophets and just men who have existed, do now
3395 exist, and will exist, and even all the angels.</p>
3396 <p>202 Note that the preposition <i>de</i> [of, from] sometimes
3397 signifies efficiency, i.e., an originative cause, as when it is
3398 said that a ray is or proceeds &ldquo;from&rdquo; the sun. In this
3399 way it signifies the efficiency of grace in Christ, i.e.,
3400 authorship, because the fullness of grace in Christ is the cause of
3401 all graces that are in intellectual creatures. &ldquo;Come to me,
3402 all you who desire me, and be filled with my fruits,&rdquo; that is
3403 to say, share in the fullness of those fruits which come from me
3404 (Si 24:26).</p>
3405 <p>But sometimes this preposition <i>de</i> signifies
3406 consubstantiality, as when it is said that the Son is
3407 &ldquo;of&rdquo; the Father [<i>de Patre</i>]<i>.</i> In this
3408 usage, the fullness of Christ is the Holy Spirit, who proceeds from
3409 him, consubstantial with him in nature, in power and in majesty.
3410 For although the habitual gifts in the soul of Christ are other
3411 than those in us, nevertheless it is one and the same Holy Spirit
3412 who is in him and who fills all those to be sanctified. &ldquo;One
3413 and the same Spirit produces all these&rdquo; (1 Cor 12:11);
3414 &ldquo;I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh&rdquo; (JI 2:28);
3415 &ldquo;If anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not
3416 belong to him&rdquo; (Rom 8:9). For the unity of the Holy Spirit
3417 produces unity in the Church: &ldquo;The Spirit of the Lord filled
3418 the whole world&rdquo; (Wis 1:7).</p>
3419 <p>In a third way, the preposition de [of, from] can signify it
3420 portion, as when we say &ldquo;take &lsquo;from&rsquo; this bread
3421 or wine [<i>de hoc pane, vel vino</i>],&rdquo; i.e., take a portion
3422 and not the whole. Taken in this way it signifies that those who
3423 take a part derive it from the fullness. For he [Christ] received
3424 all the gifts of the Holy Spirit without measure, according to a
3425 perfect fullness; but we participate through him some portion of
3426 his fullness; and this is according to the measure which God grants
3427 to each. &ldquo;Grace has been given to each of us according to the
3428 degree to which Christ gives it&rdquo; (Eph 4:7).</p>
3429 <p>203 Then when he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">grace
3430 upon grace,</span> he shows the distribution of graces into us
3431 through Christ. Here he does two things. First, he shows that we
3432 receive grace from Christ, as its author. Secondly, that we receive
3433 wisdom from him (1:18). As to the first he does two things. First,
3434 he shows that we have received of his fullness. Secondly, our need
3435 to receive it.</p>
3436 <p>204 First, he says that we have received of the fullness of
3437 Christ what is described as <span style="font-weight: bold">grace
3438 upon grace.</span> In the light of what is said, we are forced to
3439 understand that of his fullness we have received grace, and that
3440 upon that grace we have received another. Accordingly, we must see
3441 what that first grace is upon which we have received a second one,
3442 and also what that second grace is.</p>
3443 <p>According to Chrysostom, the first grace, which was received by
3444 the whole human race, was the grace of the Old Testament received
3445 in the law. And this was indeed a great grace: &ldquo;I will give
3446 you a good gift&rdquo; (Prv 4:2). For it was a great benefit for
3447 idolatrous men to receive precepts from God, and a true knowledge
3448 of the one true God. &ldquo;What is the advantage of being a Jew,
3449 or the benefit of circumcision? It is great in every way. First
3450 indeed, because the words of God were entrusted to them&rdquo; (Rom
3451 3:1). Upon that grace, then, which was first, we have received a
3452 second far better. &ldquo;He will follow grace with grace&rdquo;
3453 (Zec 4:7).</p>
3454 <p>But was not the first grace sufficient? I answer that it was
3455 not, because the law gives only a knowledge of sin, but does not
3456 take it away. &ldquo;The law brought nothing to perfection&rdquo;
3457 (Heb 7:19). Hence it was necessary that another grace come that
3458 would take away sin and reconcile one with God.</p>
3459 <p>205 And so he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">because,
3460 while the law was given through Moses, grace and truth have come
3461 through Jesus Christ.</span> Here the Evangelist ranks Christ above
3462 Moses the lawgiver, whom the Baptist ranked above himself. Now
3463 Moses was regarded as the greatest of the prophets: &ldquo;There
3464 did not arise again in Israel a prophet like Moses&rdquo; (Dt
3465 34:10). But he ranks Christ above Moses in excellence Mid in
3466 dignity of&rsquo; works, <span style="font-weight: bold">because
3467 the law was given through Moses;</span> and between these two, the
3468 One excels the other as the reality excels the symbol and the truth
3469 the shadow: &ldquo;The law had a shadow of the good things to
3470 come&rdquo; (Heb 10:1). Further, Christ excels him in the way he
3471 works, because the law was given by Moses as by one proclaiming it,
3472 but not originating it; for &ldquo;The Lord alone is our
3473 lawgiver&rdquo; (Is 33:22). But <span style=
3474 "font-weight: bold">grace and truth have come through Jesus
3475 Christ,</span> as through the Lord and Author of truth and grace,
3476 as was explained above.</p>
3477 <p>206 According to Augustine, however, the first grace is
3478 justifying and prevenient grace, which is not given to us because
3479 of our works: &ldquo;If it is by grace, it is not now by
3480 works&rdquo; (Rom 11:6). Upon that grace, then, which is imperfect,
3481 we have received another grace which is perfect, i.e., the grace of
3482 eternal life. And although eternal life is in some way acquired by
3483 merits, nevertheless, because the principle of meriting in everyone
3484 is prevenient grace, eternal life is called a grace: &ldquo;The
3485 grace of God is eternal life&rdquo; (Rom 6:23). To be brief,
3486 whatever grace is added to prevenient grace, the whole is called
3487 <span style="font-weight: bold">grace upon grace.</span></p>
3488 <p>The need for this second grace arises from the insufficiency of
3489 the law, which showed what was to be done and what avoided; but it
3490 gave no help to fulfill what was commanded. Indeed, what seemed to
3491 have been directed to life was the occasion for producing death.
3492 Hence the Apostle says that the law was a minister of death:
3493 &ldquo;If the ministry that condemned had glory, the ministry that
3494 justifies has much more glory&rdquo; (2 Cor 3:9). Also, it promised
3495 the help of grace but did not fulfill, because &ldquo;The law
3496 brought nothing to perfection&rdquo; (Heb 7:19). Again, it
3497 prefigured the truth of the new grace by its sacrifices and
3498 ceremonies; indeed, its very rites proclaimed that it was a figure.
3499 Hence is was necessary that Christ come, who by his own death would
3500 destroy other deaths and grant the help of new grace, in order that
3501 we might both fulfill his precepts with ease and joy, and die to
3502 our sins and our old way of life: &ldquo;Our old self was crucified
3503 with him&rdquo; (Rom 6:6), and in order that the truth of the
3504 figures contained in the law might be revealed and the promises
3505 made to the fathers be fulfilled.</p>
3506 <p>This can be explained in another way: <span style=
3507 "font-weight: bold">truth has come through Jesus Christ,</span> as
3508 to the wisdom and truth which was hidden for centuries, and which
3509 he openly taught when he came into the world: &ldquo;I came into
3510 the world for this, to testify to the truth,&rdquo; as we read
3511 below (18:37).</p>
3512 <p>207 But if Christ is the Truth, as it says below (14:6), how did
3513 truth come [i.e., come to be, be made] through him, because nothing
3514 can make itself? I answer that by his essence he is the uncreated
3515 Truth, which is eternal and not made, but is begotten of the
3516 Father; but all created truths were made through him, and these are
3517 certain participations and reflections of the first Truth, which
3518 shines out in those souls who are holy.</p>
3519 <p style="margin-bottom: 0.125in; margin-bottom: 0.125in">
3520 &nbsp;</p>
3521 <center>
3522 <p><span style="font-weight: bold">LECTURE 11</span></p>
3523 <p>18 No one has ever seen God;<br />
3524 it is the Only Begotten Son,<br />
3525 who is in the bosom of the Father,<br />
3526 who has made him known.</p>
3527 </center>
3528 <p>208 Above, the Evangelist showed how the apostles received grace
3529 from Christ as its author; here he shows how they received it from
3530 him as a teacher. About this he does three things. First, he shows
3531 the need for this teaching. Secondly, the competency of the
3532 teacher. Thirdly, the teaching itself.</p>
3533 <p>209 The need for this teaching arose from the lack of wisdom
3534 among men, which the Evangelist implies by alluding to the
3535 ignorance concerning God which prevailed among men, saying:
3536 <span style="font-weight: bold">No one has ever seen God.</span>
3537 And he does this fittingly, for wisdom consists properly in the
3538 knowledge of God and of divine things. Hence Augustine says that
3539 wisdom is the knowledge of divine things, as science is the
3540 knowledge of human things.</p>
3541 <p>2 10 But this statement of the Evangelist, <span style=
3542 "font-weight: bold">No one has ever seen God,</span> seems to
3543 contradict many passages of divine Scripture. For it is said in
3544 Isaiah (6:1): &ldquo;I saw the Lord seated on a high and lofty
3545 throne.&rdquo; And about the same is found in 2 Samuel (6:2). Again
3546 in Matthew (5:8), the Lord says: &ldquo;Blessed are the pure in
3547 heart, for they shall see God.&rdquo;If someone were to answer this
3548 last statement by saying that it is true that in the past no one
3549 has seen God, but will see him in the future, as the Lord promises,
3550 the Apostle would exclude this, saying, &ldquo;He dwells in
3551 unapproachable light, whom no man has seen or can see&rdquo; (1 Tim
3552 6:16).</p>
3553 <p>Because the Apostle says, &ldquo;no man has seen,&rdquo; someone
3554 might say that if he cannot be seen by men, then at least he can be
3555 seen by angels; especially since God says, &ldquo;Their angels in
3556 heaven always see the face of my Father&rdquo; (Mt 18:10). But it
3557 cannot be taken in this way either, because it is said, &ldquo;The
3558 sons of the resurrection will be like the angels of God in
3559 heaven&rdquo; (Mt 22:30). If, therefore, the angels see God in
3560 heaven, then it is plain that the sons of the resurrection also see
3561 him: &ldquo;When he appears we shall be like him, and we shall see
3562 him as he is&rdquo; (1 Jn 3:2).</p>
3563 <p>211 How then are we to understand what the Evangelist says:
3564 <span style="font-weight: bold">No one has ever seen God</span>? To
3565 understand it we must know that God is said to be seen in three
3566 ways. First, through a created substitute presented to the bodily
3567 sight; as Abraham is believed to have seen God when he saw three
3568 [men] and adored one (Gn 18). He adored one because he recognized
3569 the mystery of the Trinity in the three, whom he first thought to
3570 be men, and later believed to be angels. In a second way, through a
3571 representation in the imagination; and in this way Isaiah saw the
3572 Lord seated on a high and lofty throne. Many visions of this sort
3573 are recorded in the Scriptures. In a third way, he is seen through
3574 an intelligible species abstracted from material things; and in
3575 this way he is seen by those who, considering the greatness of
3576 creatures, see with their intellect the greatness of the Creator,
3577 as it is said: &ldquo;From the greatness and beauty of creatures,
3578 their Creator can be seen accordingly&rdquo; (Wis 13:5); &ldquo;The
3579 invisible things of God are clearly seen, being understood through
3580 the things that are made,&rdquo; as found in Romans (1:20). In
3581 another way, God is seen through a certain spiritual light infused
3582 by God into spiritual minds during contemplation; and this is the
3583 way Jacob saw God face to face, as it says in Genesis (32:30).
3584 According to Gregory, this vision came about through his lofty
2288 contemplation.</p> 3585 contemplation.</p>
2289 <p>But the vision of the divine essence is not attained by any of the above visions: for no created 3586 <p>But the vision of the divine essence is not attained by any of
2290 species, whether it be that by which an external sense is informed, or by which the 3587 the above visions: for no created species, whether it be that by
2291 imagination is informed, or by which the intellect is informed, is representative of the divine 3588 which an external sense is informed, or by which the imagination is
2292 essence as it is. Now man knows as to its essence only what the species he has in his intellect 3589 informed, or by which the intellect is informed, is representative
2293 represents as it is. Therefore, the vision of the divine essence is not attained through any 3590 of the divine essence as it is. Now man knows as to its essence
2294 species.</p> 3591 only what the species he has in his intellect represents as it is.
2295 <p>The reason why no created species can represent the divine essence is plain: for nothing finite 3592 Therefore, the vision of the divine essence is not attained through
2296 can represent the infinite as it is; but every created species is finite; therefore [it cannot 3593 any species.</p>
2297 represent the infinite as it is]. Further, God is his own <i>esse; </i>and therefore his wisdom and 3594 <p>The reason why no created species can represent the divine
2298 greatness and anything else are the same. But all those cannot be represented through one 3595 essence is plain: for nothing finite can represent the infinite as
2299 created thing. Therefore, the knowledge by which God is seen through creatures is not a 3596 it is; but every created species is finite; therefore [it cannot
2300 knowledge of his essence, but a knowledge that is dark and mirrored, and from afar. 3597 represent the infinite as it is]. Further, God is his own
2301 &#8220;Everyone sees him,&#8221; in one of the above ways, &#8220;from afar&#8221; (Jb 36:25), because we do not 3598 <i>esse;</i> and therefore his wisdom and greatness and anything
2302 know what God is by all these acts of knowing, but what he is not, or that he is. Hence Denis 3599 else are the same. But all those cannot be represented through one
2303 says, in his <i>Mystical Theology, </i>that the perfect way in which God is known in this present life 3600 created thing. Therefore, the knowledge by which God is seen
2304 is by taking away all creatures and every thing understood by us.</p> 3601 through creatures is not a knowledge of his essence, but a
2305 <p>212 There have been some who said that the divine essence will never by seen by any created 3602 knowledge that is dark and mirrored, and from afar. &ldquo;Everyone
2306 intellect, and that it is seen neither by the angels nor by the blessed. But this statement is 3603 sees him,&rdquo; in one of the above ways, &ldquo;from afar&rdquo;
2307 shown to be false and heretical in three ways, First, because it is contrary to the authority of 3604 (Jb 36:25), because we do not know what God is by all these acts of
2308 divine Scripture: &#8220;We shall see him as he is&#8221; (1 Jn 3:2); &#8220;This is eternal life, that they know 3605 knowing, but what he is not, or that he is. Hence Denis says, in
2309 you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent&#8221; (below 17:3). Secondly, 3606 his <i>Mystical Theology,</i> that the perfect way in which God is
2310 because the brightness of God is the same as his substance; for he does not give forth light by 3607 known in this present life is by taking away all creatures and
2311 participating in light, but through himself. And thirdly, because it is impossible for anyone to 3608 every thing understood by us.</p>
2312 attain perfect happiness except in the vision of the divine essence. This is because the natural 3609 <p>212 There have been some who said that the divine essence will
2313 desire of the intellect is to understand and know the causes of all the effects that it knows; but 3610 never by seen by any created intellect, and that it is seen neither
2314 this desire cannot be fulfilled unless it understands and knows the first universal cause of all 3611 by the angels nor by the blessed. But this statement is shown to be
2315 things, which is a cause that is not composed of cause and effect, as second causes are. 3612 false and heretical in three ways, First, because it is contrary to
2316 Therefore, to take away the possibility of the vision of the divine essence by man is to fake 3613 the authority of divine Scripture: &ldquo;We shall see him as he
2317 away happiness itself. Therefore, in order for the created intellect to be happy, it is necessary 3614 is&rdquo; (1 Jn 3:2); &ldquo;This is eternal life, that they know
2318 that the divine essence be seen. &#8220;Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God&#8221; (Mt 3615 you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent&rdquo;
2319 5:8).</p> 3616 (below 17:3). Secondly, because the brightness of God is the same
2320 <p>213 Three things should be noted about the vision of the divine essence. First, it will never be 3617 as his substance; for he does not give forth light by participating
2321 seen with a bodily eye, either by sense or imagination, since only sensate bodily things are 3618 in light, but through himself. And thirdly, because it is
2322 perceived by the senses, and God is not bodily: &#8220;God is spirit&#8221; (below 4:24). Secondly, that as 3619 impossible for anyone to attain perfect happiness except in the
2323 long as the human intellect is in the body it cannot see God, because it is weighed down by 3620 vision of the divine essence. This is because the natural desire of
2324 the body so that it cannot attain the summit of contemplation. So it is that the more a soul is 3621 the intellect is to understand and know the causes of all the
2325 free of passions and is purged from affections for earthly things, the higher it rises in the 3622 effects that it knows; but this desire cannot be fulfilled unless
2326 contemplation of truth and tastes how sweet the Lord is. Now the highest degree of 3623 it understands and knows the first universal cause of all things,
2327 contemplation is to see God through his essence; and so as long as a man lives in a body 3624 which is a cause that is not composed of cause and effect, as
2328 which is necessarily subject to many passions, he cannot see God through his essence. &#8220;Man 3625 second causes are. Therefore, to take away the possibility of the
2329 will not see me and live&#8221; (Ex 33:20). Therefore, if the human intellect is to see the divine 3626 vision of the divine essence by man is to fake away happiness
2330 essence it must wholly depart from the body: either by death, as the Apostle says, &#8220;We would 3627 itself. Therefore, in order for the created intellect to be happy,
2331 prefer to be absent from the body and present with the Lord&#8221; (2 Cor 5:8); or by being wholly 3628 it is necessary that the divine essence be seen. &ldquo;Blessed are
2332 abstracted by rapture from the senses of the body, as is mentioned of Paul in 2 Corinthians 3629 the pure in heart, for they shall see God&rdquo; (Mt 5:8).</p>
2333 (12:3).</p> 3630 <p>213 Three things should be noted about the vision of the divine
2334 <p>Thirdly, no created intellect (however abstracted, either by death, or separated from the body) 3631 essence. First, it will never be seen with a bodily eye, either by
2335 which does see the divine essence, can comprehend it in any way. And so it is commonly said 3632 sense or imagination, since only sensate bodily things are
2336 that although the whole divine essence is seen by the blessed, since it is most simple and has 3633 perceived by the senses, and God is not bodily: &ldquo;God is
2337 no parts, yet it is not wholly seen, because this would be to comprehend it. For &#8220;wholly&#8221; 3634 spirit&rdquo; (below 4:24). Secondly, that as long as the human
2338 implies a certain mode. But any mode of God is the divine essence. Hence one who does not 3635 intellect is in the body it cannot see God, because it is weighed
2339 see him wholly does not comprehend him. For one is properly said to comprehend a thing 3636 down by the body so that it cannot attain the summit of
2340 through knowledge when he knows that thing to the extent that it is knowable in itself; 3637 contemplation. So it is that the more a soul is free of passions
2341 otherwise, although he may know it, he does not comprehend it. For example, one who 3638 and is purged from affections for earthly things, the higher it
2342 knows this proposition, &#8220;A triangle has three angles equal to two right angles,&#8221; by a 3639 rises in the contemplation of truth and tastes how sweet the Lord
2343 dialectical syllogism, does not know it as well as it is knowable in itself; thus he does not 3640 is. Now the highest degree of contemplation is to see God through
2344 know it wholly. But one who knows this by a demonstrative syllogism does know it wholly. 3641 his essence; and so as long as a man lives in a body which is
2345 For each thing is knowable to the extent that it has being and truth; while one is a knower 3642 necessarily subject to many passions, he cannot see God through his
2346 according to his amount of cognitive power. Now a created intellectual substance is finite; 3643 essence. &ldquo;Man will not see me and live&rdquo; (Ex 33:20).
2347 hence it knows in a finite way. And since God is infinite in power and being, and as a 3644 Therefore, if the human intellect is to see the divine essence it
2348 consequence is infinitely knowable, he cannot be known by any created intellect to the degree 3645 must wholly depart from the body: either by death, as the Apostle
2349 that he is knowable. And thus he remains incomprehensible to every created intellect. 3646 says, &ldquo;We would prefer to be absent from the body and present
2350 &#8220;Behold, God is great, exceeding our knowledge&#8221; (Jb 36:26). He alone contemplates himself 3647 with the Lord&rdquo; (2 Cor 5:8); or by being wholly abstracted by
2351 comprehensively, because his power to know is as great as his entity in being. &#8220;O most 3648 rapture from the senses of the body, as is mentioned of Paul in 2
2352 mighty, great, powerful, your name is Lord of hosts, great in counsel, incomprehensible in 3649 Corinthians (12:3).</p>
2353 thought&#8221; (Jer 32:18).</p> 3650 <p>Thirdly, no created intellect (however abstracted, either by
2354 <p>214 Using the above explanations, we can understand, <span style="font-weight: bold">No one has ever seen God. </span>First, No 3651 death, or separated from the body) which does see the divine
2355 one, i.e, no man, has seen God, that is, the divine essence, with the eye of the body of or the 3652 essence, can comprehend it in any way. And so it is commonly said
2356 imagination. Secondly, No one, living in this mortal life, has seen the divine essence in itself. 3653 that although the whole divine essence is seen by the blessed,
2357 Thirdly, No one, man or angel, has seen God by a vision of comprehension. So when it is said 3654 since it is most simple and has no parts, yet it is not wholly
2358 that certain ones have seen God with their eyes or while living in the body, he is not seen 3655 seen, because this would be to comprehend it. For
2359 through his essence, but through a creature acting as a substitute, as was said. And thus it was 3656 &ldquo;wholly&rdquo; implies a certain mode. But any mode of God is
2360 necessary for us to receive wisdom, because No one has ever seen God.</p> 3657 the divine essence. Hence one who does not see him wholly does not
2361 <p>215 The Evangelist mentions the competent teacher of this wisdom when he adds, <span style="font-weight: bold">it is the 3658 comprehend him. For one is properly said to comprehend a thing
2362 Only Begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father. </span>He shows the competence of this 3659 through knowledge when he knows that thing to the extent that it is
2363 teacher in three ways: by a natural likeness, by a singular excellence, and by a most perfect 3660 knowable in itself; otherwise, although he may know it, he does not
3661 comprehend it. For example, one who knows this proposition,
3662 &ldquo;A triangle has three angles equal to two right
3663 angles,&rdquo; by a dialectical syllogism, does not know it as well
3664 as it is knowable in itself; thus he does not know it wholly. But
3665 one who knows this by a demonstrative syllogism does know it
3666 wholly. For each thing is knowable to the extent that it has being
3667 and truth; while one is a knower according to his amount of
3668 cognitive power. Now a created intellectual substance is finite;
3669 hence it knows in a finite way. And since God is infinite in power
3670 and being, and as a consequence is infinitely knowable, he cannot
3671 be known by any created intellect to the degree that he is
3672 knowable. And thus he remains incomprehensible to every created
3673 intellect. &ldquo;Behold, God is great, exceeding our
3674 knowledge&rdquo; (Jb 36:26). He alone contemplates himself
3675 comprehensively, because his power to know is as great as his
3676 entity in being. &ldquo;O most mighty, great, powerful, your name
3677 is Lord of hosts, great in counsel, incomprehensible in
3678 thought&rdquo; (Jer 32:18).</p>
3679 <p>214 Using the above explanations, we can understand,
3680 <span style="font-weight: bold">No one has ever seen God.</span>
3681 First, No one, i.e, no man, has seen God, that is, the divine
3682 essence, with the eye of the body of or the imagination. Secondly,
3683 No one, living in this mortal life, has seen the divine essence in
3684 itself. Thirdly, No one, man or angel, has seen God by a vision of
3685 comprehension. So when it is said that certain ones have seen God
3686 with their eyes or while living in the body, he is not seen through
3687 his essence, but through a creature acting as a substitute, as was
3688 said. And thus it was necessary for us to receive wisdom, because
3689 No one has ever seen God.</p>
3690 <p>215 The Evangelist mentions the competent teacher of this wisdom
3691 when he adds, <span style="font-weight: bold">it is the Only
3692 Begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father.</span> He shows
3693 the competence of this teacher in three ways: by a natural
3694 likeness, by a singular excellence, and by a most perfect
2364 consubstantiality.</p> 3695 consubstantiality.</p>
2365 <p>216 By natural likeness, because a son is naturally like his father. Wherefore it also follows 3696 <p>216 By natural likeness, because a son is naturally like his
2366 that one is called a son of God insofar as he shares in the likeness of his natural son; and one 3697 father. Wherefore it also follows that one is called a son of God
2367 knows him insofar he has a likeness to him, since knowledge is attained through assimilation 3698 insofar as he shares in the likeness of his natural son; and one
2368 [or &#8220;likeness to&#8221;]. Hence 1 John (3:2) says, &#8220;Now we are sons of God,&#8221; and he immediately 3699 knows him insofar he has a likeness to him, since knowledge is
2369 adds, &#8220;when he comes, we will be like him, and we will see him as he is.&#8221; Therefore, when 3700 attained through assimilation [or &ldquo;likeness to&rdquo;]. Hence
2370 the Evangelist says Son, he implies a likeness as well as all aptitude for knowing God.</p> 3701 1 John (3:2) says, &ldquo;Now we are sons of God,&rdquo; and he
2371 <p>217 Because this teacher knows God in a more special way than other sons do, the Evangelist 3702 immediately adds, &ldquo;when he comes, we will be like him, and we
2372 suggests this by his singular excellence, saying, <span style="font-weight: bold">the Only Begotten. </span>As if to say: He knows 3703 will see him as he is.&rdquo; Therefore, when the Evangelist says
2373 God more than other sons do. Hence, because he is the natural Son, having the same nature 3704 Son, he implies a likeness as well as all aptitude for knowing
2374 and knowledge as the Father, he is <span style="font-weight: bold">called the Only Begotten. </span>&#8220;The Lord said to me: &#8216;You are 3705 God.</p>
2375 my Son&#8217;&#8221; (Ps 2:7).</p> 3706 <p>217 Because this teacher knows God in a more special way than
2376 <p>218 Although he may know in a unique way, he would be lacking the ability to teach if he 3707 other sons do, the Evangelist suggests this by his singular
2377 were not to know wholly. Hence he adds a third point, namely, his consubstantiality to the 3708 excellence, saying, <span style="font-weight: bold">the Only
2378 Father, when he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">who is in the bosom of the Father. </span>&#8220;Bosom&#8221; is not to be taken here as 3709 Begotten.</span> As if to say: He knows God more than other sons
2379 referring to men in their garments, but it indicates the secret things of the Father. For what we 3710 do. Hence, because he is the natural Son, having the same nature
2380 carry in our bosom we do in secret. The secret things of the Father refer to his unsurpassed 3711 and knowledge as the Father, he is <span style=
2381 power and knowledge, since the divine essence is infinite. Therefore, in that bosom, i.e., in 3712 "font-weight: bold">called the Only Begotten.</span> &ldquo;The
2382 the most secret things of the paternal nature and essence, which transcends all the power of 3713 Lord said to me: &lsquo;You are my Son&rsquo;&rdquo; (Ps 2:7).</p>
2383 the creature, is <span style="font-weight: bold">the Only Begotten Son; </span>and so he is consubstantial with the Father.</p> 3714 <p>218 Although he may know in a unique way, he would be lacking
2384 <p>What the Evangelist signifies by &#8220;bosom,&#8221; David expressed by &#8220;womb,&#8221; saying: &#8220;From the 3715 the ability to teach if he were not to know wholly. Hence he adds a
2385 womb, before the daystar,&#8221; i.e., from the inmost secret things of my essence, 3716 third point, namely, his consubstantiality to the Father, when he
2386 incomprehensible to every created intellect, &#8220;I begot you&#8221; (Ps 109:3), consubstantial with me, 3717 says, <span style="font-weight: bold">who is in the bosom of the
2387 and of the same nature and power, and virtue and knowledge. &#8220;What man knows the things of 3718 Father.</span> &ldquo;Bosom&rdquo; is not to be taken here as
2388 a man except the spirit of the man that is in him? So also, no one knows the things of God 3719 referring to men in their garments, but it indicates the secret
2389 except the Spirit of God&#8221; (1 Cor 2:11). Therefore, he comprehends the divine essence, which 3720 things of the Father. For what we carry in our bosom we do in
2390 is his own.</p> 3721 secret. The secret things of the Father refer to his unsurpassed
2391 <p>219 But the soul of Christ, which knows God, does not comprehend him, because this is 3722 power and knowledge, since the divine essence is infinite.
