Mercurial > hg > Aquinas
comparison john/english/John1.html @ 31:25a799388159
originals from http://www.josephkenny.joyeurs.com/CDtexts/SSJohn.htm
| author | ht |
|---|---|
| date | Tue, 24 Nov 2009 20:16:17 +0000 |
| parents | |
| children | 178aed5d2c3c |
comparison
equal
deleted
inserted
replaced
| 30:b56c501d878e | 31:25a799388159 |
|---|---|
| 1 <html> | |
| 2 <head> | |
| 3 </style> | |
| 4 </head> | |
| 5 | |
| 6 <body style=text-align:justify><blockquote> | |
| 7 <CENTER><p style="text-align: center"><span style="font-size: 60pt">1</span></p> | |
| 8 <p>LECTURE I</p> | |
| 9 <p>1 In the beginning was the Word;<BR> | |
| 10 and the Word was with God;<BR> | |
| 11 and the Word was God.<BR> | |
| 12 2 He was in the beginning with God.</CENTER> | |
| 13 <p>23 John the Evangelist, as already indicated, makes it his principal object to show the divinity | |
| 14 of the Incarnate Word. Accordingly, his Gospel is divided into two parts. In the first he states | |
| 15 the divinity of Christ; in the second he shows it by the things Christ did in the flesh (2:1). In | |
| 16 regard to the first, he does two things. First he shows the divinity of Christ; secondly he sets | |
| 17 forth the manner in which Christ’s divinity is made known to us (1:14). Concerning the first | |
| 18 he does two things. First he treats of the divinity of Christ; secondly of the incarnation of the | |
| 19 Word of God (1:6).</p> | |
| 20 <p>Because there are two items to be considered in each thing, namely, its existence and its | |
| 21 operation or power, first he treats the existence of the Word as to his divine nature; secondly | |
| 22 of his power or operation (1:3). In regard to the first he does four things. First he shows when | |
| 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 | |
| 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 | |
| 25 was in the beginning with God. </span>The first two pertain to the inquiry “whether something | |
| 26 exists”; the second two pertain to the inquiry “what something is.”</p> | |
| 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 | |
| 28 the beginning was the Word. </span>And here three things present themselves for careful study | |
| 29 according to the three parts of this statement. First it is necessary to investigate the name | |
| 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 | |
| 31 beginning.</span></p> | |
| 32 <p>25 To understand the name <span style="font-weight: bold">Word </span>we should note that according to the Philosopher [<i>On | |
| 33 Interpretation </i>16a3] vocal sounds are signs of the affections that exist in our soul. It is | |
| 34 customary in Scripture for the things signified to be themselves called by the names of their | |
| 35 signs, as in the statement, “And the rock was Christ” ( 1 Cor 10:4). It is fitting that what is | |
| 36 within our soul, and which is signified by our external word, be called a “word.” But whether | |
| 37 the name “word” belongs first to the exterior vocal sound or to the conception in our mind, is | |
| 38 not our concern at present. However, it is obvious that what is signified by the vocal sound, as | |
| 39 existing interiorly in the soul, exists prior to the vocal expression inasmuch as it is its actual | |
| 40 cause. Therefore if we wish to grasp the meaning of the interior word, we must first look at | |
| 41 the meaning of that which is exteriorly expressed in words.</p> | |
| 42 <p>Now there are three things in our intellect: the intellectual power itself, the species of the | |
| 43 thing understood (and this species is its form, being to the intellect what the species of a color | |
| 44 is to the eye), and thirdly the very activity of the intellect, which is to understand. But none of | |
| 45 these is what is signified by the exterior vocal word: for the name “stone” does not signify the | |
| 46 substance of the intellect because this is not what the one naming intends; nor does it signify | |
| 47 the species, which is that by which the intellect understands, since this also is not the | |
| 48 intention of the one naming; nor does it signify the act itself of understanding since to | |
| 49 understand is not an action proceeding to the exterior from the one understanding, but an | |
| 50 action remaining within. Therefore, that is properly called an interior word which the one | |
| 51 understanding forms when understanding.</p> | |
| 52 <p>Now the intellect forms two things, according to its two operations. According to its | |
| 53 operation which is called “the understanding of indivisibles,” it forms a definition; while | |
| 54 according to its operation by which it unites and separates, it forms an enunciation or | |
| 55 something of that sort. Hence, what is thus formed and expressed by the operation of the | |
| 56 intellect, whether by defining or enunciating, is what the exterior vocal sound signifies. So the | |
| 57 Philosopher says that the notion (ratio) which a name signifies is a definition. Hence, what is | |
| 58 thus expressed, i.e., formed in the soul, is called an interior word. Consequently it is | |
| 59 compared to the intellect, not as that by which the intellect understands, but as that in which it | |
| 60 understands, because it is in what is thus expressed and formed that it sees the nature of the | |
| 61 thing understood. Thus we have the meaning of the name “word.”</p> | |
| 62 <p>Secondly, from what has been said we are able to understand that a word is always something | |
| 63 that proceeds from an intellect existing in act; and furthermore, that a word is always a notion | |
| 64 (ratio) and likeness of the thing understood. So if the one understanding and the thing | |
| 65 understood are the same, then the word is a notion and likeness of the intellect from which it | |
| 66 proceeds. On the other hand, if the one understanding is other than the thing understood, then | |
| 67 the word is not a likeness and notion of the one understanding but of the thing understood, as | |
| 68 the conception which one has of a stone is a likeness of only the stone. But when the intellect | |
| 69 understands itself, its word is a likeness and notion of the intellect. And so Augustine (<i>On the | |
| 70 Trinity </i>IX, 5)<i> </i>sees a likeness of the Trinity in the Soul insofar as the mind understands itself, | |
| 71 but not insofar as it understands other things.</p> | |
| 72 <p>It is clear then that it is necessary to have a word in any intellectual nature, for it is of the very | |
| 73 nature of understanding that the intellect in understanding should form something. Now what | |
| 74 is formed is called a word, and so it follows that in every being which understands there must | |
| 75 be a word.</p> | |
| 76 <p>However, intellectual natures are of three kinds: human, angelic and divine; and so there are | |
| 77 three kinds of words. The human word, about which it is said in the Psalm (13:1): “The fool | |
| 78 said in his heart, ‘There is no God.’ “ The angelic word, about which it is said in Zechariah | |
| 79 (1:9), and in many places in Sacred Scripture, “And the angel said to me.” The third is the | |
| 80 divine word, of which Genesis (1:3) says, “And God said, ‘Let there be light.’ “ So when the | |
| 81 Evangelist says, <span style="font-weight: bold">In the beginning was the Word, </span>we cannot understand this as a human or | |
| 82 angelic word, because both these words have been made since man and angel have a cause | |
| 83 and principle of their existence and operation, and the word of a man or an angel cannot exist | |
| 84 before they do. The word the Evangelist had in mind he shows by saying that this word was | |
| 85 not made, since all things were made by it. Therefore, the word about which John speaks here | |
| 86 is the Word of God.</p> | |
| 87 <p>26 We should note that this Word differs from our own word in three ways. The first | |
| 88 difference, according to Augustine, is that our word is formable before being formed, for | |
| 89 when I wish to conceive the notion of a stone, I must arrive at it by reasoning. And so it is in | |
| 90 all other things that are understood by us, with the sole possible exception of the first | |
| 91 principles which, since they are known in a simple manner, are known at once without any | |
| 92 discourse of reason. So as long as the intellect, in so reasoning, casts about this way and that, | |
| 93 the formation is not yet complete. It is only when it has conceived the notion of the thing | |
| 94 perfectly that for the first time it has the notion of the complete thing and a word. Thus in our | |
| 95 mind there is both a “cogitation,” meaning the discourse involved in an investigation, and a | |
| 96 word, which is formed according to a perfect contemplation of the truth. So our word is first | |
| 97 in potency before it is in act. But the Word of God is always in act. In consequence, the term | |
| 98 “cogitation” does not properly speaking apply to the Word of God. For Augustine says (<i>On | |
| 99 the Trinity</i> XV)<i>: </i>“The Word of God is spoken of in such a way that cogitation is not included, | |
| 100 lest anything changeable be supposed in God.” Anselm was speaking improperly when he | |
| 101 said: “For the supreme Spirit to speak is for him to look at something while cogitating.”</p> | |
| 102 <p>27 The second difference is that our word is imperfect, but the divine Word is most perfect. | |
| 103 For since we cannot express all our conceptions in one word, we must form many imperfect | |
| 104 words through which we separately express all that is in our knowledge. But it is not that way | |
| 105 with God. For since he understands both himself and everything else through his essence, by | |
| 106 one act, the single divine Word is expressive of all that is in God, not only of the Persons but | |
| 107 also of creatures; otherwise it would be imperfect. So Augustine says: “If there were less in | |
| 108 the Word than is contained in the knowledge of the One speaking it, the Word would be | |
| 109 imperfect; but it is obvious that it is most perfect; therefore, it is only one.” “God speaks | |
| 110 once” (Jb 33:14).</p> | |
| 111 <p>28 The third difference is that our word is not of the same nature as we; but the divine Word | |
| 112 is of the same nature as God. And therefore it is something that subsists in the divine nature. | |
| 113 For the understood notion which the intellect is seen to fonn about some thing has only an | |
| 114 intelligible existence in our soul. Now in our soul, to understand is not the same as the nature | |
| 115 of the soul, because our soul is not its own operation. Consequently, the word which our | |
| 116 intellect forms is not of the essence of our soul, but is an accident of it. But in God, to | |
| 117 understand and to be are the same; and so the Word of the divine intellect is not an accident | |
| 118 but belongs to its nature. Thus it must be subsistent, because whatever is in the nature of God | |
| 119 is God. Thus Damascene says that God is a substantial Word, and a hypostasis, but our words | |
| 120 are concepts in our mind.</p> | |
| 121 <p>29 From the above it is clear that the Word, properly speaking, is always understood as a | |
| 122 Person in the Divinity, since it implies only something expressed, by the one understanding; | |
| 123 also, that in the Divinity the Word is the likeness of that from which it issues; and that it is | |
| 124 co-eternal with that from which it issues, since it was not first formable before being formed, | |
| 125 but was always in act; and that it is equal to the Father, since it is perfect and expressive of | |
| 126 the whole being of the Father; and that it is co-essential and consubstantial with the Father, | |
| 127 since it is his substance.</p> | |
| 128 <p>It is also clear that since in every nature that which issues forth and has a likeness to the | |
| 129 nature from which it issues is called a son, and since this Word issues forth in a likeness and | |
| 130 identity to the nature from which it issues, it is suitably and appropriately called a “Son,” and | |
| 131 its production is called a generation.</p> | |
| 132 <p>So now the first point is clear, the meaning of the <span style="font-weight: bold">term Word.</span></p> | |
| 133 <p>30 There are four questions on this point, two of them from Chrysostom. The first is: Why | |
| 134 did John the Evangelist oinit the Father and begin at once with the Son, saying, <span style="font-weight: bold">In the | |
| 135 beginning was the Word?</span></p> | |
| 136 <p>There are two answers to this. One is that the Father was known to everyone in the Old | |
| 137 Testament, although not under the aspect of Father, but as God; but the Son was not known. | |
| 138 And so in the New Testament, which is concerned with our knowledge of the Word, he | |
| 139 begins with the Word or Son.</p> | |
| 140 <p>The other answer is that we are brought to know the Father through the Son: “Father, I have | |
| 141 manifested your name to the men whom you have given to me” (below 17:6). And so wishing | |
| 142 to lead the faithful to a knowledge of the Father, the Evangelist fittingly began with the Son, | |
| 143 at once adding something about the Father when he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">and the Word was with God.</span></p> | |
| 144 <p>31 The second question is also from Chrysostom. Why did he say <span style="font-weight: bold">Word </span>and not “Son,” | |
| 145 since, as we have said, the Word proceeds as Son?</p> | |
| 146 <p>There are also two answers to this. First, because “son” means something begotten, and when | |
| 147 we hear of the generation of the Son, someone might suppose that this generation is the kind | |
| 148 he can comprehend, that is, a material and changeable generation. Thus he did not say “Son,” | |
| 149 but <span style="font-weight: bold">Word, </span>which signifies an intelligible proceeding, so that it would not be understood as a | |