2392 attributed only to the Only Begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father. So the Lord also 3723 Therefore, in that bosom, i.e., in the most secret things of the
2393 says: &#8220;No one knows the Father except the Son, and any to whom the Son wishes to reveal 3724 paternal nature and essence, which transcends all the power of the
2394 him&#8221;(Mt 11:27); we should understand this as referring to the knowledge of comprehension, 3725 creature, is <span style="font-weight: bold">the Only Begotten
2395 about which the Evangelist seems to be speaking here. For no one comprehends the divine 3726 Son;</span> and so he is consubstantial with the Father.</p>
2396 essence except the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. And so we have shown the 3727 <p>What the Evangelist signifies by &ldquo;bosom,&rdquo; David
2397 competence of the teacher.</p> 3728 expressed by &ldquo;womb,&rdquo; saying: &ldquo;From the womb,
2398 <p>220 We should note that the phrase, <span style="font-weight: bold">who is in the bosom of the Father, </span>rejects the error of 3729 before the daystar,&rdquo; i.e., from the inmost secret things of
2399 those who say that the Father is invisible, but the Son is visible, though he was not seen in the 3730 my essence, incomprehensible to every created intellect, &ldquo;I
2400 Old Testament. For from the fact that he is among the hidden things of the Father, it is plain 3731 begot you&rdquo; (Ps 109:3), consubstantial with me, and of the
2401 that he is naturally invisible, as is the Father. So it is said of him: &#8220;Truly, you are a hidden 3732 same nature and power, and virtue and knowledge. &ldquo;What man
2402 God&#8221; (Is 45:15). And so Scripture mentions the incomprehensibility of the Son: &#8220;No one 3733 knows the things of a man except the spirit of the man that is in
2403 knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son&#8221; (Mt 11:27), 3734 him? So also, no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of
2404 &#8220;What is the name of his son, if you know?&#8221; as we read in Proverbs (30:4)</p> 3735 God&rdquo; (1 Cor 2:11). Therefore, he comprehends the divine
2405 <p>221 Then the Evangelist indicates the way in which this teaching is handed down, saying that 3736 essence, which is his own.</p>
2406 it is the Only Begotten Son <span style="font-weight: bold">who has made him known. </span>For in the past, the Only Begotten 3737 <p>219 But the soul of Christ, which knows God, does not comprehend
2407 Son revealed knowledge of God through the prophets, who made him known to the extent 3738 him, because this is attributed only to the Only Begotten Son who
2408 that they shared in the eternal Word. Hence they said things like, &#8220;The Word of the Lord 3739 is in the bosom of the Father. So the Lord also says: &ldquo;No one
2409 came to me.&#8221; But now the Only Begotten Son <span style="font-weight: bold">has made him known </span>to the faithful: &#8220;It is I 3740 knows the Father except the Son, and any to whom the Son wishes to
2410 who spoke; here I am&#8221; (Is 52:6); &#8220;God, who in many and varied ways, spoke to the fathers in 3741 reveal him&rdquo;(Mt 11:27); we should understand this as referring
2411 past times through the prophets, has spoken to us in these days in his Son&#8221; (Heb 1:1).</p> 3742 to the knowledge of comprehension, about which the Evangelist seems
2412 <p>And this teaching surpasses all other teachings in dignity, authority and usefulness, because it 3743 to be speaking here. For no one comprehends the divine essence
2413 was handed on immediately by the Only Begotten Son, who is the first Wisdom. &#8220;It was first 3744 except the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. And so we have
2414 announced by the Lord, and confirmed to us by those who heard him&#8221; (Heb 2:3).</p> 3745 shown the competence of the teacher.</p>
2415 <p>222 But what did he make known except the one God? And even Moses did this: &#8220;Hear, O 3746 <p>220 We should note that the phrase, <span style=
2416 Israel: the Lord your God is one&#8221; (Dt 6:4). What did this add to Moses? It added the mystery 3747 "font-weight: bold">who is in the bosom of the Father,</span>
2417 of the Trinity, and many other things that neither Moses nor any of the prophets made known.</p> 3748 rejects the error of those who say that the Father is invisible,
2418 <p style="margin-bottom: 0.125in; margin-bottom: 0.125in">&#160;</p> 3749 but the Son is visible, though he was not seen in the Old
2419 <p style="text-align: center; margin-bottom: 0.125in"><span style="font-weight: bold">LECTURE12</span></p> 3750 Testament. For from the fact that he is among the hidden things of
2420 <BLOCKQUOTE><p>19 This is the testimony of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jeru&#8217;salem to 3751 the Father, it is plain that he is naturally invisible, as is the
2421 him, to ask him: &#8220;Who are you?&#8221; 20 He declared openly, and did not deny, and stated clearly, 3752 Father. So it is said of him: &ldquo;Truly, you are a hidden
2422 &#8220;I am not the Messiah.&#8221; 21 And they questioned him, &#8220;Who then? Are you Elijah?&#8221; And he 3753 God&rdquo; (Is 45:15). And so Scripture mentions the
2423 said, &#8220;I am not.&#8221; &#8220;Are you the Prophet?&#8221; And he responded, &#8220;No.&#8221; 22 They therefore said to 3754 incomprehensibility of the Son: &ldquo;No one knows the Son except
2424 him, &#8220;Who are you? We must take back an answer to those who sent us. What have you to 3755 the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son&rdquo; (Mt
2425 say about yourself9" 23 He said, quoting the prophet Isaiah, &#8220;I am 6 a voice that cries in the 3756 11:27), &ldquo;What is the name of his son, if you know?&rdquo; as
2426 wilderness: Make a straight way for the Lord&#8217;&#8221; [Is 40:3].</p></BLOCKQUOTE> 3757 we read in Proverbs (30:4)</p>
2427 <p>223 Above, the Evangelist showed how Christ was made known to the apostles through the 3758 <p>221 Then the Evangelist indicates the way in which this teaching
2428 testimony of John; here he develops this testimony more fully. First, he presents John&#8217;s 3759 is handed down, saying that it is the Only Begotten Son
2429 testimony to the people. Secondly, the testimony he gave of Christ to his own disciples 3760 <span style="font-weight: bold">who has made him known.</span> For
2430 (below 1:35). If we carefully consider what was said, we discover a twofold testimony of 3761 in the past, the Only Begotten Son revealed knowledge of God
2431 John to Christ: one which he gave to Christ in his presence, the other in his absence. For he 3762 through the prophets, who made him known to the extent that they
2432 would not have said, &#8220;It is he&#8221; (below 1:30), unless he had given testimony in Christ&#8217;s 3763 shared in the eternal Word. Hence they said things like, &ldquo;The
2433 presence; and he would not have said, &#8220;of whom I said,&#8221; unless he gave testimony to him in 3764 Word of the Lord came to me.&rdquo; But now the Only Begotten Son
2434 his absence. So first, the Evangelist develops the testimony John gave to Christ in his 3765 <span style="font-weight: bold">has made him known</span> to the
2435 absence; secondly, that he gave in his presence (v 29).</p> 3766 faithful: &ldquo;It is I who spoke; here I am&rdquo; (Is 52:6);
2436 <p>Now these two testimonies differ, because the first was given when he was questioned; the 3767 &ldquo;God, who in many and varied ways, spoke to the fathers in
2437 other was spontaneous. So in the first instance, we are given not only his testimony, but also 3768 past times through the prophets, has spoken to us in these days in
2438 the questions. First, he was asked about himself; secondly, about his office (v 24). First we 3769 his Son&rdquo; (Heb 1:1).</p>
2439 are shown how John stated that he was not what he really was not; secondly, that he did not 3770 <p>And this teaching surpasses all other teachings in dignity,
2440 deny what he was.</p> 3771 authority and usefulness, because it was handed on immediately by
2441 <p>224 As to the first, there are three questions and three answers, as is plain from the text. In the 3772 the Only Begotten Son, who is the first Wisdom. &ldquo;It was first
2442 first question there is great respect for John shown by the Jews. They had sent certain ones to 3773 announced by the Lord, and confirmed to us by those who heard
2443 him to ask about his testimony. The greatness of their respect is gathered from four facts. 3774 him&rdquo; (Heb 2:3).</p>
2444 First, from the dignity of those who sent the questioners; for they were not sent by Galileans, 3775 <p>222 But what did he make known except the one God? And even
2445 but by those who were first in rank among the people of Israel, namely, Judeans, of the tribe 3776 Moses did this: &ldquo;Hear, O Israel: the Lord your God is
2446 of Juda, who lived about Jerusalem. It was from Juda that God chose the princes of the 3777 one&rdquo; (Dt 6:4). What did this add to Moses? It added the
3778 mystery of the Trinity, and many other things that neither Moses
3779 nor any of the prophets made known.</p>
3780 <p style="margin-bottom: 0.125in; margin-bottom: 0.125in">
3781 &nbsp;</p>
3782 <p style="text-align: center; margin-bottom: 0.125in"><span style=
3783 "font-weight: bold">LECTURE12</span></p>
3784 <blockquote>
3785 <p>19 This is the testimony of John, when the Jews sent priests and
3786 Levites from Jeru&rsquo;salem to him, to ask him: &ldquo;Who are
3787 you?&rdquo; 20 He declared openly, and did not deny, and stated
3788 clearly, &ldquo;I am not the Messiah.&rdquo; 21 And they questioned
3789 him, &ldquo;Who then? Are you Elijah?&rdquo; And he said, &ldquo;I
3790 am not.&rdquo; &ldquo;Are you the Prophet?&rdquo; And he responded,
3791 &ldquo;No.&rdquo; 22 They therefore said to him, &ldquo;Who are
3792 you? We must take back an answer to those who sent us. What have
3793 you to say about yourself9" 23 He said, quoting the prophet Isaiah,
3794 &ldquo;I am 6 a voice that cries in the wilderness: Make a straight
3795 way for the Lord&rsquo;&rdquo; [Is 40:3].</p>
3796 </blockquote>
3797 <p>223 Above, the Evangelist showed how Christ was made known to
3798 the apostles through the testimony of John; here he develops this
3799 testimony more fully. First, he presents John&rsquo;s testimony to
3800 the people. Secondly, the testimony he gave of Christ to his own
3801 disciples (below 1:35). If we carefully consider what was said, we
3802 discover a twofold testimony of John to Christ: one which he gave
3803 to Christ in his presence, the other in his absence. For he would
3804 not have said, &ldquo;It is he&rdquo; (below 1:30), unless he had
3805 given testimony in Christ&rsquo;s presence; and he would not have
3806 said, &ldquo;of whom I said,&rdquo; unless he gave testimony to him
3807 in his absence. So first, the Evangelist develops the testimony
3808 John gave to Christ in his absence; secondly, that he gave in his
3809 presence (v 29).</p>
3810 <p>Now these two testimonies differ, because the first was given
3811 when he was questioned; the other was spontaneous. So in the first
3812 instance, we are given not only his testimony, but also the
3813 questions. First, he was asked about himself; secondly, about his
3814 office (v 24). First we are shown how John stated that he was not
3815 what he really was not; secondly, that he did not deny what he
3816 was.</p>
3817 <p>224 As to the first, there are three questions and three
3818 answers, as is plain from the text. In the first question there is
3819 great respect for John shown by the Jews. They had sent certain
3820 ones to him to ask about his testimony. The greatness of their
3821 respect is gathered from four facts. First, from the dignity of
3822 those who sent the questioners; for they were not sent by
3823 Galileans, but by those who were first in rank among the people of
3824 Israel, namely, Judeans, of the tribe of Juda, who lived about
3825 Jerusalem. It was from Juda that God chose the princes of the
2447 people.</p> 3826 people.</p>
2448 <p>Secondly, from the preeminence of the place, that is, from Jerusalem, which is the city of the 3827 <p>Secondly, from the preeminence of the place, that is, from
2449 priesthood, the city dedicated to divine worship: &#8220;You people claim that Jerusalem is the 3828 Jerusalem, which is the city of the priesthood, the city dedicated
2450 place where men must worship God&#8221; (below 4:20); &#8220;They will worship him with sacrifices 3829 to divine worship: &ldquo;You people claim that Jerusalem is the
2451 and offerings&#8221; (Is 19:21). Thirdly, from the authority of the messengers, who were religious 3830 place where men must worship God&rdquo; (below 4:20); &ldquo;They
2452 and from among the holier of the people, namely, priests and Levites; &#8220;You will be called the 3831 will worship him with sacrifices and offerings&rdquo; (Is 19:21).
2453 priests of the Lord&#8221; (Is 61:6).</p> 3832 Thirdly, from the authority of the messengers, who were religious
2454 <p>Fourthly, from the fact that they sent them so that John might bear witness to himself, 3833 and from among the holier of the people, namely, priests and
2455 indicating that they put such trust in his words as to believe John even when giving testimony 3834 Levites; &ldquo;You will be called the priests of the Lord&rdquo;
2456 about himself. Hence he says they were sent to ask him, Who are you? They did not do this to 3835 (Is 61:6).</p>
2457 Christ; in fact they said to him: &#8220;You are bearing witness to yourself; your testimony is not 3836 <p>Fourthly, from the fact that they sent them so that John might
2458 true&#8221; (below 8:13).</p> 3837 bear witness to himself, indicating that they put such trust in his
2459 <p>225 Then when he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">He declared openly, and did not deny, </span>John&#8217;s answer is given. The 3838 words as to believe John even when giving testimony about himself.
2460 Evangelist twice mentioned that John spoke forth to show his humility; for although he was 3839 Hence he says they were sent to ask him, Who are you? They did not
2461 held in such high esteem among the Jews that they believed he might be the Messiah, he, on 3840 do this to Christ; in fact they said to him: &ldquo;You are bearing
2462 his part, usurped no honor what was not due him; <span style="font-weight: bold">indeed, he stated clearly, I am not the 3841 witness to yourself; your testimony is not true&rdquo; (below
3842 8:13).</p>
3843 <p>225 Then when he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">He
3844 declared openly, and did not deny,</span> John&rsquo;s answer is
3845 given. The Evangelist twice mentioned that John spoke forth to show
3846 his humility; for although he was held in such high esteem among
3847 the Jews that they believed he might be the Messiah, he, on his
3848 part, usurped no honor what was not due him; <span style=
3849 "font-weight: bold">indeed, he stated clearly, I am not the
2463 Messiah.</span></p> 3850 Messiah.</span></p>
2464 <p>226 What of&#8217; the statement, <span style="font-weight: bold">He declared openly, and did not deny</span>? For it seems that he did 3851 <p>226 What of&rsquo; the statement, <span style=
2465 deny, because he said that he was not the Messiah. It must be answered that he did not deny 3852 "font-weight: bold">He declared openly, and did not deny</span>?
2466 the truth, for he said he was not the Messiah; otherwise he would have denied the truth. &#8220;A 3853 For it seems that he did deny, because he said that he was not the
2467 very great iniquity, and a denial of the most high God&#8221; (Jb 31:28). Thus he did not deny the 3854 Messiah. It must be answered that he did not deny the truth, for he
2468 truth, because however great he might have been considered, he did not become proud, 3855 said he was not the Messiah; otherwise he would have denied the
2469 usurping for himself the honor of another. He stated clearly, <span style="font-weight: bold">I am not the Messiah; </span>because 3856 truth. &ldquo;A very great iniquity, and a denial of the most high
2470 in truth he was not. &#8220;He was not the light,&#8221; as was said above (1:8).</p> 3857 God&rdquo; (Jb 31:28). Thus he did not deny the truth, because
2471 <p>227 Why did John answer, <span style="font-weight: bold">I am not the Messiah, </span>since those who had been sent did not ask 3858 however great he might have been considered, he did not become
2472 if he was the Messiah, but who he himself was? I answer that John directed his answer more 3859 proud, usurping for himself the honor of another. He stated
2473 to the mind of the questioners than to their question. And we can understand this in two ways. 3860 clearly, <span style="font-weight: bold">I am not the
2474 According to Origen, the priests and Levites came to John with a good intention. For they 3861 Messiah;</span> because in truth he was not. &ldquo;He was not the
2475 knew from the Scriptures, and particularly from the prophecy of Daniel, that the time for the 3862 light,&rdquo; as was said above (1:8).</p>
2476 coming of the Messiah had arrived. So, seeing John&#8217;s holiness, they suspected that he might 3863 <p>227 Why did John answer, <span style="font-weight: bold">I am
2477 be the Messiah. So they sent to John, wishing to learn by their question, <span style="font-weight: bold">Who are you? 3864 not the Messiah,</span> since those who had been sent did not ask
2478 </span>whether John would admit that he was the Messiah. And so he directs his answer to their 3865 if he was the Messiah, but who he himself was? I answer that John
2479 thoughts: <span style="font-weight: bold">I am not the Messiah.</span></p> 3866 directed his answer more to the mind of the questioners than to
2480 <p>Chrysostom, however, says that they questioned him as a stratagem. For John was related to 3867 their question. And we can understand this in two ways. According
2481 priests, being the son of a chief priest, and he was holy. Yet, he bore witness to Christ, whose 3868 to Origen, the priests and Levites came to John with a good
2482 family seemed lowly; for that reason they even said, &#8220;Is not this the son of the carpenter?&#8221;; 3869 intention. For they knew from the Scriptures, and particularly from
2483 and they did not know him. So, preferring to have John as their master, not Christ, they sent 3870 the prophecy of Daniel, that the time for the coming of the Messiah
2484 to him, intending to entice him by flattery and persuade him to take this honor for himself, 3871 had arrived. So, seeing John&rsquo;s holiness, they suspected that
2485 and to state that he was the Messiah. But John, seeing their evil intent, said, <span style="font-weight: bold">I am not the 3872 he might be the Messiah. So they sent to John, wishing to learn by
3873 their question, <span style="font-weight: bold">Who are you?</span>
3874 whether John would admit that he was the Messiah. And so he directs
3875 his answer to their thoughts: <span style="font-weight: bold">I am
3876 not the Messiah.</span></p>
3877 <p>Chrysostom, however, says that they questioned him as a
3878 stratagem. For John was related to priests, being the son of a
3879 chief priest, and he was holy. Yet, he bore witness to Christ,
3880 whose family seemed lowly; for that reason they even said,
3881 &ldquo;Is not this the son of the carpenter?&rdquo;; and they did
3882 not know him. So, preferring to have John as their master, not
3883 Christ, they sent to him, intending to entice him by flattery and
3884 persuade him to take this honor for himself, and to state that he
3885 was the Messiah. But John, seeing their evil intent, said,
3886 <span style="font-weight: bold">I am not the Messiah.</span></p>
3887 <p>228 The second question is stated when they ask him,
3888 <span style="font-weight: bold">Who then? Are you Elijah?</span>
3889 Here we should note that just as the Jews awaited the Lord who was
3890 to come, so to they waited for Elijah, who would precede the
3891 Messiah: &ldquo;I will send you Elijah, the prophet&rdquo; (Mal
3892 4:5). And so those who were sent, seeing that John did not say that
3893 he was the Messiah, pressed him that at least he state if he were
3894 Elijah. And this is what they ask: <span style=
3895 "font-weight: bold">Who then? Are you Elijah?</span></p>
3896 <p>229 There are certain heretics who say that souls migrate from
3897 one body to another. And this belief was current among the Jews of
3898 that time. For this reason they believed that the soul of Elijah
3899 was in John&rsquo;s body, because of the similarity of John&rsquo;s
3900 actions to those of Elijah. And they say that these messengers
3901 asked John whether he was Elijah, i.e., whether the soul of Elijah
3902 was in John. They support this with Christ&rsquo;s statement,
3903 &ldquo;He is Elijah who is to come,&rdquo; as is found in Matthew
3904 (11:14). But John&rsquo;s answer conflicts with their opinion, as
3905 he says, I am not. i.e., Elijah.</p>
3906 <p>They counter this by saying that John answered in ignorance, not
3907 knowing whether his soul was the soul of Elijah. But Origen says in
3908 answer to this that it seems most unreasonable that John, a prophet
3909 enlightened by the Spirit, and telling such things about the Only
3910 Begotten Son of God, should be ignorant of himself, and not know
3911 whether his soul had been in Elijah.</p>
3912 <p>230 So this was not the reason John was asked, <span style=
3913 "font-weight: bold">Are you Elijah?</span> Rather it was because
3914 they took it from Scripture (2 Kings 2:11) that Elijah did not die,
3915 but had been carried alive by a whirlwind into heaven. Accordingly,
3916 they believed that he had suddenly appeared among them.</p>
3917 <p>But against this opinion is the fact that John was born from
3918 parents who were known, and his birth had been known to everyone.
3919 So it says in Luke (1:66) that all said, &ldquo;What do you think
3920 this child will be?&rdquo; One might say to this that it is not
3921 incredible that they should regard John in the manner described.
3922 For a similar situation in found in Matthew (14:1): for Herod
3923 thought that Christ was John, whom he had beheaded, even though
3924 Christ had been preaching and was known for some time before John
3925 had been beheaded. And so from a similar stupidity and madness the
3926 Jews asked John whether he was Elijah.</p>
3927 <p>231 Why does John say, I am not Elijah, while Christ said,
3928 &ldquo;He is Elijah&rdquo; (Mt 11:14). The angel gives us the
3929 answer: &ldquo;He will go before him in the spirit and power of
3930 Elijah&rdquo; (Lk 1:17), i.e., in his works. Thus he was not Elijah
3931 in person, but in spirit and power, i.e., because he showed a
3932 similarity to Elijah in his works.</p>
3933 <p>232 This likeness can be found in three matters. First, in their
3934 office: because as Elijah will precede the second coming of Christ,
3935 so John preceded the first. Thus the angel said, &ldquo;He will go
3936 before him.&rdquo; Secondly, in their manner of living. For Elijah
3937 lived in desert places, ate little food and wore coarse clothing,
3938 as recorded in 1 and 2 Kings. John, also, lived in the desert, his
3939 food was locusts and wild honey, and he wore clothing of
3940 camel&rsquo;s hair. Thirdly, in their zeal. For Elijah was filled
3941 with zeal; thus it was said, &ldquo;I have been very zealous for
3942 the Lord&rdquo; (1 Kgs 19:10). So, also, John died because of his
3943 zeal for the truth, as is clear from Matthew (14:6)</p>
3944 <p>233 Then when he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">Are you
3945 the Prophet?</span> the third question is presented. Here there is
3946 a difficulty, for since it is said in Luke (1:76), &ldquo;And you,
3947 child, shall be called the prophet of the Most High,&rdquo; why
3948 does John, when asked if he is a prophet, answer that he is not a
3949 prophet?</p>
3950 <p>There are three ways of answering this. One is that John is not
3951 just a prophet, but more than a prophet. For the other prophets
3952 only predicted future things from afar: &ldquo;if there is a delay,
3953 wait for it&rdquo; (Hb 2:2).. But John proclaimed that the Messiah
3954 was present, pointing him out with his finger: &ldquo;Look, there
3955 is the Lamb of God,&rdquo; as it says below (1:36). And so the Lord
3956 says that he is more than a prophet (Mt 11:9).</p>
3957 <p>Again, in another way, according to Origen, because through a
3958 misunderstanding the Jews associated three great personages with
3959 the coming of Christ: Christ himself, Elijah, and some other
3960 person, the greatest of the prophets, about whom Deuteronomy
3961 (18:15) says: &ldquo;The Lord your God will raise up a prophet for
3962 you.&rdquo; And although this greatest of the prophets is in fact
3963 none other than Christ, according to the Jews he is someone other
3964 than Christ. And so they do not ask simply whether he is a prophet,
3965 but whether he is that &ldquo;greatest of the prophets.&rdquo; And
3966 this is clear from the order of their questions. For they first ask
3967 whether he is the Messiah; secondly, whether he is Elijah; thirdly,
3968 whether he is that prophet. Accordingly, in Greek, the article is
3969 used here as signifying <i>the</i> prophet, as it were,
3970 antonomastically.</p>
3971 <p>In a third way, because the Pharisees were indignant at John for
3972 assuming the office of baptizing outside the order of the law and
3973 their tradition. For the Old Testament mentions three persons to
3974 whom this office could belong. First, to the Messiah, since
3975 &ldquo;I will pour clean water upon you, and you will be
3976 cleansed&rdquo; (Ez 36:25), are words considered as spoken by the
3977 person of the Messiah. Secondly, to Elijah, of whom it says in 2
3978 Kings that he divided the water of the Jordan, and crossing over,
3979 was taken up. Finally, to Elisha, who made Naaman the Syrian wash
3980 seven times in the Jordan so as to be cured of leprosy, as
3981 mentioned in 2 Kings (c 5). And so when the Jews saw that John was
3982 baptizing, they believed that he was one of those three: the
3983 Messiah, or Elijah, or Elisha. Accordingly, when they ask here,
3984 <span style="font-weight: bold">Are you the Prophet?</span> they
3985 are asking whether he is Elisha, who is called
3986 &ldquo;prophet&rdquo; in a special way because of the many miracles
3987 he had performed; hence he himself says, &ldquo;Let him come to me,
3988 so that he may know that there is a prophet in Israel&rdquo; (2 Kgs
3989 5:8). And to this John answers, No, I am not Elisha.</p>
3990 <p>234 Then he shows how he declared who he was. First, the
3991 question of the messengers is given; secondly, his answer (v
3992 23).</p>
3993 <p>235 They said, <span style="font-weight: bold">Who are you? We
3994 must take back an answer to those who sent us.</span> As if to say:
3995 We were sent to learn who you are; so tell us, <span style=
3996 "font-weight: bold">What have you to say about yourself?</span></p>
3997 <p>Notice John&rsquo;s devotion. He has already fulfilled what the
3998 Apostle says, &ldquo;It is not I who now live, but Christ lives in
3999 me&rdquo; (Gal 2:20). And so he does not answer, &ldquo;I am the
4000 son of Zachary,&rdquo; or this or that, but only the way in which
4001 he followed Christ.</p>
4002 <p>236 So he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">I am a voice
4003 that cries in the wilderness.</span> And he says that he is a voice
4004 because from the point of view of origin, a voice comes after the
4005 [mental, interior] word, but before the knowledge it causes. For we
4006 know a [mental, interior] word conceived in the heart by means of
4007 the voice which speaks it, since it is its sign. But God the Father
4008 sent the precursor John, who came to be in time, in order to make
4009 known his Word, which was conceived from eternity. And so he
4010 fittingly says, <span style="font-weight: bold">I am a
4011 voice.</span></p>
4012 <p>237 The addition, <span style="font-weight: bold">that
4013 cries,</span> can be understood in two ways: as referring to John,
4014 crying and preaching in the wilderness; or to Christ crying in him,
4015 according to, &ldquo;Do you want proof that Christ is speaking in
4016 me&rdquo; (2 Cor 13:3).</p>
4017 <p>Now he cries for four reasons. First of all, a cry implies a
4018 showing; and so he cries in order to show that Christ is clearly
4019 speaking in John and in himself: &ldquo;Now on the last, the great
4020 day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried out, saying, &lsquo;If any
4021 one thirsts, let him come to me and drink&rsquo;&rdquo; (below
4022 7:37). But he did not cry out in the prophets because prophecies
4023 were given in enigmas and figures; so it is said that he was
4024 &ldquo;wrapped in dark rain-clouds&rdquo; (Ps 17:12). Secondly,
4025 because a cry is made to those who are at a distance; and the Jews
4026 were far from God. Thus it was necessary that he cry: &ldquo;You
4027 have taken my friends and neighbors away from me&rdquo; (Ps 88:19).
4028 He cries, in the third place, because they were deaf: &ldquo;Who is
4029 deaf, but my servant?&rdquo; (Is 42:19). He cries, fourthly,
4030 because he speaks with indignation, for they deserved God&rsquo;s
4031 wrath: &ldquo;He will speak to them in his anger&rdquo; (Ps
4032 2:5).</p>
4033 <p>238 Note that he cries <span style="font-weight: bold">in the
4034 wilderness,</span> because &ldquo;The word of the Lord came to
4035 John, the son of Zechariah, in the desert,&rdquo; as we read in
4036 Luke (3:2). There can be both a literal and a mystical reason for
4037 this. The literal reason is that by living in the desert he would
4038 be immune from all sin, and so be more worthy to bear witness to
4039 Christ, and his testimony would be more credible to men because of
4040 his life.</p>
4041 <p>The mystical reason is twofold. For the wilderness or desert
4042 designates paganism, according to Isaiah (54:1); &ldquo;She who is
4043 deserted has more children than she who has a husband.&rdquo;
4044 Accordingly, in order to show that God&rsquo;s teaching would from
4045 now on not be in Jerusalem alone, but also among the pagans, he
4046 cried <span style="font-weight: bold">in the wilderness.</span>
4047 &ldquo;The kingdom of God will be taken away from you, and given to
4048 a people that will produce its fruits&rdquo; (Mt 21:43). Again, the
4049 desert can indicate Judea, which was already deserted: &ldquo;Your
4050 house will be left to You, deserted&rdquo; (Mt 23:38). And so he
4051 cried in the desert, <span style="font-weight: bold">in the
4052 wilderness,</span> i.e., in Judea, to indicate that the people to
4053 whom he was preaching had already been deserted by God: &ldquo;in a
4054 desert land, where there is no way or water, so I have come to your
4055 sanctuary&rdquo; (Ps 62:3).</p>
4056 <p>239 Why does he cry, <span style="font-weight: bold">Make a
4057 straight way for the Lord?</span> Because this is the task for
4058 which he was sent. &ldquo;And you, child, will be called the
4059 prophet of the Most High, for you will go before the face of the
4060 Lord to prepare his way&rdquo; (Lk 1:76). The way, prepared and
4061 straight, for receiving the Lord is the way of justice, according
4062 to Isaiah (26:7): &ldquo;The way of the just is straight.&rdquo;
4063 For the way of the just is straight when the whole man is subject
4064 to God, i.e., the intellect through faith, the will through love,
4065 and actions through obedience, are all subject to God.</p>
4066 <p>And this was spoken, i.e., predicted, by <span style=
4067 "font-weight: bold">the prophet Isaiah.</span> As if to say: I am
4068 the one in whom these things are fulfilled.</p>
4069 <p style="margin-bottom: 0.125in; margin-bottom: 0.125in">
4070 &nbsp;</p>
4071 <p style="text-align: center; margin-bottom: 0.125in"><span style=
4072 "font-weight: bold">LECTURE13</span></p>
4073 <blockquote>
4074 <p>24 Now these men had been sent from the Pharisees, 25 and they
4075 put this further question to him: &ldquo;Why then do you baptize,
4076 if you are not the Messiah, nor Elijah, nor the Prophet?&rdquo; 26
4077 John replied, &ldquo;I baptize with water. But there is one
4078 standing in your midst whom you do not recognize&mdash;27 the one
4079 who is to come after me, who ranks ahead of me&mdash;the strap of
4080 whose sandal I am not worthy to unfasten.&rdquo; 28 This happened
4081 at Bethany, on the far side of the Jordan, where John was
4082 baptizing.</p>
4083 </blockquote>
4084 <p>240 Above, we saw John bear witness to Christ as he was being
4085 questioned on matters concerning himself; here, on matters
4086 concerning his office. Four things are set forth: first, those who
4087 question him; secondly, their questions; thirdly, his answer, in
4088 which he bore witness; and fourthly, the place where all this
4089 happened.</p>
4090 <p>241 His interrogators were Pharisees. Hence he says,
4091 <span style="font-weight: bold">Now these men had been sent from
4092 the Pharisees.</span> According to Origen, what is being said from
4093 this point on describes a different testimony given by John; and
4094 further, those who were sent from the Pharisees are not the same as
4095 those priests and Levites sent by the generality of the Jews, but
4096 others who were specifically sent by the Pharisees. And according
4097 to this it says: <span style="font-weight: bold">Now these men had
4098 been sent,</span> not by the Jews, as the priests and Levites had
4099 been, but were others, <span style="font-weight: bold">from the
4100 Pharisees.</span> So he says about this that because the priests
4101 and Levites were educated and respectful, they ask John humbly and
4102 respectfully whether he is the Messiah, or Elijah, or the Prophet.
4103 But these others, who were from the Pharisees, according to their
4104 name &ldquo;separated&rdquo; and importunate, used disdainful
4105 language. Thus they asked him, <span style="font-weight: bold">Why
4106 then do you baptize, if you are not the Messiah, nor Elijah, nor
4107 the Prophet?</span></p>
4108 <p>But according to others, such as Gregory, Chrysostom, and
4109 Augustine, these Pharisees are the same priests and Levites who had
4110 been sent by the Jews. For there was among the Jews a certain sect
4111 which was separated from the others by reason of its external cult;
4112 and for this reason its members were called Pharisees, i.e.,
4113 &ldquo;divided.&rdquo; In this sect there were some priests and
4114 Levites, and some of the people. And so, in order that the
4115 delegates [to John] might possess a greater authority, they sent
4116 priests and Levites, who were Pharisees, thus furnishing them with
4117 the dignity of a priestly caste and with religious authority.</p>
4118 <p>242 The Evangelist adds, <span style="font-weight: bold">these
4119 men had been sent from the Pharisees,</span> to disclose, first,
4120 the reason why they asked about John&rsquo;s baptizing, which was
4121 not why they were sent. It is as though he were saying: They were
4122 sent to ask John who he was. But they asked, <span style=
4123 "font-weight: bold">Why do you baptize?</span> because they were
4124 from the Pharisees, whose religion was being challenged. Secondly,
4125 as Gregory says, in order to show with what intention they asked
4126 John, &ldquo;Who are you?&rdquo; (1:19). For the Pharisees, more
4127 than all the others, showed themselves crafty and insulting to
4128 Christ. Thus they said of him: &ldquo;He casts out devils by
4129 Beelzebub, the prince of devils&rdquo; (Mt 12:24). Further, they
4130 consulted with the Herodians on how to trap Jesus in his speech (Mt
4131 22:15). And so in saying that <span style="font-weight: bold">these
4132 men had been sent from the Pharisees,</span> he shows that they
4133 were disrespectful and were questioning him out of envy.</p>
4134 <p>243 Their questions concerned his office of baptizing. Hence he
4135 says that they asked him, <span style="font-weight: bold">Why then
4136 do you baptize?</span> Here we should note that they are asking not
4137 to learn, but to obstruct. For since they saw many people coming to
4138 John because of the new rite of baptism, foreign both to the rite
4139 of the Pharisees and of the law, they became envious of John and
4140 tried all they could to hinder his baptism. But being unable to
4141 contain themselves any longer, they reveal their envy and say,
4142 <span style="font-weight: bold">Why then do you baptize if you are
4143 not the Messiah, nor Elijah, nor the Prophet?</span> As if to say:
4144 You should not baptize, since you deny that you are any of those
4145 three persons in whom baptism was prefigured, as was said above. In
4146 other words, <span style="font-weight: bold">if you are not the
4147 Messiah,</span> who will possess the fountain by which sins are
4148 washed away, <span style="font-weight: bold">nor Elijah, nor the
4149 Prophet,</span> i.e., Elisha, who made a dry passageway through the
4150 Jordan (2 Kgs 2:8), how do you dare baptize&rsquo;? They are like
4151 envious persons who hinder the progress of souls, &ldquo;who say to
4152 the seers, &lsquo;See no visions&rsquo;&rdquo; (Is 30:10).</p>
4153 <p>244 His answer is true: and so he says that John answered,
4154 <span style="font-weight: bold">I baptize with water.</span> As if
4155 to say: You should not be disturbed, if I, who am not the Messiah,
4156 nor Elijah, nor the Prophet, baptize; because my baptism is not
4157 completive but imperfect. For the perfection of baptism requires
4158 the washing of the body and of the soul; and the body, by its
4159 nature, is indeed washed by water, but the soul is washed by the
4160 Spirit alone. So, <span style="font-weight: bold">I baptize with
4161 water,</span> i.e., I wash the body with something bodily; but
4162 another will come who will baptize perfectly, namely, with water
4163 and with the Holy Spirit; God and man, who will wash the body with
4164 water and the spirit with the Spirit, in such a way that the
4165 sanctification of the spirit will be distributed throughout the
4166 body. &ldquo;For John indeed baptized with water but you will be
4167 baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now&rdquo; (Acts
4168 1:5).</p>
4169 <p>245 Then he bears witness to Christ. First, in relation to the
4170 Jews. Secondly, in relation to himself (v 27).</p>
4171 <p>246 He relates him to the Jews when he says, <span style=
4172 "font-weight: bold">But there is one standing in your midst.</span>
4173 As if to say: I have done an incomplete work, but there is another
4174 who will complete my work, and he is <span style=
4175 "font-weight: bold">standing in your midst.</span></p>
4176 <p>This is explained in a number of ways. First, according to
4177 Gregory, Chrysostom and Augustine, it refers to the ordinary way
4178 Christ lived among men, because according to his human nature he
4179 appeared to be like other men: &ldquo;He, being in the form of God
4180 ... emptied himself, taking the form of a servant&rdquo; (Phil
4181 2:6). And according to this he says, <span style=
4182 "font-weight: bold">there is one standing in your midst,</span>
4183 i.e., in many ways he lived as one of you: &ldquo;I am in your
4184 midst&rdquo; (Lk 22:27), <span style="font-weight: bold">whom you
4185 do not recognize,</span> i.e., you cannot grasp the fact that God
4186 was made man. Likewise, you do not recognize how great he is
4187 according to the divine nature which is concealed in him:
4188 &ldquo;God is great, and exceeds our knowledge&rdquo; (Jb 36:26).
4189 And so, as Augustine says, &ldquo;The lantern was lighted,&rdquo;
4190 namely, John, &ldquo;so that Christ might be found.&rdquo; &ldquo;I
4191 have prepared a lamp for my anointed&rdquo; (Ps 131:17).</p>
4192 <p>It is explained differently by Origen; and in two ways. First,
4193 as referring to the divinity of Christ: and according to this,
4194 <span style="font-weight: bold">there is one standing,</span>
4195 namely, Christ, <span style="font-weight: bold">in your
4196 midst,</span> that is, in the midst of all things; because he, as
4197 Word, has filled all from the beginning of creation: &ldquo;I fill
4198 heaven and earth&rdquo; (Jer 23:24). <span style=
4199 "font-weight: bold">Whom you do not recognize,</span> because, as
4200 was said above (1:10), &ldquo;He was in the world ... and the world
4201 did not know him.&rdquo;</p>
4202 <p>It is explained another way as referring to his causality of
4203 human wisdom. <span style="font-weight: bold">But there is one
4204 standing in your midst,</span> i.e., he shines in everyone&rsquo;s
4205 understanding; because whatever light and whatever wisdom exists in
4206 men has come to them from participating in the Word. And he says,
4207 <span style="font-weight: bold">in your midst,</span> because in
4208 the midst of man&rsquo;s body lies the heart, to which is
4209 attributed a certain wisdom and understanding; hence, although the
4210 intellect has no bodily organ, yet because the heart is our chief
4211 organ, it is the custom to take it for the intellect. So he is said
4212 to stand among men because of this likeness, insofar as he
4213 &ldquo;enlightens every man coming into this world&rdquo; (1:9).
4214 <span style="font-weight: bold">Whom you do not recognize,</span>
4215 because, as was said above (1:5), &ldquo;The light shines in the
4216 darkness, and the darkness did not overcome it.&rdquo;</p>
4217 <p>In a fourth way, it is explained as referring to the prophetic
4218 foretelling of the Messiah. In this sense the answer is directed
4219 chiefly to the Pharisees, who continually searched the writings of
4220 the Old Testament in which the Messiah was foretold; and yet they
4221 did not recognize him. And according to this it says, <span style=
4222 "font-weight: bold">there is one standing in your midst,</span>
4223 i.e., in the Sacred Scriptures which you are always considering:
4224 &ldquo;Search the Scriptures&rdquo; (below 5:39); <span style=
4225 "font-weight: bold">whom you do not recognize,</span> because your
4226 heart is hardened by unbelief, and your eyes blinded, so that you
4227 do not recognize as present the person you believe is to come.</p>
4228 <p>247 Then John compares Christ to himself. First, he states the
4229 superiority of Christ as compared to himself. Secondly, he shows
4230 the greatness of this superiority.</p>
4231 <p>248 He shows the superiority of Christ in comparison to himself
4232 both in preaching and in dignity. Now, as to the order of
4233 preaching, John was the first to become known. Thus he says, the
4234 one who is to come after me, to preach, to baptize and to die;
4235 because as was said in Luke (1:76): &ldquo;You will go before the
4236 face of the Lord to prepare his way.&rdquo; John preceded Christ as
4237 the imperfect the perfect, and as the disposition the form; for as
4238 is said, &ldquo;The spiritual is not first, but the animal&rdquo;
4239 (1 Cor 15:46). For the entire life of John was a preparation for
4240 Christ; so he said above, that he was &ldquo;a voice that cries in
4241 the wilderness.&rdquo;</p>
4242 <p>But Christ preceded John and all of us as the perfect precedes
4243 the imperfect and the exemplar precedes the copy: &ldquo;If any one
4244 wishes to come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his
4245 cross, and follow me&rdquo; (Mt 16:24); &ldquo;Christ suffered for
4246 us, leaving you an example&rdquo; (1 Pt 2:21).</p>
4247 <p>Then he compares Christ to himself as to dignity, saying,
4248 <span style="font-weight: bold">who ranks ahead of me,</span> i.e.,
4249 he has been placed above me and is above me in dignity, because as
4250 he says (below 3:30), &ldquo;he must increase, and I must
4251 decrease.&rdquo;</p>
4252 <p>249 He touches on the greatness of his superiority when he says,
4253 <span style="font-weight: bold">the strap of whose sandal I am not
4254 worthy to unfasten</span>. As if to say: You must not suppose that
4255 he ranks ahead of me in dignity in the way that one man is placed
4256 ahead of another, rather he is ranked so far above me that I am
4257 nothing in comparison to him. And this is clear from the fact that
4258 it is he <span style="font-weight: bold">the strap of whose sandal
4259 I am not worthy to unfasten,</span> which is the least service that
4260 can be done for men. It is clear from this that John had made great
4261 progress in the knowledge of God, so far that from the
4262 consideration of God&rsquo;s infinite greatness, he completely
4263 lowered himself and said that he himself was nothing. So did
4264 Abraham, when he recognized God, and said (Gn 18:27), &ldquo;1 will
4265 speak to my Lord, although I am but dust and ashes.&rdquo; And so
4266 also did Job, saying, &ldquo;Now I see you, and so I reprove
4267 myself, and do penance in dust and ashes&rdquo; (Jb 42:5). Isaiah
4268 also said, after he had seen the glory of God, &ldquo;Before him
4269 all the nations are as if they are not&rdquo; (Is 40:17). And this
4270 is the literal explanation.</p>
4271 <p>250 This is also explained mystically. Gregory explains it so
4272 that the sandal, made from the hides of dead animals, indicates our
4273 mortal human nature, which Christ assumed: &ldquo;I will stretch
4274 out my sandal to Edom&rdquo; (Ps 59:10). The strap of
4275 Christ&rsquo;s sandal is the union of his divinity and humanity,
4276 which neither John nor anyone can unfasten or fully investigate,
4277 since it is this which made God man and made man God. And so he
4278 says, <span style="font-weight: bold">the strap of whose sandal I
4279 am not worthy to unfasten,</span> i.e., to explain the mystery of
4280 the incarnation perfectly and fully. For John and other preachers
4281 unfasten the strap of Christ&rsquo;s sandal in some way, although
4282 imperfectly.</p>
4283 <p>It is explained in another way by recalling that it was ordered
4284 in the Old Law that when a man died without children, his brother
4285 was obligated to marry the wife of the dead man and raise up
4286 children from her as his brother&rsquo;s. And if he refused to
4287 marry her, then a close relative of the dead man, if willing to
4288 marry her, was to remove the sandals of the dead man as a sign of
4289 this willingness and marry her; and his home was then to be called
4290 the home of the man whose sandals were removed (Dt 25:5). And so
4291 according to this he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">the
4292 strap of whose sandal I am not worthy to unfasten,</span> i.e., I
4293 am not worthy to have the bride, that is, the Church, to which
4294 Christ has a right. As if to say: I am not worthy to be called the
4295 bridegroom of the Church, which is consecrated to Christ in the
4296 baptism of the Spirit; but I baptize only in water. As it says
4297 below (3:29): &ldquo;It is the groom who has the bride.&rdquo;</p>
4298 <p>251 The place where these events happened is mentioned when he
4299 says, <span style="font-weight: bold">This happened at Bethany, on
4300 the far side of the Jordan.</span> A question arises on this: Since
4301 Bethany is on the Mount of Olives, which is near Jerusalem, as is
4302 said in John (11:1 ) and also in Matthew (26:6), how can he say
4303 that these things happened beyond the Jordan, which is quite far
4304 from Jerusalem? Origen and Chrysostom answer that it should be
4305 called Bethabora, not Bethany, which is a village on the far side
4306 of the Jordan; and that the reading &ldquo;Bethany&rdquo; is due to
4307 a copyist&rsquo;s error. However, since both the Greek and Latin
4308 versions have Bethany, one should rather say that there are two
4309 places called Bethany: one is near Jerusalem on the side of the
4310 Mount of Olives, and the other is on the far side of the Jordan
4311 where John was baptizing.</p>
4312 <p>252 The fact that he mentions the place has both a literal and a
4313 mystical reason. The literal reason, according to Chrysostom, is
4314 that John wrote this Gospel for certain ones, perhaps still alive,
4315 who would recall the time and who saw the place where these things
4316 happened. And so, to lead us to a greater certitude, he makes them
4317 witnesses of the things they had seen.</p>
4318 <p>The mystical reason is that these places are appropriate for
4319 baptism. For in saying &ldquo;Bethany,&rdquo; which is interpreted
4320 as &ldquo;house of obedience,&rdquo; he indicates that one must
4321 come to be baptized through obedience to the faith. &ldquo;To bring
4322 all the nations to have obedience to the faith&rdquo; (Rom 1:5).
4323 But if the name of the place is &ldquo;Bethabora,&rdquo; which is
4324 interpreted as &ldquo;house of preparation,&rdquo; it signifies
4325 that a man is prepared for eternal life through baptism.</p>
4326 <p>There is also a mystery in the fact that this happened on the
4327 far side of the Jordan. For &ldquo;Jordan&rdquo; is interpreted as
4328 &ldquo;the descent of them&rdquo;; and according to Origen it
4329 signifies Christ, who descended from heaven, as he himself says
4330 that he descended from heaven to do the will of his Father (below
4331 6:38).</p>
4332 <p>Further, the river Jordan aptly signifies baptism. For it is the
4333 border line between those who received their inheritance from Moses
4334 on one side of the Jordan, and those who received it from Josue on
4335 the other side. Thus baptism is a kind of border between Jews and
4336 Gentiles, who journey to this place to wash themselves by coming to
4337 Christ so that they might put off the debasement of sin. Forjust as
4338 the Jews had to cross the Jordan to enter the promised land, so one
4339 must pass through baptism to enter into the heavenly land. And he
4340 says, <span style="font-weight: bold">on the far side of the
4341 Jordan,</span> to show that John preached the baptism of repentance
4342 even to those who trangressed the law and sinners; and so the Lord
4343 also says, &ldquo;I did not come to call the righteous, but
4344 sinners&rdquo; (Mt 9:13).</p>
4345 <p style="margin-bottom: 0.125in; margin-bottom: 0.125in">
4346 &nbsp;</p>
4347 <p style="text-align: center; margin-bottom: 0.125in"><span style=
4348 "font-weight: bold">LECTURE14</span></p>
4349 <blockquote>
4350 <p>29 The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and he said,
4351 &ldquo;Look! There is the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of
4352 the world. 30 It is he of whom I said:</p>
4353 <p style="margin-left: 0.259167in; margin-right: 0.259167in">
4354 &lsquo;After me is to come a man, who ranks ahead of me, because he
4355 existed before me.&rsquo;<br />
4356 31 And I did not know him! And yet it was to reveal him to Israel
4357 that I came baptizing with water.&rdquo;</p>
4358 <p>32 John gave this testimony also:</p>
4359 <p style=
4360 "margin-left: 0.259167in; margin-right: 0.259167in; margin-bottom: 0.125in">
4361 &ldquo;I saw the Spirit coming down on him from heaven like a dove,
4362 and resting on him. 33 And I did not know him, but he who sent me
4363 to baptize with water had said to me: &lsquo;The man on whom you
4364 see the Spirit come down and rest is the one who is to baptize with
4365 the Holy Spirit.&rsquo; 34 Now I have seen for myself and have
4366 given testimony that he is the Son of God.&rdquo;</p>
4367 </blockquote>
4368 <p>253 Above, John had given testimony to Christ when he was
4369 questioned. Here, he gives testimony to him on his own initiative.
4370 First, he gives the testimony; secondly, he confirms it (v 32). As
4371 to the first: first, the circumstances of the testimony are given;
4372 and secondly, the testimony itself is given (v 29); thirdly,
4373 suspicion is removed from the witness (v 3 1).</p>
4374 <p>254 The circumstances are first described as to the time. Hence
4375 he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">The next day.</span> This
4376 gives credit to John for his steadfastness, because he bore witness
4377 to Christ not for just one day or once, but on many days and
4378 frequently: &ldquo;Every day I will bless you&rdquo; (Ps 144:2).
4379 His progress, too, is cited, because one day should not be just
4380 like the day before, but the succeeding day should be different,
4381 i.e., better: &ldquo;They will go from strength to strength&rdquo;
4382 (Ps 83:8).</p>
4383 <p>Another circumstance mentioned is his manner of testifying,
4384 because <span style="font-weight: bold">John saw Jesus.</span> This
4385 shows his certitude, for testimony based on sight is most certain.
4386 The last circumstance he mentions is about the one to whom he bore
4387 witness. Hence he says that he saw <span style=
4388 "font-weight: bold">Jesus coming toward him,</span> i.e., from
4389 Galilee, as it says, &ldquo;Jesus came from Galilee&rdquo; (Mt
4390 3:13). We should not understand this as referring to the time when
4391 he came to be baptized, of which Matthew is here speaking, but of
4392 another time, i.e., a time when he came to John after he had
4393 already been baptized and was staying near the Jordan. Otherwise,
4394 he Would not have said, &ldquo;&lsquo;The man on whom yoti see the
4395 Spirit come down and rest is the one who is to baptize with the I
4396 loly Spirit.&rsquo; Now I have seen&rdquo; (v 33). Therefore, he
4397 had already seen him and the Spirit come down as a dove upon
4398 him.</p>
4399 <p>255 One reason why Christ now came to John was to confirm the
4400 testimony of John. For John had spoken of Christ as &ldquo;the one
4401 who is to come after me&rdquo; (v 27). But since Christ was now
4402 present, some might not understand who it was that was to come. So
4403 Christ came to John to be pointed out by him, with John saying,
4404 <span style="font-weight: bold">Look! There is the Lamb of
4405 God.</span> Another reason Christ came was to correct an error. For
4406 some might believe that the first time Christ came, i.e., to be
4407 baptized, he came to John to be cleansed from his sins. So, in
4408 order to preclude this, Christ came to him even after his baptism.
4409 Accordingly, John clearly says, <span style=
4410 "font-weight: bold">There is the Lamb of God who takes away the
4411 sins of the world.</span> He committed no sin, but came to take
4412 away sin. He also came to give us an example of humility, because
4413 as it is said, &ldquo;The greater you are the more humble you
4414 should be in all matters&rdquo; (Sir 3:20).</p>
4415 <p>Note that after the conception of Christ, when his mother, the
4416 Virgin, went in haste to the mountainous country to visit
4417 John&rsquo;s mother, Elizabeth, that John, still in his
4418 mother&rsquo;s womb and unable to speak, leaped in her womb as
4419 though performing a religious dance out of reverence for Christ.
4420 And as then, so even now; for when Christ comes to John out of
4421 humility, John offers his testimony and reverence and breaks out
4422 saying, <span style="font-weight: bold">Look! There is the Lamb of
4423 God.</span></p>
4424 <p>256 With these words John gives his testimony showing the power
4425 of Christ. Then Christ&rsquo;s dignity is shown (v 30). He shows
4426 the power of Christ in two ways: first, by means of a symbol;
4427 secondly, by explaining it (v 29).</p>
4428 <p>257 As to the first, we should note, as Origen says, that it was
4429 customary in the Old Law for five animals to be offered in the
4430 temple: three land animals, namely, the heifer, goat and sheep
4431 (although the sheep might be a ram, a sheep or a lamb) and two
4432 birds, namely, the turtle-dove and the dove. All of these
4433 prefigured the true sacrifice, which is Christ, who &ldquo;gave
4434 himself for us as an offering to God,&rdquo; as is said in
4435 Ephesians (5:2).</p>
4436 <p>Why then did the Baptist, when giving witness to Christ,
4437 specifically call him a Lamb? The reason for this is that, as
4438 stated in Numbers (28:3), although there were other sacrifices in
4439 the temple at other times, yet each day there was a time in which a
4440 lamb was offered every morning, and another was offered in the
4441 evening. This never varied, but was regarded as the principal
4442 offering, and the other offerings were in the form of additions.
4443 And so the lamb, which was the principal sacrifice, signified
4444 Christ, who is the principal sacrifice. For although all the saints
4445 who suffered for the faith of Christ contribute something to the
4446 salvation of the faithful, they do this only inasmuch its they are
4447 immolated upon the oblation of the Lamb, they being, as it were, in
4448 oblation added to the principal sacrifice. The lamb is offered in
4449 the morning and in the evening because it is through Christ that
4450 the way is opened to the contemplation and enjoyment of the
4451 intelligible things of God, and this pertains to &ldquo;morning
4452 knowledge&rdquo;; and we are instructed how to use earthly things
4453 without staining ourselves, and this pertains to &ldquo;evening
4454 knowledge.&rdquo; And so he says, Look! <span style=
4455 "font-weight: bold">There is the Lamb of God,</span> i.e., the one
4456 signified by the lamb.</p>
4457 <p>He says, of God, because there are two natures in Christ, a
4458 human nature and a divine nature. And it is due to the power of the
4459 divinity that this sacrifice has the power to cleanse and sanctify
4460 us from our sins, inasmuch as &ldquo;God was, in Christ,
4461 reconciling the world to himself&rdquo; (2 Cor 5:19). Or, he is
4462 called <span style="font-weight: bold">the Lamb of God,</span>
4463 because offered by God, i.e., by Christ himself, who is God; just
4464 as we call what a man offers the offering of the man. Or, he is
4465 called <span style="font-weight: bold">the Lamb of God,</span> that
4466 is, of the Father, because the Father provided man with an oblation
4467 to offer that satisfied for sins, which man could not have through
4468 himself. So when Isaac asked Abraham, &ldquo;Where is the victim
4469 for the holocaust?&rdquo; he answered, &ldquo;God himself will
4470 provide a victim for the holocaust&rdquo; (Gn 22:7); &ldquo;God did
4471 not spare his own Son, but delivered him up for all of us&rdquo;
4472 (Rom 8:32).</p>
4473 <p>258 Christ is called a Lamb, first, because of his purity:
4474 &ldquo;Your lamb will be without blemish&rdquo; (Ex 12:5);
4475 &ldquo;You were not redeemed by perishable gold or silver&rdquo; (1
4476 Pt 1:18). Secondly, because of his gentleness: &ldquo;Like a lamb
4477 before the shearer, he will not open his mouth&rdquo; (Is 53:7).
4478 Thirdly, because of his fruit; both with respect to what we put on:
4479 &ldquo;Lambs will be your clothing&rdquo; (Prv 27:26), &ldquo;Put
4480 on the Lord Jesus Christ&rdquo; (Rom 13:14); and with respect to
4481 food: &ldquo;My flesh is for the life of the world&rdquo; (below
4482 6:52). And so Isaiah said (16:1 ): &ldquo;Send forth, O Lord, the
4483 lamb, the ruler of the earth.&rdquo;</p>
4484 <p>259 Then when he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">who takes
4485 away the sins of the world,</span> he explains the symbol he used.
4486 In the law, sin could not be taken away either by a lamb or by any
4487 other sacrifice, because as is said in Hebrews (10:4), &ldquo;It is
4488 impossible that sins be taken away by the blood of bulls and
4489 goats.&rdquo; This blood takes away, i.e., removes, <span style=
4490 "font-weight: bold">the sins of the world.</span> &ldquo;Take away
4491 all iniquity&rdquo; (Hos 14:3). Or, <span style=
4492 "font-weight: bold">takes away,</span> i.e., he takes upon himself
4493 the sins of the whole <span style="font-weight: bold">world,</span>
4494 as is said, &ldquo;He bore our sins in his own body&rdquo; (1 Pt
4495 2:24); &ldquo;It was our infirmities that he bore, our sufferings
4496 that he endured,&rdquo; as we read in Isaiah (53:4).</p>
4497 <p>However, according to a Gloss, he says sin, and not
4498 &ldquo;sins,&rdquo; in order to show in a universal way that he has
4499 taken away every kind of sin: &ldquo;He is the offering for our
4500 sins&rdquo; (1 Jn 2:2); or because he died for one sin, that is,
4501 original sin: &ldquo;Sin entered into this world through one
4502 man&rdquo; (Rom 5:12).</p>
4503 <p>260 Above, the Baptist bore witness to the power of Christ; now
4504 he bears witness to his dignity, comparing Christ to himself in
4505 three respects. First, with respect to their office and order of
4506 preaching. So he says, It is he, pointing him out, that is, the
4507 Lamb, <span style="font-weight: bold">of whom I said,</span> i.e.,
4508 in his absence, <span style="font-weight: bold">After me is to come
4509 a man,</span> to preach and baptize, who in birth came after
4510 me.</p>
4511 <p>Christ is called a man by reason of his perfect age, because
4512 when he began to teach, after his baptism, he had already reached a
4513 perfect age: &ldquo;Jesus was now about thirty years of age&rdquo;
4514 (Lk 3:23). He is also called a man because of the perfection of all
4515 the virtues that were in him: &ldquo;Seven women,&rdquo; i.e., the
4516 virtues, &ldquo;will take hold of one man,&rdquo; the perfect
4517 Christ (Is 4:1); &ldquo;Look, a man! His name is the Orient,&rdquo;
4518 because he is the origin of all the virtues found in others (Zec
4519 6:12). He is also called a man because of his espousal, since he is
4520 the spouse of the Church: &ldquo;You will call me &lsquo;my
4521 husband&rsquo;&rdquo; (Hos 2:16); &ldquo;I espoused you to one
4522 husband&rdquo; (2 Cor 11:2).</p>
4523 <p>261 Secondly, he compares himself to Christ with respect to
4524 dignity when he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">who ranks
4525 ahead of me.</span> As if to say: Although he comes to preach after
4526 me, yet he ranks before me in dignity. &ldquo;See, he comes,
4527 leaping upon the mountains, skipping over the hills&rdquo; (Sg
4528 2:8). One such hill was John the Baptist, who was passed over by
4529 Christ, because as is said below (3:30), &ldquo;He must increase,
4530 and I must decrease.&rdquo;</p>
4531 <p>262 Thirdly, he compares himself to Christ with respect to
4532 duration, saying, because he existed before me. As if to say: It is
4533 not strange if he ranks ahead of me in dignity; because although he
4534 is after me in time, he is before me in eternity, <span style=
4535 "font-weight: bold">because he existed before me.</span></p>
4536 <p>This statement refutes a twofold error. First, that of Arius,
4537 for John does not say that &ldquo;he was made before me,&rdquo; as
4538 though he were a creature, but he existed before me, from eternity,
4539 before every creature: &ldquo;The Lord brought me forth before all
4540 the hills,&rdquo; as is said in Proverbs (8:25). The second error
4541 refuted is that of Paul of Samosata: for John said, he existed
4542 before me, in order to show that he did not take his beginning from
4543 Mary. For if he had taken the beginning of his existence from the
4544 Virgin, he would not have existed before the precursor, who, in the
4545 order of human generation, preceded Christ by six months.</p>
4546 <p>263 Next (v 31), he precludes an erroneous conjecture from his
4547 testimony. For someone might say that John bore witness to Christ
4548 because of his affection for him, coming from a special friendship.
4549 And so, excluding this, John says, <span style=
4550 "font-weight: bold">And I did not know him!;</span> for John had
4551 lived in the desert from boyhood. And although many miracles
4552 happened during the birth of Christ, such as the Magi and the star
4553 and so on, they were not known to John: both because he was an
4554 infant at the time, and because, after withdrawing to the desert,
4555 he had no association with Christ. In the interim between his birth
4556 and baptism, Christ did not perform any miracles, but led a life
4557 similar to any other person, and his power remained unknown to
4558 all.</p>
4559 <p>264 It is clear that he worked no miracles in the interim until
4560 he was thirty years old from what is said below (2:11): &ldquo;This
4561 beginning of signs Jesus worked in Cana of Galilee.&rdquo; This
4562 shows the error of the book, <i>The Infancy of the Savior.</i> The
4563 reason he performed no miracles during this period was that if his
4564 life had not been like that of other infants, the mystery of the
4565 circumcision and incarnation might have been regarded as pure
4566 fancy. Accordingly, he postponed showing his knowledge and power to
4567 another time, corresponding to the age when other men reach the
4568 fulness of their knowledge and power. About this we read,
4569 &ldquo;And Jesus increased in grace and wisdom&rdquo; (Lk 2:52);
4570 not that he acquired a power and wisdom that he previously lacked,
4571 for in this respect he was perfect from the instant of his
4572 conception, but because his power and wisdom were becoming known to
4573 men: &ldquo;Indeed, you are a hidden God&rdquo; (Is 45:15).</p>
4574 <p>265 The reason why John did not know him was that he had so far
4575 seen no signs, and no one else had known Christ through signs.
4576 Hence he adds: <span style="font-weight: bold">It was to reveal him
4577 to Israel that I came baptizing with water.</span> As if to say: My
4578 entire ministry is to reveal: &ldquo;He was not the light, but he
4579 came in order to bear witness to the light,&rdquo; as was said
4580 above (1:8).</p>
4581 <p>266 He says, <span style="font-weight: bold">I came baptizing
4582 with water,</span> to distinguish his baptism from that of Christ.
4583 For Christ baptized not just in water, but in the Spirit,
4584 conferring grace; and so the baptism of John was merely a sign, and
4585 not causative.</p>
4586 <p>John&rsquo;s baptism made Christ known in three ways. First, by
4587 the preaching of John. For although John could have prepared the
4588 way for the Lord and led the people to Christ without baptizing,
4589 yet because of the novelty of the service many more came to him
4590 than would have come if his preaching were done without baptism.
4591 Secondly, John&rsquo;s baptism was useful because of Christ&rsquo;s
4592 humility, which he showed by willing to be baptized by John:
4593 &ldquo;Christ came to John, to be baptized by him&rdquo; (Mt 3:13).
4594 This example of humility he gives us here is that no one, however
4595 great, should disdain to receive the sacraments from any person
4596 ordained for this purpose. Thirdly, because it was during
4597 Christ&rsquo;s baptisin by John that the power of the Father was
4598 present in the voice, and the Holy Spirit was present in the dove,
4599 by which the powerand dignity of&rsquo;Christ were all the more
4600 shown: &ldquo;And the voice of the Father was heard: &lsquo;This is
4601 my beloved Son&rsquo;&rdquo; (Lk 3:22).</p>
4602 <p>267 Then when he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">John gave
4603 this testimony also,</span> he confirms by the authority of God the
4604 great things he testified to about Christ, that Christ alone would
4605 take away the sins of the whole world. As to this he does three
4606 things. First, he presents a vision. Secondly, he tells us the
4607 meaning of the vision (v 33). Thirdly, he shows what he learned
4608 from this vision (v 34).</p>
4609 <p>268 He presents the vision when he says, <span style=
4610 "font-weight: bold">I saw the Spirit coming down on him from
4611 heaven.</span> When this actually happened John the Evangelist does
4612 not tell us, but Matthew and Luke say that it took place when
4613 Christ was being baptized by John. And it was indeed fitting for
4614 the Holy Spirit to be present at this baptism and to the person
4615 being baptized. It was appropriate for the one baptized, for as the
4616 Son, existing by the Father, manifests the Father, &ldquo;Father, I
4617 have manifested your name&rdquo; (below 17:6), so the Holy Spirit,
4618 existing by the Son, manifests the Son, &ldquo;He will glorify me,
4619 because he will receive from me&rdquo; (below 16:14). It was
4620 appropriate for this baptism because the baptism of Christ begins
4621 and consecrates our baptism. Now our baptism is consecrated by
4622 invoking the whole Trinity: &ldquo;Baptizing them in the name of
4623 the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit&rdquo; (Mt
4624 28:19). Thus, the ones we invoke in our baptism were present at the
4625 baptism of Christ: the Father in the voice, the Holy Spirit in the
4626 dove, and the Son in his human nature.</p>
4627 <p>269 He says, <span style="font-weight: bold">coming down,</span>
4628 because descent, since it has two termini, the start, which is from
4629 above, and the end, which is below, suits baptism in both respects.
4630 For there is a twofold spirit: one of the world and the other of
4631 God. The spirit of the world is the love of the world, which is not
4632 from above; rather, it comes up to man from below and makes him
4633 descend. But the spirit of God, i.e., the love of God, comes down
4634 to man from above and makes him ascend: &ldquo;We have not received
4635 the spirit of this world, but the spirit of God,&rdquo; as is said
4636 in 1 Corinthians (2:12). And so, because that spirit is from above,
4637 he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">coming down.</span></p>
4638 <p>Similarly, because it is impossible for the creature to receive
4639 God&rsquo;s goodness in the fulness in which it is present in God,
4640 the communication of this goodness to us is in a way a certain
4641 coming down: &ldquo;Every perfect gift is from above, coming down
4642 from the Father of lights&rdquo; (Jas 1:17).</p>
4643 <p>270 The Evangelist, in describing the manner of the vision and
4644 of the coming down, says that the Holy Spirit did not appear in the
4645 spirit, i.e., in his nature, but in the form of a dove, saying,
4646 that he came like a ove. The reason for this is that the Holy
4647 Spirit cannot be seen in his nature, as is said, &ldquo;The Spirit
4648 blows where it wills, and you hear its sound, but you do not know
4649 where it comes from or where it goes&rdquo; (below 3:8), and
4650 because a spirit does not come down but goes up, &ldquo;The spirit
4651 lifted me up&rdquo; (Ez 8:3).</p>
4652 <p>It was appropriate that the Son of God, who was made visible
4653 through flesh, should be made known by the Holy Spirit in the
4654 visible form of a dove. However, the Holy Spirit did not assume the
4655 dove into a unity of person, as the Son of God assumed human
4656 nature. The reason for this is that the Son did not appear as a
4657 manifester but as a Savior. And so, according to Pope Leo, it was
4658 appropriate that he be God and man: God, in order to provide a
4659 remedy; and man, in order to offer an example. But the Holy Spirit
4660 appeared only to make known, and for this it was sufficient merely
4661 to assume a visible form which was suitable for this purpose.</p>
4662 <p>271 As to whether this dove was a real animal and whether it
4663 existed prior to its appearance, it seems reasonable to say that it
4664 was a real dove. For the Holy Spirit came to manifest Christ, who,
4665 being the Truth, ought to have been manifested only by the truth.
4666 As to the other part of the question, it would seem that the dove
4667 did not exist prior to its appearance, but was formed at the time
4668 by the divine power, without any parental union, as the body of
4669 Christ was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit, and not from
4670 a man&rsquo;s seed. Yet it was a real dove, for as Augustine says
4671 in his work, <i>The Christian Combat:</i> &ldquo;It was not
4672 difficult for the omnipotent God, who produced the entire universe
4673 of creatures from nothing, to form a real body for the dove without
4674 the aid of other doves, just as it was not difficult to form the
4675 true body of Christ in the womb of the Blessed Virgin without
4676 natural semen.&rdquo;</p>
4677 <p>Cyprian, in his <i>The Unity of the Church,</i> says: &ldquo;It
4678 is said that the Holy Spirit appeared in the form of a dove because
4679 the dove is a simple harmless animal, not bitter with gall, not
4680 savage with its bites, not fierce with rending talons; it loves the
4681 dwellings of men, is able to live together in one nest, together it
4682 raises its young, they remain together when they fly, spend their
4683 life in mutual association, signify the concord of peace with the
4684 kiss of their bill, and fulfill the law of harmony in all
4685 things.&rdquo;</p>
4686 <p>272 Many reasons are given why the Holy Spirit appeared as a
4687 dove rather than in some other form. First, because of its
4688 simplicity, for the dove is simple: &ldquo;Be wise as serpents, and
4689 simple as doves&rdquo; (Mt 10:16). And the Holy Spirit, because he
4690 inclines souls to gaze on one thing, that is, God, makes them
4691 simple; and so he appeared in the form of a dove. Further,
4692 according to Augustine, the Holy Spirit also appeared in the form
4693 of fire over the heads of the assembled apostles. This was done
4694 because some are simple, but lukewarm; while others are fervent but
4695 guileful. And so in order that those sanctified by the Spirit may
4696 have no guile, the Spirit is shown in the form of a dove; and in
4697 order that their simplicity may not grow tepid, the Spirit is shown
4698 in fire.</p>
4699 <p>A dove was used, secondly, because of the unity of charity; for
4700 the dove is much aglow with love: &ldquo;One is my dove&rdquo; (Sg
4701 6:9). So, in order to show the unity of the Church, the Holy Spirit
4702 appears in the form of a dove. Nor should it disturb you that when
4703 the Holy Spirit rested on each of the disciples, there appeared
4704 separate tongues of fire; for although the Spirit appears to be
4705 different according to the different functions of his gifts, he
4706 nevertheless unites us through charity. And so, because of the
4707 first he appeared in separate tongues of fire, as is said,
4708 &ldquo;There are different kinds of gifts&rdquo; (1 Cor 12:4); but
4709 he appears in the form of a dove because of the second.</p>
4710 <p>A dove was used, thirdly,because of its groaning, for the dove
4711 has a groaning chant; so also the Holy Spirit &ldquo;pleads for us
4712 with indescribable groanings&rdquo; (Rom 8:26); &ldquo;Her maidens,
4713 groaning like doves&rdquo; (Na 2:7). Fourthly, because of the doves
4714 fertility, for the dove is a very prolific animal. And so in order
4715 to signify the fecundity of spiritual grace in the Church, the Holy
4716 Spirit appeared in the form of a dove. This is why the Lord
4717 commanded an offering of two doves (Lv 5:7).</p>
4718 <p>A dove was used, fifthly, because of its cautiousness. For it
4719 rests upon watery brooks, and gazing into them can see the hawk
4720 flying overhead and so save itself: &ldquo;His eyes are like doves
4721 beside brooks of water&rdquo; (Sg 5:12). And so, because our refuge
4722 and defense is found in baptism, the Holy Spirit appropriately
4723 appeared in the form of a dove.</p>
4724 <p>The dove also corresponds to a figure in the Old Testament. For
4725 as the dove bearing the green olive branch was a sign of
4726 God&rsquo;s mercy to those who survived the waters of the deluge,
4727 so too in baptism, the Holy Spirit, coming in the form of a dove,
4728 is a sign of the divine mercy which takes away the sins of those
4729 baptized and confers grace.</p>
4730 <p>273 He says that the Holy Spirit was <span style=
4731 "font-weight: bold">resting on him.</span> If the Holy Spirit does
4732 not rest on someone, it is due to two causes. One is sin. For all
4733 men except Christ are either suffering from the wound of mortal
4734 sin, which banishes the Holy Spirit, or are darkened with the stain
4735 of venial sin, which hinders some of the works of the Holy Spirit.
4736 But in Christ there was neither mortal nor venial sin; so, the Holy
4737 Spirit in him was never disquieted, but was <span style=
4738 "font-weight: bold">resting on him.</span></p>
4739 <p>The other reason concerns charismatic graces, for the other
4740 saints do not always possess their power. For example, the power to
4741 work miracles is not always present in the saints, nor is the
4742 spirit of prophecy always in the prophets. But Christ always
4743 possessed the power to accomplish any work of the virtues and the
4744 graces. So to indicate this, he says, <span style=
4745 "font-weight: bold">resting on him.</span> Hence this was the
4746 characteristic sign for recognizing Christ, as the Gloss says.
4747 &ldquo;The Spirit of the Lord will rest on him&rdquo; (Is 11:2),
4748 which we should understand of Christ as man, according to which he
4749 is less than the Father and the Holy Spirit.</p>
4750 <p>274 Then when he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">I did not
4751 know him,</span> he teaches us how this vision should be
4752 understood. For certain heretics, as the Ebionites, said that
4753 Christ was neither the Christ nor the Son of God from the time he
4754 was born, but only began to be the Son of God and the Christ when
4755 he was anointed with the oil of the Holy Spirit at his baptism. But
4756 this is false, because at the very hour of his birth the angel said
4757 to the shepherds: &ldquo;This day a Savior has been born for you in
4758 the city of David, Christ the Lord&rdquo; (Lk 2:11). Therefore, so
4759 that we do not believe that the Holy Spirit descended upon Christ
4760 in his baptism as though Christ needed to receive the Spirit anew
4761 for his sanctification, the Baptist gives the reason for the
4762 Spirit&rsquo;s coming down. He says that the Spirit descended not
4763 for the benefit of Christ, but for our benefit, that is, so that
4764 the grace of Christ might be made known to us. And so he says,
4765 <span style="font-weight: bold">And I did not know him! And yet it
4766 was to reveal him to Israel that I came baptizing with
4767 water.</span></p>
4768 <p>275 There is a problem here. For he says, <span style=
4769 "font-weight: bold">he who sent me to baptize.</span> If he is
4770 saying that the Father sent him, it is true. Also, if he is saying
4771 that the Son sent him, it is even more clear, since it is said that
4772 both the Father and the Son sent him, because John is not one of
4773 those referred to in Jeremiah (23:21), &ldquo;1 did not send the
4774 prophets, yet they ran.&rdquo; But if the Son did send him, how can
4775 he then say, <span style="font-weight: bold">I did not know
4776 him?</span> If it is said that although he knew Christ according to
4777 his divinity, yet he did not know him according to his humanity
4778 until after he saw the Spirit coming down upon him, one might
4779 counter that the Holy Spirit descended upon Christ when he was
4780 being baptized, and John had already known Christ before he was
4781 baptized, otherwise he would not have said: &ldquo;I ought to be
4782 baptized by you, and you come to me?&rdquo; (Mt 3:14).</p>
4783 <p>So we must say that this problem can be resolved in three ways.