| 150 material and changeable generation. And so in showing that the Son is born of the Father in | |
| 151 an unchangeable way, he eliminates a faulty conjecture by using the name <span style="font-weight: bold">Word.</span></p> | |
| 152 <p>The second answer is this. The Evangelist was about to consider the Word as having come to | |
| 153 manifest the Father. But since the idea of manifesting is implied better in the name “Word” | |
| 154 than in the name “Son,” he preferred to use the name <span style="font-weight: bold">Word.</span></p> | |
| 155 <p>32 The third question is raised by Augustine in his book <i>Eighty-three Questions; </i>and it is this. | |
| 156 In Greek, where we have “Word,” they have “Logos”; now since “Logos” signifies in Latin | |
| 157 both “notion” and “word” [i.e., <i>ratio et verbum</i>],<i> </i>why did the translators render it as “word” | |
| 158 and not “notion,” since a notion is something interior just as a word is?</p> | |
| 159 <p>I answer that “notion” [ratio], properly speaking, names a conception of the mind precisely as | |
| 160 in the mind, even if through it nothing exterior comes to be; but “word” signifies a reference | |
| 161 to something exterior. And so because the Evangelist, when he said “Logos,” intended to | |
| 162 signify not only a reference to the Son’s existence in the Father, but also the operative power | |
| 163 of the Son, by which, through him, all things were made, our predecessors preferred to | |
| 164 translate it “Word,” which implies a reference to something exterior, rather than “notion “ | |
| 165 which implies merely a concept of the mind.</p> | |
| 166 <p>33 The fourth question is from Origen, and is this. In many passages, Scripture, when | |
| 167 speaking of the Word of God, does not simply call him the Word, but adds “of God,” saying, | |
| 168 “the Word of God,” or “of the Lord”: “The Word of God on high is the foundation of | |
| 169 wisdom” (Sir 1:5); “His name is the Word of God” (Rv 19:13). Why then did the Evangelist, | |
| 170 when speaking here of the Word of God, not say, “In the beginning was the Word of God,” | |
| 171 but said <span style="font-weight: bold">In the beginning was the Word?</span></p> | |
| 172 <p>I answer that although there are many participated truths, there is just one absolute Truth, | |
| 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 | |
| 174 words are words. Similarly, there is one absolute Wisdom elevated above all things, that is, | |
| 175 the divine Wisdom, by participating in which all wise persons are wise. Further, there is one | |
| 176 absolute Word, by participating in which all persons having a word are called speakers. Now | |
| 177 this is the divine Word which of itself is the Word elevated above all words. So in order that | |
| 178 the Evangelist might signify this supereminence of the divine Word, he pointed out this Word | |
| 179 to us absolutely without any addition.</p> | |
| 180 <p>And because the Greeks, when they wished to signify something separate and elevated above | |
| 181 everything else, did this by affixing the article to the name (as the Platonists, wishing to | |
| 182 signify the separated substances, such as the separated good or the separated man, called them | |
| 183 the good <i>per se, </i>or man <i>per se</i>), so the Evangelist, wishing to signify the separation and | |
| 184 elevation of that Word above all things, affixed an article to the name “Logos,” so that if it | |
| 185 were stated in Latin we would say <i>“the </i>Word.”</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 | |
| 187 that according to Origen, the word <i>principium </i>has many meanings [such as “principle,” | |
| 188 “source,” or “beginning”]. Since the word <i>principium </i>implies a certain order of one thing to | |
| 189 another, one can find a <i>principium </i>in all those things which have an order. First of all, order | |
| 190 is found in quantified things; and so there is a principle of number and lengths, as for | |
| 191 example, a line. Second, order is found in time; and so we speak of a “beginning” of time, or | |
| 192 of duration. Third, order is found in learning; and this in two ways: as to nature, and as to | |
| 193 ourselves, and in both cases we can speak of a “beginning”: “By this time you ought to be | |
| 194 teachers” (Heb 5:12). As to nature, in Christian doctrine the beginning and principle of our | |
| 195 wisdom is Christ, inasmuch as he is the Wisdom and Word of God, i.e., in his divinity. But as | |
| 196 to ourselves, the beginning is Christ himself inasmuch as the Word has become flesh, i.e., by | |
| 197 his incarnation. Fourth, in order is found in the production of a thing. In this perspective there | |
| 198 can be a <i>principium </i>on the part of the thing generated, that is, the first part of the thing | |
| 199 generated or made; as we say that the foundation is the beginning of a house. Another | |
| 200 <i>principium is </i>on the part of the generator, and in this perspective there are three “principles”: | |
| 201 of intention, which is the purpose, which motivates the agent; of reason, which is the idea in | |
| 202 the mind of the maker; and of execution, which is the operative faculty. Considering these | |
| 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 | |
| 204 beginning was the Word.</span></p> | |
| 205 <p>35 We should note that this word can be taken in three ways. In one way so that <i>principium is | |
| 206 </i>understood as the Person of the Son, who is the principle of creatures by reason of his active | |
| 207 power acting with wisdom, which is the conception of the things that are brought into | |
| 208 existence. Hence we read: “Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God” (1 Cor 1:24). | |
| 209 And so the Lord said about himself: “I am the <i>principium </i>who also speaks to you” (below | |
| 210 8:25). Taking <i>principium </i>in this way, we should understand the statement, <span style="font-weight: bold">In the beginning | |
| 211 was the Word, </span>as though he were saying, “The Word was in the Son,” so that the sense | |
| 212 would be: The Word himself is the <i>principium, </i>principle, in the sense in which life is said to | |
| 213 be “in” God, when this life is not something other than God.</p> | |
| 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 | |
| 215 order, as Chrysostom says, to show at the very outset the divinity of the Word by asserting | |
| 216 that he is a principle because, as determining all, a principle is most honored.</p> | |
| 217 <p>36 In a second way <i>principium </i>can be understood as the Person of the Father, who is the | |
| 218 principle not only of creatures, but of every divine process. It is taken this way in, “Yours is | |
| 219 princely power (<i>principium</i>)<i> </i>in the day of your birth” (Ps 110:3). In this second way one reads | |
| 220 <span style="font-weight: bold">In the beginning was the Word </span>as though it means, “The Son was in the Father.” This is | |
| 221 Augustine’s understanding of it, as well as Origen’s. The Son, however, is said to be in the | |
| 222 Father because both have the same essence. Since the Son is his own essence, then the Son is | |
| 223 in whomsoever the Son’s essence is. Since, therefore, the essence of the Son is in the Father | |
| 224 by consubstantiality, it is fitting that the Son be in the Father. Hence it says below (14:10): “I | |
| 225 am in the Father and the Father is in me.”</p> | |
| 226 <p>37 In a third way, <i>principium</i> can be taken for the beginning of duration, so that the sense of | |
| 227 <span style="font-weight: bold">In the beginning was the Word </span>is that the Word was before all things, as Augustine | |
| 228 explains it. According to Basil and Hilary, this phrase shows the eternity of the Word.</p> | |
| 229 <p>The phrase <span style="font-weight: bold">In the beginning was the Word </span>shows that no matter which beginning of | |
| 230 duration is taken, whether of temporal things which is time, or of aeviternal things which is | |
| 231 the aeon, or of the whole world or any imagined span of time reaching back for many ages, at | |
| 232 that beginning the Word already was. Hence Hilary says (<i>On the Trinity </i>VII):<i> </i>“Go back | |
| 233 season by season, skip over the centuries, take away ages. Set down whatever you want as the | |
| 234 beginning in your opinion: the Word already was.” And this is what Proverbs (8:23) says: | |
| 235 “The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his ways, before he made anything.” But what is | |
| 236 prior to the beginning of duration is eternal.</p> | |
| 237 <p>38 And thus the first explanation asserts the causality of the Word; the second explanation | |
| 238 affirms the consubstantiality of the Word with the Father, who utters the Word; and the third | |
| 239 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 | |
| 241 imperfect tense. This tense is most appropriate for designating eternal things if we consider | |
| 242 the nature of time and of the things that exist in time. For what is future is not yet in act; but | |
| 243 what is at present is in act, and by the fact that it is in act what is present is not described as | |
| 244 having been. Now the past perfect tense indicates that something has existed, has already | |
| 245 come to an end, and has now ceased to be. The past imperfect tense, on the other hand, | |
| 246 indicates that something has been, has not yet come to an end, nor has ceased to be, but still | |
| 247 endures. Thus, whenever John mentions eternal things he expressly says “was” (<i>erat, </i>past | |
| 248 imperfect tense), but when he refers to anything temporal he says “has been” (<i>fuit, </i>past | |
| 249 perfect tense), as will be clear later.</p> | |
| 250 <p>But so far as concerns the notion of the present, the best way to designate eternity is the | |
| 251 present tense, which indicates that some thing is in act, and this is always the characteristic of | |
| 252 eternal things. And so it says in Exodus (3:14): “I am who am.” And Augustine says: “He | |
| 253 alone truly is whose being does not know a past and a future.</p> | |
| 254 <p>40 We should also note that this verb was, according to the Gloss, is not understood here as | |
| 255 indicating temporal changes, as other verbs do, but as signifying the existence of a thing. | |
| 256 Thus it is also called a substantive verb.</p> | |
| 257 <p>41 Someone may ask how the Word can be co-eternal with the Father since he is begotten by | |
| 258 the Father: for a human son, born from a human father, is subsequent to his father.</p> | |
| 259 <p>I answer that there are three reasons why an originative principle is prior in duration to that | |
| 260 which derives from that principle. First of all, if the originative principle of anything precedes | |
| 261 in time the action by which it produces the thing of which it is the principle; thus a man does | |
| 262 not begin to write as soon as he exists, and so he precedes his writing in time. Secondly, if an | |
| 263 action is successive; consequently, even if the action should happen to begin at the same time | |
| 264 as the agent, the termination of the action is nevertheless subsequent to the agent. Thus, as | |
| 265 soon as fire has been generated in a lower region, it begins to ascend; but the fire exists before | |
| 266 it has ascended, because the motion by which it tends upward requires some time. Thirdly, by | |
| 267 the fact that sometimes the beginning of a thing depends on the will of its principle, just as | |
| 268 the beginning of a creature’s coming-to-be depends on the will of God, such that God existed | |
| 269 before any creature.</p> | |
| 270 <p>Yet none of these three is found in the generation of the divine Word. God did not first exist | |
| 271 and then begin to generate the Word: for since the generation of the Word is nothing other | |
| 272 than an intelligible conception, it would follow that God would be understanding in potency | |
| 273 before understanding in act, which is impossible. Again, it is impossible that the generation of | |
| 274 the Word involve succession: for then the divine Word would be unformed before it was | |
| 275 formed (as happens in us who form words by “cogitating”), which is false, as was said. | |
| 276 Again, we cannot say that the Father pre-established a beginning of duration for his Son by | |
| 277 his own will, because God the Father does not generate the Son by his will, as the Arians | |
| 278 held, but naturally: for God the Father, understanding himself, conceives the Word; and so | |
| 279 God the Father did not exist prior to the Son.</p> | |
| 280 <p>An example of this, to a limited degree, appears in fire and in the brightness issuing from it: | |
| 281 for this brightness issues naturally and without succession from the fire. Again, if the fire | |
| 282 were eternal, its brightness would be coeternal with it. This is why the Son is called the | |
| 283 brightness of the Father: “the brightness of his glory” (Heb 1:3). But this example lacks an | |
| 284 illustration of the identity of nature. And so we call him Son, although in human sonship we | |
| 285 do not find coeternity: for we must attain our knowledge of divine things from many | |
| 286 likenesses in material things, for one likeness is not enough.</p> | |
| 287 <p>The Council of Ephesus says that the Son always coexists with the Father: for “brightness” | |
| 288 indicates his unchangeability, “birth” points to the Word himself, but the name “Son” | |
| 289 suggests his consubstantiality.</p> | |
| 290 <p>42 And so we give the Son various names to express his perfection, which cannot be | |
| 291 expressed by one name. We call him “Son” to show that he is of the same nature as the | |
| 292 Father; we call him “image” to show that he is not unlike the Father in any way; we call him | |