4784 In one way, according to Chrysostom, so that the meaning is to know
4785 familiarly; the sense being that <span style="font-weight: bold">I
4786 did not know him,</span> i.e., in a familiar way. And if the
4787 objection is raised that John says, &ldquo;I ought to be baptized
4788 by you,&rdquo; it can be answered that two different times are
4789 being discussed: so that <span style="font-weight: bold">I did not
4790 know him,</span> refers to a time long before baptism, when he was
4791 not yet familiar with Christ: but when he says, &ldquo;I ought to
4792 be baptized by you,&rdquo; he is referring to the time when Christ
4793 was being baptized, when he was now familiar with Christ because of
4794 his frequent visits. In another way, according to Jerome, it could
4795 be said that Christ was the Son of God and the Savior of the world,
4796 and that John did in fact know this; but it was not through the
4797 baptism that he knew that he was the Savior of the world. And so to
4798 remedy this ignorance he adds, he <span style=
4799 "font-weight: bold">is the one who is to baptize with the Holy
4800 Spirit.</span> But it is better to say with Augustine that John
4801 knew certain things and was ignorant of others. Explaining what he
4802 did not know, he adds that the power of baptizing, which Christ
4803 could have shared with his faithful followers, would be reserved
4804 for himself alone. And this is what he says, <span style=
4805 "font-weight: bold">he who sent me to baptize with water ... is the
4806 one,</span> exclusively and solely, <span style=
4807 "font-weight: bold">who is to baptize with the Holy Spirit,</span>
4808 i.e., he and no one else, because this power he reserved for
4809 himself alone.</p>
4810 <p>276 We should note that a threefold power of Christ is found in
4811 baptism. One is the power of efficiency, by which he interiorly
4812 cleanses the soul from the stain of sin. Christ has this power as
4813 God, but not as man, and it cannot be communicated to any other.
4814 Another is the power of ministry, which he does share with the
4815 faithful: &ldquo;Baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of
4816 the Son, and of the Holy Spirit&rdquo; (Mt 28:19). Therefore
4817 priests have the power to haptize as ministers. Christ too, as man,
4818 is called a minister, as the Apostle says. But he is also the head
4819 of all the ministers of the Church.</p>
4820 <p>Because of this he alone has the power of excellence in the
4821 sacraments. And this excellence shows itself in four things. First,
4822 in the institution of the sacraments, because no mere man or even
4823 the entire Church could institute sacraments, or change the
4824 sacninients, or dispense with the sacraments. For by their
4825 institution the sacraments give invisible grace, which only God can
4826 give. Therefore, only one who is true God can institute sacraments.
4827 The second lies in the efficacy of Christ&rsquo;s merits, for the
4828 sacraments have their power from the merit of Christ&rsquo;s
4829 passion: &ldquo;All of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus,
4830 have been baptized into his death&rdquo; (Rom 6:3). The third is
4831 that Christ can confer the effect of baptism withmit the sacrament;
4832 and this is peculiar to Christ. Fourthly, because at one time
4833 baptism was conferred in the name of Christ, although this is no
4834 longer done.</p>
4835 <p>Now he did not communicate these four things to anyone; although
4836 he could have communicated some of them, for example, that baptism
4837 be conferred in the name of Peter or of someone else, and perhaps
4838 one of the remaining three. But this was not done lest schisins
4839 arise in the Church by men putting their trust in those in whose
4840 name they were baptized.</p>
4841 <p>And so John, in stating that the Holy Spirit came down upon
4842 Christ, teaches that it is Christ alone who baptizes interiorly by
4843 his own power.</p>
4844 <p>277 One might also say that when John said, &ldquo;I ought to be
4845 baptized by you,&rdquo; he recognized Christ. through an interior
4846 revelation, but that when he saw the Holy Spirit coming down upon
4847 him, he knew him through an exterior sign. And so he mentions both
4848 of these ways of knowing. The first when he says, <span style=
4849 "font-weight: bold">he who sent me to baptize with water had said
4850 to me,</span> i.e., revealed something in an interior way. The
4851 second when he adds, <span style="font-weight: bold">The man on
4852 whom you see the Spirit come down and rest is the one who is to
4853 baptize with the Holy Spirit.</span></p>
4854 <p>278 Then he shows what the Baptist understood from this vision,
4855 that is, that Christ is the Son of God. And this is what he says,
4856 Now I have seen for myself, that is, the Spirit coming down on him,
4857 and have given testimony that he, that is, Christ, is the Son of
4858 God, that is, the true and natural Son. For there were adopted sons
4859 of the Father who had a likeness to the natural Son of God:
4860 &ldquo;Conformed to the image of his Son&rdquo; (Rom 8:29). So he
4861 who baptizes in the Holy Spirit, through whom we are adopted as
4862 sons, ought to fashion sons of God. &ldquo;You did not receive the
4863 spirit of slavery ... but the spirit of adoption&rdquo; (Rom 8:15).
4864 Therefore, because Christ is the one who baptizes in the Holy
4865 Spirit, the Baptist correctly concludes that he is the true and
4866 pure Son of God: &ldquo;that we may be in his true Son&rdquo; (1 Jn
4867 5:20).</p>
4868 <p>279 But if there were others who saw the Holy,Spirit coming down
4869 upon Christ, why did they not also believe? I answer that they had
4870 not been so disposed for this. Or perhaps, this vision was seen
4871 only by the Baptist.</p>
4872 <p style="margin-bottom: 0.125in; margin-bottom: 0.125in">
4873 &nbsp;</p>
4874 <p style="text-align: center; margin-bottom: 0.125in"><span style=
4875 "font-weight: bold">LECTURE15</span></p>
4876 <blockquote>
4877 <p>35 On the following day John was standing there again with two
4878 of his disciples. 36 And seeing Jesus walking by, he said,
4879 &ldquo;Look! There is the Lamb of God.&rdquo; 37 Hearing this, the
4880 two disciples followed Jesus. 38 Jesus turned around, and seeing
4881 them following him said, &ldquo;What are you looking for?&rdquo;
4882 They replied, &ldquo;Rabbi (which means Teacher), where do you
4883 live?&rdquo; 39 &ldquo;Come and see,&rdquo; he replied. They went
4884 and saw where he lived, and they stayed with him the rest of that
4885 day. It was about the tenth hour.</p>
4886 </blockquote>
4887 <p>40 One of the two who had followed him after hearing John was
4888 Simon Peter&rsquo;s brother, Andrew. 41 The first thing fie did was
4889 to look for his brother Simon, and say to him, &ldquo;We have found
4890 the Messiah&rdquo; (which means the Christ), 42 and he brought him
4891 to Jesus. Looking at hini intently Jesus said, &ldquo;You are
4892 Simon, son of John; you are to be called Cephas&rdquo; (which is
4893 translated Peter).</p>
4894 <p>280 Above, the Evangelist presented the Baptist&rsquo;s
4895 testimony to the people; here he presents his testimony to
4896 John&rsquo;s disciples. First, his testimony is given; secondly,
4897 the fruit of this testimony (v 37). As to the first he does three
4898 things: first, the one giving the testimony is described; secondly,
4899 his way of testifying is given (v 36); and thirdly, his testimony
4900 itself, Look! <span style="font-weight: bold">There is the Lamb of
4901 God.</span></p>
4902 <p>281 The witness is described when he says, <span style=
4903 "font-weight: bold">On the following day John was standing there
4904 again with two of his disciples.</span> In saying standing, three
4905 things are noted about John. First, his manner of teaching, which
4906 was different from that of Christ and his disciples. For Christ
4907 went about teaching; hence it is said: &ldquo;Jesus traveled over
4908 all Galilee&rdquo; (Mt 4:23). The apostles also traveled the world
4909 teaching: &ldquo;Go to the whole world, and preach the good news to
4910 every creature&rdquo; (Mkl6:15). But John taught in one place;
4911 hence he says, standing, that is, in one place, on the far side of
4912 the Jordan. And John spoke of Christ to all who came to him.</p>
4913 <p>The reason why Christ and his disciples taught going about is
4914 that the preaching of Christ was made credible by miracles, and so
4915 they went to various places in order that the miracles and powers
4916 of Christ might be made known. But the preaching of John was not
4917 confirmed by miracles, so that is is written, &ldquo;John performed
4918 no sign&rdquo; (below 10:41), but by the merit and sanctity of his
4919 life. And so he was <span style="font-weight: bold">standing</span>
4920 in one place so that various people might stream to him and be led
4921 to Christ by his holiness. Furthermore, if John had gone from place
4922 to place to announce Christ without performing any miracles, his
4923 testimony would have been quite unbelievable, since it would seem
4924 to be inopportune and he would seem to be forcing himself upon the
4925 people.</p>
4926 <p>Secondly, John&rsquo;s perseverence in the truth is noted,
4927 because John was not a reed shaken by the wind, but was firm in the
4928 faith; &ldquo;Let him who thinks that he stands, take heed so he
4929 will not fall&rdquo; (1 Cor 10:12); &ldquo;1 will stand my
4930 watch&rdquo; (Hb 2:1).</p>
4931 <p>Thirdly, and allegorically, it is noted that to stand is, in an
4932 allegorical sense, the same as to fail or cease: &ldquo;The oil
4933 stood,&rdquo; i.e., failed (2 Kgs 4:6). So when Christ came John
4934 was standing, because when the truth comes the figure ceases. John
4935 stands because the law passes away.</p>
4936 <p>282 The manner of his testifying is presented as being certain,
4937 hecause based on sight. So he says, <span style=
4938 "font-weight: bold">seeing Jesus walking by.</span> Here it should
4939 be remarked that the prophets bore witness to Christ: &ldquo;All
4940 the prophets bear witness to him&rdquo; (Acts 10:43). So did the
4941 apostles as they traveled the world: &ldquo;You will be my
4942 witnesses in Jerusalem and in all of&rsquo; Judea and Samaria, and
4943 to the remotest parts of the world&rdquo; (Acts 1:8). However,
4944 their testimony was not about a person then visible or present, but
4945 on one who was absent. In the case of the prophets about one who
4946 was to come; in the case of the apostles, about one who was now
4947 gone. But John bore witness when Christ was present and seen by
4948 him; and so he says, seeing Jesus, with the eyes of his body and of
4949 his mind: &ldquo;Look on the face of your Christ&rdquo; (Ps 83:10);
4950 &ldquo;They will see eye to eye&rdquo; (Is 5 2:8).</p>
4951 <p>He says, <span style="font-weight: bold">walking,</span> to
4952 point out the mystery of the incarnation, in which the Word of God
4953 assumed a changeable nature: &ldquo;I came forth from the Father,
4954 and have come into the world,&rdquo; as it says below (16:2 8).</p>
4955 <p>283 Then he gives John&rsquo;s testimony in saying, <span style=
4956 "font-weight: bold">Look! There is the Lamb of God.</span> He says
4957 this not just to point out the power of Christ, but also in
4958 admiration of it: &ldquo;His name will be called Wonderful&rdquo;
4959 (Is 9:6). And this Lamb did possess truly wonderful power, because
4960 being slain, it killed the lion&mdash;that lion, I say, of which it
4961 says: &ldquo;Your enemy, the devil, goes about like a roaring lion,
4962 seeking whom he can devour&rdquo; (1 Pt 5:8). And so this Lamb,
4963 victorius and glorious, deserved to be called a lion: &ldquo;Look!
4964 The Lion of the tribe of Judah has conquered&rdquo; (Rv 5:5).</p>
4965 <p>The testimony he bears is brief, <span style=
4966 "font-weight: bold">Look! There is the Lamb of God.</span> It is
4967 brief both because the disciples before whom he testified had
4968 already been sufficiently instructed about Christ from the things
4969 they had heard from John, and also because this is sufficient for
4970 John&rsquo;s intention, whose only aim was to lead them to Christ.
4971 Yet he does not say, &ldquo;Go to him,&rdquo; so that the disciples
4972 would not seem to be doing Christ a favor by following him. But he
4973 does praise the grace of Christ so that they would regard it as of
4974 benefit to themselves if they followed Christ. And so he says,
4975 Look! <span style="font-weight: bold">There is the Lamb of
4976 God,</span> i.e., here is the One in whom is found the grace and
4977 the power which cleanses from sin; for the lamb was offered for
4978 sins, as we have said.</p>
4979 <p>284 The fruit of his testimony is given when he says,
4980 <span style="font-weight: bold">Hearing this, the two disciples
4981 followed Jesus.</span> First, the fruit resulting from the
4982 testimony of John and his disciples is given. Secondly, the fruit
4983 resulting from the preaching of Christ (v 43). In relation to the
4984 first: first, the fruit arising from John&rsquo;s testimony is
4985 given; secondly, the fruit coming from the preaching of one of his
4986 disciples (v 40). With respect to the first he does two things.
4987 First, he shows the very beginning of the fruit coming from
4988 John&rsquo;s testimony. Secondly, its consummation as accomplished
4989 by Christ (v 38).</p>
4990 <p>285 He says, <span style="font-weight: bold">Hearing
4991 this,</span> John saying, &ldquo;Look! There is the Lamb of
4992 God,&rdquo; <span style="font-weight: bold">the two
4993 disciples,</span> who were with him, <span style=
4994 "font-weight: bold">followed Jesus,</span> literally. going with
4995 him, First, the fact that it is John who speaks while Christ is
4996 silent, and that disciples gather to Christ through the words of
4997 John, all this points out a mystery. For Christ is the groom of the
4998 Church, and John, the friend and groomsman of the groom. Now the
4999 function of the groomsman is to present the bride to the groom, and
5000 verbally make known the agreements; the role of the groom is to be
5001 silent, from modesty, and to make arrangements for his new bride as
5002 he wills. Thus, the disciples are presented by John to Christ and
5003 espoused in faith. John speaks, Christ is silent; yet after Christ
5004 accepts them, he carefully instructs them.</p>
5005 <p>We can note, secondly, that no one was converted when John
5006 praised the dignity of Christ, saying, he &ldquo;ranks ahead of
5007 me,&rdquo; and &ldquo;I am not worthy to unfasten the strap of his
5008 sandal.&rdquo; But the disciples followed Christ when John revealed
5009 Christ&rsquo;s humility and about the mystery of the incarnation;
5010 and this is because we are more moved by Christ&rsquo;s humility
5011 and the sufferings he endured for us. So it is said: &ldquo;Your
5012 name is like oil poured out,&rdquo; i.e., mercy, by which you have
5013 obtained salvation for all; and the text immediately follows with,
5014 &ldquo;young maidens have greatly loved you&rdquo; (Sg 1:2).</p>
5015 <p>We can note, thirdly, that the words of a preacher are like seed
5016 falling on different kinds of ground: on one they bear fruit, and
5017 on another they do not. So too, John, when he preaches, does not
5018 convert all his disciples to Christ, but only two, those who were
5019 well disposed. The others are envious of Christ, and they even
5020 question him, as mentioned in Matthew (9:14).</p>
5021 <p>Fourthly, we may note that John&rsquo;s disciples, after hearing
5022 his witness to Christ, did not at once thrust themselves forward to
5023 speak with him hastily; rather, seriously and with a certain
5024 modesty, they tried to speak to Christ alone and in a private
5025 place: &ldquo;There is a time and fitness for everything&rdquo;
5026 (Ecc 8:6).</p>
5027 <p>286 The consummation of this fruit is now set forth (v 38), for
5028 what John began is completed by Christ, since &ldquo;the law
5029 brought nothing to perfection&rdquo; (Heb 7:19). And Christ does
5030 two things. First, he questions the disciples who were following
5031 him. Secondly, he teaches them (v 39). As to the first we have:
5032 first, the question of Christ is given; secondly, the answer of the
5033 disciples.</p>
5034 <p>287 He says, <span style="font-weight: bold">Jesus turned
5035 around, and seeing them following him said.</span> According to the
5036 literal sense we should understand that Christ was walking in front
5037 of them, and these two disciples, following him, did not see his
5038 face at all; and so Christ turns to them to holster their
5039 confidence. This lets us know that Christ gives confidence and hope
5040 to all who begin to follow hini with a pure heart: &ldquo;She goes
5041 to meet those who desire her&rdquo; (Wis 6:14). Now Jesus turns to
5042 us in order that we may see him; this will happen in that blessed
5043 vision when he will show us his face, as is said: &ldquo;Show us
5044 your face, and we will be saved&rdquo; (Ps 79:4). For as long as we
5045 are in this world we see his back, because it is through his
5046 effects that we acquire a knowledge of him; so it is said,
5047 &ldquo;You will see my back&rdquo; (Ex 33:23). Again, he turns to
5048 give us the riches of his mercy. This is requested in Psalm 89
5049 (13): &ldquo;Turn to us, 0 Lord.&rdquo; For as long as Christ
5050 withholds the help of his mercy he seems to be turned away from us.
5051 And so Jesus turned to the disciples of John who were following him
5052 in order to show them his face and to pour his grace upon them.</p>
5053 <p>288 Christ examines them specifically about their intention. For
5054 all who follow Christ do not have the same intention: some follow
5055 him for the sake of temporal goods, and others for spiritual goods.
5056 And so the Lord asks their intention, saying, <span style=
5057 "font-weight: bold">What are you looking for?</span>; not in order
5058 to learn their intention, but so that, after they showed a proper
5059 intention, he might make them more intimate friends and show that
5060 they are worthy to hear him.</p>
5061 <p>289 It may be remarked that these are the first words which
5062 Christ speaks in this Gospel. And this is appropriate, because the
5063 first thing that God asks of a man is a proper intention. And,
5064 according to Origen, after the six words that John had spoken,
5065 Christ spoke the seventh. The first words spoken by John were when,
5066 bearing witness to Christ, he cried out, saying, &ldquo;This is the
5067 one of whom I said.&rdquo; The second is when he said, &ldquo;I am
5068 not worthy to unfasten the strap of his sandal.&rdquo; The third
5069 is, &ldquo;I baptize with water. But there is one standing in your
5070 midst whom you do not recognize.&rdquo; The fourth is, &ldquo;Look!
5071 There is the Lamb of God.&rdquo; The fifth, &ldquo;I saw the Spirit
5072 coming down on him from heaven like a dove.&rdquo; The sixth, when
5073 he says here, &ldquo;Look! There is the Lamb of God.&rdquo; But it
5074 is Christ who speaks the seventh words so that we may understand,
5075 in a mystical sense, that rest, which is signified by the seventh
5076 day, will come to us through Christ, and that in him is found the
5077 fulness of the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit.</p>
5078 <p>290 The disciples answer; and although there was one question,
5079 they gave two answers. First, why they are following Christ,
5080 namely, to learn; thus they call him Teacher, <span style=
5081 "font-weight: bold">Rabbi (which means Teacher).</span> As if to
5082 say: We ask you to teach us. For they already knew what is stated
5083 in Matthew (23:10): &ldquo;You have one Teacher, the Christ.&rdquo;
5084 The second answer is what they want in following him, that is,
5085 <span style="font-weight: bold">Where do you live?</span> And
5086 literally, it can be said that in truth they were looking for the
5087 home of Christ. For because of the great and wonderful things they
5088 had heard about him from John, they were not satisfied with
5089 questioning him only once and in a superficial way, but wanted to
5090 do so frequently and seriously. And so they wanted to know where
5091 his home was so that they might visit him often, according to the
5092 advice of the wise man: &ldquo;If you see a man of understanding,
5093 go to him early&rdquo; (Sir 6:36), and &ldquo;Happy is the man who
5094 hears me, who watches daily at my gates&rdquo; (Prv 8:34).</p>
5095 <p>In the allegorical sense, God&rsquo;s home is in heaven,
5096 according to the Psalm (122:1 ): &ldquo;I have lifted up my eyes to
5097 you, who live in heaven.&rdquo; So they asked where Christ was
5098 living because our purpose in following him should be that Christ
5099 leads us to heaven, i.e., to heavenly glory.</p>
5100 <p>Finally, in the moral sense, they ask, <span style=
5101 "font-weight: bold">Where do you live?</span> as though desiring to
5102 learn what qualities men should possess in order to be worthy to
5103 have Christ dwell in them. Concerning this dwelling Ephesians
5104 (2:22) says: &ldquo;You are being built into a dwelling place for
5105 God.&rdquo; And the Song (1:6) says: &ldquo;Show me, you whom my
5106 soul loves, where you graze your flock, where you rest at
5107 midday.&rdquo;</p>
5108 <p>291 Then when he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">Come
5109 and</span> see, Christ&rsquo;s instruction of the disciples is
5110 given. First we have the instruction of the disciples by Christ;
5111 secondly, their obedience is cited; and thirdly, the time is
5112 given.</p>
5113 <p>292 First he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">Come and
5114 see,</span> that is, where I live. There is a difficulty here: for
5115 since the Lord says, &ldquo;The Son of Man does not have any place
5116 to lay his head&rdquo; (Mt 8:20), why does he tell them to
5117 <span style="font-weight: bold">Come and see</span> where he lives?
5118 I answer, according to Chrysostom, that when the Lord says,
5119 &ldquo;The Son of Man does not have any place to lay his
5120 head,&rdquo; he showed that he had no home of his own, but not that
5121 he did not remain in someone else&rsquo;s home. And such was the
5122 home he invited them to see, saying, <span style=
5123 "font-weight: bold">Come and see.</span></p>
5124 <p>In the mystical sense, he says, <span style=
5125 "font-weight: bold">Come and see,</span> because the dwelling of
5126 God, whether of glory or grace, cannot be known except by
5127 experience: for it cannot be explained in words: &ldquo;I will give
5128 him a white stone upon which is written a new name, which no one
5129 knows but he who receives it&rdquo; (Rv 2:17). And so he says,
5130 <span style="font-weight: bold">Come and see: Come</span>, by
5131 believing and working; <span style="font-weight: bold">and
5132 see,</span> by experiencing and understanding.</p>
5133 <p>293 It should be noted that we can attain to this knowledge in
5134 four ways. First, by doing good works; so he says, Come:
5135 &ldquo;When shall I come and appear before the face of God&rdquo;
5136 (Ps 41:3). Secondly, by the rest or stillness of the mind:
5137 &ldquo;Be still and see&rdquo; (Ps 45:10). Thirdly, by tasting the
5138 divine sweetness: &ldquo;Taste and see that the I.ord is
5139 sweet&rdquo; O&rsquo;s 33:9). Fourthly, by acts of devotion:
5140 &ldquo;Let us lift up our hearts and hands in prayer&rdquo; (Lam
5141 3:41). And so the Lord says: &ldquo;it is I myself. Feel and
5142 see&rdquo; (Lk 24:39).</p>
5143 <p>294 Next the obedience of the disciples is mentioned; for
5144 immediately <span style="font-weight: bold">they went and
5145 saw,</span> because by coming they saw him, and seeing they did not
5146 leave him. Thus it says, <span style="font-weight: bold">and they
5147 stayed with him the rest of that day,</span> for as stated below
5148 (6:45): &ldquo;Every one who hears the Father, and has learned,
5149 comes to me.&rdquo; For those who leave Christ have not yet seen
5150 him as they should. But those who have seen him by perfectly
5151 believing <span style="font-weight: bold">stayed with him the rest
5152 of that day;</span> hearing and seeing that blessed day, they spent
5153 a blessed night: &ldquo;Happy are your men, and happy are your
5154 servants, who always stand before you&rdquo; (1 Kgs 8:10). And as
5155 Augustine says: &ldquo;Let us also build a dwelling in our heart
5156 and fashion a home where he may come and teach us.&rdquo;</p>
5157 <p>And he says, that day, because there can be no night where the
5158 light of Christ is present, where there is the Sun of justice.</p>
5159 <p>295 The time is given when he says, <span style=
5160 "font-weight: bold">It was about the tenth hour.</span> The
5161 Evangelist mentions this in order that, considering the literal
5162 sense, he might give credit to Christ and the disciples. For the
5163 tenth hour is near the end of the day. And this praises Christ who
5164 was so eager to teach that not even the lateness of the hour
5165 induced him to postpone teaching them; but he taught them at the
5166 tenth hour. &ldquo;In the morning sow your seed, and in the evening
5167 do not let your hands be idle&rdquo; (Ecc 11:6).</p>
5168 <p>296 The moderation of the disciples is also praised, because
5169 even at the tenth hour, when men usually have eaten and are less
5170 self-possessed for receiving wisdom, they were both self-possessed
5171 and prepared to hear wisdom and were not hindered because of food
5172 or wine. But this is not unexpected, for they had been disciples of
5173 John, whose drink was water and whose food was the locust and wild
5174 honey.</p>
5175 <p>297 According to Augustine, however, the tenth hour signifies
5176 the law, which was given in ten precepts. And so the disciples came
5177 to Christ at the tenth hour and remained with him to be taught so
5178 that the law might be fulfilled by Christ, since it could not be
5179 fulfilled by the Jews. And so at that hour he is called Rabbi, that
5180 is, Teacher.</p>
5181 <p>298 Then (v 40), he sets forth the fruit produced by the
5182 disciple of John who was converted to Christ. First, the disciple
5183 is described; secondly, the fruit begun by him (v 41); thirdly, the
5184 consummation of this fruit by Christ (v 42).</p>
5185 <p>299 The disciple is described by name when he says, <span style=
5186 "font-weight: bold">Andrew,</span> i.e., &ldquo;manly&rdquo;.
5187 &ldquo;Act manfully, and let Your heart be strong,&rdquo; as it
5188 says in Psalm 30 (v 25). he mentions his name in order to show his
5189 privilege: he was not only the first to be perfectly converted to
5190 Christ, but he also preached Christ. So, as Stephen was the first
5191 martyr after Christ, so Andrew was the first Christian.</p>
5192 <p>He is described, secondly, by his relationship, that is, as
5193 <span style="font-weight: bold">Simon Peter&rsquo;s brother,</span>
5194 for he was the younger. And this is mentioned to commend him, for
5195 although younger in age, he became first in faith.</p>
5196 <p>He is described, thirdly, by his discipleship, because he was
5197 <span style="font-weight: bold">one of the two who had followed
5198 him.</span> His name is mentioned in order to show that
5199 Andrew&rsquo;s privilege was remarkable. For the name of the other
5200 disciple is not mentioned: either because it was John the
5201 Evangelist himself, who through humility followed the practice in
5202 his Gospel of not mentioning his own name when he was involved in
5203 some event; or, according to Chrysostom, because the other one was
5204 not a notable person, nor had he done anything great, and so there
5205 was no need to mention his name. Luke does the same in his Gospel
5206 (10:1), where he does not mention the names of the seventy-two
5207 disciples sent out by the Lord, because they were not the
5208 outstanding and important persons that the apostles were. Or,
5209 according to Alcuin, this other disciple was Philip: for the
5210 Evangelist, after discussing Andrew, begins at once with Philip,
5211 saying: &ldquo;On the following day Jesus wanted to go to Galilee,
5212 and coming upon Philip&rdquo; (below 1:43).</p>
5213 <p>He is commended, fourthly, for the zeal of his devotion; hence
5214 he says that Andrew followed him, i.e., Jesus: &ldquo;My foot has
5215 followed in his steps&rdquo; (Jb 23:11).</p>
5216 <p>300 The fruit begun by Andrew is mentioned when he says,
5217 <span style="font-weight: bold">The first thing he did was to look
5218 for his brother Simon.</span> He first mentions the one for whom he
5219 bore fruit, that is, his brother, in order to mark the perfection
5220 of his conversion. For as Peter says, in the <i>Itinerary of
5221 Clement,</i> the evident sign of a perfect conversion of anyone is
5222 that, once converted, the closer one is to him the more he tries to
5223 convert him to Christ. And so Andrew, being now perfectly
5224 converted, does not keep the treasure he found to himself, but
5225 hurries and quickly runs to his brother to share with him the good
5226 things he has received. And so he says the <span style=
5227 "font-weight: bold">first thing he,</span> that is, Andrew,
5228 <span style="font-weight: bold">did was to look for his brother
5229 Simon</span>, so that related in blood he might make him related in
5230 faith: &ldquo;A brother that is helped by his brother is like a
5231 strong city&rdquo; (Prv 18:19); &ldquo;Let him who hears say,
5232 &lsquo;Come&rsquo; &ldquo; (Rv 22:17).</p>
5233 <p>301 Secondly, he mentions the words spoken by Andrew,
5234 <span style="font-weight: bold">We have found the Messiah (which
5235 means the Christ).</span> Here, according to Chrysostom, he is
5236 tacitly answering a certain question: namely, that if someone were
5237 to ask what they had been instructed about by Christ, they would
5238 have the ready answer that through the testimony of the Scriptures
5239 he instructed him in such a way that he knew he was the Christ. And
5240 so he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">We have found the
5241 Messiah.</span> He implies by this that he had previously sought
5242 him by desire for a long time: &ldquo;Happy is the man who finds
5243 wisdom&rdquo; (Prv 3:13).</p>
5244 <p>&ldquo;Messiah,&rdquo; which is Hebrew, is translated as
5245 &ldquo;Christos&rdquo; in Greek, and in Latin as
5246 &ldquo;Unctus&rdquo; (anointed), because he was anointed in a
5247 special way with invisible oil, the oil of the Holy Spirit. So
5248 Andrew explicitly designates him by this title: &ldquo;Your God has
5249 anointed you with the oil of gladness above your fellows,&rdquo;
5250 i.e., above all the saints. For all the saints are anointed with
5251 that oil, but Christ was singularly anointed and is singularly
5252 holy. So, as Chrysostom says, he does not simply call him
5253 &ldquo;Messiah,&rdquo; but <span style="font-weight: bold">the
2486 Messiah.</span></p> 5254 Messiah.</span></p>
2487 <p>228 The second question is stated when they ask him, <span style="font-weight: bold">Who then? Are you Elijah? </span>Here we 5255 <p>302 Thirdly, he mentions the fruit he produced, because
2488 should note that just as the Jews awaited the Lord who was to come, so to they waited for 5256 <span style="font-weight: bold">he brought him,</span> that is,
2489 Elijah, who would precede the Messiah: &#8220;I will send you Elijah, the prophet&#8221; (Mal 4:5). And 5257 <span style="font-weight: bold">Peter, to Jesus.</span> This gives
2490 so those who were sent, seeing that John did not say that he was the Messiah, pressed him 5258 recognition to Peter&rsquo;s obedience, for he came at once,
2491 that at least he state if he were Elijah. And this is what they ask: <span style="font-weight: bold">Who then? Are you Elijah?</span></p> 5259 without delay. And consider the devotion of Andrew: for he brought
2492 <p>229 There are certain heretics who say that souls migrate from one body to another. And this 5260 him to Jesus and not to himself (for he knew that he himself was
2493 belief was current among the Jews of that time. For this reason they believed that the soul of 5261 weak); and so he leads him to Christ to be instructed by him. This
2494 Elijah was in John&#8217;s body, because of the similarity of John&#8217;s actions to those of Elijah. And 5262 shows us that the efforts and the aim of preachers should not be to
2495 they say that these messengers asked John whether he was Elijah, i.e., whether the soul of 5263 win for themselves the fruits of their preaching, i.e., to turn
2496 Elijah was in John. They support this with Christ&#8217;s statement, &#8220;He is Elijah who is to come,&#8221; 5264 them to their own private benefit and honor, but to bring them to
2497 as is found in Matthew (11:14). But John&#8217;s answer conflicts with their opinion, as he says, I 5265 Jesus, i.e., to refer them to his glory and honor: &ldquo;What we
2498 am not. i.e., Elijah.</p> 5266 preach is not ourselves, but Jesus Christ,&rdquo; as is said in 2
2499 <p>They counter this by saying that John answered in ignorance, not knowing whether his soul 5267 Corinthians (4:5).</p>
2500 was the soul of Elijah. But Origen says in answer to this that it seems most unreasonable that 5268 <p>303 The consummation of this fruit is given when he says,
2501 John, a prophet enlightened by the Spirit, and telling such things about the Only Begotten Son 5269 <span style="font-weight: bold">Looking at him intently Jesus
2502 of God, should be ignorant of himself, and not know whether his soul had been in Elijah.</p> 5270 said.</span> Here Christ, wishing to raise him up to faith in His
2503 <p>230 So this was not the reason John was asked, <span style="font-weight: bold">Are you Elijah? </span>Rather it was because they 5271 divinity, begins to perform works of divinity, making know things
2504 took it from Scripture (2 Kings 2:11) that Elijah did not die, but had been carried alive by a 5272 that are hidden. First of all, things which are hidden in the
2505 whirlwind into heaven. Accordingly, they believed that he had suddenly appeared among 5273 present: so <span style="font-weight: bold">looking at him,</span>
2506 them.</p> 5274 i.e, as soon as Jesus saw him, he considered him by the power of
2507 <p>But against this opinion is the fact that John was born from parents who were known, and his 5275 his divinity and called him by name, saying, <span style=
2508 birth had been known to everyone. So it says in Luke (1:66) that all said, &#8220;What do you think 5276 "font-weight: bold">You are Simon.</span> This is not surprising,
2509 this child will be?&#8221; One might say to this that it is not incredible that they should regard John 5277 for as it is said: &ldquo;Man sees the appearances, but the Lord
2510 in the manner described. For a similar situation in found in Matthew (14:1): for Herod 5278 sees the heart&rdquo; (I Sm 16:7). This name is appropriate for the
2511 thought that Christ was John, whom he had beheaded, even though Christ had been preaching 5279 mystery. For &ldquo;Simon&rdquo; means &ldquo;obedient,&rdquo; to
2512 and was known for some time before John had been beheaded. And so from a similar 5280 indicate that obedience is necessary for one who has been converted
2513 stupidity and madness the Jews asked John whether he was Elijah.</p> 5281 to Christ through faith: &ldquo;He gives the Holy Spirit to all who
2514 <p>231 Why does John say, I am not Elijah, while Christ said, &#8220;He is Elijah&#8221; (Mt 11:14). The 5282 obey him&rdquo; (Acts 5:32).</p>
2515 angel gives us the answer: &#8220;He will go before him in the spirit and power of Elijah&#8221; (Lk 5283 <p>304 Secondly, he reveals things hidden in the past. Hence he
2516 1:17), i.e., in his works. Thus he was not Elijah in person, but in spirit and power, i.e., 5284 says, son of John, because that was the name of Simon&rsquo;s
2517 because he showed a similarity to Elijah in his works.</p> 5285 father; or he says, &ldquo;son of Jonah,&rdquo; as we find in
2518 <p>232 This likeness can be found in three matters. First, in their office: because as Elijah will 5286 Matthew (16:17), &ldquo;Simon Bar-Jonah.&rdquo; And each name is
2519 precede the second coming of Christ, so John preceded the first. Thus the angel said, &#8220;He will 5287 appropriate to this mystery. For &ldquo;John&rdquo; means
2520 go before him.&#8221; Secondly, in their manner of living. For Elijah lived in desert places, ate little 5288 &ldquo;grace,&rdquo; to indicate that it is through grace that men
2521 food and wore coarse clothing, as recorded in 1 and 2 Kings. John, also, lived in the desert, 5289 come to the faith of Christ: &ldquo;You are saved by his
2522 his food was locusts and wild honey, and he wore clothing of camel&#8217;s hair. Thirdly, in their 5290 grace&rdquo; (Eph 2:5). And &ldquo;Jonah&rdquo; means
2523 zeal. For Elijah was filled with zeal; thus it was said, &#8220;I have been very zealous for the Lord&#8221; 5291 &ldquo;dove,&rdquo; to indicate that it is by the Holy Spirit, who
2524 (1 Kgs 19:10). So, also, John died because of his zeal for the truth, as is clear from Matthew 5292 has been given to us, that we are made strong in our love for God:
2525 (14:6)</p> 5293 &ldquo;The love of God is poured out into our hearts by the Holy
2526 <p>233 Then when he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">Are you the Prophet? </span>the third question is presented. Here there is a 5294 Spirit&rdquo; (Rom 5:5).</p>
2527 difficulty, for since it is said in Luke (1:76), &#8220;And you, child, shall be called the prophet of 5295 <p>305 Thirdly, he reveals things hidden in the future. So he says,
2528 the Most High,&#8221; why does John, when asked if he is a prophet, answer that he is not a 5296 <span style="font-weight: bold">you are to be called Cephas (which
2529 prophet?</p> 5297 is translated Peter),</span> and in Greek, &ldquo;head.&rdquo; And
2530 <p>There are three ways of answering this. One is that John is not just a prophet, but more than a 5298 this is appropriate to this mystery, which is that he who was to be
2531 prophet. For the other prophets only predicted future things from afar: &#8220;if there is a delay, 5299 the head of the others and the vicar of Christ should remain firm.