| 293 “brightness” to show that he is coeternal; and he is called the “Word” to show that he is | |
| 294 begotten in an immaterial manner.</p> | |
| 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 | |
| 296 account. The first thing to consider is the meaning of the two words which did not appear in | |
| 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 | |
| 298 “Word,” and “beginning. “Let us continue carefully by examining these two new words, and | |
| 299 to better understand the explanation of this second clause, we must say something about the | |
| 300 meaning of each so far as it is relevant to our purpose.</p> | |
| 301 <p>44 At the outset, we should note that the name “God” signifies the divinity concretely and as | |
| 302 inherent in a subject, while the name “deity” signifies the divinity in the abstract and | |
| 303 absolutely. Thus the name “deity” cannot naturally and by its mode of signifying stand for a | |
| 304 [divine] person, but only for the [divine] nature. But the name “God” can, by its natural mode | |
| 305 of signifying, stand for any one of the [divine] persons, just as the name “man” stands for any | |
| 306 individual (<i>suppositum</i>) possessing humanity. Therefore, whenever the truth of a statement or | |
| 307 its predicate requires that the name “God” stand for the person, then it stands for the person, | |
| 308 as when we say, “God begets God.” Thus, when it says here that <span style="font-weight: bold">the Word was with God, </span>it | |
| 309 is necessary that God stand for the person of the Father, because the preposition <span style="font-weight: bold">with | |
| 310 </span>signifies the distinction of the Word, which is said to be <span style="font-weight: bold">with God. </span>And although this | |
| 311 preposition signifies a distinction in person, it does not signify a distinction in nature, since | |
| 312 the nature of the Father and of the Son is the same. Consequently, the Evangelist wished to | |
| 313 signify the person of the Father when he said God.</p> | |
| 314 <p>45 Here we should note that the preposition <span style="font-weight: bold">with </span>signifies a certain union of the thing | |
| 315 signified by its grammatical antecedent to the thing signified by its grammatical object, just as | |
| 316 the preposition “in” does. However, there is a difference, because the preposition “in” | |
| 317 signifies a certain intrinsic union, whereas the preposition <span style="font-weight: bold">with </span>implies in a certain way an | |
| 318 extrinsic union. And we state both in divine matters, namely, that the Son is <i>in </i>the Father and | |
| 319 <i>with </i>the Father. Here the intrinsic union pertains to consubstantiality, but the extrinsic union | |
| 320 (if we may use such an expression, since “extrinsic” is improperly employed in divine | |
| 321 matters) refers only to a personal distinction, because the Son is distinguished from the Father | |
| 322 by origin alone. And so these two words designate both a consubstantiality in nature and | |
| 323 distinction in person: consubstantiality inasmuch as a certain union is implied; but distinction, | |
| 324 inasmuch as a certain otherness is signified as was said above.</p> | |
| 325 <p>The preposition “in,” as was said, principally signifies consubstantiality, as implying an | |
| 326 intrinsic union and, by way of consequence, a distinction of persons, inasmuch as every | |
| 327 preposition is transitive. The preposition “with” principally signifies a personal distinction, | |
| 328 but also a consubstantiality inasmuch as it signifies a certain extrinsic, so to speak, union. For | |
| 329 these reasons the Evangelist specifically used here the preposition “with” in order to express | |
| 330 the distinction of the person of the Son from the Father, saying, <span style="font-weight: bold">and the Word was with | |
| 331 God, </span>that is, the Son was with the Father as one person with another.</p> | |
| 332 <p>46 We should note further that this preposition <span style="font-weight: bold">with </span>has four meanings, and these eliminate | |
| 333 four objections. First, the preposition with signifies the subsistence of its antecedent, because | |
| 334 things that do not subsist of themselves are not properly said to be “with” another; thus we do | |
| 335 not say that a color is with a body, and the same applies to other things that do not subsist of | |
| 336 themselves. But things that do subsist of themselves are properly said to be “with” another; | |
| 337 thus we say that a man is with a man, and a stone with a stone.</p> | |
| 338 <p>Secondly, it signifies authority in its grammatical object. For we do not, properly speaking, | |
| 339 say that a king is with a soldier, but that the soldier is with the king. Thirdly, it asserts a | |
| 340 distinction. For it is not proper to say that a person is with himself but rather that one man is | |
| 341 with another. Fourthly, it signifies a certain union and fellowship. For when some person is | |
| 342 said to be with another, it suggests to us that there is some social union between them.</p> | |
| 343 <p>Considering these four conditions implied in the meaning of this preposition <span style="font-weight: bold">with, </span>the | |
| 344 Evangelist quite appropriately joins to the first clause, <span style="font-weight: bold">In the beginning was the Word, </span>this | |
| 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, | |
| 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 | |
| 347 Son), certain heretics make a twofold objection against each of the other explanations | |
| 348 (namely, the one in which <i>principium</i> means the same as “before all things,” and the one in | |
| 349 which it is understood as the Father). Thus there are four objections, and we can answer these | |
| 350 by the four conditions indicated by this preposition <span style="font-weight: bold">with.</span></p> | |
| 351 <p>47 The first of these objections is this. You say that the Word was in the beginning, i.e., | |
| 352 before all things. But before all things there was nothing. So if before all things there was | |
| 353 nothing, where then was the Word? This objection arises due to the imaginings of those who | |
| 354 think that whatever exists is somewhere and in some place. But this is rejected by John when | |
| 355 he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">with God, </span>which indicates the union mentioned in the last four conditions. So, | |
| 356 according to Basil, the meaning is this: Where was the Word? The answer is: <span style="font-weight: bold">with God; </span>not | |
| 357 in some place, since he is unsurroundable, but he is with the Father, who is not enclosed by | |
| 358 any place.</p> | |
| 359 <p>48 The second objection against the same explanation is this. You say that the Word was in | |
| 360 the beginning, i.e., before all things. But whatever exists before all things appears to proceed | |
| 361 from no one, since that from which something proceeds seems to be prior to that which | |
| 362 proceeds from it. Therefore, the Word does not proceed from another. This objection is | |
| 363 rejected when he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">the Word was with God, </span>taking “with” according to its second | |
| 364 condition, as implying authority in what is causing. So the meaning, according to Hilary, is | |
| 365 this: From whom is the Word if he exists before all things? The Evangelist answers: <span style="font-weight: bold">the | |
| 366 Word was with God, </span>i.e., although the Word has no beginning of duration, still he does not | |
| 367 lack a <i>principium </i>or author, for he was with God as his author.</p> | |
| 368 <p>49 The third objection, directed to the explanation in which <i>principium</i> is understood as the | |
| 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. | |
| 370 But that which is in something does not seem to be subsistent, as a hypostasis; just as the | |
| 371 whiteness in a body does not subsist. This objection is solved by the statement, <span style="font-weight: bold">the Word | |
| 372 was with God, </span>taking “with” in its first condition, as implying the subsistence of its | |
| 373 grammatical antecedent. So according to Chrysostom, the meaning is this: <span style="font-weight: bold">In the beginning | |
| 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 | |
| 375 hypostasis.</p> | |
| 376 <p>50 The fourth objection, against the same explanation, is this. You say that the Word was in | |
| 377 the beginning, i.,e., in the Father. But whatever is in something is not distinct from it. So the | |
| 378 Son is not distinct from the Father. This objection is answered by the statement, <span style="font-weight: bold">and the | |
| 379 Word was with God, </span>taking “with” in its third condition, as indicating distinction. Thus the | |
| 380 meaning, according to Alcuin and Bede, is this: <span style="font-weight: bold">The Word was with God, </span>and he was with | |
| 381 the Father by a consubstantiality of nature, while still being “with” him through a distinction | |
| 382 in person.</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 | |
| 384 nature, according to Basil; their distinction in person, according to Alcuin and Bede; the | |
| 385 subsistence of the Word in the divine nature, according to Chrysostom; and the authorship of | |
| 386 the Father in relation to the Word, according to Hilary.</p> | |
| 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 | |
| 388 Son has always been with the Father. For in the Old Testament it says that the word of the | |
| 389 Lord “came” to Jeremiah or to someone else, as is plain in many passages of sacred Scripture. | |
| 390 But it does not say that the word of the Lord was “with” Jeremiah or anyone else, because the | |
| 391 word “comes” to those who begin to have the word after not having it. Thus the Evangelist | |
| 392 did not say that the Word “came” to the Father, but was “with” the Father, because, given the | |
| 393 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’s account, and it | |
| 395 follows most appropriately considering the order of teaching. For since John had said both | |
| 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 | |
| 397 was God, </span>taking “Word” as the subject, and “God” as the predicate.</p> | |
| 398 <p>54 But since one should first inquire what a thing is before investigating where and when it is, | |
| 399 it seems that John violated this order by discussing these latter first.</p> | |
| 400 <p>Origen answers this by saying that the Word of God is with man and with God in different | |
| 401 ways. The Word is with man as perfecting him, because it is through him that man becomes | |
| 402 wise and good: “She makes friends of God and prophets” (Wis 7:27). But the Word is not | |
| 403 with God as though the Father were perfected and enlightened by him. Rather, the Word is | |
| 404 with God as receiving natural divinity from him, who utters the Word, and from whom he has | |
| 405 it that he is the same God with him. And so, since the Word was with God by origin, it was | |
| 406 necessary to show first that the Word was in the Father and with the Father before showing | |
| 407 that the Word was God.</p> | |
| 408 <p>55 This clause also enables us to answer two objections which arise from the foregoing. The | |
| 409 first is based on the name “Word,” and is this. You say that <span style="font-weight: bold">In the beginning was the Word, | |
| 410 </span>and that the Word was with God. Now it is obvious that “word” is generally understood to | |
| 411 signify a vocal sound and the statement of something necessary, a manifesting of thoughts. | |
| 412 But these words pass away and do not subsist. Accordingly, someone could think that the | |
| 413 Evangelist was speaking of a word like these.</p> | |
| 414 <p>According to Hilary and Augustine, this question is sufficiently answered by the above | |
| 415 account. Augustine says (Homily I <i>On John</i>)<i> </i>that it is obvious that in this passage “Word” | |
| 416 cannot be understood as a statement because, since a statement is in motion and passes away, | |
| 417 it could not be said that <span style="font-weight: bold">In the beginning was the Word, </span>if this Word were something | |
| 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 | |
| 419 to be “in” another is not the same as to be “with” another. Our word, since it does not subsist, | |
| 420 is not “with” us, but “in” us; but the Word of God is subsistent, and therefore “with” God. | |
| 421 And so the Evangelist expressly says, and the Word was with God. To entirely remove the | |
| 422 ground of the objection, he adds the nature and being of the Word, saying, <span style="font-weight: bold">and the Word | |
| 423 was God.</span></p> | |
| 424 <p>56 The other question comes from his saying, <span style="font-weight: bold">with God. </span>For since “with” indicates a | |
| 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 | |
| 426 him in nature. So to exclude this he adds at once the consubstantiality of the Word with the | |
| 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 | |
| 428 Father by a diversity of nature, because the Word itself is God.</p> | |
| 429 <p>57 Note also the special way of signifying, since he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">the Word was God, </span>using “God” | |
| 430 absolutely to show that he is not God in the same way in which the name of the deity is given | |
| 431 to a creature in Sacred Scripture. For a creature sometimes shares this name with some added | |
| 432 qualification, as when it says, “I have appointed you the God of Pharaoh” (Ex 7:1), in order to | |
| 433 indicate that he was not God absolutely or by nature, because he was appointed the god of | |
| 434 someone in a qualified sense. Again, it says in the Psalm (81:6): “I said, ‘You are gods.’” | |
| 435 —as if to say: in my opinion, but not in reality. Thus the Word is called God absolutely | |
| 436 because he is God by his own essence, and not by participation, as men and angels are.</p> | |
| 437 <p>58 We should note that Origen disgracefully misunderstood this clause, led astray by the | |
| 438 Greek manner of speaking. It is the custom among the Greeks to put the article before every | |
| 439 name in order to indicate a distinction. In the Greek version of John’s Gospel the name | |
| 440 “Word” in the statement, <span style="font-weight: bold">In the beginning was the Word, </span>and also the name “God” in the | |
| 441 statement, <span style="font-weight: bold">and the Word was with God, </span>are prefixed by the article, so as to read “the Word” | |
| 442 and “the God,” in order to indicate the eminence and distinction of the Word from other | |
| 443 words, and the principality of the Father in the divinity. But in the statement, <span style="font-weight: bold">the Word was | |
| 444 God, </span>the article is not prefixed to the noun “God,” which stands for the person of the Son. | |
| 445 Because of this Origen blasphemed that the Word, although he was Word by essence, was not | |
| 446 God by essence, but is called God by participation; while the Father alone is God by essence. | |
| 447 And so he held that the Son is inferior to the Father.</p> | |
| 448 <p>59 Chrysostom proves that this is not true, because if the article used with the name “God” | |
| 449 implied the superiority of the Father in respect to the Son, it would never be used with the | |
| 450 name “God” when it is used as a predicate of another, but only when it is predicated of the | |
| 451 Father. Further, whenever said of the Father, it would be accompanied by the article. | |
| 452 However, we find the opposite to be the case in two statements of the Apostle, who calls | |
| 453 Christ “God,” using the article. For in Titus (2:13) he says, “the coming of the glory of the | |
| 454 great God and our Savior Jesus Christ,” where “God” stands for the Son, and in the Greek the | |
| 455 article is used. Therefore, Christ is the great God. Again he says (Rom 9:5): “Christ, who is | |
| 456 God over all things, blessed forever,” and again the article is used with “God” in the Greek. | |
| 457 Further, in 1 John (5:20) it says: “That we may be in his true Son, Jesus Christ; he is the true | |
| 458 God and eternal life.” Thus, Christ is not God by participation, but truly God. And so the | |
| 459 theory of Origen is clearly false.</p> | |
| 460 <p>Chrysostom gives us the reason why the Evangelist did not use the article with the name | |
| 461 “God,” namely, because he had already mentioned God twice using the article, and so it was | |
| 462 not necessary to repeat it a third time, but it was implied. Or, a better reason would be that | |
| 463 “God” is used here as the predicate and is taken formally. And it is not the custom for the | |
| 464 article to accompany names used as predicates, since the article indicates separation. But if | |
| 465 “God” were used here as the subject, it could stand for any of the persons, as the Son or the | |
| 466 Holy Spirit; then, no doubt, the article would be used in the Greek.</p> | |
| 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 | |
| 468 introduced because of the preceding clause. For from the Evangelist’s statement that <span style="font-weight: bold">the | |
| 469 Word was God, </span>two false interpretations could be held by those who misunderstand. One of | |
| 470 these is by the pagans, who acknowledge many and different gods, and say that their wills are | |
| 471 in opposition. For example, those who put out the fable of Jupiter fighting with Saturn; or as | |
| 472 the Manicheans, who have two contrary principles of nature. The Lord said against this error | |
| 473 (Dt 6:4): “Hear O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord.”</p> | |
| 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 | |
| 475 adduce this in support of their error by understanding the God with whom the Word is to be | |
| 476 one [God],and the Word to be another, having another, or contrary, will to the former; and | |
| 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 | |
| 478 with God, </span>as if to say, according to Hilary: I say that the Word is God, not as if he has a | |
| 479 distinct divinity, but he is with God, that is, in the one same nature in which lie is. Further, | |
| 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 | |
| 481 will, he added that the Word <span style="font-weight: bold">was in the beginning with God, </span>namely, the Father; not as | |
| 482 divided from him or opposed, but having an identity of nature with him and a harmony of | |
| 483 will. This union comes about by the sharing of the divine nature in the three persons, and by | |
| 484 the bond of the natural love of the Father and the Son.</p> | |
| 485 <p>61 The Arians were able to draw out another error from the above. They think that the Son is | |
| 486 less than the Father because it says below (14:28): “The Father is greater than I” And they say | |
| 487 the Father is greater than the Son both as to eternity and as to divinity of nature. And so to | |
| 488 exclude this the Evangelist added: <span style="font-weight: bold">He was in the beginning with God. </span>For Arius admits the | |
| 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 | |
| 490 taken for the Father, but rather for the beginning of creatures. So he says that the Word was in | |
| 491 the beginning of creatures, and consequently is in no sense coeternal with the Father. But this | |
| 492 is excluded, according to Chrysostom, by this clause, <span style="font-weight: bold">He was in the beginning, </span>not of | |
| 493 creatures, but <span style="font-weight: bold">in the beginning with God, </span>i.e., whenever God existed. For the Father was | |
| 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> | |
| 495 <p>62 Again, Arius admits that the Word was God, but nevertheless inferior to the Father. This is | |
| 496 excluded by what follows. For there are two attributes proper to the great God which Arius | |
| 497 attributed solely to God the Father, that is, eternity and omnipotence. So in whomever these | |
| 498 two attributes are found, he is the great God, than whom none is greater. But the Evangelist | |
| 499 attributes these two to the Word. Therefore, the Word is the great God and not inferior. He | |
| 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 | |
| 501 was with God from eternity, and not only in the beginning of creatures (as Arius held) , but | |
| 502 with God, receiving being and divinity from him. Further, he attributes omnipotence to the | |
| 503 Word when he adds, <span style="font-weight: bold">Through him all things came into being.</span></p> | |
| 504 <p>63 Origen gives a rather beautiful explanation of this clause, <span style="font-weight: bold">He was in the beginning with | |
| 505 God, </span>when he says that it is not separate from the first three, but is in a certain sense their | |
| 506 epilogue. For the Evangelist, after he had indicated that truth was the Son’s and was about to | |
| 507 describe his power, in a way gathers together in a summary form, in this fourth clause, what | |
| 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 | |
| 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, | |
| 510 so that we do not think that the Word which was in the beginning is different than the Word | |
| 511 which was God; but this Word which was God <span style="font-weight: bold">was in the beginning with God.</span></p> | |
| 512 <p>64 If one considers these four propositions well, he will find that they clearly destroy all the | |
| 513 errors of the heretics and of the philosophers. For some heretics, as Ebion and Cerinthus, said | |
| 514 that Christ did not exist before the Blessed Virgin, but took from her the beginning of his | |
| 515 being and duration; for they held that he was a mere man, who had merited divinity by his | |
| 516 good works. Photinus and Paul of Samosata, following them, said the same thing. But the | |
| 517 Evangelist excludes their errors saying, <span style="font-weight: bold">In the beginning was the Word, </span>i.e., before all | |
| 518 things, and in the Father from eternity. Thus he did not derive his beginning from the Virgin.</p> | |
| 519 <p>Sabellius, on the other hand, although he admitted that the God who took flesh did not | |
| 520 receive his beginning from the Virgin, but existed from eternity, still said that the person of | |
| 521 the Father, who existed from eternity, was not distinct from the person of the Son, who took | |
| 522 flesh from the Virgin. He maintained that the Father and Son were the same person; and so he | |
| 523 failed to distinguish the trinity of persons in the deity. The Evangelist says against this error, | |
| 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> | |
| 525 <p>Eunomius declared that the Son is entirely unlike the Father. The Evangelist rejects this when | |
| 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. | |
| 527 The Evangelist excludes this by saying, <span style="font-weight: bold">He was in the beginning with God, </span>as was | |
| 528 explained above.</p> | |
| 529 <p>65 These words also exclude the errors of the philosophers. I`or some of the ancient | |
| 530 philosophers, namely, the natural philosophers, maintained that the world did not come from | |
| 531 any intellect or through some purpose, but by chance. Consequently, they did not place at the | |
| 532 beginning as the cause of things a reason or intellect, but only matter in flux; for example, | |
| 533 atoms, as Democritus thought, or other material principles of this kind as different | |
| 534 philosophers inaintained. Against these the Evangelist says, <span style="font-weight: bold">In the beginning was the Word, | |
| 535 </span>from whom, and not from chance, things derive their beginning.</p> | |
| 536 <p>Plato, however, thought that the Ideas of all the things that were made were subsistent, i.e., | |
| 537 existing separately in their own natures; and material things exist by participating in these. | |
| 538 For example, he thought men existed through the separated Idea of man, which he called Man | |
| 539 <i>per se. </i>So lest you suppose, as did Plato, that this Idea through which all things were made be | |
| 540 Ideas separated from God, the Evangelist adds, <span style="font-weight: bold">and the Word was with God.</span></p> | |
| 541 <p>Other Platonists, as Chrysostom relates, maintained that God the Father was most eminent | |
| 542 and first, but under him they placed a certain mind in which there were the likenesses and | |
| 543 ideas of all things. So lest you think that the Word was with the Father in such a way as to be | |
| 544 under him and less than he, the Evangelist adds, <span style="font-weight: bold">and the Word was God.</span></p> | |
| 545 <p>Aristotle, however, thought that the ideas of all things are in God, and that in God, the | |
| 546 intellect, the one understanding, and what is understood, are the same. Nevertheless, he | |
| 547 thought that the world is coeternal with him. Against this the Evangelist says, He, the Word | |
| 548 alone, was <span style="font-weight: bold">in the beginning with God, </span>in such a way that He does not exclude another | |
| 549 person, but only another coeternal nature.</p> | |
| 550 <p>66 Note the difference in what has been said between John and the other Evangelists: how he | |
| 551 began his Gospel on a loftier plane than they. They announced Christ the Son of God born in | |
| 552 time: “When Jesus was born in Bethlehem” (Mt 2:1); but John presents him existing from | |
| 553 eternity: <span style="font-weight: bold">In the beginning was the Word. </span>They show him suddenly appearing among men: | |
| 554 “Now you dismiss your servant, 0 Lord, in peace, according to your word; because my eyes | |
| 555 have seen your salvation” (Lk 2:29); but John says that he always existed with the Father: and | |
| 556 the Word was with God. The others show him as a man: “They gave glory to God who had | |
| 557 given such authority to men” (Mt 9:8); but John says that he is God: and the Word was God. | |
| 558 The others say he lives with men: “While living in Galilee, Jesus said to them” (Mt 17:21); | |
| 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> | |
| 560 <p>67 Note also how the Evangelist designedly uses the word was (<i>erat) </i>to show that the Word | |
| 561 of God transcends all times: 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> | |
| 563 <p style="margin-bottom: 0.125in; margin-bottom: 0.125in"> </p> | |
| 564 <CENTER><p><span style="font-weight: bold">LECTURE 2</span></p> | |
| 565 <p>3 All things were made through him,<BR> | |
| 566 and without him nothing was made.<BR> | |
| 567 What was made 4a in him was life.</CENTER> | |
| 568 <p>68 After the Evangelist has told of the existence and nature of the Divine Word, so far as it | |
| 569 can be told by man, he then shows the might of his power. First, he shows his power with | |
| 570 respect to all things that come into existence. Secondly, with respect to man. As to the first, | |
| 571 he uses three clauses; and we will not distinguish these at present because they will be | |
| 572 distinguished in different ways according to the different explanations given by the saints.</p> | |
| 573 <p>69 The first clause, <span style="font-weight: bold">All thifngs were made through him</span>, is used to show three things | |
| 574 concerning the Word. First, according to Chrysostom, to show the equality of the Word to the | |
| 575 Father. For as stated earlier, the error of Arius was rejected by the Evangelist when he showed | |
| 576 the coeternity of the Son with the Father by saying, “He was in the beginning with God.” | |