2532 wait for it&#8221; (Hb 2:2).. But John proclaimed that the Messiah was present, pointing him out 5300 As Matthew (16:18) says: &ldquo;You are Peter, and upon this rock I
2533 with his finger: &#8220;Look, there is the Lamb of God,&#8221; as it says below (1:36). And so the Lord 5301 will build my church.&rdquo;</p>
2534 says that he is more than a prophet (Mt 11:9).</p> 5302 <p>306 There is a question here about the literal meaning. First,
2535 <p>Again, in another way, according to Origen, because through a misunderstanding the Jews 5303 why did Christ give Simon a name at the beginning of his
2536 associated three great personages with the coming of Christ: Christ himself, Elijah, and some 5304 conversion, rather than will that he have this name from the time
2537 other person, the greatest of the prophets, about whom Deuteronomy (18:15) says: &#8220;The Lord 5305 of his birth? Two different answers have been given for this. The
2538 your God will raise up a prophet for you.&#8221; And although this greatest of the prophets is in fact 5306 first, according to Chrysostom, is that divinely given names
2539 none other than Christ, according to the Jews he is someone other than Christ. And so they do 5307 indicate a certain eminence in spiritual grace. Now when God
2540 not ask simply whether he is a prophet, but whether he is that &#8220;greatest of the prophets.&#8221; And 5308 confers a special grace upon anyone, the name indicating that grace
2541 this is clear from the order of their questions. For they first ask whether he is the Messiah; 5309 is given at one&rsquo;s birth: as in the case of John the Baptist,
2542 secondly, whether he is Elijah; thirdly, whether he is that prophet. Accordingly, in Greek, the 5310 who was named before he was born, because he had been sanctified in
2543 article is used here as signifying <i>the </i>prophet, as it were, antonomastically.</p> 5311 his mother&rsquo;s womb. But sometimes a special grace is given
2544 <p>In a third way, because the Pharisees were indignant at John for assuming the office of 5312 during the course of one&rsquo;s life: then such names are divinely
2545 baptizing outside the order of the law and their tradition. For the Old Testament mentions 5313 given at that time and not at birth: as in the case of Abraham and
2546 three persons to whom this office could belong. First, to the Messiah, since &#8220;I will pour clean 5314 Sarah, whose names were changed when they received the promise that
2547 water upon you, and you will be cleansed&#8221; (Ez 36:25), are words considered as spoken by the 5315 their posterity would multiply. Likewise, Peter is named in a
2548 person of the Messiah. Secondly, to Elijah, of whom it says in 2 Kings that he divided the 5316 divine way when he is called to the faith of Christ and to the
2549 water of the Jordan, and crossing over, was taken up. Finally, to Elisha, who made Naaman 5317 grace of apostleship, and particularly because he was appointed
2550 the Syrian wash seven times in the Jordan so as to be cured of leprosy, as mentioned in 2 5318 Prince of the apostles of the entire Church&mdash;which was not
2551 Kings (c 5). And so when the Jews saw that John was baptizing, they believed that he was 5319 done with the other apostles.</p>
2552 one of those three: the Messiah, or Elijah, or Elisha. Accordingly, when they ask here, <span style="font-weight: bold">Are 5320 <p>But, according to Augustine, if he had been called Cephas from
2553 you the Prophet? </span>they are asking whether he is Elisha, who is called &#8220;prophet&#8221; in a special 5321 birth, this mystery would not have been apparent. And so the Lord
2554 way because of the many miracles he had performed; hence he himself says, &#8220;Let him come 5322 willed that he should have one name at birth, so that by changing
2555 to me, so that he may know that there is a prophet in Israel&#8221; (2 Kgs 5:8). And to this John 5323 his name the mystery of the Church, which was built on his
2556 answers, No, I am not Elisha.</p> 5324 confession of faith, would be apparent. Now &ldquo;Peter&rdquo;
2557 <p>234 Then he shows how he declared who he was. First, the question of the messengers is 5325 (<i>Petrus</i>) is derived from &ldquo;rock&rdquo; (<i>petra</i>).
2558 given; secondly, his answer (v 23).</p> 5326 But the rock. was Christ. Thus, the name &ldquo;Peter&rdquo;
2559 <p>235 They said, <span style="font-weight: bold">Who are you? We must take back an answer to those who sent us. </span>As if to 5327 signifies the Church, which was built upon that solid and immovable
2560 say: We were sent to learn who you are; so tell us, <span style="font-weight: bold">What have you to say about yourself?</span></p> 5328 rock which is Christ.</p>
2561 <p>Notice John&#8217;s devotion. He has already fulfilled what the Apostle says, &#8220;It is not I who now 5329 <p>307 The second question is whether this name was given to Peter
2562 live, but Christ lives in me&#8221; (Gal 2:20). And so he does not answer, &#8220;I am the son of 5330 at this time, or at the time mentioned by Matthew (16:18).
2563 Zachary,&#8221; or this or that, but only the way in which he followed Christ.</p> 5331 Augustine answers that this name was given to Simon at this time;
2564 <p>236 So he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">I am a voice that cries in the wilderness. </span>And he says that he is a voice 5332 and at the event reported by Matthew the Lord is not giving this
2565 because from the point of view of origin, a voice comes after the [mental, interior] word, but 5333 name but reminding him of the name that was given, so that Christ
2566 before the knowledge it causes. For we know a [mental, interior] word conceived in the heart 5334 is using this name as already given. But others think that this
2567 by means of the voice which speaks it, since it is its sign. But God the Father sent the 5335 name was given when the Lord said, &ldquo;You are Peter, and upon
2568 precursor John, who came to be in time, in order to make known his Word, which was 5336 this rock I will build my church&rdquo; (Mt 16:18); and in this
2569 conceived from eternity. And so he fittingly says, <span style="font-weight: bold">I am a voice.</span></p> 5337 passage in the Gospel of John, Christ is not giving this name, but
2570 <p>237 The addition, <span style="font-weight: bold">that cries, </span>can be understood in two ways: as referring to John, crying and 5338 foretelling what will be given later.</p>
2571 preaching in the wilderness; or to Christ crying in him, according to, &#8220;Do you want proof that 5339 <p>308 The third question is about the calling of Peter and Andrew:
2572 Christ is speaking in me&#8221; (2 Cor 13:3).</p> 5340 for here it says that they were called near the Jordan, because
2573 <p>Now he cries for four reasons. First of all, a cry implies a showing; and so he cries in order to 5341 they were John&rsquo;s disciples; but in Matthew (4:18) it says
2574 show that Christ is clearly speaking in John and in himself: &#8220;Now on the last, the great day of 5342 that Christ called them by the Sea of Galilee. The answer to this
2575 the feast, Jesus stood and cried out, saying, &#8216;If any one thirsts, let him come to me and drink&#8217;&#8221; 5343 is that there was a triple calling of the apostles. The first was a
2576 (below 7:37). But he did not cry out in the prophets because prophecies were given in 5344 call to knowledge or friendship and faith; and this is the one
2577 enigmas and figures; so it is said that he was &#8220;wrapped in dark rain-clouds&#8221; (Ps 17:12). 5345 recorded here. The second consisted in the prediction of their
2578 Secondly, because a cry is made to those who are at a distance; and the Jews were far from 5346 office: &ldquo;From now on you will be catching men&rdquo; (Lk
2579 God. Thus it was necessary that he cry: &#8220;You have taken my friends and neighbors away from 5347 5:10). The third call was to their apostleship, which is mentioned
2580 me&#8221; (Ps 88:19). He cries, in the third place, because they were deaf: &#8220;Who is deaf, but my 5348 by Matthew (4:18). This was the perfect call because after this
2581 servant?&#8221; (Is 42:19). He cries, fourthly, because he speaks with indignation, for they deserved 5349 they were not to return to their own pursuits.</p>
2582 God&#8217;s wrath: &#8220;He will speak to them in his anger&#8221; (Ps 2:5).</p> 5350 <p style="margin-bottom: 0.125in; margin-bottom: 0.125in">
2583 <p>238 Note that he cries <span style="font-weight: bold">in the wilderness, </span>because &#8220;The word of the Lord came to John, the 5351 &nbsp;</p>
2584 son of Zechariah, in the desert,&#8221; as we read in Luke (3:2). There can be both a literal and a 5352 <p style="text-align: center; margin-bottom: 0.125in"><span style=
2585 mystical reason for this. The literal reason is that by living in the desert he would be immune 5353 "font-weight: bold">LECTURE16</span></p>
2586 from all sin, and so be more worthy to bear witness to Christ, and his testimony would be 5354 <blockquote>
2587 more credible to men because of his life.</p> 5355 <p>43 On the following day Jesus wanted to go to Galilee, and
2588 <p>The mystical reason is twofold. For the wilderness or desert designates paganism, according 5356 coming upon Philip, he said, &ldquo;Follow me.&rdquo; 44 Now Philip
2589 to Isaiah (54:1); &#8220;She who is deserted has more children than she who has a husband.&#8221; 5357 came from Bethsaida, the same town as Andrew and Peter. 45 Philip
2590 Accordingly, in order to show that God&#8217;s teaching would from now on not be in Jerusalem 5358 sought out Nathanael, and said to him, &ldquo;We have found the one
2591 alone, but also among the pagans, he cried <span style="font-weight: bold">in the wilderness. </span>&#8220;The kingdom of God will be 5359 Moses spoke of in the law - the prophets too - Jesus, son of
2592 taken away from you, and given to a people that will produce its fruits&#8221; (Mt 21:43). Again, 5360 Joseph, from Nazareth.&rdquo; 46 &ldquo;From Nazareth!&rdquo;
2593 the desert can indicate Judea, which was already deserted: &#8220;Your house will be left to You, 5361 Nathanael replied, &ldquo;What good can come from th1t
2594 deserted&#8221; (Mt 23:38). And so he cried in the desert, <span style="font-weight: bold">in the wilderness, </span>i.e., in Judea, to 5362 place?&rdquo; Philip said, &ldquo;Come and see.&rdquo; 47 When
2595 indicate that the people to whom he was preaching had already been deserted by God: &#8220;in a 5363 Jesus saw Nathanael coming toward him, he said of him: &ldquo;Here
2596 desert land, where there is no way or water, so I have come to your sanctuary&#8221; (Ps 62:3).</p> 5364 is a true Israelite, in whom there is no guile.&rdquo; 48 Nathanael
2597 <p>239 Why does he cry, <span style="font-weight: bold">Make a straight way for the Lord? </span>Because this is the task for which 5365 asked him, &ldquo;How do you know me?&rdquo; Jesus replied and
2598 he was sent. &#8220;And you, child, will be called the prophet of the Most High, for you will go 5366 said, &ldquo;Before Philip called you, I saw you when you were
2599 before the face of the Lord to prepare his way&#8221; (Lk 1:76). The way, prepared and straight, for 5367 sitting under the fig tree.&rdquo; 49 &ldquo;Rabbi,&rdquo; said
2600 receiving the Lord is the way of justice, according to Isaiah (26:7): &#8220;The way of the just is 5368 Nathanael, &ldquo;you are the Son of God; you are the King of
2601 straight.&#8221; For the way of the just is straight when the whole man is subject to God, i.e., the 5369 Israel.&rdquo; 50 Jesus responded and said, &ldquo;You believed
2602 intellect through faith, the will through love, and actions through obedience, are all subject to 5370 just because I said to you that I saw you sitting under the fig
2603 God.</p> 5371 tree! You will see greater things than this.&rdquo; 51 He went on
2604 <p>And this was spoken, i.e., predicted, by <span style="font-weight: bold">the prophet Isaiah. </span>As if to say: I am the one in 5372 to say, &ldquo;Amen, amen, I say to you, you will see the heavens
2605 whom these things are fulfilled.</p> 5373 opened and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of
2606 <p style="margin-bottom: 0.125in; margin-bottom: 0.125in">&#160;</p> 5374 Man.&rdquo;</p>
2607 <p style="text-align: center; margin-bottom: 0.125in"><span style="font-weight: bold">LECTURE13</span></p> 5375 </blockquote>
2608 <BLOCKQUOTE><p>24 Now these men had been sent from the Pharisees, 25 and they put this further question to 5376 <p>309 After having shown the fruit produced by John&rsquo;s
2609 him: &#8220;Why then do you baptize, if you are not the Messiah, nor Elijah, nor the Prophet?&#8221; 26 5377 preaching and that of his disciples, the Evangelist now shows the
2610 John replied, &#8220;I baptize with water. But there is one standing in your midst whom you do not 5378 fruit obtained from the preaching of Christ. First, he deals with
2611 recognize&#8212;27 the one who is to come after me, who ranks ahead of me&#8212;the strap of whose 5379 the conversion of one disciple as the result of Christ&rsquo;s
2612 sandal I am not worthy to unfasten.&#8221; 28 This happened at Bethany, on the far side of the 5380 preaching. Secondly, the conversion of others due to the preaching
2613 Jordan, where John was baptizing.</p></BLOCKQUOTE> 5381 of the disciple just converted to Christ (v 45). As to the first he
2614 <p>240 Above, we saw John bear witness to Christ as he was being questioned on matters 5382 does three things: first, the occasion when the disciple is called
2615 concerning himself; here, on matters concerning his office. Four things are set forth: first, 5383 is given; secondly, his calling is described; thirdly, his
2616 those who question him; secondly, their questions; thirdly, his answer, in which he bore 5384 situation.</p>
2617 witness; and fourthly, the place where all this happened.</p> 5385 <p>310 The occasion of his calling was the departure of Jesus from
2618 <p>241 His interrogators were Pharisees. Hence he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">Now these men had been sent from 5386 Judea. So he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">On the following
2619 the Pharisees. </span>According to Origen, what is being said from this point on describes a 5387 day Jesus wanted to go to Galilee, and coming upon Philip.</span>
2620 different testimony given by John; and further, those who were sent from the Pharisees are 5388 There are three reasons why Jesus left for Galilee, two of which
2621 not the same as those priests and Levites sent by the generality of the Jews, but others who 5389 are literal. One of these is that after being baptized by John and
2622 were specifically sent by the Pharisees. And according to this it says: <span style="font-weight: bold">Now these men had 5390 desiring to shed honor on the Baptist, he left Judea for Galilee so
2623 been sent, </span>not by the Jews, as the priests and Levites had been, but were others, <span style="font-weight: bold">from the 5391 that his presence would not obscure and lessen John&rsquo;s
2624 Pharisees. </span>So he says about this that because the priests and Levites were educated and 5392 teaching authority (while he still retained that state); and this
2625 respectful, they ask John humbly and respectfully whether he is the Messiah, or Elijah, or the 5393 teaches us to show honor to one another, as is said in Romans
2626 Prophet. But these others, who were from the Pharisees, according to their name &#8220;separated&#8221; 5394 (12:10).</p>
2627 and importunate, used disdainful language. Thus they asked him, <span style="font-weight: bold">Why then do you baptize, 5395 <p>The second reason is that there are no distinguished persons in
2628 if you are not the Messiah, nor Elijah, nor the Prophet?</span></p> 5396 Galilee: &ldquo;No prophet is to rise from Galilee&rdquo; (below
2629 <p>But according to others, such as Gregory, Chrysostom, and Augustine, these Pharisees are the 5397 7:52). And so, to show the greatness of his power, Christ wished to
2630 same priests and Levites who had been sent by the Jews. For there was among the Jews a 5398 go there and choose there the princes of the earth, who are greater
2631 certain sect which was separated from the others by reason of its external cult; and for this 5399 than the prophets: &ldquo;He has turned the desert into pools of
2632 reason its members were called Pharisees, i.e., &#8220;divided.&#8221; In this sect there were some priests 5400 water,&rdquo; as we read in Psalm 106 (v 35).</p>
2633 and Levites, and some of the people. And so, in order that the delegates [to John] might 5401 <p>The third reason is mystical: for &ldquo;Galilee&rdquo; means
2634 possess a greater authority, they sent priests and Levites, who were Pharisees, thus furnishing 5402 &ldquo;passage.&rdquo; So Christ desired to go from Judea into
2635 them with the dignity of a priestly caste and with religious authority.</p> 5403 Galilee in order to indicate that on &ldquo;on the following
2636 <p>242 The Evangelist adds, <span style="font-weight: bold">these men had been sent from the Pharisees, </span>to disclose, first, the 5404 day,&rdquo; i.e., on the day of grace, that is, the day of the Good
2637 reason why they asked about John&#8217;s baptizing, which was not why they were sent. It is as 5405 News, he would pass from Judea into Galilee, i.e., to save the
2638 though he were saying: They were sent to ask John who he was. But they asked, <span style="font-weight: bold">Why do you 5406 Gentiles: &ldquo;Is he going to go to those who are dispersed among
2639 baptize? </span>because they were from the Pharisees, whose religion was being challenged. 5407 the Gentiles, and teach the Gentiles?&rdquo; (below 7:35).</p>
2640 Secondly, as Gregory says, in order to show with what intention they asked John, &#8220;Who are 5408 <p>311 A disciple&rsquo;s vocation is to follow: hence he says that
2641 you?&#8221; (1:19). For the Pharisees, more than all the others, showed themselves crafty and 5409 after Christ found Philip he said, <span style=
2642 insulting to Christ. Thus they said of him: &#8220;He casts out devils by Beelzebub, the prince of 5410 "font-weight: bold">Follow me.</span> Note that sometimes man finds
2643 devils&#8221; (Mt 12:24). Further, they consulted with the Herodians on how to trap Jesus in his 5411 God, but without knowing it, as it were: &ldquo;He who finds me
2644 speech (Mt 22:15). And so in saying that <span style="font-weight: bold">these men had been sent from the Pharisees, </span>he 5412 will find life, and will have salvation from the Lord&rdquo; (Prv
2645 shows that they were disrespectful and were questioning him out of envy.</p> 5413 8:35). And at other times God finds the man, in order to bestow
2646 <p>243 Their questions concerned his office of baptizing. Hence he says that they asked him, 5414 honor and greatness upon him: &ldquo;I have found David, my
2647 <span style="font-weight: bold">Why then do you baptize? </span>Here we should note that they are asking not to learn, but to 5415 servant&rdquo; (Ps 88:2 1 ). Christ found Philip in this way, that
2648 obstruct. For since they saw many people coming to John because of the new rite of baptism, 5416 is, to call him to the faith and to grace. And so he says at once,
2649 foreign both to the rite of the Pharisees and of the law, they became envious of John and tried 5417 <span style="font-weight: bold">Follow me.</span></p>
2650 all they could to hinder his baptism. But being unable to contain themselves any longer, they 5418 <p>312 There is a question here: Why did not Jesus call his
2651 reveal their envy and say, <span style="font-weight: bold">Why then do you baptize if you are not the Messiah, nor Elijah, 5419 disciples at the very beginning? Chrysostorn answers that he did
2652 nor the Prophet? </span>As if to say: You should not baptize, since you deny that you are any of 5420 not wish to call anyone before someone clung to him spontaneoulsy
2653 those three persons in whom baptism was prefigured, as was said above. In other words, <span style="font-weight: bold">if 5421 because of John&rsquo;s preaching, for men are drawn by example
2654 you are not the Messiah, </span>who will possess the fountain by which sins are washed away, <span style="font-weight: bold">nor 5422 more than by words.</p>
2655 Elijah, nor the Prophet, </span>i.e., Elisha, who made a dry passageway through the Jordan (2 Kgs 5423 <p>313 One might also ask why Philip followed Christ immediately
2656 2:8), how do you dare baptize&#8217;? They are like envious persons who hinder the progress of 5424 after only a word, while Andrew followed Christ after hearing about
2657 souls, &#8220;who say to the seers, &#8216;See no visions&#8217;&#8221; (Is 30:10).</p> 5425 him from John, and Peter after hearing from Andrew.</p>
2658 <p>244 His answer is true: and so he says that John answered, <span style="font-weight: bold">I baptize with water. </span>As if to say: 5426 <p>Three answers can be given. One is that Philip had already been
2659 You should not be disturbed, if I, who am not the Messiah, nor Elijah, nor the Prophet, 5427 instructed by John: for according to one of the explanations given
2660 baptize; because my baptism is not completive but imperfect. For the perfection of baptism 5428 above, Philip was that other disciple who followed Christ along
2661 requires the washing of the body and of the soul; and the body, by its nature, is indeed washed 5429 with Andrew. Another is that Christ&rsquo;s voice had power not
2662 by water, but the soul is washed by the Spirit alone. So, <span style="font-weight: bold">I baptize with water, </span>i.e., I wash the 5430 only to act on one&rsquo;s hearing from without, but also on the
2663 body with something bodily; but another will come who will baptize perfectly, namely, with 5431 heart from within: &ldquo;My words are like fire&rdquo; (Jer
2664 water and with the Holy Spirit; God and man, who will wash the body with water and the 5432 23:29). For the voice of Christ was spoken not only to the
2665 spirit with the Spirit, in such a way that the sanctification of the spirit will be distributed 5433 exterior, but it enkindled the interior of the faithful to love
2666 throughout the body. &#8220;For John indeed baptized with water but you will be baptized with the 5434 him. The third answer is that Philip. had perhaps already been
2667 Holy Spirit not many days from now&#8221; (Acts 1:5).</p> 5435 instructed about Christ by Andrew and Peter, since they were from
2668 <p>245 Then he bears witness to Christ. First, in relation to the Jews. Secondly, in relation to 5436 the same town. In fact, this is what the Evangelist seems to imply
2669 himself (v 27).</p> 5437 by adding, <span style="font-weight: bold">Now Philip came from
2670 <p>246 He relates him to the Jews when he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">But there is one standing in your midst. </span>As if 5438 Bethsaida, the same town as Andrew and Peter.</span></p>
2671 to say: I have done an incomplete work, but there is another who will complete my work, and 5439 <p>314 This gives us the situation of the disciples he called: for
2672 he is <span style="font-weight: bold">standing in your midst.</span></p> 5440 they were from Bethsaida. And this is appropriate to this mystery.
2673 <p>This is explained in a number of ways. First, according to Gregory, Chrysostom and 5441 For &ldquo;Bethsaida&rdquo; means &ldquo;house of hunters,&rdquo;
2674 Augustine, it refers to the ordinary way Christ lived among men, because according to his 5442 to show the attitude of Philip, Peter and Andrew at that time, and
2675 human nature he appeared to be like other men: &#8220;He, being in the form of God ... emptied 5443 because it was fitting to call, from the house of hunters, hunters
2676 himself, taking the form of a servant&#8221; (Phil 2:6). And according to this he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">there is one 5444 who were to capture souls for life: &ldquo;I will send my
2677 standing in your midst, </span>i.e., in many ways he lived as one of you: &#8220;I am in your midst&#8221; (Lk 5445 hunters&rdquo; (Jer 16:16).</p>
2678 22:27), <span style="font-weight: bold">whom you do not recognize, </span>i.e., you cannot grasp the fact that God was made man. 5446 <p>315 Now the fruit produced by the disciple who was converted to
2679 Likewise, you do not recognize how great he is according to the divine nature which is 5447 Christ is given. First, the beginning of the fruit, coming from
2680 concealed in him: &#8220;God is great, and exceeds our knowledge&#8221; (Jb 36:26). And so, as 5448 this disciple. Secondly, its consummation by Christ (v 47). As to
2681 Augustine says, &#8220;The lantern was lighted,&#8221; namely, John, &#8220;so that Christ might be found.&#8221; &#8220;I 5449 the first, he does three things: first, the statement of Philip is
2682 have prepared a lamp for my anointed&#8221; (Ps 131:17).</p> 5450 given; secondly, Nathanael&rsquo;s response; and thirdly,
2683 <p>It is explained differently by Origen; and in two ways. First, as referring to the divinity of 5451 Philip&rsquo;s ensuing advice.</p>
2684 Christ: and according to this, <span style="font-weight: bold">there is one standing, </span>namely, Christ, <span style="font-weight: bold">in your midst, </span>that is, in 5452 <p>316 As to the first, note that just as Andrew, after having been
2685 the midst of all things; because he, as Word, has filled all from the beginning of creation: &#8220;I 5453 perfectly converted, was eager to lead his brother to Christ, so
2686 fill heaven and earth&#8221; (Jer 23:24). <span style="font-weight: bold">Whom you do not recognize, </span>because, as was said above 5454 too Philip with regard to his brother, Nathanael. And so he says
2687 (1:10), &#8220;He was in the world ... and the world did not know him.&#8221;</p> 5455 that Philip found Nathanael, whom he probably looked for as Andrew
2688 <p>It is explained another way as referring to his causality of human wisdom. <span style="font-weight: bold">But there is one 5456 did for Peter; and this was a sign of a perfect conversion. The
2689 standing in your midst, </span>i.e., he shines in everyone&#8217;s understanding; because whatever light 5457 word &ldquo;Nathanael&rdquo; means &ldquo;gift of God&rdquo;; and
2690 and whatever wisdom exists in men has come to them from participating in the Word. And he 5458 it is God&rsquo;s gift if anyone is converted to Christ.</p>
2691 says, <span style="font-weight: bold">in your midst, </span>because in the midst of man&#8217;s body lies the heart, to which is attributed a 5459 <p>He tells him that all the prophecies and the law have been
2692 certain wisdom and understanding; hence, although the intellect has no bodily organ, yet 5460 fulfilled, and that the desires of their holy forefathers are not
2693 because the heart is our chief organ, it is the custom to take it for the intellect. So he is said to 5461 in vain, but have been guaranteed, and that what God has promised
2694 stand among men because of this likeness, insofar as he &#8220;enlightens every man coming into 5462 was now accomplished. <span style="font-weight: bold">We have found
2695 this world&#8221; (1:9). <span style="font-weight: bold">Whom you do not recognize, </span>because, as was said above (1:5), &#8220;The light 5463 the one Moses spoke of in the law&mdash;the prophets
2696 shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not overcome it.&#8221;</p> 5464 too&mdash;Jesus.</span> We understand by this that Nathanael was
2697 <p>In a fourth way, it is explained as referring to the prophetic foretelling of the Messiah. In this 5465 fairly learned in the law, and that Philip, now having learned
2698 sense the answer is directed chiefly to the Pharisees, who continually searched the writings of 5466 about Christ, wished to lead Nathanael to Christ through the things
2699 the Old Testament in which the Messiah was foretold; and yet they did not recognize him. 5467 he himself knew, that is, from the law and the prophets. So he
2700 And according to this it says, <span style="font-weight: bold">there is one standing in your midst, </span>i.e., in the Sacred 5468 says, <span style="font-weight: bold">the one Moses spoke of in the
2701 Scriptures which you are always considering: &#8220;Search the Scriptures&#8221; (below 5:39); <span style="font-weight: bold">whom 5469 law.</span> For Moses wrote of Christ: &ldquo;If you believed
2702 you do not recognize, </span>because your heart is hardened by unbelief, and your eyes blinded, so 5470 Moses, you would perhaps believe me, for he wrote of me&rdquo;
2703 that you do not recognize as present the person you believe is to come.</p> 5471 (below 5:46). <span style="font-weight: bold">The prophets
2704 <p>247 Then John compares Christ to himself. First, he states the superiority of Christ as 5472 too</span> wrote of Christ: &ldquo;All the prophets bear witness to
2705 compared to himself. Secondly, he shows the greatness of this superiority.</p> 5473 him&rdquo; (Acts 10:43).</p>
2706 <p>248 He shows the superiority of Christ in comparison to himself both in preaching and in 5474 <p>317 Note that Philip says three things about Christ that are in
2707 dignity. Now, as to the order of preaching, John was the first to become known. Thus he says, 5475 agreement with the law and the prophets. First, the name: for he
2708 the one who is to come after me, to preach, to baptize and to die; because as was said in Luke 5476 says, <span style="font-weight: bold">We have found Jesus.</span>
2709 (1:76): &#8220;You will go before the face of the Lord to prepare his way.&#8221; John preceded Christ as 5477 And this agrees with the prophets: &ldquo;I will send them a
2710 the imperfect the perfect, and as the disposition the form; for as is said, &#8220;The spiritual is not 5478 Savior&rdquo; (Is 19:20); &ldquo;1 will rejoice in God, my
2711 first, but the animal&#8221; (1 Cor 15:46). For the entire life of John was a preparation for Christ; so 5479 Jesus&rdquo; (Hb 3:18).</p>
2712 he said above, that he was &#8220;a voice that cries in the wilderness.&#8221;</p> 5480 <p>Secondly, the family from which Christ took his human origin,
2713 <p>But Christ preceded John and all of us as the perfect precedes the imperfect and the exemplar 5481 when he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">son of Joseph,</span>
2714 precedes the copy: &#8220;If any one wishes to come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his 5482 i.e., who was of the house and family of David. And although Jesus
2715 cross, and follow me&#8221; (Mt 16:24); &#8220;Christ suffered for us, leaving you an example&#8221; (1 Pt 5483 did not derive his origin from him, yet he did derive it from the
2716 2:21).</p> 5484 Virgin, who was of the same line as Joseph. He calls him the son of
2717 <p>Then he compares Christ to himself as to dignity, saying, <span style="font-weight: bold">who ranks ahead of me, </span>i.e., he 5485 Joseph, because Jesus was considered to be the son of the one to
2718 has been placed above me and is above me in dignity, because as he says (below 3:30), &#8220;he 5486 whom his mother was married. So it is said: &ldquo;the son of
2719 must increase, and I must decrease.&#8221;</p> 5487 Joseph (as was supposed)&rdquo; (Lk 3:23). Nor is it strange that
2720 <p>249 He touches on the greatness of his superiority when he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">the strap of whose sandal I 5488 Philip called him the son of Joseph, since his own mother, who was
2721 am not worthy to unfasten</span>. As if to say: You must not suppose that he ranks ahead of me in 5489 aware of his divine incarnation, called him his son: &ldquo;Your
2722 dignity in the way that one man is placed ahead of another, rather he is ranked so far above 5490 father and I have been looking for you in sorrow&rdquo; (Lk 2:48).
2723 me that I am nothing in comparison to him. And this is clear from the fact that it is he <span style="font-weight: bold">the 5491 Indeed, if one is called the son of another because he is supported
2724 strap of whose sandal I am not worthy to unfasten, </span>which is the least service that can be 5492 by him, this is more reason why Joseph should be called the father
2725 done for men. It is clear from this that John had made great progress in the knowledge of 5493 of Jesus, even though he was not so according to the flesh: for he
2726 God, so far that from the consideration of God&#8217;s infinite greatness, he completely lowered 5494 not only supported him, but was the husband of his virgin mother.