| 577 Here he excludes the same error when he shows the omnipotence of the Son, saying, <span style="font-weight: bold">All | |
| 578 things were made through him</span>. For to be the principle of all the things that are made is | |
| 579 proper to the great omnipotent God, as the Psalm (134:6) says, “Whatever the Lord wills he | |
| 580 does, in heaven and on earth.”Thus the Word, through whom all things were made, is God, | |
| 581 great and coequal to the Father.</p> | |
| 582 <p>70 Secondly, according to Hilary, this clause is used to show the coeternity of the Word with | |
| 583 the Father. For since someone might understand the earlier statement, “In the beginning was | |
| 584 the Word,” as referring to the beginning of creatures, i.e., that before there were any creatures | |
| 585 there was a time in which the Word did not exist, the Evangelist rejects this by saying, <span style="font-weight: bold">All | |
| 586 things were made through him. </span>For if all things were made through the Word, then time | |
| 587 was also. From this we can form the following argument: If all time was made through him, | |
| 588 there was no time before him or with him, because before all these, he was. Therefore they | |
| 589 [the Son and the Father] are eternally coeternal.</p> | |
| 590 <p>71 Thirdly, according to Augustine, this clause is used to show the consubstantiality of the | |
| 591 Word with the Father. For if all things were made through the Word, the Word himself cannot | |
| 592 be said to have been made; because, if made, he was made through some Word, since all | |
| 593 things were made through the Word. Consequently, there would have been another Word | |
| 594 through whom was made the Word of whom the Evangelist is speaking. This Word, through | |
| 595 whom all things are made, we call the only begotten Son of God, because he is neither made | |
| 596 nor is he a creature. And if he is not a creature, it is necessary to say that he is of the same | |
| 597 substance with the Father, since every substance other than the divine essence is made. But a | |
| 598 substance that is not a creature is God. And so the Word, through whom all things were made, | |
| 599 is consubstantial with the Father, since he is neither made, nor is he a creature.</p> | |
| 600 <p>72 And so in saying <span style="font-weight: bold">All things were made through him, </span>you have, according to | |
| 601 Chrysostom, the equality of the Word with the Father; the coeternity of the Word with the | |
| 602 Father, according to Hilary; and the consubstantiality of the Word with the Father, according | |
| 603 to Augustine.</p> | |
| 604 <p>73 Here we must guard against three errors. First, the error of Valentine. He understood <span style="font-weight: bold">All | |
| 605 things were made through him </span>to mean that the Word proferred to the Creator the cause of | |
| 606 his creating the world; so that all things were made through the Word as if the Father’s | |
| 607 creating the world came from the Word. This leads to the position of those who said that God | |
| 608 created the world because of some exterior cause; and this is contrary to Proverbs (16:4), | |
| 609 “The Lord made all things for himself.” The reason this is an error is that, as Origen says, if | |
| 610 the Word had been a cause to the Creator by offering him the material for making things, he | |
| 611 would not have said, <span style="font-weight: bold">All things were made through him, </span>but on the contrary, that all things | |
| 612 were made through the Creator by the Word.</p> | |
| 613 <p>74 Secondly, we must avoid the error of Origen. He said that the Holy Spirit was included | |
| 614 among all the things made through the Word; from which it follows that he is a creature. And | |
| 615 this is what Origen thought. This is heretical and blasphemous, since the Holy Spirit has the | |
| 616 same glory and substance and dignity as the Father and the Son, according to the words of | |
| 617 Matthew (28:19), “Make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the | |
| 618 Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” And, “There are three who give testimony’ in | |
| 619 heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one” (l Jn 5:7). Thus | |
| 620 when the Evangelist says, <span style="font-weight: bold">All things were made through him</span>, one should not understand | |
| 621 “all things” absolutely, but in the realm of creatures and of things made. As if to say: All | |
| 622 things that were made, were made through him. Otherwise, if “all things” were taken | |
| 623 absolutely, it would follow that the Father and the Holy Spirit were made through him; and | |
| 624 this is blasphemous. Consequently, neither the Father nor anything substantial with the Father | |
| 625 was made through the Word.</p> | |
| 626 <p>75 Thirdly, we must avoid another of Origen’s errors. For he said that all things were made | |
| 627 through the Word as something is made by a greater through a lesser, as if the Son were | |
| 628 inferior to, and an instrument of, the Father. But it is clear from many places in Scripture that | |
| 629 the preposition “through” (<i>per</i>)<i> </i>does not signify inferiority in the thing which is its | |
| 630 grammatical object, i.e., in the Son or Word. For the Apostle says, “God is faithful, through | |
| 631 whom you were called into the fellowship of his Son” (1 Cor 1:9). If he “through” whom | |
| 632 something is done has a superior, then the Father has a superior. But this is false. Therefore, | |
| 633 the preposition “through” does not signify any inferiority in the Son when all things are said | |
| 634 to have been made through him.</p> | |
| 635 <p>76 To explain this point further, we should note that when something is said to be made | |
| 636 through someone, the preposition “through” (<i>per</i>)<i> </i>denotes some sort of causality in its object | |
| 637 with respect to an operation; but not always the same kind of causality. For since an | |
| 638 operation, according to our manner of signifying, is considered to be medial between the one | |
| 639 acting and the thing produced, the operation itself can be regarded in two ways. In one way, | |
| 640 as issuing from the one operating, who is the cause of the action itself; in another way, as | |
| 641 terminated in the thing produced. Accordingly, the preposition “through” sometimes signifies | |
| 642 the cause of the operation insofar as it issues from the one operating: but sometimes as | |
| 643 terminated in the thing which is produced. It signifies the cause of the operation as issuing | |
| 644 from the one operating when the object of the preposition is either the efficient or formal | |
| 645 cause why the one operating is operating. For example, we have a formal cause when fire is | |
| 646 heating through heat; for heat is the formal cause of the fire’s heating. We have a movent or | |
| 647 efficient cause in cases where secondary agents act through primary agents; as when I say that | |
| 648 the bailiff acts through the king, because the king is the efficient cause of the bailiff’s acting. | |
| 649 This is the way Valentine understood that all things were made through the Word: as though | |
| 650 the Word were the cause of the maker’s production of all things. The preposition “through” | |
| 651 implies the causality of the operation as terminated in the thing produced when what is | |
| 652 signified through that causality is not the cause which operates, but the cause of the operation | |
| 653 precisely as terminated in the thing produced. So when I say, “The carpenter is making a | |
| 654 bench through [by means of] a hatchet,” the hatchet is not the cause of the carpenter’s | |
| 655 operating; but we do say that it is the cause of the bench’s being made by the one acting.</p> | |
| 656 <p>And so when it says that <span style="font-weight: bold">All things were made through him, </span>if the “through” denotes the | |
| 657 efficient or movent cause, causing the Father to act, then in this sense the Father does nothing | |
| 658 through the Son, but he does all things through himself, as has been said. But if the “through” | |
| 659 denotes a formal cause, as when the Father operates through his widsom, which is his | |
| 660 essence, he operates through his wisdom as he operates through his essence. And because the | |
| 661 wisdom and power of the Father are attributed to the Son, as when we say, “Christ, the power | |
| 662 of God and the wisdom of God” (1 Cor 1:24), then by appropriation we say that the Father | |
| 663 does all things through the Son, i.e., through his wisdom. And so Augustine says that the | |
| 664 phrase “from whom all things,” is appropriated to the Father; “through whom all things,” is | |
| 665 appropriated to the Son; and “in whom all things,” is appropriated to the Holy Spirit. But if | |
| 666 the “through” denotes causality from the standpoint of the thing produced, then the statement, | |
| 667 “The Father does all things through the Son,” is not [mere] appropriation but proper to the | |
| 668 Word, because the fact that he is a cause of creatures is had from someone else, namely the | |
| 669 Father, from whom he has being.</p> | |
| 670 <p>However, it does not follow from this that the Word is the instrument of the Father, although | |
| 671 whatever is moved by another to effect something partakes of the nature of an instrument. For | |
| 672 when I say that someone works through a power received from another, this can be | |
| 673 understood in two ways. In one way, as meaning that the power of the giver and of the | |
| 674 receiver is numerically one and the same power; and in this way the one operating through a | |
| 675 power received from another is not inferior but equal to the one from whom he receives it. | |
| 676 Therefore, since the same power which the Father has he gives to the Son, through which the | |
| 677 Son works, when it is said that “the Father works through the Son,” one should not on that | |
| 678 account say that the Son is inferior to the Father or is his instrument. This would be the case, | |
| 679 rather, in those who receive from another not the same power, but another and created one. | |
| 680 And so it is plain that neither the Holy Spirit nor the Son are causes of the Father’s working, | |
| 681 and that neither is the minister or instrument of the Father, as Origen raved.</p> | |
| 682 <p>77 If we carefully consider the words, <span style="font-weight: bold">All things were made through him, </span>we can clearly | |
| 683 see that the Evangelist spoke with the utmost exactitude. For whoever makes something must | |
| 684 preconceive it in his wisdom, which is the form and pattern of the thing made: as the form | |
| 685 preconceived in the mind of an artisan is the pattern of the cabinet to be made. So, God makes | |
| 686 nothing except through the conception of his intellect, which is an eternally conceived | |
| 687 wisdom, that is, the Word of God, and the Son of God. Accordingly, it is impossible that he | |
| 688 should make anything except through the Son. And so Augustine says, in <i>The Trinity, </i>that the | |
| 689 Word is the art full of the living patterns of all things. Thus it is clear that all things which the | |
| 690 Father makes, he makes through him.</p> | |
| 691 <p>78 It should be remarked that, according to Chrysostom, all the things which Moses | |
| 692 enumerates individually in God’s production of things, saying, “And God said, ‘Let there be | |
| 693 light’” (Gn 1:3) and so forth, all these the Evangelist transcends and embraces in one phrase, | |
| 694 saying, <span style="font-weight: bold">All things were made through him. </span>The reason is that Moses wished to teach the | |
| 695 emanation of creatures from God; hence he enumerated them one by one. But John, hastening | |
| 696 toward loftier things, intends in this book to lead us specifically to a knowledge of the Creator | |
| 697 himself.</p> | |
| 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 | |
| 699 have distorted, as Augustine says in his work, <i>The Nature of the Good. </i>Because of John’s | |
| 700 manner of speaking here, they believed that he was using “nothing” in an affirmative sense; | |
| 701 as though nothing was something which was made without the Word. And so they claimed | |
| 702 that this clause was added by the Evangelist in order to exclude something which was not | |
| 703 made by the Word. They say that the Evangelist, having said that <span style="font-weight: bold">All things were made | |
| 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 | |
| 705 things were made through him in such a way that still something was made without him, that | |
| 706 is, the “nothing”.</p> | |
| 707 <p>80 Three heresies came from this. First, that of Valentine. He affirmed, as Origen says, a | |
| 708 multitude of principles, and taught that from them came thirty eras. The first principles he | |
| 709 postulates are two: the Deep, which he calls God the Father, and Silence. And from these | |
| 710 proceed ten eras. But from the Deep and from Silence, he says, there are two other principles, | |
| 711 Mind and Truth; and from these issued eight eras. Then from Mind and Truth, there are two | |
| 712 other principles, Word and Life; and from these issued twelve eras; thus making a total of | |
| 713 thirty. Finally, from the Word and Life there proceeded in time, the man Christ and the | |
| 714 Church. In this way Valentine affirmed many eras previous to the issuing forth of the Word. | |
| 715 And so he said that because the Evangelist had stated that <span style="font-weight: bold">all things were made through | |
| 716 him, </span>then, lest anyone think that those previous eras had been effected through the Word, he | |
| 717 added, <span style="font-weight: bold">and without him nothing was made, </span>i.e., all the preceding eras and all that had | |
| 718 existed in them. All of these John calls “nothing,” because they transcend human reason and | |
| 719 cannot be grasped by the mind.</p> | |
| 720 <p>81 The second error to arise from this was that of Manichaeus, who affirmed two opposing | |
| 721 principles: one is the source of incorruptible things, and the other of corruptible things. He | |
| 722 said that after John had stated that <span style="font-weight: bold">All things were made through him, </span>then, lest it be | |
| 723 thought that the Word is the cause of corruptible things, he immediately added, <span style="font-weight: bold">and without | |
| 724 him nothing was made, </span>i.e., things subject to corruption, which are called “nothing” because | |
| 725 their being consists in being continually transformed into nothing.</p> | |
| 726 <p>82 The third error is that of those who claim that by “nothing” we should understand the | |
| 727 devil, according to Job (18:15), “May the companions of him who is not dwell in his house.” | |
| 728 And so they say that all things except the devil were made through the Word. In this way they | |
| 729 explain, <span style="font-weight: bold">without him nothing was made, </span>that is, the devil.</p> | |
| 730 <p>83 All these three errors, arising as they do from the same source, namely, taking “nothing” in | |
| 731 a positive sense, are excluded by the fact that “nothing” in not used here in an affirmative, but | |
| 732 in a merely negative sense: the sense being that all things were made through the Word in | |
| 733 such a way that there is nothing participating in existence that was not made through him.</p> | |
| 734 <p>84 Perhaps someone will object and say that it was superfluous to add this clause, if it is to be | |
| 735 understood negatively, on the ground that the Evangelist, in stating that <span style="font-weight: bold">All things were | |
| 736 made through him, </span>seems to have already said adequately enough that there is not | |
| 737 something that was not made through the Word.</p> | |
| 738 <p>The answer to this is that, according to many expositors, this clause was added in many ways | |
| 739 for a number of reasons. One of these reasons is, according to Chrysostom, so that no one | |
| 740 reading the Old Testament and finding only visible things listed by Moses in the creation of | |
| 741 things, would think that these were the only things made through the Word. And so after he | |
| 742 had said, <span style="font-weight: bold">All things were made through him, </span>namely, those that Moses listed, the | |
| 743 Evangelist then added, <span style="font-weight: bold">and without him nothing was made, </span>as though he were saying: None | |
| 744 of the things which exist, whether visible or invisible, was made without the Word. Indeed, | |
| 745 the Apostle also speaks in this way (Col 1:16), saying that all things, visible and invisible, | |
| 746 were created in Christ; and here the Apostle makes specific mention of invisible things | |
| 747 because Moses had made no express mention of them on account of the lack of erudition of | |
| 748 that people, who could not be raised above the things of sense.</p> | |
| 749 <p>Chrysostom also gives another reason why this clause was added. For someone reading in the | |
| 750 Gospels of the many signs and miracles worked by Christ, such as, “The blind see, the lame | |
| 751 walk, lepers are cleansed” (Mt 11:5), might believe that in saying, <span style="font-weight: bold">All things were made | |
| 752 through him, </span>John meant that only the things mentioned in those Gospels, and nothing else, | |
| 753 were made through him. So lest anyone suspect this, the Evangelist adds, <span style="font-weight: bold">and without him | |
| 754 nothing was made. </span>As if to say: Not only all the things contained in the Gospels were made | |
| 755 through him, but none of the things that were made, was made without him. And so, | |
| 756 according to Chrysostom, this clause is added to bring out his total causality, and serves, as it | |
| 757 were, to complete his previous statement.</p> | |
| 758 <p>85 According to Hilary, however, this clause is introduced to show that the Word has | |
| 759 operative power from another. For since the Evangelist had said, <span style="font-weight: bold">All things were made | |
| 760 through him, </span>it might be supposed that the Father is excluded from all causality. For that | |
| 761 reason he added, <span style="font-weight: bold">and without him nothing was made. </span>As if to say: All things were made | |
| 762 through him, but in such a way that the Father made all things with him. For “without him” is | |
| 763 equivalent to saying, “not alone,” so that the meaning is: It is not he alone through whom all | |
| 764 things were made, but he is the other one without whom nothing was made. It is as if he said: | |
| 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, “I | |
| 766 was with him forming all things” (Prv 8:30).</p> | |
| 767 <p>86 In a certain homily attributed to Origen, and which begins, “The spiritual voice of the | |
| 768 eagle,” we find another rather beautiful exposition. It says there that the Greek has <i>thoris | |
| 769 </i>where the Latin has <i>sine </i>(without). Now <i>thoris</i> is the same as “outside” or “outside of.” It is | |
| 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 | |
| 771 was made. </span>And so he says this to show that all things are conserved through the Word and in | |
| 772 the Word, as stated in Hebrews ( 1:3), “He sustains all things by his powerful word.” Now | |
| 773 there are certain things that do not need their producer except to bring them into existence, | |
| 774 since after they have been produced they are able to subsist without any further activity on the | |
| 775 part of the producer. For example, a house needs a builder if it is to come into existence, but | |
| 776 it continues to exist without any further action on the part of the builder. So lest anyone | |
| 777 suppose that all things were made through the Word in such a way that he is merely the cause | |
| 778 of their production and not of their continuation in existence, the Evangelist added, <span style="font-weight: bold">and | |
| 779 without him nothing was made, </span>i.e., nothing was made outside of him, because he | |
| 780 encompasses all things, preserving them.</p> | |
| 781 <p>87 This clause is also explained by Augustine and Origen and several others in such a way | |
| 782 that “nothing” indicates sin. Accordingly, because <span style="font-weight: bold">All things were made through him </span>might | |
| 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 | |
| 784 made. </span>For just as art is not the principle or cause of the defects in its products, but is through | |
| 785 itself the cause of their perfection and form, so the Word, who is the art of the Father, full of | |
| 786 living archetypes, is not the cause of any evil or disarrangement in things, particularly of the | |
| 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 | |
| 788 creature, either a man or an angel, freely declining from the end to which it is ordained by its | |
| 789 nature. One who can act in virtue of his art but purposely violates it, is the cause of the | |
| 790 defects occurring in his works, not by reason of his art, but by reason of his will. So in such | |
| 791 cases, his art is not the source or cause of the defects, but his will is. Consequently, evil is a | |
| 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 | |
| 793 nothing.</p> | |
| 794 <p>88 So then, this clause is added to show the universal causality of the Word, according to | |
| 795 Chrysostom; his association with the Father, according to Hilary; the power of the Word in | |
| 796 the preserving of things, according to Origen; and finally, the purity of his causality, because | |
| 797 he is so the cause of good as not to be the cause of sin, according to Augustine, Origen, and a | |
| 798 number of others.</p> | |
| 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 | |
| 800 avoid the false interpretation of Manichaeus, who was led by this to maintain that everything | |
| 801 that exists is alive: for example, stones, wood, men, and anything else in the world. He | |
| 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 | |
| 803 unless alive. Therefore, whatever was made in him is alive. He also claimed that “in him” is | |
| 804 the same as saying “through him,” since very often in Scripture “in him” and “through him” | |
| 805 are interchangeable, as in “in him and through him all things were created” (Col 1:16). | |
| 806 However, our present explanation shows that this interpretation is false.</p> | |
| 807 <p>90 There are, nevertheless, a number of ways to explain it without error. In that homily, “The | |
| 808 spiritual voice,” 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 | |
| 809 life, </span>not in each thing itself, but in its cause. For in the case of all things that are caused, it is | |
| 810 always true that effects, whether produced by nature or by will, exist in their causes, not | |
| 811 according to their own existence, but according to the power of their appropriate cause. Thus, | |
| 812 lower effects are in the sun as in their cause, not according to their respective existences but | |
| 813 according to the power of the sun. Therefore, since the cause of all effects produced by God is | |
| 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., | |
| 815 through him, <span style="font-weight: bold">was life, </span>in its cause, i.e., in God.</p> | |
| 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 | |
| 817 things can be considered in two ways: as they are in themselves, and as they are in the Word. | |
| 818 If they are considered as they are in themselves, then it is not true that all things are life or | |
| 819 even alive, but some lack life and some are alive. For example, the earth was made and | |
| 820 metals were made, but none is life, none is living; animals and men were made, and these, | |
| 821 considered in themselves, are not life, but merely living. Yet considered as they are in the | |
| 822 Word, they are not merely living, but also life. For the archetypes which exist spiritually in | |
| 823 the wisdom of God, and through which things were made by the Word, are life, just as a chest | |
| 824 made by an artisan is in itself neither alive nor life, yet the exemplar of the chest in the | |
| 825 artisan’s mind prior to the existence of the chest is in some sense living, insofar as it has an | |
| 826 intellectual existence in the mind of the artisan. Nevertheless it is not life, because it is neither | |
| 827 in his essence nor is it his existence through the act of understanding of the artisan. But in | |
| 828 God, his act of understanding is his life and his essence. And so whatever is in God is not | |
| 829 only living, but is life itself, because whatever is in God is his essence. Hence the creature in | |
| 830 God is the creating essence. Thus, if things are considered as they are in the Word, they are | |
| 831 life. This is explained in another place.</p> | |
| 832 <p>92 Origen, commenting on John, gives another reading, thus: <span style="font-weight: bold">That which was made in him; | |
| 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; | |
| 834 for example, that he is God, omnipotent, and the like. And some things are said of him in | |
| 835 relation to ourselves; for example, we say he is Savior and Redeemer. Some things are said in | |
| 836 both ways, such as wisdom and justice. Now in all things said absolutely and of the Son as | |
| 837 such, it is not said that he was “made”, for example, we do not say that the Son was made | |
| 838 God or omnipotent. But in things said in reference to us, or in both ways, the notion of being | |
| 839 made can be used, as in, “God made him [Jesus Christ] our wisdom, our justice, our | |
| 840 sanctification and redemption” (1 Cor 1:30). And so, although he was always wisdom and | |
| 841 justice in himself, yet it can be said that he was newly made justice and wisdom for us.</p> | |
| 842 <p>And so Origen, explaining it along these lines, says that although in himself the Son is life, | |
| 843 yet he was made life for us by the fact that he gave us life, as is said, “Just as in Adam all die, | |
| 844 so in Christ all will come to life” (1 Cor 15:22). And so he says “the Word that was made” | |
| 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 | |
| 846 immediately adds, <span style="font-weight: bold">and that life was the light of men.</span></p> | |
| 847 <p>93 Hilary reads the clause differently, thus: <span style="font-weight: bold">And without him was made nothing, which | |
| 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 | |
| 849 Evangelist says <span style="font-weight: bold">without him nothing was made, </span>one might be perplexed and ask whether | |
| 850 there are still other things made by him, that were not made through him, although not | |
| 851 without him, but with respect to which he was associated with the maker; and this clause is | |
| 852 added to correct the aforesaid error. Therefore lest this be so understood, when the Evangelist | |
| 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, | |
| 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> | |
| 855 <p>For it is plain that all things are said to have been made through the Word inasmuch as the | |
| 856 Word, who proceeds from the Father, is God. But let us suppose that some father has a son | |
| 857 who does not perfectly exercise the operations of a man, but reaches such a state gradually. In | |
| 858 that case the father will do many things, not through the son, yet not without [having] him. | |
| 859 Since, therefore, the Son of God has from all eternity the same life that the Father has—“Just | |