2727 himself and said that he himself was nothing. So did Abraham, when he recognized God, and 5495 However, Philip calls him the son of Joseph (not as though he was
2728 said (Gn 18:27), &#8220;1 will speak to my Lord, although I am but dust and ashes.&#8221; And so also did 5496 born from the union of Joseph and the Virgin) because he knew that
2729 Job, saying, &#8220;Now I see you, and so I reprove myself, and do penance in dust and ashes&#8221; (Jb 5497 Christ would be born from the line of David; and this was the house
2730 42:5). Isaiah also said, after he had seen the glory of God, &#8220;Before him all the nations are as if 5498 and family of Joseph, to whom Mary was married. And this also is in
2731 they are not&#8221; (Is 40:17). And this is the literal explanation.</p> 5499 agreement with the prophets: &ldquo;I will raise up a just branch
2732 <p>250 This is also explained mystically. Gregory explains it so that the sandal, made from the 5500 for David&rdquo; (Jer 23:5).</p>
2733 hides of dead animals, indicates our mortal human nature, which Christ assumed: &#8220;I will 5501 <p>Thirdly, he mentions his native land, saying, <span style=
2734 stretch out my sandal to Edom&#8221; (Ps 59:10). The strap of Christ&#8217;s sandal is the union of his 5502 "font-weight: bold">from Nazareth;</span> not because he had been
2735 divinity and humanity, which neither John nor anyone can unfasten or fully investigate, since 5503 born there, but because he was brought up there; but he had been
2736 it is this which made God man and made man God. And so he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">the strap of whose 5504 born in Bethlehem. Philip omits to mention Bethlehem but not
2737 sandal I am not worthy to unfasten, </span>i.e., to explain the mystery of the incarnation perfectly 5505 Nazareth because, while the birth of Christ was not known to many,
2738 and fully. For John and other preachers unfasten the strap of Christ&#8217;s sandal in some way, 5506 the place where he was brought up was. And this also agrees with
2739 although imperfectly.</p> 5507 the prophets: &ldquo;A shoot will arise from the root of Jesse, and
2740 <p>It is explained in another way by recalling that it was ordered in the Old Law that when a man 5508 a flower (or Nazarene, according to another version) will rise up
2741 died without children, his brother was obligated to marry the wife of the dead man and raise 5509 from his roots&rdquo; (Is I I: I).</p>
2742 up children from her as his brother&#8217;s. And if he refused to marry her, then a close relative of 5510 <p>318 Then when he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">Nathanael
2743 the dead man, if willing to marry her, was to remove the sandals of the dead man as a sign of 5511 replied,</span> the answer of Nathanael is given. His answer can be
2744 this willingness and marry her; and his home was then to be called the home of the man 5512 interpreted as an assertion or as a question; and in either way it
2745 whose sandals were removed (Dt 25:5). And so according to this he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">the strap of whose 5513 is suitable to Philip&rsquo;s affirmation. If it is taken as an
2746 sandal I am not worthy to unfasten, </span>i.e., I am not worthy to have the bride, that is, the 5514 assertion, as Augustine does, the meaning is: &ldquo;Some good can
2747 Church, to which Christ has a right. As if to say: I am not worthy to be called the bridegroom 5515 come from Nazareth.&rdquo; In other words, from a city with that
2748 of the Church, which is consecrated to Christ in the baptism of the Spirit; but I baptize only in 5516 name it is possible that there come forth to us some very excellent
2749 water. As it says below (3:29): &#8220;It is the groom who has the bride.&#8221;</p> 5517 grace or some outstanding teacher to preach to us about the flower
2750 <p>251 The place where these events happened is mentioned when he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">This happened at 5518 of the virtues and the purity of sanctity; for
2751 Bethany, on the far side of the Jordan. </span>A question arises on this: Since Bethany is on the 5519 &ldquo;Nazareth&rdquo; means &ldquo;flower.&rdquo; We can
2752 Mount of Olives, which is near Jerusalem, as is said in John (11:1 ) and also in Matthew 5520 understand from this that Nathanael, being quite learned in the law
2753 (26:6), how can he say that these things happened beyond the Jordan, which is quite far from 5521 and a student of the Scriptures, knew that the Savior was expected
2754 Jerusalem? Origen and Chrysostom answer that it should be called Bethabora, not Bethany, 5522 to come from Nazareth&mdash;something that was not so clear even to
2755 which is a village on the far side of the Jordan; and that the reading &#8220;Bethany&#8221; is due to a 5523 the Scribes and Pharisees. And so when Philip said, <span style=
2756 copyist&#8217;s error. However, since both the Greek and Latin versions have Bethany, one should 5524 "font-weight: bold">We have found Jesus from Nazareth,</span> his
2757 rather say that there are two places called Bethany: one is near Jerusalem on the side of the 5525 hopes were lifted and he answered: &ldquo;Indeed, some good can
2758 Mount of Olives, and the other is on the far side of the Jordan where John was baptizing.</p> 5526 come from Nazareth.&rdquo;</p>
2759 <p>252 The fact that he mentions the place has both a literal and a mystical reason. The literal 5527 <p>But if we take his answer as a question, as Chrysostom does,
2760 reason, according to Chrysostom, is that John wrote this Gospel for certain ones, perhaps still 5528 then the sense is: <span style="font-weight: bold">From Nazareth!
2761 alive, who would recall the time and who saw the place where these things happened. And so, 5529 What good can come from that place?</span> As if to say: Everything
2762 to lead us to a greater certitude, he makes them witnesses of the things they had seen.</p> 5530 else you say seems credible, because his name and his lineage are
2763 <p>The mystical reason is that these places are appropriate for baptism. For in saying &#8220;Bethany,&#8221; 5531 consistent with the prophecies, but your statement that he is
2764 which is interpreted as &#8220;house of obedience,&#8221; he indicates that one must come to be baptized 5532 <span style="font-weight: bold">from Nazareth</span> does not seem
2765 through obedience to the faith. &#8220;To bring all the nations to have obedience to the faith&#8221; (Rom 5533 possible. For Nathanael understood from the Scriptures that the
2766 1:5). But if the name of the place is &#8220;Bethabora,&#8221; which is interpreted as &#8220;house of 5534 Christ was to come from Bethlehem, according to: &ldquo;And you,
2767 preparation,&#8221; it signifies that a man is prepared for eternal life through baptism.</p> 5535 Bethlehem, land of Judah, are not the least among the princes of
2768 <p>There is also a mystery in the fact that this happened on the far side of the Jordan. For 5536 Judah: for out of you a ruler will come forth, who will rule my
2769 &#8220;Jordan&#8221; is interpreted as &#8220;the descent of them&#8221;; and according to Origen it signifies Christ, 5537 people Israel,&rdquo; as we read in Matthew (2:6). And so, not
2770 who descended from heaven, as he himself says that he descended from heaven to do the will 5538 finding Philip&rsquo;s statement in agreement with the prophecy, he
2771 of his Father (below 6:38).</p> 5539 prudently and moderately inquires about its truth, <span style=
2772 <p>Further, the river Jordan aptly signifies baptism. For it is the border line between those who 5540 "font-weight: bold">What good can come from that place?</span></p>
2773 received their inheritance from Moses on one side of the Jordan, and those who received it 5541 <p>319 Then Philip&rsquo;s advice is given, <span style=
2774 from Josue on the other side. Thus baptism is a kind of border between Jews and Gentiles, 5542 "font-weight: bold">Come and see.</span> And this advice suits
2775 who journey to this place to wash themselves by coming to Christ so that they might put off 5543 either interpretation of Nathanael&rsquo;s answer. To the assertive
2776 the debasement of sin. Forjust as the Jews had to cross the Jordan to enter the promised land, 5544 interpretation it is as though he says: You say that something good
2777 so one must pass through baptism to enter into the heavenly land. And he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">on the far 5545 can come from Nazareth, but I say that the good I state to you is
2778 side of the Jordan, </span>to show that John preached the baptism of repentance even to those who 5546 of such a nature and so marvelous that I am unable to express it in
2779 trangressed the law and sinners; and so the Lord also says, &#8220;I did not come to call the 5547 words, so <span style="font-weight: bold">Come and see</span>. To
2780 righteous, but sinners&#8221; (Mt 9:13).</p> 5548 the interpretation that makes it a question, it as as though he
2781 <p style="margin-bottom: 0.125in; margin-bottom: 0.125in">&#160;</p> 5549 says: You wonder and say: <span style="font-weight: bold">What good
2782 <p style="text-align: center; margin-bottom: 0.125in"><span style="font-weight: bold">LECTURE14</span></p> 5550 can come from that place?,</span> thinking that this is impossible
2783 <BLOCKQUOTE><p>29 The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and he said, &#8220;Look! There is the Lamb of 5551 according to the Scriptures. But if you are willing to experience
2784 God who takes away the sins of the world. 30 It is he of whom I said:</p> 5552 what I experienced, you will understand that what I say is true, so
2785 <p style="margin-left: 0.259167in; margin-right: 0.259167in">&#8216;After me is to come a man, who ranks ahead of me, because he existed before me.&#8217;<BR> 5553 <span style="font-weight: bold">Come and see.</span></p>
2786 31 And I did not know him! And yet it was to reveal him to Israel that I came baptizing with 5554 <p>Then, not discouraged by his questions, Philip brings Nathanael
2787 water.&#8221; 5555 to Christ. He knew that he would no longer argue with him if he
2788 <P>32 John gave this testimony also:</p> 5556 tasted the words and teaching of Christ. And in this, Philip was
2789 <p style="margin-left: 0.259167in; margin-right: 0.259167in; margin-bottom: 0.125in">&#8220;I saw the Spirit coming down on him from heaven like a dove, and resting on him. 5557 imitating Christ who earlier answered those who had asked about the
2790 33 And I did not know him, but he who sent me to baptize with water had said to me: 5558 place where he lived: &ldquo;Come and see ... &ldquo;Come to him,
2791 &#8216;The man on whom you see the Spirit come down and rest is the one who is to baptize 5559 and be enlightened&rdquo; (Ps 33:6).</p>
2792 with the Holy Spirit.&#8217; 34 Now I have seen for myself and have given testimony that he 5560 <p>320 Then when he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">When
2793 is the Son of God.&#8221;</p></BLOCKQUOTE> 5561 Jesus saw Nathanael,</span> the consummation of this fruit by
2794 <p>253 Above, John had given testimony to Christ when he was questioned. Here, he gives 5562 Christ is described. We should note that there are two ways in
2795 testimony to him on his own initiative. First, he gives the testimony; secondly, he confirms it 5563 which men are converted to Christ: some by miracles they have seen
2796 (v 32). As to the first: first, the circumstances of the testimony are given; and secondly, the 5564 and things experienced in themselves or in others; others are
2797 testimony itself is given (v 29); thirdly, suspicion is removed from the witness (v 3 1).</p> 5565 converted through internal insights, through prophecy and the
2798 <p>254 The circumstances are first described as to the time. Hence he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">The next day. </span>This 5566 foreknowledge of what is hidden in the future. The second way is
2799 gives credit to John for his steadfastness, because he bore witness to Christ not for just one 5567 more efficacious than the first: for devils and certain men who
2800 day or once, but on many days and frequently: &#8220;Every day I will bless you&#8221; (Ps 144:2). His 5568 receive their help can simulate marvels; but to predict the future
2801 progress, too, is cited, because one day should not be just like the day before, but the 5569 can only be done by divine power. &ldquo;Tell us what is to come,
2802 succeeding day should be different, i.e., better: &#8220;They will go from strength to strength&#8221; (Ps 5570 and we will say that you are gods&rdquo; (Is 41:23);
2803 83:8).</p> 5571 &ldquo;Prophecies are for those who believe.&rdquo; And so our Lord
2804 <p>Another circumstance mentioned is his manner of testifying, because <span style="font-weight: bold">John saw Jesus. </span>This 5572 draws Nathanael to the faith not by miracles but by making known
2805 shows his certitude, for testimony based on sight is most certain. The last circumstance he 5573 things which are hidden. And so he says of him, <span style=
2806 mentions is about the one to whom he bore witness. Hence he says that he saw <span style="font-weight: bold">Jesus coming 5574 "font-weight: bold">Here is a true Israelite, in whom there is no
2807 toward him, </span>i.e., from Galilee, as it says, &#8220;Jesus came from Galilee&#8221; (Mt 3:13). We should 5575 guile.</span></p>
2808 not understand this as referring to the time when he came to be baptized, of which Matthew is 5576 <p>321 Christ mentions three hidden matters: things hidden in the
2809 here speaking, but of another time, i.e., a time when he came to John after he had already 5577 present, in the heart; past facts; and future heavenly matters. To
2810 been baptized and was staying near the Jordan. Otherwise, he Would not have said, &#8220;&#8216;The 5578 know these three things is not a human but a divine
2811 man on whom yoti see the Spirit come down and rest is the one who is to baptize with the I
2812 loly Spirit.&#8217; Now I have seen&#8221; (v 33). Therefore, he had already seen him and the Spirit come
2813 down as a dove upon him.</p>
2814 <p>255 One reason why Christ now came to John was to confirm the testimony of John. For John
2815 had spoken of Christ as &#8220;the one who is to come after me&#8221; (v 27). But since Christ was now
2816 present, some might not understand who it was that was to come. So Christ came to John to
2817 be pointed out by him, with John saying, <span style="font-weight: bold">Look! There is the Lamb of God. </span>Another reason
2818 Christ came was to correct an error. For some might believe that the first time Christ came,
2819 i.e., to be baptized, he came to John to be cleansed from his sins. So, in order to preclude this,
2820 Christ came to him even after his baptism. Accordingly, John clearly says, <span style="font-weight: bold">There is the
2821 Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. </span>He committed no sin, but came to take
2822 away sin. He also came to give us an example of humility, because as it is said, &#8220;The greater
2823 you are the more humble you should be in all matters&#8221; (Sir 3:20).</p>
2824 <p>Note that after the conception of Christ, when his mother, the Virgin, went in haste to the
2825 mountainous country to visit John&#8217;s mother, Elizabeth, that John, still in his mother&#8217;s womb
2826 and unable to speak, leaped in her womb as though performing a religious dance out of
2827 reverence for Christ. And as then, so even now; for when Christ comes to John out of
2828 humility, John offers his testimony and reverence and breaks out saying, <span style="font-weight: bold">Look! There is the
2829 Lamb of God.</span></p>
2830 <p>256 With these words John gives his testimony showing the power of Christ. Then Christ&#8217;s
2831 dignity is shown (v 30). He shows the power of Christ in two ways: first, by means of a
2832 symbol; secondly, by explaining it (v 29).</p>
2833 <p>257 As to the first, we should note, as Origen says, that it was customary in the Old Law for
2834 five animals to be offered in the temple: three land animals, namely, the heifer, goat and
2835 sheep (although the sheep might be a ram, a sheep or a lamb) and two birds, namely, the
2836 turtle-dove and the dove. All of these prefigured the true sacrifice, which is Christ, who &#8220;gave
2837 himself for us as an offering to God,&#8221; as is said in Ephesians (5:2).</p>
2838 <p>Why then did the Baptist, when giving witness to Christ, specifically call him a Lamb? The
2839 reason for this is that, as stated in Numbers (28:3), although there were other sacrifices in the
2840 temple at other times, yet each day there was a time in which a lamb was offered every
2841 morning, and another was offered in the evening. This never varied, but was regarded as the
2842 principal offering, and the other offerings were in the form of additions. And so the lamb,
2843 which was the principal sacrifice, signified Christ, who is the principal sacrifice. For although
2844 all the saints who suffered for the faith of Christ contribute something to the salvation of the
2845 faithful, they do this only inasmuch its they are immolated upon the oblation of the Lamb,
2846 they being, as it were, in oblation added to the principal sacrifice. The lamb is offered in the
2847 morning and in the evening because it is through Christ that the way is opened to the
2848 contemplation and enjoyment of the intelligible things of God, and this pertains to &#8220;morning
2849 knowledge&#8221;; and we are instructed how to use earthly things without staining ourselves, and
2850 this pertains to &#8220;evening knowledge.&#8221; And so he says, Look! <span style="font-weight: bold">There is the Lamb of God, </span>i.e.,
2851 the one signified by the lamb.</p>
2852 <p>He says, of God, because there are two natures in Christ, a human nature and a divine nature.
2853 And it is due to the power of the divinity that this sacrifice has the power to cleanse and
2854 sanctify us from our sins, inasmuch as &#8220;God was, in Christ, reconciling the world to himself&#8221;
2855 (2 Cor 5:19). Or, he is called <span style="font-weight: bold">the Lamb of God, </span>because offered by God, i.e., by Christ
2856 himself, who is God; just as we call what a man offers the offering of the man. Or, he is
2857 called <span style="font-weight: bold">the Lamb of God, </span>that is, of the Father, because the Father provided man with an
2858 oblation to offer that satisfied for sins, which man could not have through himself. So when
2859 Isaac asked Abraham, &#8220;Where is the victim for the holocaust?&#8221; he answered, &#8220;God himself
2860 will provide a victim for the holocaust&#8221; (Gn 22:7); &#8220;God did not spare his own Son, but
2861 delivered him up for all of us&#8221; (Rom 8:32).</p>
2862 <p>258 Christ is called a Lamb, first, because of his purity: &#8220;Your lamb will be without blemish&#8221;
2863 (Ex 12:5); &#8220;You were not redeemed by perishable gold or silver&#8221; (1 Pt 1:18). Secondly,
2864 because of his gentleness: &#8220;Like a lamb before the shearer, he will not open his mouth&#8221; (Is
2865 53:7). Thirdly, because of his fruit; both with respect to what we put on: &#8220;Lambs will be your
2866 clothing&#8221; (Prv 27:26), &#8220;Put on the Lord Jesus Christ&#8221; (Rom 13:14); and with respect to food:
2867 &#8220;My flesh is for the life of the world&#8221; (below 6:52). And so Isaiah said (16:1 ): &#8220;Send forth, O
2868 Lord, the lamb, the ruler of the earth.&#8221;</p>
2869 <p>259 Then when he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">who takes away the sins of the world, </span>he explains the symbol he
2870 used. In the law, sin could not be taken away either by a lamb or by any other sacrifice,
2871 because as is said in Hebrews (10:4), &#8220;It is impossible that sins be taken away by the blood of
2872 bulls and goats.&#8221; This blood takes away, i.e., removes, <span style="font-weight: bold">the sins of the world. </span>&#8220;Take away all
2873 iniquity&#8221; (Hos 14:3). Or, <span style="font-weight: bold">takes away, </span>i.e., he takes upon himself the sins of the whole <span style="font-weight: bold">world,
2874 </span>as is said, &#8220;He bore our sins in his own body&#8221; (1 Pt 2:24); &#8220;It was our infirmities that he bore,
2875 our sufferings that he endured,&#8221; as we read in Isaiah (53:4).</p>
2876 <p>However, according to a Gloss, he says sin, and not &#8220;sins,&#8221; in order to show in a universal
2877 way that he has taken away every kind of sin: &#8220;He is the offering for our sins&#8221; (1 Jn 2:2); or
2878 because he died for one sin, that is, original sin: &#8220;Sin entered into this world through one
2879 man&#8221; (Rom 5:12).</p>
2880 <p>260 Above, the Baptist bore witness to the power of Christ; now he bears witness to his
2881 dignity, comparing Christ to himself in three respects. First, with respect to their office and
2882 order of preaching. So he says, It is he, pointing him out, that is, the Lamb, <span style="font-weight: bold">of whom I said,
2883 </span>i.e., in his absence, <span style="font-weight: bold">After me is to come a man, </span>to preach and baptize, who in birth came
2884 after me.</p>
2885 <p>Christ is called a man by reason of his perfect age, because when he began to teach, after his
2886 baptism, he had already reached a perfect age: &#8220;Jesus was now about thirty years of age&#8221; (Lk
2887 3:23). He is also called a man because of the perfection of all the virtues that were in him:
2888 &#8220;Seven women,&#8221; i.e., the virtues, &#8220;will take hold of one man,&#8221; the perfect Christ (Is 4:1);
2889 &#8220;Look, a man! His name is the Orient,&#8221; because he is the origin of all the virtues found in
2890 others (Zec 6:12). He is also called a man because of his espousal, since he is the spouse of
2891 the Church: &#8220;You will call me &#8216;my husband&#8217;&#8221; (Hos 2:16); &#8220;I espoused you to one husband&#8221; (2
2892 Cor 11:2).</p>
2893 <p>261 Secondly, he compares himself to Christ with respect to dignity when he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">who
2894 ranks ahead of me. </span>As if to say: Although he comes to preach after me, yet he ranks before
2895 me in dignity. &#8220;See, he comes, leaping upon the mountains, skipping over the hills&#8221; (Sg 2:8).
2896 One such hill was John the Baptist, who was passed over by Christ, because as is said below
2897 (3:30), &#8220;He must increase, and I must decrease.&#8221;</p>
2898 <p>262 Thirdly, he compares himself to Christ with respect to duration, saying, because he
2899 existed before me. As if to say: It is not strange if he ranks ahead of me in dignity; because
2900 although he is after me in time, he is before me in eternity, <span style="font-weight: bold">because he existed before me.</span></p>
2901 <p>This statement refutes a twofold error. First, that of Arius, for John does not say that &#8220;he was
2902 made before me,&#8221; as though he were a creature, but he existed before me, from eternity,
2903 before every creature: &#8220;The Lord brought me forth before all the hills,&#8221; as is said in Proverbs
2904 (8:25). The second error refuted is that of Paul of Samosata: for John said, he existed before
2905 me, in order to show that he did not take his beginning from Mary. For if he had taken the
2906 beginning of his existence from the Virgin, he would not have existed before the precursor,
2907 who, in the order of human generation, preceded Christ by six months.</p>
2908 <p>263 Next (v 31), he precludes an erroneous conjecture from his testimony. For someone
2909 might say that John bore witness to Christ because of his affection for him, coming from a
2910 special friendship. And so, excluding this, John says, <span style="font-weight: bold">And I did not know him!; </span>for John had
2911 lived in the desert from boyhood. And although many miracles happened during the birth of
2912 Christ, such as the Magi and the star and so on, they were not known to John: both because he
2913 was an infant at the time, and because, after withdrawing to the desert, he had no association
2914 with Christ. In the interim between his birth and baptism, Christ did not perform any
2915 miracles, but led a life similar to any other person, and his power remained unknown to all.</p>
2916 <p>264 It is clear that he worked no miracles in the interim until he was thirty years old from
2917 what is said below (2:11): &#8220;This beginning of signs Jesus worked in Cana of Galilee.&#8221; This
2918 shows the error of the book, <i>The Infancy of the Savior. </i>The reason he performed no miracles
2919 during this period was that if his life had not been like that of other infants, the mystery of the
2920 circumcision and incarnation might have been regarded as pure fancy. Accordingly, he
2921 postponed showing his knowledge and power to another time, corresponding to the age when
2922 other men reach the fulness of their knowledge and power. About this we read, &#8220;And Jesus
2923 increased in grace and wisdom&#8221; (Lk 2:52); not that he acquired a power and wisdom that he
2924 previously lacked, for in this respect he was perfect from the instant of his conception, but
2925 because his power and wisdom were becoming known to men: &#8220;Indeed, you are a hidden
2926 God&#8221; (Is 45:15).</p>
2927 <p>265 The reason why John did not know him was that he had so far seen no signs, and no one
2928 else had known Christ through signs. Hence he adds: <span style="font-weight: bold">It was to reveal him to Israel that I
2929 came baptizing with water. </span>As if to say: My entire ministry is to reveal: &#8220;He was not the
2930 light, but he came in order to bear witness to the light,&#8221; as was said above (1:8).</p>
2931 <p>266 He says, <span style="font-weight: bold">I came baptizing with water, </span>to distinguish his baptism from that of Christ.
2932 For Christ baptized not just in water, but in the Spirit, conferring grace; and so the baptism of
2933 John was merely a sign, and not causative.</p>
2934 <p>John&#8217;s baptism made Christ known in three ways. First, by the preaching of John. For
2935 although John could have prepared the way for the Lord and led the people to Christ without
2936 baptizing, yet because of the novelty of the service many more came to him than would have
2937 come if his preaching were done without baptism. Secondly, John&#8217;s baptism was useful
2938 because of Christ&#8217;s humility, which he showed by willing to be baptized by John: &#8220;Christ
2939 came to John, to be baptized by him&#8221; (Mt 3:13). This example of humility he gives us here is
2940 that no one, however great, should disdain to receive the sacraments from any person
2941 ordained for this purpose. Thirdly, because it was during Christ&#8217;s baptisin by John that the
2942 power of the Father was present in the voice, and the Holy Spirit was present in the dove, by
2943 which the powerand dignity of&#8217;Christ were all the more shown: &#8220;And the voice of the Father
2944 was heard: &#8216;This is my beloved Son&#8217;&#8221; (Lk 3:22).</p>
2945 <p>267 Then when he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">John gave this testimony also, </span>he confirms by the authority of God
2946 the great things he testified to about Christ, that Christ alone would take away the sins of the
2947 whole world. As to this he does three things. First, he presents a vision. Secondly, he tells us
2948 the meaning of the vision (v 33). Thirdly, he shows what he learned from this vision (v 34).</p>
2949 <p>268 He presents the vision when he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">I saw the Spirit coming down on him from
2950 heaven. </span>When this actually happened John the Evangelist does not tell us, but Matthew and
2951 Luke say that it took place when Christ was being baptized by John. And it was indeed fitting
2952 for the Holy Spirit to be present at this baptism and to the person being baptized. It was
2953 appropriate for the one baptized, for as the Son, existing by the Father, manifests the Father,
2954 &#8220;Father, I have manifested your name&#8221; (below 17:6), so the Holy Spirit, existing by the Son,
2955 manifests the Son, &#8220;He will glorify me, because he will receive from me&#8221; (below 16:14). It
2956 was appropriate for this baptism because the baptism of Christ begins and consecrates our
2957 baptism. Now our baptism is consecrated by invoking the whole Trinity: &#8220;Baptizing them in
2958 the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit&#8221; (Mt 28:19). Thus, the ones we
2959 invoke in our baptism were present at the baptism of Christ: the Father in the voice, the Holy
2960 Spirit in the dove, and the Son in his human nature.</p>
2961 <p>269 He says, <span style="font-weight: bold">coming down, </span>because descent, since it has two termini, the start, which is from
2962 above, and the end, which is below, suits baptism in both respects. For there is a twofold
2963 spirit: one of the world and the other of God. The spirit of the world is the love of the world,
2964 which is not from above; rather, it comes up to man from below and makes him descend. But
2965 the spirit of God, i.e., the love of God, comes down to man from above and makes him
2966 ascend: &#8220;We have not received the spirit of this world, but the spirit of God,&#8221; as is said in 1
2967 Corinthians (2:12). And so, because that spirit is from above, he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">coming down.</span></p>
2968 <p>Similarly, because it is impossible for the creature to receive God&#8217;s goodness in the fulness in
2969 which it is present in God, the communication of this goodness to us is in a way a certain
2970 coming down: &#8220;Every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights&#8221; (Jas
2971 1:17).</p>
2972 <p>270 The Evangelist, in describing the manner of the vision and of the coming down, says that
2973 the Holy Spirit did not appear in the spirit, i.e., in his nature, but in the form of a dove, saying,
2974 that he came like a ove. The reason for this is that the Holy Spirit cannot be seen in his nature,
2975 as is said, &#8220;The Spirit blows where it wills, and you hear its sound, but you do not know
2976 where it comes from or where it goes&#8221; (below 3:8), and because a spirit does not come down
2977 but goes up, &#8220;The spirit lifted me up&#8221; (Ez 8:3).</p>
2978 <p>It was appropriate that the Son of God, who was made visible through flesh, should be made
2979 known by the Holy Spirit in the visible form of a dove. However, the Holy Spirit did not
2980 assume the dove into a unity of person, as the Son of God assumed human nature. The reason
2981 for this is that the Son did not appear as a manifester but as a Savior. And so, according to
2982 Pope Leo, it was appropriate that he be God and man: God, in order to provide a remedy; and
2983 man, in order to offer an example. But the Holy Spirit appeared only to make known, and for
2984 this it was sufficient merely to assume a visible form which was suitable for this purpose.</p>
2985 <p>271 As to whether this dove was a real animal and whether it existed prior to its appearance,
2986 it seems reasonable to say that it was a real dove. For the Holy Spirit came to manifest Christ,
2987 who, being the Truth, ought to have been manifested only by the truth. As to the other part of
2988 the question, it would seem that the dove did not exist prior to its appearance, but was formed
2989 at the time by the divine power, without any parental union, as the body of Christ was
2990 conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit, and not from a man&#8217;s seed. Yet it was a real dove,
2991 for as Augustine says in his work, <i>The Christian Combat: </i>&#8220;It was not difficult for the
2992 omnipotent God, who produced the entire universe of creatures from nothing, to form a real
2993 body for the dove without the aid of other doves, just as it was not difficult to form the true
2994 body of Christ in the womb of the Blessed Virgin without natural semen.&#8221;</p>
2995 <p>Cyprian, in his <i>The Unity of the Church, </i>says: &#8220;It is said that the Holy Spirit appeared in the
2996 form of a dove because the dove is a simple harmless animal, not bitter with gall, not savage
2997 with its bites, not fierce with rending talons; it loves the dwellings of men, is able to live
2998 together in one nest, together it raises its young, they remain together when they fly, spend
2999 their life in mutual association, signify the concord of peace with the kiss of their bill, and
3000 fulfill the law of harmony in all things.&#8221;</p>
3001 <p>272 Many reasons are given why the Holy Spirit appeared as a dove rather than in some other
3002 form. First, because of its simplicity, for the dove is simple: &#8220;Be wise as serpents, and simple
3003 as doves&#8221; (Mt 10:16). And the Holy Spirit, because he inclines souls to gaze on one thing,
3004 that is, God, makes them simple; and so he appeared in the form of a dove. Further, according
3005 to Augustine, the Holy Spirit also appeared in the form of fire over the heads of the
3006 assembled apostles. This was done because some are simple, but lukewarm; while others are
3007 fervent but guileful. And so in order that those sanctified by the Spirit may have no guile, the
3008 Spirit is shown in the form of a dove; and in order that their simplicity may not grow tepid,
3009 the Spirit is shown in fire.</p>
3010 <p>A dove was used, secondly, because of the unity of charity; for the dove is much aglow with
3011 love: &#8220;One is my dove&#8221; (Sg 6:9). So, in order to show the unity of the Church, the Holy Spirit
3012 appears in the form of a dove. Nor should it disturb you that when the Holy Spirit rested on
3013 each of the disciples, there appeared separate tongues of fire; for although the Spirit appears
3014 to be different according to the different functions of his gifts, he nevertheless unites us
3015 through charity. And so, because of the first he appeared in separate tongues of fire, as is said,
3016 &#8220;There are different kinds of gifts&#8221; (1 Cor 12:4); but he appears in the form of a dove because
3017 of the second.</p>
3018 <p>A dove was used, thirdly,because of its groaning, for the dove has a groaning chant; so also
3019 the Holy Spirit &#8220;pleads for us with indescribable groanings&#8221; (Rom 8:26); &#8220;Her maidens,
3020 groaning like doves&#8221; (Na 2:7). Fourthly, because of the doves fertility, for the dove is a very
3021 prolific animal. And so in order to signify the fecundity of spiritual grace in the Church, the
3022 Holy Spirit appeared in the form of a dove. This is why the Lord commanded an offering of
3023 two doves (Lv 5:7).</p>
3024 <p>A dove was used, fifthly, because of its cautiousness. For it rests upon watery brooks, and
3025 gazing into them can see the hawk flying overhead and so save itself: &#8220;His eyes are like doves
3026 beside brooks of water&#8221; (Sg 5:12). And so, because our refuge and defense is found in
3027 baptism, the Holy Spirit appropriately appeared in the form of a dove.</p>
3028 <p>The dove also corresponds to a figure in the Old Testament. For as the dove bearing the green
3029 olive branch was a sign of God&#8217;s mercy to those who survived the waters of the deluge, so too
3030 in baptism, the Holy Spirit, coming in the form of a dove, is a sign of the divine mercy which
3031 takes away the sins of those baptized and confers grace.</p>
3032 <p>273 He says that the Holy Spirit was <span style="font-weight: bold">resting on him. </span>If the Holy Spirit does not rest on
3033 someone, it is due to two causes. One is sin. For all men except Christ are either suffering
3034 from the wound of mortal sin, which banishes the Holy Spirit, or are darkened with the stain
3035 of venial sin, which hinders some of the works of the Holy Spirit. But in Christ there was
3036 neither mortal nor venial sin; so, the Holy Spirit in him was never disquieted, but was <span style="font-weight: bold">resting
3037 on him.</span></p>
3038 <p>The other reason concerns charismatic graces, for the other saints do not always possess their
3039 power. For example, the power to work miracles is not always present in the saints, nor is the
3040 spirit of prophecy always in the prophets. But Christ always possessed the power to
3041 accomplish any work of the virtues and the graces. So to indicate this, he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">resting on
3042 him. </span>Hence this was the characteristic sign for recognizing Christ, as the Gloss says. &#8220;The
3043 Spirit of the Lord will rest on him&#8221; (Is 11:2), which we should understand of Christ as man,
3044 according to which he is less than the Father and the Holy Spirit.</p>
3045 <p>274 Then when he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">I did not know him, </span>he teaches us how this vision should be
3046 understood. For certain heretics, as the Ebionites, said that Christ was neither the Christ nor
3047 the Son of God from the time he was born, but only began to be the Son of God and the
3048 Christ when he was anointed with the oil of the Holy Spirit at his baptism. But this is false,
3049 because at the very hour of his birth the angel said to the shepherds: &#8220;This day a Savior has
3050 been born for you in the city of David, Christ the Lord&#8221; (Lk 2:11). Therefore, so that we do
3051 not believe that the Holy Spirit descended upon Christ in his baptism as though Christ needed
3052 to receive the Spirit anew for his sanctification, the Baptist gives the reason for the Spirit&#8217;s
3053 coming down. He says that the Spirit descended not for the benefit of Christ, but for our
3054 benefit, that is, so that the grace of Christ might be made known to us. And so he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">And I
3055 did not know him! And yet it was to reveal him to Israel that I came baptizing with
3056 water.</span></p>
3057 <p>275 There is a problem here. For he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">he who sent me to baptize. </span>If he is saying that the
3058 Father sent him, it is true. Also, if he is saying that the Son sent him, it is even more clear,
3059 since it is said that both the Father and the Son sent him, because John is not one of those
3060 referred to in Jeremiah (23:21), &#8220;1 did not send the prophets, yet they ran.&#8221; But if the Son did
3061 send him, how can he then say, <span style="font-weight: bold">I did not know him? </span>If it is said that although he knew
3062 Christ according to his divinity, yet he did not know him according to his humanity until after
3063 he saw the Spirit coming down upon him, one might counter that the Holy Spirit descended
3064 upon Christ when he was being baptized, and John had already known Christ before he was
3065 baptized, otherwise he would not have said: &#8220;I ought to be baptized by you, and you come to
3066 me?&#8221; (Mt 3:14).</p>
3067 <p>So we must say that this problem can be resolved in three ways. In one way, according to
3068 Chrysostom, so that the meaning is to know familiarly; the sense being that <span style="font-weight: bold">I did not know
3069 him, </span>i.e., in a familiar way. And if the objection is raised that John says, &#8220;I ought to be
3070 baptized by you,&#8221; it can be answered that two different times are being discussed: so that <span style="font-weight: bold">I
3071 did not know him, </span>refers to a time long before baptism, when he was not yet familiar with
3072 Christ: but when he says, &#8220;I ought to be baptized by you,&#8221; he is referring to the time when
3073 Christ was being baptized, when he was now familiar with Christ because of his frequent
3074 visits. In another way, according to Jerome, it could be said that Christ was the Son of God
3075 and the Savior of the world, and that John did in fact know this; but it was not through the
3076 baptism that he knew that he was the Savior of the world. And so to remedy this ignorance he
3077 adds, he <span style="font-weight: bold">is the one who is to baptize with the Holy Spirit. </span>But it is better to say with
3078 Augustine that John knew certain things and was ignorant of others. Explaining what he did
3079 not know, he adds that the power of baptizing, which Christ could have shared with his
3080 faithful followers, would be reserved for himself alone. And this is what he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">he who sent
3081 me to baptize with water ... is the one, </span>exclusively and solely, <span style="font-weight: bold">who is to baptize with the
3082 Holy Spirit, </span>i.e., he and no one else, because this power he reserved for himself alone.</p>
3083 <p>276 We should note that a threefold power of Christ is found in baptism. One is the power of
3084 efficiency, by which he interiorly cleanses the soul from the stain of sin. Christ has this power
3085 as God, but not as man, and it cannot be communicated to any other. Another is the power of
3086 ministry, which he does share with the faithful: &#8220;Baptizing them in the name of the Father,
3087 and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit&#8221; (Mt 28:19). Therefore priests have the power to
3088 haptize as ministers. Christ too, as man, is called a minister, as the Apostle says. But he is
3089 also the head of all the ministers of the Church.</p>
3090 <p>Because of this he alone has the power of excellence in the sacraments. And this excellence
3091 shows itself in four things. First, in the institution of the sacraments, because no mere man or
3092 even the entire Church could institute sacraments, or change the sacninients, or dispense with
3093 the sacraments. For by their institution the sacraments give invisible grace, which only God
3094 can give. Therefore, only one who is true God can institute sacraments. The second lies in the
3095 efficacy of Christ&#8217;s merits, for the sacraments have their power from the merit of Christ&#8217;s
3096 passion: &#8220;All of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus, have been baptized into his
3097 death&#8221; (Rom 6:3). The third is that Christ can confer the effect of baptism withmit the
3098 sacrament; and this is peculiar to Christ. Fourthly, because at one time baptism was conferred
3099 in the name of Christ, although this is no longer done.</p>
3100 <p>Now he did not communicate these four things to anyone; although he could have
3101 communicated some of them, for example, that baptism be conferred in the name of Peter or
3102 of someone else, and perhaps one of the remaining three. But this was not done lest schisins
3103 arise in the Church by men putting their trust in those in whose name they were baptized.</p>
3104 <p>And so John, in stating that the Holy Spirit came down upon Christ, teaches that it is Christ
3105 alone who baptizes interiorly by his own power.</p>
3106 <p>277 One might also say that when John said, &#8220;I ought to be baptized by you,&#8221; he recognized
3107 Christ. through an interior revelation, but that when he saw the Holy Spirit coming down
3108 upon him, he knew him through an exterior sign. And so he mentions both of these ways of
3109 knowing. The first when he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">he who sent me to baptize with water had said to me,
3110 </span>i.e., revealed something in an interior way. The second when he adds, <span style="font-weight: bold">The man on whom
3111 you see the Spirit come down and rest is the one who is to baptize with the Holy Spirit.</span></p>
3112 <p>278 Then he shows what the Baptist understood from this vision, that is, that Christ is the Son
3113 of God. And this is what he says, Now I have seen for myself, that is, the Spirit coming down
3114 on him, and have given testimony that he, that is, Christ, is the Son of God, that is, the true
3115 and natural Son. For there were adopted sons of the Father who had a likeness to the natural
3116 Son of God: &#8220;Conformed to the image of his Son&#8221; (Rom 8:29). So he who baptizes in the
3117 Holy Spirit, through whom we are adopted as sons, ought to fashion sons of God. &#8220;You did
3118 not receive the spirit of slavery ... but the spirit of adoption&#8221; (Rom 8:15). Therefore, because
3119 Christ is the one who baptizes in the Holy Spirit, the Baptist correctly concludes that he is the
3120 true and pure Son of God: &#8220;that we may be in his true Son&#8221; (1 Jn 5:20).</p>
3121 <p>279 But if there were others who saw the Holy,Spirit coming down upon Christ, why did they
3122 not also believe? I answer that they had not been so disposed for this. Or perhaps, this vision
3123 was seen only by the Baptist.</p>
3124 <p style="margin-bottom: 0.125in; margin-bottom: 0.125in">&#160;</p>
3125 <p style="text-align: center; margin-bottom: 0.125in"><span style="font-weight: bold">LECTURE15</span></p>
3126 <BLOCKQUOTE><p>35 On the following day John was standing there again with two of his disciples. 36 And
3127 seeing Jesus walking by, he said, &#8220;Look! There is the Lamb of God.&#8221; 37 Hearing this, the two
3128 disciples followed Jesus. 38 Jesus turned around, and seeing them following him said, &#8220;What
3129 are you looking for?&#8221; They replied, &#8220;Rabbi (which means Teacher), where do you live?&#8221; 39
3130 &#8220;Come and see,&#8221; he replied. They went and saw where he lived, and they stayed with him the
3131 rest of that day. It was about the tenth hour.</p></BLOCKQUOTE>
3132 <p>40 One of the two who had followed him after hearing John was Simon Peter&#8217;s brother,
3133 Andrew. 41 The first thing fie did was to look for his brother Simon, and say to him, &#8220;We
3134 have found the Messiah&#8221; (which means the Christ), 42 and he brought him to Jesus. Looking
3135 at hini intently Jesus said, &#8220;You are Simon, son of John; you are to be called Cephas&#8221; (which
3136 is translated Peter).</p>
3137 <p>280 Above, the Evangelist presented the Baptist&#8217;s testimony to the people; here he presents
3138 his testimony to John&#8217;s disciples. First, his testimony is given; secondly, the fruit of this
3139 testimony (v 37). As to the first he does three things: first, the one giving the testimony is
3140 described; secondly, his way of testifying is given (v 36); and thirdly, his testimony itself,
3141 Look! <span style="font-weight: bold">There is the Lamb of God.</span></p>
3142 <p>281 The witness is described when he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">On the following day John was standing there
3143 again with two of his disciples. </span>In saying standing, three things are noted about John. First,
3144 his manner of teaching, which was different from that of Christ and his disciples. For Christ
3145 went about teaching; hence it is said: &#8220;Jesus traveled over all Galilee&#8221; (Mt 4:23). The apostles
3146 also traveled the world teaching: &#8220;Go to the whole world, and preach the good news to every
3147 creature&#8221; (Mkl6:15). But John taught in one place; hence he says, standing, that is, in one
3148 place, on the far side of the Jordan. And John spoke of Christ to all who came to him.</p>
3149 <p>The reason why Christ and his disciples taught going about is that the preaching of Christ was
3150 made credible by miracles, and so they went to various places in order that the miracles and
3151 powers of Christ might be made known. But the preaching of John was not confirmed by
3152 miracles, so that is is written, &#8220;John performed no sign&#8221; (below 10:41), but by the merit and
3153 sanctity of his life. And so he was <span style="font-weight: bold">standing</span> in one place so that various people might stream
3154 to him and be led to Christ by his holiness. Furthermore, if John had gone from place to place
3155 to announce Christ without performing any miracles, his testimony would have been quite
3156 unbelievable, since it would seem to be inopportune and he would seem to be forcing himself
3157 upon the people.</p>
3158 <p>Secondly, John&#8217;s perseverence in the truth is noted, because John was not a reed shaken by
3159 the wind, but was firm in the faith; &#8220;Let him who thinks that he stands, take heed so he will
3160 not fall&#8221; (1 Cor 10:12); &#8220;1 will stand my watch&#8221; (Hb 2:1).</p>
3161 <p>Thirdly, and allegorically, it is noted that to stand is, in an allegorical sense, the same as to
3162 fail or cease: &#8220;The oil stood,&#8221; i.e., failed (2 Kgs 4:6). So when Christ came John was
3163 standing, because when the truth comes the figure ceases. John stands because the law passes
3164 away.</p>
3165 <p>282 The manner of his testifying is presented as being certain, hecause based on sight. So he
3166 says, <span style="font-weight: bold">seeing Jesus walking by. </span>Here it should be remarked that the prophets bore witness to
3167 Christ: &#8220;All the prophets bear witness to him&#8221; (Acts 10:43). So did the apostles as they
3168 traveled the world: &#8220;You will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all of&#8217; Judea and Samaria,
3169 and to the remotest parts of the world&#8221; (Acts 1:8). However, their testimony was not about a
3170 person then visible or present, but on one who was absent. In the case of the prophets about
3171 one who was to come; in the case of the apostles, about one who was now gone. But John
3172 bore witness when Christ was present and seen by him; and so he says, seeing Jesus, with the
3173 eyes of his body and of his mind: &#8220;Look on the face of your Christ&#8221; (Ps 83:10); &#8220;They will
3174 see eye to eye&#8221; (Is 5 2:8).</p>
3175 <p>He says, <span style="font-weight: bold">walking, </span>to point out the mystery of the incarnation, in which the Word of God
3176 assumed a changeable nature: &#8220;I came forth from the Father, and have come into the world,&#8221;
3177 as it says below (16:2 8).</p>
3178 <p>283 Then he gives John&#8217;s testimony in saying, <span style="font-weight: bold">Look! There is the Lamb of God. </span>He says
3179 this not just to point out the power of Christ, but also in admiration of it: &#8220;His name will be
3180 called Wonderful&#8221; (Is 9:6). And this Lamb did possess truly wonderful power, because being
3181 slain, it killed the lion&#8212;that lion, I say, of which it says: &#8220;Your enemy, the devil, goes about
3182 like a roaring lion, seeking whom he can devour&#8221; (1 Pt 5:8). And so this Lamb, victorius and
3183 glorious, deserved to be called a lion: &#8220;Look! The Lion of the tribe of Judah has conquered&#8221;
3184 (Rv 5:5).</p>
3185 <p>The testimony he bears is brief, <span style="font-weight: bold">Look! There is the Lamb of God. </span>It is brief both because
3186 the disciples before whom he testified had already been sufficiently instructed about Christ
3187 from the things they had heard from John, and also because this is sufficient for John&#8217;s
3188 intention, whose only aim was to lead them to Christ. Yet he does not say, &#8220;Go to him,&#8221; so
3189 that the disciples would not seem to be doing Christ a favor by following him. But he does
3190 praise the grace of Christ so that they would regard it as of benefit to themselves if they
3191 followed Christ. And so he says, Look! <span style="font-weight: bold">There is the Lamb of God, </span>i.e., here is the One in
3192 whom is found the grace and the power which cleanses from sin; for the lamb was offered for
3193 sins, as we have said.</p>
3194 <p>284 The fruit of his testimony is given when he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">Hearing this, the two disciples
3195 followed Jesus. </span>First, the fruit resulting from the testimony of John and his disciples is given.