| 860 as the Father possesses life in himself, so has he granted it to the Son to have life in himself” | |
| 861 (below 5:26)—one cannot say that God the Father, although he made nothing without the | |
| 862 Son, nevertheless made some things not through him, because he was life. For in living things | |
| 863 which participate life, it can happen that imperfect life precedes perfect life; but in <i>per se </i>life, | |
| 864 which does not participate life but is simply and absolutely life, there can be no imperfection | |
| 865 at all. Accordingly, because the Word is <i>per se </i>life, there was never imperfect life in him, but | |
| 866 always perfect life. And so in such a way that nothing was made without him that was not | |
| 867 also made in him, i.e., through him.</p> | |
| 868 <p>94 Chrysostom has a different reading and punctuation, thus: <span style="font-weight: bold">And without him was made | |
| 869 nothing that was made. </span>The reason for this is that someone might believe that the Holy | |
| 870 Spirit was made through the Word. So to exclude this, the Evangelist says, <span style="font-weight: bold">that was made, | |
| 871 </span>because the Holy Spirit is not something that is made. And afterward follows, <span style="font-weight: bold">In him was | |
| 872 life, </span>which is introduced for two reasons. First, to show that after the creation of all things his | |
| 873 causality was indefectible not only with respect to the things already produced, but also with | |
| 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 | |
| 875 produce all things, but which has an unfailing flow and a causality for producing things | |
| 876 continually without undergoing any change, being a living fountain which is not diminished | |
| 877 in spite of its continuous outflow; whereas collected water, that is not living [i..e., running] | |
| 878 water, is diminished when it flows out, and is used up. So the Psalm (35:10) says, “With you | |
| 879 is the fountain of life.” The second reason is to show that things are governed by the: Word. | |
| 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 | |
| 881 a necessity of his nature, and that he governs the things he made. “The Word of God is | |
| 882 living” (Heb 4:12).</p> | |
| 883 <p>Chrysostom is held in such esteem by the Greeks in his explanations that they admit no other | |
| 884 where he expounded anything in Holy Scripture. For this reason, this passage in all the Greek | |
| 885 works is found to be punctuated exactly as Chrysostom did, namely, <span style="font-weight: bold">And without him was | |
| 886 made nothing that was made.</span></p> | |
| 887 <p style="margin-bottom: 0.125in; margin-bottom: 0.125in"> </p> | |
| 888 <CENTER><p><span style="font-weight: bold">LECTURE 3</span></p> | |
| 889 <p>4b And that life was the light of men.<BR> | |
| 890 5 And the light shines in the darkness,<BR> | |
| 891 and the darkness did not overcome it.</p></CENTER> | |
| 892 <p>95 Above, the Evangelist described the power of the Word insofar as he brought all things | |
| 893 into existence; here he describes his power as it is related to men, saying that this Word is a | |
| 894 light to men. First, he introduces a certain light to us (v 4b); secondly, the light’s irradiation | |
| 895 (v 5a); thirdly, participation in the light (v 5b). This whole section may be explained in two | |
| 896 ways: first, according to the influx of natural knowledge; secondly, according to participation | |
| 897 in grace.</p> | |
| 898 <p>As to the first point he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">And that life was the light of men.</span></p> | |
| 899 <p>96 Here we should note first that, according to Augustine and many others, light is more | |
| 900 properly said of spiritual things than of sensible things. Ambrose, however, thinks that | |
| 901 brightness is said metaphorically of God. But this is not a great issue, for in whatever way the | |
| 902 name “light” is used, it implies a manifestation, whether that manifesting concerns intelligible | |
| 903 or sensible things. If we compare sensible and intelligible manifestation, then, according to | |
| 904 the nature of things, light is found first in spiritual things. But for us, who give names to | |
| 905 things on the basis of their properties as known to us, light is discovered first in sensible | |
| 906 things, because we first used this name to signify sensible light before intelligible light; | |
| 907 although as to power, light belongs to spiritual things in a prior and truer way than to sensible | |
| 908 things.</p> | |
| 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 | |
| 910 are many grades of life. For some things live, but do so without light, because they have no | |
| 911 knowledge; for example, plants. Hence their life is not light. Other things both live and know, | |
| 912 but their knowledge, since it is on the sense level, is concerned only with individual and | |
| 913 material things, as is the case with the brutes. So they have both life and a certain light. But | |
| 914 they do not have the light of men, who live, and know, not only truths, but also the very | |
| 915 nature of truth itself. Such are rational creatures, to whom not only this or that are made | |
| 916 manifest, but truth itself, which can be manifested and is manifestive to all.</p> | |
| 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 | |
| 918 anyone suppose he means life without knowledge. And he says that he is the <span style="font-weight: bold">light of men, | |
| 919 </span>lest anyone suppose he meant only sensible knowledge, such as exists in the brutes.</p> | |
| 920 <p>98 But since he is also the light of angels, why did he say, of men? Two answers have been | |
| 921 given to this. Chrysostom says that the Evangelist intended in this Gospel to give us a | |
| 922 knowledge of the Word precisely as directed to the salvation of men and therefore refers, in | |
| 923 keeping with his aim, more to men than to angels. Origen, however, says that participation in | |
| 924 this light pertains to men insofar as they have a rational nature; accordingly, when the | |
| 925 Evangelist says, <span style="font-weight: bold">the light of men, </span>he wants us to understand every rational nature. </p> | |
| 926 <p>99 We also see from this the perfection and dignity of this life, because it is intellectual or | |
| 927 rational. For whereas all things that in some way move themselves are called living, only | |
| 928 those that perfectly move themselves are said to have perfect life; and among lower creatures | |
| 929 only man moves himself, properly speaking, and perfectly. For although other things are | |
| 930 moved by themselves by some inner principle, that inner principle is nevertheless not open to | |
| 931 opposite alternatives; hence they are not moved freely but from necessity. As a result, those | |
| 932 things that are moved by such a principle are more truly made to act than act themselves. But | |
| 933 man, since he is master of his act, moves himself freely to all that he wills. Consequently, | |
| 934 man has perfect life, as does every intellectual nature. And so the life of the Word, which is | |
| 935 the light of men, is perfect life.</p> | |
| 936 <p>100 We find a fitting order in the above. For in the natural order of things, existence is first; | |
| 937 and the Evangelist implies this in his first statement, <span style="font-weight: bold">In the beginning was the Word. | |
| 938 </span>Secondly, comes life; and this is mentioned next, <span style="font-weight: bold">In him was life. </span>Thirdly comes | |
| 939 understanding; and that is mentioned next; <span style="font-weight: bold">And that life was the light of men. </span>And, | |
| 940 according to Origen, he fittingly attributes light to life because light can be attributed only to | |
| 941 the living.</p> | |
| 942 <p>101 We should note that light can be related in two ways to what is living: as an object and as | |
| 943 something in which they participate, as is clear in external sight. For the eyes know external | |
| 944 light as an object, but if they are to see it, they must participate in an inner light by which the | |
| 945 eyes are adapted and disposed for seeing the external light. And so his statement, <span style="font-weight: bold">And that | |
| 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 | |
| 947 as an object that man alone can look upon, because the rational creature alone can see it, since | |
| 948 he alone is capable of the vision of God who “teaches us more than the beasts of the earth, | |
| 949 and enlightens us more than the birds of the air” Jb 35:11); for although other animals may | |
| 950 know certain things that are true, nevertheless, man alone knows the nature itself of truth.</p> | |
| 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 | |
| 952 able to look upon the Word and light itself except through a participation in it; and this | |
| 953 participation is in man and is the superior part of our soul, i.e., the intellectual light, about | |
| 954 which the Psalm (4:7) says, “The light of your countenance, O Lord, is marked upon us,” i.e., | |
| 955 of your Son, who is your face, by whom you are manifested.</p> | |
| 956 <p>102 Having introduced a certain light, the Evangelist now considers its irradiation, saying, | |
| 957 And the light shines in the darkness. This can be explained in two ways, according to the two | |
| 958 meanings of “darkness.”</p> | |
| 959 <p>First, we might take “darkness” as a natural defect, that of the created mind. For the mind is | |
| 960 to that light of which the Evangelist speaks here as air is to the light of the sun; because, | |
| 961 although air is receptive of the light of the sun, considered in itself it is a darkness. According | |
| 962 to this the meaning is: the light, i.e., that life which is the light of men, shines in the darkness, | |
| 963 i.e., in created souls and minds, by always shedding its light on all. “On a man from whom | |
| 964 the light is hidden” (Jb 3:23).</p> | |
| 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 | |
| 966 something [<i>comprehendere, </i>to overcome, to comprehend, to seize or apprehend, and so | |
| 967 forth], is to enclose and understand its boundaries. As Augustine says, to reach God with the | |
| 968 mind is a great happiness; but to overcome [comprehend] him is impossible. And so, the | |
| 969 darkness did not overcome it. “Behold, God is great, exceeding our knowledge” (Jb 36:26); | |
| 970 “Great in counsel, incomprehensible in thought” as Jeremiah (32:19) says. This explanation is | |
| 971 found in that homily which begins, “The spiritual voice of the eagle.”</p> | |
| 972 <p>103 We can explain this passage in another way by taking “darkness” as Augustine does, for | |
| 973 the natural lack of wisdom in man, which is called a darkness. “And I saw that wisdom | |
| 974 excells folly as much as light excells knowledge” (Ecc 2:13). Someone is without wisdom, | |
| 975 therefore, because he lacks the light of divine wisdom. Consequently, just as the minds of the | |
| 976 wise are lucid by reason of a participation in that divine light and wisdom, so by the lack of it | |
| 977 they are darkness. Now the fact that some are darkness is not due to a defect in that light, | |
| 978 since on its part it shines in the darkness and radiates upon all. Rather, the foolish are | |
| 979 ‘without that light because <span style="font-weight: bold">the darkness did not overcome it, </span>i.e., they did not apprehend it, | |
| 980 not being able to attain a participation in it due to their foolishness; after having been lifted | |
| 981 up, they did not persevere. “From the savage,” i.e., from the proud, “he hides his light,” i.e., | |
| 982 the light of wisdom, “and shows his friend that it belongs to him, and that he may approach | |
| 983 it” (Jb 36:32); “They did not know the way to wisdom, nor did they remember her paths” (Bar | |
| 984 3:23).</p> | |
| 985 <p>Although some minds are darkness, i.e., they lack savory and lucid wisdom, nevertheless no | |
| 986 man is in such darkness as to be completely devoid of divine light, because whatever truth is | |
| 987 know by anyone is due to a participation in that light which shines in the darkness; for every | |
| 988 truth, no matter by whom it is spoken, comes from the Holy Spirit. Yet the darkness, i.e., men | |
| 989 in darkness, did not overcome it, apprehend it in truth. This is the way, [ i.e., with respect to | |
| 990 the natural influx of knowledge] that Origen and Augustine explain this clause.</p> | |
| 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, | |
| 992 according to the influx of grace, since we are illuminated by Christ.</p> | |
| 993 <p>After he had considered the creation of things through the Word, the Evangelist considers | |
| 994 here the restoration of the rational creature through Christ, saying, <span style="font-weight: bold">And that life, </span>of the Word, | |
| 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 | |
| 996 assumed flesh and came into the world to illumine all men with grace and truth. “I came into | |
| 997 the world for this, to testify to the truth” (below 18:37); “As long as I am in the world I am | |
| 998 the light of the world” (below 9:5). So he does not say, “the light of the Jews,” because | |
| 999 although previously he had been known only in Judea, he later became known to the world. “I | |
| 1000 have given you as a light to the nations, that you might be my salvation to the ends of the | |
| 1001 earth” (Is 49:6).</p> | |
| 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 | |
| 1003 show that these two have come to us through Christ: life, through a participation in grace, | |
| 1004 “Grace and truth have come through Jesus Christ” (below 1:17); and light, by a knowledge of | |
| 1005 truth and wisdom.</p> | |