3196 Secondly, the fruit resulting from the preaching of Christ (v 43). In relation to the first: first,
3197 the fruit arising from John&#8217;s testimony is given; secondly, the fruit coming from the preaching
3198 of one of his disciples (v 40). With respect to the first he does two things. First, he shows the
3199 very beginning of the fruit coming from John&#8217;s testimony. Secondly, its consummation as
3200 accomplished by Christ (v 38).</p>
3201 <p>285 He says, <span style="font-weight: bold">Hearing this, </span>John saying, &#8220;Look! There is the Lamb of God,&#8221; <span style="font-weight: bold">the two
3202 disciples, </span>who were with him, <span style="font-weight: bold">followed Jesus, </span>literally. going with him, First, the fact that it
3203 is John who speaks while Christ is silent, and that disciples gather to Christ through the
3204 words of John, all this points out a mystery. For Christ is the groom of the Church, and John,
3205 the friend and groomsman of the groom. Now the function of the groomsman is to present the
3206 bride to the groom, and verbally make known the agreements; the role of the groom is to be
3207 silent, from modesty, and to make arrangements for his new bride as he wills. Thus, the
3208 disciples are presented by John to Christ and espoused in faith. John speaks, Christ is silent;
3209 yet after Christ accepts them, he carefully instructs them.</p>
3210 <p>We can note, secondly, that no one was converted when John praised the dignity of Christ,
3211 saying, he &#8220;ranks ahead of me,&#8221; and &#8220;I am not worthy to unfasten the strap of his sandal.&#8221; But
3212 the disciples followed Christ when John revealed Christ&#8217;s humility and about the mystery of
3213 the incarnation; and this is because we are more moved by Christ&#8217;s humility and the
3214 sufferings he endured for us. So it is said: &#8220;Your name is like oil poured out,&#8221; i.e., mercy, by
3215 which you have obtained salvation for all; and the text immediately follows with, &#8220;young
3216 maidens have greatly loved you&#8221; (Sg 1:2).</p>
3217 <p>We can note, thirdly, that the words of a preacher are like seed falling on different kinds of
3218 ground: on one they bear fruit, and on another they do not. So too, John, when he preaches,
3219 does not convert all his disciples to Christ, but only two, those who were well disposed. The
3220 others are envious of Christ, and they even question him, as mentioned in Matthew (9:14).</p>
3221 <p>Fourthly, we may note that John&#8217;s disciples, after hearing his witness to Christ, did not at
3222 once thrust themselves forward to speak with him hastily; rather, seriously and with a certain
3223 modesty, they tried to speak to Christ alone and in a private place: &#8220;There is a time and fitness
3224 for everything&#8221; (Ecc 8:6).</p>
3225 <p>286 The consummation of this fruit is now set forth (v 38), for what John began is completed
3226 by Christ, since &#8220;the law brought nothing to perfection&#8221; (Heb 7:19). And Christ does two
3227 things. First, he questions the disciples who were following him. Secondly, he teaches them
3228 (v 39). As to the first we have: first, the question of Christ is given; secondly, the answer of
3229 the disciples.</p>
3230 <p>287 He says, <span style="font-weight: bold">Jesus turned around, and seeing them following him said. </span>According to the
3231 literal sense we should understand that Christ was walking in front of them, and these two
3232 disciples, following him, did not see his face at all; and so Christ turns to them to holster their
3233 confidence. This lets us know that Christ gives confidence and hope to all who begin to
3234 follow hini with a pure heart: &#8220;She goes to meet those who desire her&#8221; (Wis 6:14). Now Jesus
3235 turns to us in order that we may see him; this will happen in that blessed vision when he will
3236 show us his face, as is said: &#8220;Show us your face, and we will be saved&#8221; (Ps 79:4). For as long
3237 as we are in this world we see his back, because it is through his effects that we acquire a
3238 knowledge of him; so it is said, &#8220;You will see my back&#8221; (Ex 33:23). Again, he turns to give
3239 us the riches of his mercy. This is requested in Psalm 89 (13): &#8220;Turn to us, 0 Lord.&#8221; For as
3240 long as Christ withholds the help of his mercy he seems to be turned away from us. And so
3241 Jesus turned to the disciples of John who were following him in order to show them his face
3242 and to pour his grace upon them.</p>
3243 <p>288 Christ examines them specifically about their intention. For all who follow Christ do not
3244 have the same intention: some follow him for the sake of temporal goods, and others for
3245 spiritual goods. And so the Lord asks their intention, saying, <span style="font-weight: bold">What are you looking for?</span>;<span style="font-weight: bold"> </span>not
3246 in order to learn their intention, but so that, after they showed a proper intention, he might
3247 make them more intimate friends and show that they are worthy to hear him.</p>
3248 <p>289 It may be remarked that these are the first words which Christ speaks in this Gospel. And
3249 this is appropriate, because the first thing that God asks of a man is a proper intention. And,
3250 according to Origen, after the six words that John had spoken, Christ spoke the seventh. The
3251 first words spoken by John were when, bearing witness to Christ, he cried out, saying, &#8220;This
3252 is the one of whom I said.&#8221; The second is when he said, &#8220;I am not worthy to unfasten the strap
3253 of his sandal.&#8221; The third is, &#8220;I baptize with water. But there is one standing in your midst
3254 whom you do not recognize.&#8221; The fourth is, &#8220;Look! There is the Lamb of God.&#8221; The fifth, &#8220;I
3255 saw the Spirit coming down on him from heaven like a dove.&#8221; The sixth, when he says here,
3256 &#8220;Look! There is the Lamb of God.&#8221; But it is Christ who speaks the seventh words so that we
3257 may understand, in a mystical sense, that rest, which is signified by the seventh day, will
3258 come to us through Christ, and that in him is found the fulness of the seven gifts of the Holy
3259 Spirit.</p>
3260 <p>290 The disciples answer; and although there was one question, they gave two answers. First,
3261 why they are following Christ, namely, to learn; thus they call him Teacher, <span style="font-weight: bold">Rabbi (which
3262 means Teacher). </span>As if to say: We ask you to teach us. For they already knew what is stated
3263 in Matthew (23:10): &#8220;You have one Teacher, the Christ.&#8221; The second answer is what they
3264 want in following him, that is, <span style="font-weight: bold">Where do you live? </span>And literally, it can be said that in truth
3265 they were looking for the home of Christ. For because of the great and wonderful things they
3266 had heard about him from John, they were not satisfied with questioning him only once and in
3267 a superficial way, but wanted to do so frequently and seriously. And so they wanted to know
3268 where his home was so that they might visit him often, according to the advice of the wise
3269 man: &#8220;If you see a man of understanding, go to him early&#8221; (Sir 6:36), and &#8220;Happy is the man
3270 who hears me, who watches daily at my gates&#8221; (Prv 8:34).</p>
3271 <p>In the allegorical sense, God&#8217;s home is in heaven, according to the Psalm (122:1 ): &#8220;I have
3272 lifted up my eyes to you, who live in heaven.&#8221; So they asked where Christ was living because
3273 our purpose in following him should be that Christ leads us to heaven, i.e., to heavenly glory.</p>
3274 <p>Finally, in the moral sense, they ask, <span style="font-weight: bold">Where do you live? </span>as though desiring to learn what
3275 qualities men should possess in order to be worthy to have Christ dwell in them. Concerning
3276 this dwelling Ephesians (2:22) says: &#8220;You are being built into a dwelling place for God.&#8221; And
3277 the Song (1:6) says: &#8220;Show me, you whom my soul loves, where you graze your flock, where
3278 you rest at midday.&#8221;</p>
3279 <p>291 Then when he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">Come and </span>see, Christ&#8217;s instruction of the disciples is given. First we
3280 have the instruction of the disciples by Christ; secondly, their obedience is cited; and thirdly,
3281 the time is given.</p>
3282 <p>292 First he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">Come and see, </span>that is, where I live. There is a difficulty here: for since the
3283 Lord says, &#8220;The Son of Man does not have any place to lay his head&#8221; (Mt 8:20), why does he
3284 tell them to <span style="font-weight: bold">Come and see </span>where he lives? I answer, according to Chrysostom, that when the
3285 Lord says, &#8220;The Son of Man does not have any place to lay his head,&#8221; he showed that he had
3286 no home of his own, but not that he did not remain in someone else&#8217;s home. And such was
3287 the home he invited them to see, saying, <span style="font-weight: bold">Come and see.</span></p>
3288 <p>In the mystical sense, he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">Come and see, </span>because the dwelling of God, whether of glory
3289 or grace, cannot be known except by experience: for it cannot be explained in words: &#8220;I will
3290 give him a white stone upon which is written a new name, which no one knows but he who
3291 receives it&#8221; (Rv 2:17). And so he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">Come and see: Come</span>, by believing and working; <span style="font-weight: bold">and
3292 see, </span>by experiencing and understanding.</p>
3293 <p>293 It should be noted that we can attain to this knowledge in four ways. First, by doing good
3294 works; so he says, Come: &#8220;When shall I come and appear before the face of God&#8221; (Ps 41:3).
3295 Secondly, by the rest or stillness of the mind: &#8220;Be still and see&#8221; (Ps 45:10). Thirdly, by tasting
3296 the divine sweetness: &#8220;Taste and see that the I.ord is sweet&#8221; O&#8217;s 33:9). Fourthly, by acts of
3297 devotion: &#8220;Let us lift up our hearts and hands in prayer&#8221; (Lam 3:41). And so the Lord says: &#8220;it
3298 is I myself. Feel and see&#8221; (Lk 24:39).</p>
3299 <p>294 Next the obedience of the disciples is mentioned; for immediately <span style="font-weight: bold">they went and saw,
3300 </span>because by coming they saw him, and seeing they did not leave him. Thus it says, <span style="font-weight: bold">and they
3301 stayed with him the rest of that day, </span>for as stated below (6:45): &#8220;Every one who hears the
3302 Father, and has learned, comes to me.&#8221; For those who leave Christ have not yet seen him as
3303 they should. But those who have seen him by perfectly believing <span style="font-weight: bold">stayed with him the rest of
3304 that day; </span>hearing and seeing that blessed day, they spent a blessed night: &#8220;Happy are your
3305 men, and happy are your servants, who always stand before you&#8221; (1 Kgs 8:10). And as
3306 Augustine says: &#8220;Let us also build a dwelling in our heart and fashion a home where he may
3307 come and teach us.&#8221;</p>
3308 <p>And he says, that day, because there can be no night where the light of Christ is present,
3309 where there is the Sun of justice.</p>
3310 <p>295 The time is given when he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">It was about the tenth hour. </span>The Evangelist mentions
3311 this in order that, considering the literal sense, he might give credit to Christ and the disciples.
3312 For the tenth hour is near the end of the day. And this praises Christ who was so eager to
3313 teach that not even the lateness of the hour induced him to postpone teaching them; but he
3314 taught them at the tenth hour. &#8220;In the morning sow your seed, and in the evening do not let
3315 your hands be idle&#8221; (Ecc 11:6).</p>
3316 <p>296 The moderation of the disciples is also praised, because even at the tenth hour, when men
3317 usually have eaten and are less self-possessed for receiving wisdom, they were both self-possessed and prepared to hear wisdom and were not hindered because of food or wine. But
3318 this is not unexpected, for they had been disciples of John, whose drink was water and whose
3319 food was the locust and wild honey.</p>
3320 <p>297 According to Augustine, however, the tenth hour signifies the law, which was given in
3321 ten precepts. And so the disciples came to Christ at the tenth hour and remained with him to
3322 be taught so that the law might be fulfilled by Christ, since it could not be fulfilled by the
3323 Jews. And so at that hour he is called Rabbi, that is, Teacher.</p>
3324 <p>298 Then (v 40), he sets forth the fruit produced by the disciple of John who was converted to
3325 Christ. First, the disciple is described; secondly, the fruit begun by him (v 41); thirdly, the
3326 consummation of this fruit by Christ (v 42).</p>
3327 <p>299 The disciple is described by name when he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">Andrew, </span>i.e., &#8220;manly&#8221;. &#8220;Act manfully,
3328 and let Your heart be strong,&#8221; as it says in Psalm 30 (v 25). he mentions his name in order to
3329 show his privilege: he was not only the first to be perfectly converted to Christ, but he also
3330 preached Christ. So, as Stephen was the first martyr after Christ, so Andrew was the first
3331 Christian.</p>
3332 <p>He is described, secondly, by his relationship, that is, as <span style="font-weight: bold">Simon Peter&#8217;s brother, </span>for he was
3333 the younger. And this is mentioned to commend him, for although younger in age, he became
3334 first in faith.</p>
3335 <p>He is described, thirdly, by his discipleship, because he was <span style="font-weight: bold">one of the two who had
3336 followed him. </span>His name is mentioned in order to show that Andrew&#8217;s privilege was
3337 remarkable. For the name of the other disciple is not mentioned: either because it was John
3338 the Evangelist himself, who through humility followed the practice in his Gospel of not
3339 mentioning his own name when he was involved in some event; or, according to Chrysostom,
3340 because the other one was not a notable person, nor had he done anything great, and so there
3341 was no need to mention his name. Luke does the same in his Gospel (10:1), where he does
3342 not mention the names of the seventy-two disciples sent out by the Lord, because they were
3343 not the outstanding and important persons that the apostles were. Or, according to Alcuin, this
3344 other disciple was Philip: for the Evangelist, after discussing Andrew, begins at once with
3345 Philip, saying: &#8220;On the following day Jesus wanted to go to Galilee, and coming upon Philip&#8221;
3346 (below 1:43).</p>
3347 <p>He is commended, fourthly, for the zeal of his devotion; hence he says that Andrew followed
3348 him, i.e., Jesus: &#8220;My foot has followed in his steps&#8221; (Jb 23:11).</p>
3349 <p>300 The fruit begun by Andrew is mentioned when he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">The first thing he did was to
3350 look for his brother Simon. </span>He first mentions the one for whom he bore fruit, that is, his
3351 brother, in order to mark the perfection of his conversion. For as Peter says, in the <i>Itinerary of
3352 Clement, </i>the evident sign of a perfect conversion of anyone is that, once converted, the closer
3353 one is to him the more he tries to convert him to Christ. And so Andrew, being now perfectly
3354 converted, does not keep the treasure he found to himself, but hurries and quickly runs to his
3355 brother to share with him the good things he has received. And so he says the <span style="font-weight: bold">first thing he,
3356 </span>that is, Andrew, <span style="font-weight: bold">did was to look for his brother Simon</span>, so that related in blood he might
3357 make him related in faith: &#8220;A brother that is helped by his brother is like a strong city&#8221; (Prv
3358 18:19); &#8220;Let him who hears say, &#8216;Come&#8217; &#8220; (Rv 22:17).</p>
3359 <p>301 Secondly, he mentions the words spoken by Andrew, <span style="font-weight: bold">We have found the Messiah
3360 (which means the Christ). </span>Here, according to Chrysostom, he is tacitly answering a certain
3361 question: namely, that if someone were to ask what they had been instructed about by Christ,
3362 they would have the ready answer that through the testimony of the Scriptures he instructed
3363 him in such a way that he knew he was the Christ. And so he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">We have found the
3364 Messiah. </span>He implies by this that he had previously sought him by desire for a long time:
3365 &#8220;Happy is the man who finds wisdom&#8221; (Prv 3:13).</p>
3366 <p>&#8220;Messiah,&#8221; which is Hebrew, is translated as &#8220;Christos&#8221; in Greek, and in Latin as &#8220;Unctus&#8221;
3367 (anointed), because he was anointed in a special way with invisible oil, the oil of the Holy
3368 Spirit. So Andrew explicitly designates him by this title: &#8220;Your God has anointed you with
3369 the oil of gladness above your fellows,&#8221; i.e., above all the saints. For all the saints are
3370 anointed with that oil, but Christ was singularly anointed and is singularly holy. So, as
3371 Chrysostom says, he does not simply call him &#8220;Messiah,&#8221; but <span style="font-weight: bold">the Messiah.</span></p>
3372 <p>302 Thirdly, he mentions the fruit he produced, because <span style="font-weight: bold">he brought him, </span>that is, <span style="font-weight: bold">Peter, to
3373 Jesus. </span>This gives recognition to Peter&#8217;s obedience, for he came at once, without delay. And
3374 consider the devotion of Andrew: for he brought him to Jesus and not to himself (for he knew
3375 that he himself was weak); and so he leads him to Christ to be instructed by him. This shows
3376 us that the efforts and the aim of preachers should not be to win for themselves the fruits of
3377 their preaching, i.e., to turn them to their own private benefit and honor, but to bring them to
3378 Jesus, i.e., to refer them to his glory and honor: &#8220;What we preach is not ourselves, but Jesus
3379 Christ,&#8221; as is said in 2 Corinthians (4:5).</p>
3380 <p>303 The consummation of this fruit is given when he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">Looking at him intently Jesus
3381 said. </span>Here Christ, wishing to raise him up to faith in His divinity, begins to perform works of
3382 divinity, making know things that are hidden. First of all, things which are hidden in the
3383 present: so <span style="font-weight: bold">looking at him, </span>i.e, as soon as Jesus saw him, he considered him by the power of
3384 his divinity and called him by name, saying, <span style="font-weight: bold">You are Simon. </span>This is not surprising, for as it
3385 is said: &#8220;Man sees the appearances, but the Lord sees the heart&#8221; (I Sm 16:7). This name is
3386 appropriate for the mystery. For &#8220;Simon&#8221; means &#8220;obedient,&#8221; to indicate that obedience is
3387 necessary for one who has been converted to Christ through faith: &#8220;He gives the Holy Spirit
3388 to all who obey him&#8221; (Acts 5:32).</p>
3389 <p>304 Secondly, he reveals things hidden in the past. Hence he says, son of John, because that
3390 was the name of Simon&#8217;s father; or he says, &#8220;son of Jonah,&#8221; as we find in Matthew (16:17),
3391 &#8220;Simon Bar-Jonah.&#8221; And each name is appropriate to this mystery. For &#8220;John&#8221; means
3392 &#8220;grace,&#8221; to indicate that it is through grace that men come to the faith of Christ: &#8220;You are
3393 saved by his grace&#8221; (Eph 2:5). And &#8220;Jonah&#8221; means &#8220;dove,&#8221; to indicate that it is by the Holy
3394 Spirit, who has been given to us, that we are made strong in our love for God: &#8220;The love of
3395 God is poured out into our hearts by the Holy Spirit&#8221; (Rom 5:5).</p>
3396 <p>305 Thirdly, he reveals things hidden in the future. So he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">you are to be called Cephas
3397 (which is translated Peter), </span>and in Greek, &#8220;head.&#8221; And this is appropriate to this mystery,
3398 which is that he who was to be the head of the others and the vicar of Christ should remain
3399 firm. As Matthew (16:18) says: &#8220;You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church.&#8221;</p>
3400 <p>306 There is a question here about the literal meaning. First, why did Christ give Simon a
3401 name at the beginning of his conversion, rather than will that he have this name from the time
3402 of his birth? Two different answers have been given for this. The first, according to
3403 Chrysostom, is that divinely given names indicate a certain eminence in spiritual grace. Now
3404 when God confers a special grace upon anyone, the name indicating that grace is given at
3405 one&#8217;s birth: as in the case of John the Baptist, who was named before he was born, because he
3406 had been sanctified in his mother&#8217;s womb. But sometimes a special grace is given during the
3407 course of one&#8217;s life: then such names are divinely given at that time and not at birth: as in the
3408 case of Abraham and Sarah, whose names were changed when they received the promise that
3409 their posterity would multiply. Likewise, Peter is named in a divine way when he is called to
3410 the faith of Christ and to the grace of apostleship, and particularly because he was appointed
3411 Prince of the apostles of the entire Church&#8212;which was not done with the other apostles.</p>
3412 <p>But, according to Augustine, if he had been called Cephas from birth, this mystery would not
3413 have been apparent. And so the Lord willed that he should have one name at birth, so that by
3414 changing his name the mystery of the Church, which was built on his confession of faith,
3415 would be apparent. Now &#8220;Peter&#8221; (<i>Petrus</i>) is derived from &#8220;rock&#8221; (<i>petra</i>). But the rock. was
3416 Christ. Thus, the name &#8220;Peter&#8221; signifies the Church, which was built upon that solid and
3417 immovable rock which is Christ.</p>
3418 <p>307 The second question is whether this name was given to Peter at this time, or at the time
3419 mentioned by Matthew (16:18). Augustine answers that this name was given to Simon at this
3420 time; and at the event reported by Matthew the Lord is not giving this name but reminding
3421 him of the name that was given, so that Christ is using this name as already given. But others
3422 think that this name was given when the Lord said, &#8220;You are Peter, and upon this rock I will
3423 build my church&#8221; (Mt 16:18); and in this passage in the Gospel of John, Christ is not giving
3424 this name, but foretelling what will be given later.</p>
3425 <p>308 The third question is about the calling of Peter and Andrew: for here it says that they
3426 were called near the Jordan, because they were John&#8217;s disciples; but in Matthew (4:18) it says
3427 that Christ called them by the Sea of Galilee. The answer to this is that there was a triple
3428 calling of the apostles. The first was a call to knowledge or friendship and faith; and this is
3429 the one recorded here. The second consisted in the prediction of their office: &#8220;From now on
3430 you will be catching men&#8221; (Lk 5:10). The third call was to their apostleship, which is
3431 mentioned by Matthew (4:18). This was the perfect call because after this they were not to
3432 return to their own pursuits.</p>
3433 <p style="margin-bottom: 0.125in; margin-bottom: 0.125in">&#160;</p>
3434 <p style="text-align: center; margin-bottom: 0.125in"><span style="font-weight: bold">LECTURE16</span></p>
3435 <BLOCKQUOTE><p>43 On the following day Jesus wanted to go to Galilee, and coming upon Philip, he said,
3436 &#8220;Follow me.&#8221; 44 Now Philip came from Bethsaida, the same town as Andrew and Peter. 45
3437 Philip sought out Nathanael, and said to him, &#8220;We have found the one Moses spoke of in the
3438 law - the prophets too - Jesus, son of Joseph, from Nazareth.&#8221; 46 &#8220;From Nazareth!&#8221; Nathanael
3439 replied, &#8220;What good can come from th1t place?&#8221; Philip said, &#8220;Come and see.&#8221; 47 When Jesus
3440 saw Nathanael coming toward him, he said of him: &#8220;Here is a true Israelite, in whom there is
3441 no guile.&#8221; 48 Nathanael asked him, &#8220;How do you know me?&#8221; Jesus replied and said, &#8220;Before
3442 Philip called you, I saw you when you were sitting under the fig tree.&#8221; 49 &#8220;Rabbi,&#8221; said
3443 Nathanael, &#8220;you are the Son of God; you are the King of Israel.&#8221; 50 Jesus responded and said,
3444 &#8220;You believed just because I said to you that I saw you sitting under the fig tree! You will see
3445 greater things than this.&#8221; 51 He went on to say, &#8220;Amen, amen, I say to you, you will see the
3446 heavens opened and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man.&#8221;</p></BLOCKQUOTE>
3447 <p>309 After having shown the fruit produced by John&#8217;s preaching and that of his disciples, the
3448 Evangelist now shows the fruit obtained from the preaching of Christ. First, he deals with the
3449 conversion of one disciple as the result of Christ&#8217;s preaching. Secondly, the conversion of
3450 others due to the preaching of the disciple just converted to Christ (v 45). As to the first he
3451 does three things: first, the occasion when the disciple is called is given; secondly, his calling
3452 is described; thirdly, his situation.</p>
3453 <p>310 The occasion of his calling was the departure of Jesus from Judea. So he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">On the
3454 following day Jesus wanted to go to Galilee, and coming upon Philip. </span>There are three
3455 reasons why Jesus left for Galilee, two of which are literal. One of these is that after being
3456 baptized by John and desiring to shed honor on the Baptist, he left Judea for Galilee so that
3457 his presence would not obscure and lessen John&#8217;s teaching authority (while he still retained
3458 that state); and this teaches us to show honor to one another, as is said in Romans (12:10).</p>
3459 <p>The second reason is that there are no distinguished persons in Galilee: &#8220;No prophet is to rise
3460 from Galilee&#8221; (below 7:52). And so, to show the greatness of his power, Christ wished to go
3461 there and choose there the princes of the earth, who are greater than the prophets: &#8220;He has
3462 turned the desert into pools of water,&#8221; as we read in Psalm 106 (v 35).</p>
3463 <p>The third reason is mystical: for &#8220;Galilee&#8221; means &#8220;passage.&#8221; So Christ desired to go from
3464 Judea into Galilee in order to indicate that on &#8220;on the following day,&#8221; i.e., on the day of grace,
3465 that is, the day of the Good News, he would pass from Judea into Galilee, i.e., to save the
3466 Gentiles: &#8220;Is he going to go to those who are dispersed among the Gentiles, and teach the
3467 Gentiles?&#8221; (below 7:35).</p>
3468 <p>311 A disciple&#8217;s vocation is to follow: hence he says that after Christ found Philip he said,
3469 <span style="font-weight: bold">Follow me. </span>Note that sometimes man finds God, but without knowing it, as it were: &#8220;He who
3470 finds me will find life, and will have salvation from the Lord&#8221; (Prv 8:35). And at other times
3471 God finds the man, in order to bestow honor and greatness upon him: &#8220;I have found David,
3472 my servant&#8221; (Ps 88:2 1 ). Christ found Philip in this way, that is, to call him to the faith and to
3473 grace. And so he says at once, <span style="font-weight: bold">Follow me.</span></p>
3474 <p>312 There is a question here: Why did not Jesus call his disciples at the very beginning?
3475 Chrysostorn answers that he did not wish to call anyone before someone clung to him
3476 spontaneoulsy because of John&#8217;s preaching, for men are drawn by example more than by
3477 words.</p>
3478 <p>313 One might also ask why Philip followed Christ immediately after only a word, while
3479 Andrew followed Christ after hearing about him from John, and Peter after hearing from
3480 Andrew.</p>
3481 <p>Three answers can be given. One is that Philip had already been instructed by John: for
3482 according to one of the explanations given above, Philip was that other disciple who followed
3483 Christ along with Andrew. Another is that Christ&#8217;s voice had power not only to act on one&#8217;s
3484 hearing from without, but also on the heart from within: &#8220;My words are like fire&#8221; (Jer 23:29).
3485 For the voice of Christ was spoken not only to the exterior, but it enkindled the interior of the
3486 faithful to love him. The third answer is that Philip. had perhaps already been instructed about
3487 Christ by Andrew and Peter, since they were from the same town. In fact, this is what the
3488 Evangelist seems to imply by adding, <span style="font-weight: bold">Now Philip came from Bethsaida, the same town as
3489 Andrew and Peter.</span></p>
3490 <p>314 This gives us the situation of the disciples he called: for they were from Bethsaida. And
3491 this is appropriate to this mystery. For &#8220;Bethsaida&#8221; means &#8220;house of hunters,&#8221; to show the
3492 attitude of Philip, Peter and Andrew at that time, and because it was fitting to call, from the
3493 house of hunters, hunters who were to capture souls for life: &#8220;I will send my hunters&#8221; (Jer
3494 16:16).</p>
3495 <p>315 Now the fruit produced by the disciple who was converted to Christ is given. First, the
3496 beginning of the fruit, coming from this disciple. Secondly, its consummation by Christ (v
3497 47). As to the first, he does three things: first, the statement of Philip is given; secondly,
3498 Nathanael&#8217;s response; and thirdly, Philip&#8217;s ensuing advice.</p>
3499 <p>316 As to the first, note that just as Andrew, after having been perfectly converted, was eager
3500 to lead his brother to Christ, so too Philip with regard to his brother, Nathanael. And so he
3501 says that Philip found Nathanael, whom he probably looked for as Andrew did for Peter; and
3502 this was a sign of a perfect conversion. The word &#8220;Nathanael&#8221; means &#8220;gift of God&#8221;; and it is
3503 God&#8217;s gift if anyone is converted to Christ.</p>
3504 <p>He tells him that all the prophecies and the law have been fulfilled, and that the desires of
3505 their holy forefathers are not in vain, but have been guaranteed, and that what God has
3506 promised was now accomplished. <span style="font-weight: bold">We have found the one Moses spoke of in the law&#8212;the
3507 prophets too&#8212;Jesus. </span>We understand by this that Nathanael was fairly learned in the law,
3508 and that Philip, now having learned about Christ, wished to lead Nathanael to Christ through
3509 the things he himself knew, that is, from the law and the prophets. So he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">the one Moses
3510 spoke of in the law. </span>For Moses wrote of Christ: &#8220;If you believed Moses, you would perhaps
3511 believe me, for he wrote of me&#8221; (below 5:46). <span style="font-weight: bold">The prophets too </span>wrote of Christ: &#8220;All the
3512 prophets bear witness to him&#8221; (Acts 10:43).</p>
3513 <p>317 Note that Philip says three things about Christ that are in agreement with the law and the
3514 prophets. First, the name: for he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">We have found Jesus. </span>And this agrees with the
3515 prophets: &#8220;I will send them a Savior&#8221; (Is 19:20); &#8220;1 will rejoice in God, my Jesus&#8221; (Hb 3:18).</p>
3516 <p>Secondly, the family from which Christ took his human origin, when he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">son of Joseph,
3517 </span>i.e., who was of the house and family of David. And although Jesus did not derive his origin
3518 from him, yet he did derive it from the Virgin, who was of the same line as Joseph. He calls
3519 him the son of Joseph, because Jesus was considered to be the son of the one to whom his
3520 mother was married. So it is said: &#8220;the son of Joseph (as was supposed)&#8221; (Lk 3:23). Nor is it
3521 strange that Philip called him the son of Joseph, since his own mother, who was aware of his
3522 divine incarnation, called him his son: &#8220;Your father and I have been looking for you in
3523 sorrow&#8221; (Lk 2:48). Indeed, if one is called the son of another because he is supported by him,
3524 this is more reason why Joseph should be called the father of Jesus, even though he was not
3525 so according to the flesh: for he not only supported him, but was the husband of his virgin
3526 mother. However, Philip calls him the son of Joseph (not as though he was born from the
3527 union of Joseph and the Virgin) because he knew that Christ would be born from the line of
3528 David; and this was the house and family of Joseph, to whom Mary was married. And this
3529 also is in agreement with the prophets: &#8220;I will raise up a just branch for David&#8221; (Jer 23:5).</p>
3530 <p>Thirdly, he mentions his native land, saying, <span style="font-weight: bold">from Nazareth; </span>not because he had been born
3531 there, but because he was brought up there; but he had been born in Bethlehem. Philip omits
3532 to mention Bethlehem but not Nazareth because, while the birth of Christ was not known to
3533 many, the place where he was brought up was. And this also agrees with the prophets: &#8220;A
3534 shoot will arise from the root of Jesse, and a flower (or Nazarene, according to another
3535 version) will rise up from his roots&#8221; (Is I I: I).</p>
3536 <p>318 Then when he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">Nathanael replied, </span>the answer of Nathanael is given. His answer
3537 can be interpreted as an assertion or as a question; and in either way it is suitable to Philip&#8217;s
3538 affirmation. If it is taken as an assertion, as Augustine does, the meaning is: &#8220;Some good can
3539 come from Nazareth.&#8221; In other words, from a city with that name it is possible that there
3540 come forth to us some very excellent grace or some outstanding teacher to preach to us about
3541 the flower of the virtues and the purity of sanctity; for &#8220;Nazareth&#8221; means &#8220;flower.&#8221; We can
3542 understand from this that Nathanael, being quite learned in the law and a student of the
3543 Scriptures, knew that the Savior was expected to come from Nazareth&#8212;something that was
3544 not so clear even to the Scribes and Pharisees. And so when Philip said, <span style="font-weight: bold">We have found
3545 Jesus from Nazareth, </span>his hopes were lifted and he answered: &#8220;Indeed, some good can come
3546 from Nazareth.&#8221;</p>
3547 <p>But if we take his answer as a question, as Chrysostom does, then the sense is: <span style="font-weight: bold">From
3548 Nazareth! What good can come from that place? </span>As if to say: Everything else you say
3549 seems credible, because his name and his lineage are consistent with the prophecies, but your
3550 statement that he is <span style="font-weight: bold">from Nazareth </span>does not seem possible. For Nathanael understood from
3551 the Scriptures that the Christ was to come from Bethlehem, according to: &#8220;And you,
3552 Bethlehem, land of Judah, are not the least among the princes of Judah: for out of you a ruler
3553 will come forth, who will rule my people Israel,&#8221; as we read in Matthew (2:6). And so, not
3554 finding Philip&#8217;s statement in agreement with the prophecy, he prudently and moderately
3555 inquires about its truth, <span style="font-weight: bold">What good can come from that place?</span></p>
3556 <p>319 Then Philip&#8217;s advice is given, <span style="font-weight: bold">Come and see. </span>And this advice suits either interpretation
3557 of Nathanael&#8217;s answer. To the assertive interpretation it is as though he says: You say that
3558 something good can come from Nazareth, but I say that the good I state to you is of such a
3559 nature and so marvelous that I am unable to express it in words, so <span style="font-weight: bold">Come and see</span>. To the
3560 interpretation that makes it a question, it as as though he says: You wonder and say: <span style="font-weight: bold">What
3561 good can come from that place?, </span>thinking that this is impossible according to the Scriptures.
3562 But if you are willing to experience what I experienced, you will understand that what I say is
3563 true, so <span style="font-weight: bold">Come and see.</span></p>
3564 <p>Then, not discouraged by his questions, Philip brings Nathanael to Christ. He knew that he
3565 would no longer argue with him if he tasted the words and teaching of Christ. And in this,
3566 Philip was imitating Christ who earlier answered those who had asked about the place where
3567 he lived: &#8220;Come and see ... &#8220;Come to him, and be enlightened&#8221; (Ps 33:6).</p>
3568 <p>320 Then when he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">When Jesus saw Nathanael, </span>the consummation of this fruit by
3569 Christ is described. We should note that there are two ways in which men are converted to
3570 Christ: some by miracles they have seen and things experienced in themselves or in others;
3571 others are converted through internal insights, through prophecy and the foreknowledge of
3572 what is hidden in the future. The second way is more efficacious than the first: for devils and
3573 certain men who receive their help can simulate marvels; but to predict the future can only be
3574 done by divine power. &#8220;Tell us what is to come, and we will say that you are gods&#8221; (Is 41:23);
3575 &#8220;Prophecies are for those who believe.&#8221; And so our Lord draws Nathanael to the faith not by
3576 miracles but by making known things which are hidden. And so he says of him, <span style="font-weight: bold">Here is a
3577 true Israelite, in whom there is no guile.</span></p>
3578 <p>321 Christ mentions three hidden matters: things hidden in the present, in the heart; past
3579 facts; and future heavenly matters. To know these three things is not a human but a divine
3580 achievement.</p> 5579 achievement.</p>
3581 <p>He mentions things hidden in the present when he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">Here is a true Israelite, in whom 5580 <p>He mentions things hidden in the present when he says,
3582 there is no guile. </span>Here we have, first, the prior revelation of Christ; secondly, Nathanael&#8217;s 5581 <span style="font-weight: bold">Here is a true Israelite, in whom
3583 question, <span style="font-weight: bold">How do you know me?</span></p> 5582 there is no guile.</span> Here we have, first, the prior revelation
3584 <p>322 First he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">When Jesus saw Nathanael coming toward him. </span>As if to say: Before 5583 of Christ; secondly, Nathanael&rsquo;s question, <span style=
3585 Nathanael reached him, Jesus said, <span style="font-weight: bold">Here is a true Israelite. </span>He said this about him before he 5584 "font-weight: bold">How do you know me?</span></p>
3586 came to him, because had he said it after he came, Nathanael might have believed that Jesus 5585 <p>322 First he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">When Jesus
3587 had heard it from Philip.</p> 5586 saw Nathanael coming toward him.</span> As if to say: Before
3588 <p>Christ said, <span style="font-weight: bold">Here is a true Israelite, in whom there is no guile. </span>Now &#8220;Israel&#8221; has two 5587 Nathanael reached him, Jesus said, <span style=
3589 meanings. One of these, as the Gloss says, is &#8220;most righteous&#8221;.&#8212;&#8220;Do not fear, my most 5588 "font-weight: bold">Here is a true Israelite.</span> He said this
3590 righteous servant, whom I have chosen&#8221; (Is 44:2). Its second meaning is &#8220;the man who sees 5589 about him before he came to him, because had he said it after he
3591 God.&#8221; And according to each meaning Nathanael is a true Israelite. For since one in whom 5590 came, Nathanael might have believed that Jesus had heard it from
3592 there is no guile is called righteous, Nathanael is said to be a <span style="font-weight: bold">true Israelite, in whom there is 5591 Philip.</p>
3593 no guile. </span>As if to say: You truly represent your race because you are righteous and without 5592 <p>Christ said, <span style="font-weight: bold">Here is a true
3594 guile. Further, because man sees God through cleanness of heart and simplicity, Christ said, <span style="font-weight: bold">a 5593 Israelite, in whom there is no guile.</span> Now
3595 true Israelite, </span>i.e., you are a man who truly sees God because you are simple and without 5594 &ldquo;Israel&rdquo; has two meanings. One of these, as the Gloss
5595 says, is &ldquo;most righteous&rdquo;.&mdash;&ldquo;Do not fear, my
5596 most righteous servant, whom I have chosen&rdquo; (Is 44:2). Its
5597 second meaning is &ldquo;the man who sees God.&rdquo; And according
5598 to each meaning Nathanael is a true Israelite. For since one in
5599 whom there is no guile is called righteous, Nathanael is said to be
5600 a <span style="font-weight: bold">true Israelite, in whom there is
5601 no guile.</span> As if to say: You truly represent your race
5602 because you are righteous and without guile. Further, because man
5603 sees God through cleanness of heart and simplicity, Christ said,
5604 <span style="font-weight: bold">a true Israelite,</span> i.e., you
5605 are a man who truly sees God because you are simple and without
3596 guile.</p> 5606 guile.</p>
3597 <p>Further, he said, <span style="font-weight: bold">in whom there is no guile, </span>so that we do not think that it was with malice 5607 <p>Further, he said, <span style="font-weight: bold">in whom there
3598 that Nathanael asked: <span style="font-weight: bold">What good can come from that place?</span></p> 5608 is no guile,</span> so that we do not think that it was with malice
3599 <p>323 Augustine has a different explanation of this passage. It is clear that all are born under 5609 that Nathanael asked: <span style="font-weight: bold">What good can
3600 sin. Now those who have sin in their hearts but outwardly pretend to be just are called 5610 come from that place?</span></p>
3601 guileful. But a sinner who admits that he is a sinner is not guileful. So Christ said, <span style="font-weight: bold">Here is a 5611 <p>323 Augustine has a different explanation of this passage. It is
3602 true Israelite, in whom there is no guile, </span>not because Nathanael was without sin, or because 5612 clear that all are born under sin. Now those who have sin in their
3603 he had no need of a physician, for no one is born in such a way as not to need a physician; but 5613 hearts but outwardly pretend to be just are called guileful. But a
3604 he was praised by Christ because he admitted his sins.</p> 5614 sinner who admits that he is a sinner is not guileful. So Christ
3605 <p>324 Then when he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">How do you know me?, </span>we have Nathanael&#8217;s question. For 5615 said, <span style="font-weight: bold">Here is a true Israelite, in
3606 Nathanael, in wonder at the divine power in this revelation of what is hidden, because this can 5616 whom there is no guile,</span> not because Nathanael was without
3607 only be from God&#8212;&#8220;The heart is depraved and inscrutable, and who is able to know it? I the 5617 sin, or because he had no need of a physician, for no one is born
3608 Lord search the heart and probe the loins&#8221; (Jer 17:9); &#8220;Man sees the appearances, but the Lord 5618 in such a way as not to need a physician; but he was praised by
3609 sees the heart&#8221; (I Sin 16:7)&#8212;asks, <span style="font-weight: bold">How do you know me? </span>Here we can recognize 5619 Christ because he admitted his sins.</p>
3610 Nathanael&#8217;s humility, because, although he had been praised, he did not become elated, but 5620 <p>324 Then when he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">How do
3611 held this praise of himself suspect. &#8220;My people, who call you blessed, they are deceiving you&#8221; 5621 you know me?,</span> we have Nathanael&rsquo;s question. For
3612 (Is 3:12).</p> 5622 Nathanael, in wonder at the divine power in this revelation of what
3613 <p>325 Then he touches on matters in the past, saying, <span style="font-weight: bold">Before Philip called you, I saw you 5623 is hidden, because this can only be from God&mdash;&ldquo;The heart
3614 when you were sitting under the fig tree. </span>First we have the statement of Christ; secondly, 5624 is depraved and inscrutable, and who is able to know it? I the Lord
3615 the confession of Nathanael.</p> 5625 search the heart and probe the loins&rdquo; (Jer 17:9); &ldquo;Man
3616 <p>326 As to the first, we should note that Nathanael might have had two misgivings about 5626 sees the appearances, but the Lord sees the heart&rdquo; (I Sin
3617 Christ. One, that Christ said this in order to win his friendship by flattery; the other, that 5627 16:7)&mdash;asks, <span style="font-weight: bold">How do you know
3618 Christ had learned what he knew from others. So, to remove Nathanael&#8217;s suspicions and raise 5628 me?</span> Here we can recognize Nathanael&rsquo;s humility,
3619 him to higher things, Christ reveals certain hidden matters that no one could know except in a 5629 because, although he had been praised, he did not become elated,
3620 divine way, that is, things that related only to Nathanael. He refers to these when he says, 5630 but held this praise of himself suspect. &ldquo;My people, who call
3621 <span style="font-weight: bold">Before Philip called you, I saw you when you were sitting under the fig tree. </span>In the literal 5631 you blessed, they are deceiving you&rdquo; (Is 3:12).</p>
3622 sense, this means that Nathanael was under a fig tree when he was called by Philip&#8212;which 5632 <p>325 Then he touches on matters in the past, saying, <span style=
3623 Christ knew by divine power, for &#8220;The eyes of the Lord are far brighter than the sun&#8221; (Sir 5633 "font-weight: bold">Before Philip called you, I saw you when you
3624 23:28).</p> 5634 were sitting under the fig tree.</span> First we have the statement
3625 <p>In the mystical sense, the fig tree signifies sin: both because we find a fig tree, bearing only 5635 of Christ; secondly, the confession of Nathanael.</p>
3626 leaves but no fruit, being cursed, as a symbol of sin (Mt 11:19); and because Adam and Eve, 5636 <p>326 As to the first, we should note that Nathanael might have
3627 after they had sinned, made clothes from fig leaves. So he says here, when you were sitting 5637 had two misgivings about Christ. One, that Christ said this in
3628 under the fig tree, i.e., under the shadow of sin, before you were called to grace, I saw you, 5638 order to win his friendship by flattery; the other, that Christ had
3629 with the eye of mercy; for God&#8217;s predestination looks upon the predestined, who are living 5639 learned what he knew from others. So, to remove Nathanael&rsquo;s
3630 under sin, with an eye of pity, for as Ephesians (1:4) says, &#8220; He chose us before the 5640 suspicions and raise him to higher things, Christ reveals certain
3631 foundation of the world.&#8221; And he speaks of this eye here: I saw you, by predestining you from 5641 hidden matters that no one could know except in a divine way, that
5642 is, things that related only to Nathanael. He refers to these when
5643 he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">Before Philip called you,
5644 I saw you when you were sitting under the fig tree.</span> In the
5645 literal sense, this means that Nathanael was under a fig tree when
5646 he was called by Philip&mdash;which Christ knew by divine power,
5647 for &ldquo;The eyes of the Lord are far brighter than the
5648 sun&rdquo; (Sir 23:28).</p>
5649 <p>In the mystical sense, the fig tree signifies sin: both because
5650 we find a fig tree, bearing only leaves but no fruit, being cursed,
5651 as a symbol of sin (Mt 11:19); and because Adam and Eve, after they
5652 had sinned, made clothes from fig leaves. So he says here, when you
5653 were sitting under the fig tree, i.e., under the shadow of sin,
5654 before you were called to grace, I saw you, with the eye of mercy;
5655 for God&rsquo;s predestination looks upon the predestined, who are
5656 living under sin, with an eye of pity, for as Ephesians (1:4) says,
5657 &ldquo; He chose us before the foundation of the world.&rdquo; And
5658 he speaks of this eye here: I saw you, by predestining you from
3632 eternity.</p> 5659 eternity.</p>
3633 <p>Or, the meaning is, according to Gregory: I saw you when <span style="font-weight: bold">you were sitting under the fig 5660 <p>Or, the meaning is, according to Gregory: I saw you when
3634 tree</span>, i.e., under the shadow of the law. &#8220;The law has only a shadow of the good things to 5661 <span style="font-weight: bold">you were sitting under the fig
3635 come&#8221; (Heb 10:1).</p> 5662 tree</span>, i.e., under the shadow of the law. &ldquo;The law has
3636 <p>327 Hearing this, Nathanael is immediately converted, and, seeing the power of the divinity 5663 only a shadow of the good things to come&rdquo; (Heb 10:1).</p>
3637 in Christ, breaks out in words of conversion and praise, saying, <span style="font-weight: bold">Rabbi, you are the Son of 5664 <p>327 Hearing this, Nathanael is immediately converted, and,
3638 God</span>. Here he considers three things about Christ. First, the fullness of his knowledge, when 5665 seeing the power of the divinity in Christ, breaks out in words of
3639 he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">Rabbi, </span>which is translated as Teacher. As if to say: You are perfect in knowledge. 5666 conversion and praise, saying, <span style=
3640 For he had already realized what is said in Matthew (23:10): &#8220;You have one Teacher, the 5667 "font-weight: bold">Rabbi, you are the Son of God</span>. Here he
3641 Christ.&#8221; Secondly, the excellence of his singular grace, when he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">you are the Son of 5668 considers three things about Christ. First, the fullness of his
3642 God</span>. For it is due to grace alone that one becomes a son of God by adoption. And it is also 5669 knowledge, when he says, <span style=
3643 through grace that one is a son of God through union; and this is exclusive to the man Christ, 5670 "font-weight: bold">Rabbi,</span> which is translated as Teacher.
3644 because that man is the Son of God not due to any preceding merit, but through the grace of 5671 As if to say: You are perfect in knowledge. For he had already
3645 union. Thirdly, he considers the greatness of his power when he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">you are the King of 5672 realized what is said in Matthew (23:10): &ldquo;You have one
3646 Israel</span>, i.e., awaited by Israel as its king and defender: &#8220;His power is everlasting&#8221; (Dn 7:14).</p> 5673 Teacher, the Christ.&rdquo; Secondly, the excellence of his
3647 <p>328 A question comes up at this point, according to Chrysostom. For since Peter, who after 5674 singular grace, when he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">you
3648 many miracles and much teaching, confessed what Nathanael confesses here about Christ, 5675 are the Son of God</span>. For it is due to grace alone that one
3649 that is, you are <span style="font-weight: bold">the Son of God, </span>merited a blessing, as the Lord said: &#8220;Blessed are you, Simon 5676 becomes a son of God by adoption. And it is also through grace that
3650 Bar-Jona&#8221; (Mt 16:17), why not the same for Nathanael, who said the same thing before seeing 5677 one is a son of God through union; and this is exclusive to the man
3651 any miracles or receiving any teaching? Chrysostom answers that the reason for this is that 5678 Christ, because that man is the Son of God not due to any preceding
3652 even though Nathanael and Peter spoke the same words, the meaning of the two was not the 5679 merit, but through the grace of union. Thirdly, he considers the
3653 same. For Peter acknowledged that Christ was the true Son of God by nature, i.e., he was 5680 greatness of his power when he says, <span style=
3654 man, and yet truly God; but Nathanael acknowledged that Christ was the Son of God by 5681 "font-weight: bold">you are the King of Israel</span>, i.e.,
3655 means of adoption, in the sense of, &#8220;I said: You are gods, and all of you the sons of the Most 5682 awaited by Israel as its king and defender: &ldquo;His power is
3656 High&#8221;(Ps 81:6). This is clear from what Nathanael said next: for if he had understood that 5683 everlasting&rdquo; (Dn 7:14).</p>
3657 Christ was the Son of God by nature, he would not have said, you are the King of Israel, but 5684 <p>328 A question comes up at this point, according to Chrysostom.
3658 &#8220;of the whole world.&#8221; It is also clear from the fact that Christ added nothing to the faith of 5685 For since Peter, who after many miracles and much teaching,
3659 Peter, since it was perfect, but stated that he would build the Church on that profession. But 5686 confessed what Nathanael confesses here about Christ, that is, you
3660 he raises Nathanael to greater things, since the greater part of his profession was deficient; to 5687 are <span style="font-weight: bold">the Son of God,</span> merited
3661 greater things, i.e., to a knowledge of his divinity.</p> 5688 a blessing, as the Lord said: &ldquo;Blessed are you, Simon
3662 <p>329 And so he said, <span style="font-weight: bold">You will </span>see greater <span style="font-weight: bold">things than this. </span>Here we have, thirdly, an allusion 5689 Bar-Jona&rdquo; (Mt 16:17), why not the same for Nathanael, who
3663 to the future. As if to say: Because I have revealed the past to you, you believe that I am the 5690 said the same thing before seeing any miracles or receiving any
3664 Son of God only by adoption, and the King of Israel; but I will bring you to greater 5691 teaching? Chrysostom answers that the reason for this is that even
3665 knowledge, so that you may believe that I am the natural Son of God, and the King of all 5692 though Nathanael and Peter spoke the same words, the meaning of the
3666 ages. And accordingly he says, Amen, amen, I say to <span style="font-weight: bold">you, you will see the heavens opened 5693 two was not the same. For Peter acknowledged that Christ was the
3667 and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man. </span>By this, according to 5694 true Son of God by nature, i.e., he was man, and yet truly God; but
3668 Chrysostom, the Lord wishes to prove that he is the true Son of God, and God. For the 5695 Nathanael acknowledged that Christ was the Son of God by means of
3669 peculiar task of angels is to minister and be subject: &#8220;Bless the Lord, all of you, his angels, his 5696 adoption, in the sense of, &ldquo;I said: You are gods, and all of
3670 ministers, who do his will&#8221; (Ps 102:20). So when you see angels minister to me, you will be 5697 you the sons of the Most High&rdquo;(Ps 81:6). This is clear from
3671 certain that I am the true Son of God. &#8220;When he leads his First-Begotten into the world, he 5698 what Nathanael said next: for if he had understood that Christ was
3672 says: &#8216;Let all the angels of God adore him&#8217;&#8221; (Heb 1:6).</p> 5699 the Son of God by nature, he would not have said, you are the King
3673 <p>330 When did the apostles see this? They saw it, I say, during the passion, when an angel 5700 of Israel, but &ldquo;of the whole world.&rdquo; It is also clear
3674 stood by to comfort Christ (Lk 22:13); again, at the resurrection, when the apostles found two 5701 from the fact that Christ added nothing to the faith of Peter,
3675 angels who were standing over the tomb. Again, at the ascension, when the angels said to the 5702 since it was perfect, but stated that he would build the Church on
3676 apostles: &#8220;Men of Galilee, why are you standing here looking up to heaven? This Jesus, who 5703 that profession. But he raises Nathanael to greater things, since
3677 has been taken from you into heaven, will come in the same way as you have seen him going 5704 the greater part of his profession was deficient; to greater
3678 into heaven&#8221; (Acts 1:11 ).</p> 5705 things, i.e., to a knowledge of his divinity.</p>
3679 <p>331 Because Christ spoke the truth about the past, it was easier for Nathanael to believe what 5706 <p>329 And so he said, <span style="font-weight: bold">You
3680 he foretells about the future, saying, <span style="font-weight: bold">you will see</span>. For one who has revealed the truth about 5707 will</span> see greater <span style="font-weight: bold">things than
3681 things hidden in the past, has an evident argument that what he is saying about the future is 5708 this.</span> Here we have, thirdly, an allusion to the future. As
3682 true. He says, <span style="font-weight: bold">the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man, </span>because, in 5709 if to say: Because I have revealed the past to you, you believe
3683 his mortal flesh, he was a little less than the angels; and from this point of view, angels 5710 that I am the Son of God only by adoption, and the King of Israel;
3684 ascend and descend upon him. But insofar as he is the Son of God, he is above the angels, as 5711 but I will bring you to greater knowledge, so that you may believe
3685 was said.</p> 5712 that I am the natural Son of God, and the King of all ages. And
3686 <p>332 According to Augustine, Christ is here revealing his divinity in a beautiful way. For it is 5713 accordingly he says, Amen, amen, I say to <span style=
3687 recorded that Jacob dreamed of a ladder, standing on the ground, with &#8220;the angels of God 5714 "font-weight: bold">you, you will see the heavens opened and the
3688 ascending and descending on it&#8221; (Gn 28:16). Then Jacob arose and poured oil on a stone and 5715 angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man.</span> By
3689 said, &#8220;Truly, the Lord is in this place&#8221; (Gn 28:16). Now that stone is Christ, whom the 5716 this, according to Chrysostom, the Lord wishes to prove that he is
3690 builders rejected; and the invisible oil of the Holy Spirit was poured on him. He is set up as a 5717 the true Son of God, and God. For the peculiar task of angels is to
3691 pillar, because he was to be the foundation of the Church: &#8220;No one can lay another foundation 5718 minister and be subject: &ldquo;Bless the Lord, all of you, his
3692 except that which has been laid&#8221; (1 Cor 3:11). The angels are ascending and descending 5719 angels, his ministers, who do his will&rdquo; (Ps 102:20). So when
3693 inasmuch as they are ministering and serving before him. So he said, <span style="font-weight: bold">Amen, amen, I say to 5720 you see angels minister to me, you will be certain that I am the
3694 you, you will see the heavens opened, </span>and so forth, as if to say: Because you are truly an 5721 true Son of God. &ldquo;When he leads his First-Begotten into the
3695 Israelite, give heed to what Israel saw, so that you many believe that I am the one signified by 5722 world, he says: &lsquo;Let all the angels of God adore
3696 the stone anointed by Jacob, for you also will see angels ascending and descending upon him 5723 him&rsquo;&rdquo; (Heb 1:6).</p>
5724 <p>330 When did the apostles see this? They saw it, I say, during
5725 the passion, when an angel stood by to comfort Christ (Lk 22:13);
5726 again, at the resurrection, when the apostles found two angels who
5727 were standing over the tomb. Again, at the ascension, when the
5728 angels said to the apostles: &ldquo;Men of Galilee, why are you
5729 standing here looking up to heaven? This Jesus, who has been taken
5730 from you into heaven, will come in the same way as you have seen
5731 him going into heaven&rdquo; (Acts 1:11 ).</p>
5732 <p>331 Because Christ spoke the truth about the past, it was easier
5733 for Nathanael to believe what he foretells about the future,
5734 saying, <span style="font-weight: bold">you will see</span>. For
5735 one who has revealed the truth about things hidden in the past, has
5736 an evident argument that what he is saying about the future is
5737 true. He says, <span style="font-weight: bold">the angels of God
5738 ascending and descending on the Son of Man,</span> because, in his
5739 mortal flesh, he was a little less than the angels; and from this
5740 point of view, angels ascend and descend upon him. But insofar as
5741 he is the Son of God, he is above the angels, as was said.</p>
5742 <p>332 According to Augustine, Christ is here revealing his
5743 divinity in a beautiful way. For it is recorded that Jacob dreamed
5744 of a ladder, standing on the ground, with &ldquo;the angels of God
5745 ascending and descending on it&rdquo; (Gn 28:16). Then Jacob arose
5746 and poured oil on a stone and said, &ldquo;Truly, the Lord is in
5747 this place&rdquo; (Gn 28:16). Now that stone is Christ, whom the
5748 builders rejected; and the invisible oil of the Holy Spirit was
5749 poured on him. He is set up as a pillar, because he was to be the
5750 foundation of the Church: &ldquo;No one can lay another foundation
5751 except that which has been laid&rdquo; (1 Cor 3:11). The angels are
5752 ascending and descending inasmuch as they are ministering and
5753 serving before him. So he said, <span style=
5754 "font-weight: bold">Amen, amen, I say to you, you will see the
5755 heavens opened,</span> and so forth, as if to say: Because you are
5756 truly an Israelite, give heed to what Israel saw, so that you many
5757 believe that I am the one signified by the stone anointed by Jacob,
5758 for you also will see angels ascending and descending upon him
3697 [viz. Jesus].</p> 5759 [viz. Jesus].</p>
3698 <p>333 Or, the angels are, according to Augustine, the preachers of Christ: &#8220;Go, swift angels, to a 5760 <p>333 Or, the angels are, according to Augustine, the preachers of
3699 nation rent and torn to pieces,&#8221; as it says in Isaiah (18:2). They ascend through contemplation, 5761 Christ: &ldquo;Go, swift angels, to a nation rent and torn to
3700 just as Paul had ascended even to the third heaven (2 Cor 12:2); and they descend by 5762 pieces,&rdquo; as it says in Isaiah (18:2). They ascend through
3701 instructing their neighbor. <span style="font-weight: bold">On the Son of Man, </span>i.e., for the honor of Christ, because &#8220;what 5763 contemplation, just as Paul had ascended even to the third heaven
3702 we preach is not ourselves, but Jesus Christ&#8221; (2 Cor 4:5). In order that they might ascend and 5764 (2 Cor 12:2); and they descend by instructing their neighbor.
3703 descend, the heavens were opened, because heavenly graces must be given to preachers if 5765 <span style="font-weight: bold">On the Son of Man,</span> i.e., for
3704 they are to ascend and descend. &#8220;The heavens broke at the presence of God&#8221; (Ps 67:9); &#8220;1 saw 5766 the honor of Christ, because &ldquo;what we preach is not
3705 the heavens open&#8221; (Rv 4:1 ).</p> 5767 ourselves, but Jesus Christ&rdquo; (2 Cor 4:5). In order that they
3706 <p>334 Now the reason why Nathanael was not chosen to be an apostle after such a profession of 5768 might ascend and descend, the heavens were opened, because heavenly
3707 faith is that Christ did not want the conversion of the world to the faith to be attributed to 5769 graces must be given to preachers if they are to ascend and
3708 human wisdom, but solely to the power of God. And so he did not choose Nathanael as an 5770 descend. &ldquo;The heavens broke at the presence of God&rdquo; (Ps
3709 apostle, since he was very learned in the law; he rather chose simple and uneducated men. 5771 67:9); &ldquo;1 saw the heavens open&rdquo; (Rv 4:1 ).</p>
3710 &#8220;Not many of you are learned,&#8221; and &#8220;God chose the simple of the world&#8221; (1 Cor 1:26).</p> 5772 <p>334 Now the reason why Nathanael was not chosen to be an apostle
5773 after such a profession of faith is that Christ did not want the
5774 conversion of the world to the faith to be attributed to human
5775 wisdom, but solely to the power of God. And so he did not choose
5776 Nathanael as an apostle, since he was very learned in the law; he
5777 rather chose simple and uneducated men. &ldquo;Not many of you are
5778 learned,&rdquo; and &ldquo;God chose the simple of the world&rdquo;
5779 (1 Cor 1:26).</p>
5780 </blockquote>
3711 </body> 5781 </body>
3712
3713 </html> 5782 </html>