| 1006 <p>105 According to this explanation, <span style="font-weight: bold">the light shines in the darkness, </span>can be expounded in | |
| 1007 three ways, in the light of the three meanings of “darkness.”</p> | |
| 1008 <p>In one way, we can take “darkness” for punishment. For any sadness and suffering of heart | |
| 1009 can be called a darkness, just as any joy can be called a light. “When I sit in darkness and in | |
| 1010 suffering the Lord is my light,” i.e., my joy and consolation (Mi 7:8). And so Origen says: In | |
| 1011 this explanation, <span style="font-weight: bold">the light shines in the darkness, </span>is Christ coming into the world, having a | |
| 1012 body capable of suffering and without sin, but “in the likeness of sinful flesh” (Rom 8:3). The | |
| 1013 light is in the flesh, that is, the flesh of Christ, which is called a darkness insofar as it has a | |
| 1014 likeness to sinful flesh. As if to say: The light, i.e., the Word of God, veiled about by the | |
| 1015 darkness of the flesh, shines on the world; “I will cover the sun with a cloud” (Ez 32:7).</p> | |
| 1016 <p>106 Secondly, we can take “darkness” to mean the devils, as in Ephesians (6:12), “Our | |
| 1017 struggle is not against flesh and blood; but against principalities and powers, against the | |
| 1018 rulers of the world of this darkness.” Looked at this way he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">the light, </span>i.e., the Son of | |
| 1019 God, <span style="font-weight: bold">shines in the darkness, </span>i.e., has descended into the world where darkness, i.e., the | |
| 1020 devils, hold sway: “Now the prince of this world will be cast out” (below 12:31). <span style="font-weight: bold">And 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 | |
| 1022 temptations, as is plain in Matthew (c 4)</p> | |
| 1023 <p>107 Thirdly, we can take “darkness” for the error or ignorance which filled the whole world | |
| 1024 before the coming of Christ, “You were at one time darkness” (Eph 5:8). And so he says that | |
| 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 | |
| 1026 world, who are blinded by the darkness or error and ignorance. “To enlighten those who sit in | |
| 1027 darkness and in the shadow of death” (Lk 1:79), “The people who were sitting in darkness | |
| 1028 saw a great light” (Is 9:2).</p> | |
| 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 | |
| 1030 number of men darkened by sin, blinded by envy, shadowed over by pride, who have | |
| 1031 struggled against Christ (as is plain from the Gospel) by upbraiding him, heaping insults and | |
| 1032 calumnies upon him, and finally killing him, nevertheless they did not overcome it, i.e., gain | |
| 1033 the victory of so obscuring him that his brightness would not shine throughout the whole | |
| 1034 world. Wisdom (7:30) says, “Compared to light, she takes precedence, for night supplants it, | |
| 1035 but wisdom,” that is, the incarnate Son of God, “is not overcome by wickedness,” that is, of | |
| 1036 the Jews and of heretics, because it says, “She gave him the prize for his stern struggle that he | |
| 1037 might know that wisdom is mightier than all else” (Wis 10:12).</p> | |
| 1038 <p style="margin-bottom: 0.125in; margin-bottom: 0.125in"> </p> | |
| 1039 <CENTER><p>LECTURE 4</p> | |
| 1040 <p>6 There was a man sent by God, whose name was John.<BR> | |
| 1041 7 He came as a witness, that he might bear witness to the light,<BR> | |
| 1042 so that through him all men might believe. 8 He was not the light,<BR> | |
| 1043 but [he came] in order to bear witness to the light.</CENTER> | |
| 1044 <p>108 Above, the Evangelist considered the divinity of the Word; here he begins to consider the | |
| 1045 incarnation of the Word. And he does two things concerning this: first, he treats of the | |
| 1046 witness to the incarnate Word, or the precursor; secondly, of the coming of the Word ( 1:9). | |
| 1047 As to the first, he does two things: first, he describes the precursor who comes to bear | |
| 1048 witness; secondly, he shows that he was incapable of the work of our salvation (1:8).</p> | |
| 1049 <p>He describes the precursor in four ways. First, according to his nature, <span style="font-weight: bold">There was a man. | |
| 1050 </span>Secondly, as to his authority, <span style="font-weight: bold">sent by God. </span>I’hirdly, as to his suitability for the office, <span style="font-weight: bold">whose | |
| 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> | |
| 1052 <p>109 We should note with respect to the first that, as soon as the Evangelist begins speaking of | |
| 1053 something temporal, he changes his manner of speech. When speaking above of eternal | |
| 1054 things, he used the word “was” (<i>erat</i>), which is the past imperfect tense; and this indicates | |
| 1055 that eternal things are without end. But now, when he is speaking of temporal things, he uses | |
| 1056 “was” (<i>fuit</i>, i.e., “has been”); this indicates temporal things as having taken place in the past | |
| 1057 and coming to an end there.</p> | |
| 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 | |
| 1059 incorrect opinion of certain heretics who were in error on the condition or nature of John. | |
| 1060 They believed that John was an angel in nature, basing themselves on the words of the Lord, | |
| 1061 “I send my messenger [in Greek, <i>angelos</i>]<i> </i>before you, who will prepare your way” (Mt | |
| 1062 11:10); and the same thing is found in Mark (1:2). But the Evangelist rejects this, saying, | |
| 1063 <span style="font-weight: bold">There was a man </span>by nature, not an angel. “The nature of man is known, and that he cannot | |
| 1064 contend in judgment with one who is stronger than himself” (Ecc 6:10).</p> | |
| 1065 <p>Now it “ is fitting that a man be sent to men, for men are more easily drawn to a man, since | |
| 1066 he is like themselves. So in Hebrews (7:28) it says, “The law appoints men, who have | |
| 1067 weakness, priests.” God could have governed men through angels, but he preferred men so | |
| 1068 that we could be more instructed by their example. And so John was a man, and not an angel.</p> | |
| 1069 <p>11 1 John is described by his authority when it says, sent by God. Indeed, although John was | |
| 1070 not an angel in nature, he was so by his office, because he was sent by God. For the | |
| 1071 distinctive office of angels is that they are sent by God and are messengers of God. “All are | |
| 1072 ministering spirits, sent to serve” (Heb 1:14). Hence it is that “angel” means “messenger.” | |
| 1073 And so men who are sent by God to announce something can be called angels. “Haggai the | |
| 1074 messenger of the Lord” (Hg 1:13).</p> | |
| 1075 <p>If someone is to bear witness to God, it is necessary that he be sent by God. “How can they | |
| 1076 preach unless they are sent?” as is said in Romans (10:15). And since they are sent by God, | |
| 1077 they seek the things of Jesus Christ, not their own. “We do not preach ourselves, but Jesus | |
| 1078 Christ” (2 Cor 4:5). On the other hand, one who sends himself, and is not sent by God, seeks | |
| 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 | |
| 1080 a man sent by God, </span>so that we would understand that John proclaimed something divine, not | |
| 1081 human.</p> | |
| 1082 <p>112 Note that there are three ways in which we see men sent by God. First, by an inward | |
| 1083 inspiration. “And now the Lord God has sent me, and his spirit” (Is 48:16). As if to say: I | |
| 1084 have been sent by God through an inward inspiration of the spirit. Secondly, by an expressed | |
| 1085 and clear command, perceived by the bodily senses or the imagination. Isaiah was also sent in | |
| 1086 this way; and so he says, “And I heard the voice of the Lord saying, ‘Whom shall I send, and | |
| 1087 who will go for us?’ Then I said, ‘Here I am! Send me’” (Is 6:8). Thirdly, by the order of a | |
| 1088 prelate, who acts in the place of God in this matter. “I have pardoned in the person of Christ | |
| 1089 for your sake” as it says in 2 Corinthians (2:10). This is why those who are sent by a prelate | |
| 1090 are sent by God, as Barnabas and Timothy were sent by the Apostle.</p> | |
| 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 | |
| 1092 by God through an inward inspiration, or perhaps even by an outward command. “He who | |
| 1093 sent me to baptize with water had said to me: ‘The man on whom you see the Spirit come | |
| 1094 down and rest is the one who is to baptize with the Holy Spirit’ “ (below 1:33).</p> | |
| 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 | |
| 1096 believed that from the very beginning human souls were created without bodies along with | |
| 1097 the angels, and that one’s soul is sent into the body when he is born, and that John was sent to | |
| 1098 life, i.e., his soul was sent to a body. Rather, we should understand that he was sent by God to | |
| 1099 baptize and preach.</p> | |
| 1100 <p>114 John’s fitness is given when he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">whose name was John. </span>One must be qualified for | |
| 1101 the office of bearing witness, because unless a witness is qualified, then no matter in what | |
| 1102 way he is sent by another, his testimony is not acceptable. Now a man becomes qualified by | |
| 1103 the grace, of God. “By the grace of God I am what I am” (1 Cor 15:10); “who has made us fit | |
| 1104 ministers of a new covenant” (2 Cor 3:6). So, the Evangelist appropriately implies the | |
| 1105 precursor’s fitness from his name when he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">whose name was John, </span>which is interpreted, | |
| 1106 “in whom is grace.”</p> | |
| 1107 <p>This name was not given to him meaninglessly, but by divine preordination and before he was | |
| 1108 born, as is clear from Luke (1:13), “You will name him John,” as the angel said to Zechariah. | |
| 1109 Hence he can say what is said in Isaiah (49:1), “The Lord called me from the womb”; “He | |
| 1110 who will be, his name is already called” (Ecc 6:10). The Evangelist also indicates this from | |
| 1111 his manner of speaking, when he says was, as to God’s preordination.</p> | |
| 1112 <p>115 Then he is described by the dignity of his office. First, his office is mentioned. Secondly, | |
| 1113 the reason for his office, <span style="font-weight: bold">to bear witness to the light.</span></p> | |
| 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> | |
| 1115 <p>Here it should be remarked that God makes men, and everything else he makes, for himself. | |
| 1116 “The Lord made all things for himself” (Prv 16:4). Not, indeed, to add anything to himself, | |
| 1117 since he has no need of our good, but so that his goodness might be made manifest in all of | |
| 1118 the things made by him, in that “his eternal power and divinity are clearly seen, being | |
| 1119 understood through the things that are made”(Rom 1:20). Thus, each creature is made as a | |
| 1120 witness to God in so far as each creature is a certain witness of the divine goodness. So, the | |
| 1121 vastness of creation is a witness to God’s power and omnipotence; and its beauty is a witness | |
| 1122 to the divine wisdom. But certain men are ordained by God in a special way, so that they hear | |
| 1123 witness to God not only naturally by their existence, but also spiritually by their good works. | |
| 1124 Hence all holy men are witnesses to God inasmuch as God is glorified among men by their | |
| 1125 good works. “Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and | |
| 1126 glorify your Father who is in heaven” (Mt 5:16). But those who not only share in God’s gifts | |
| 1127 in themselves by acting well through the grace of God, but also spread them to others by their | |
| 1128 teaching, influencing and encouraging others, are in a more special way witnesses to God. | |
| 1129 “Everyone who calls upon my name, I have created for my glory” (Is 43:7). And so John | |
| 1130 came as a witness in order to spread to others the gifts of God and to proclaim his praise.</p> | |
| 1131 <p>117 This office of John, that of bearing witness, is very great, because no one can testify | |
| 1132 about something except in the manner in which he has shared in it. “We know of what we | |
| 1133 speak, and we bear witness of what we see” (below 3:11). Hence, to bear witness to divine | |
| 1134 truth indicates a knowledge of that truth. So Christ also had this office: “I have come into the | |
| 1135 world for this, to testify to the truth” (below 18:37). But Christ testifies in one way and John | |
| 1136 in another. Christ bears witness as the light who comprehends all things, indeed, as the | |
| 1137 existing light itself. John bears witness only as participating in that light. And so Christ gives | |
| 1138 testimony in a perfect manner and perfectly manifests the truth, while John and other holy | |
| 1139 men give testimony in so far as they have a share of divine truth. John’s office, therefore, is | |
| 1140 great both because of his participation in the divine light and because of a likeness to Christ, | |
| 1141 who carried out this office. “I made him a witness to the peoples, a leader and a commander | |
| 1142 of the nations” (Is 55:4).</p> | |
| 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 | |
| 1144 light. </span>Here we should understand that there are two reasons for bearing witness about | |
| 1145 something. One reason can be on the part of the thing with which the witness is concerned; | |
| 1146 for example, if there is some doubt or uncertainty about that thing. The other is on the part of | |
| 1147 those who hear it; if they are hard of heart and slow to believe. John came as a witness, not | |
| 1148 because of the thing about which he bore witness, for it was light. Hence he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">bear | |
| 1149 witness to the light, </span>i.e., not to something obscure, but to something clear. He came, | |
| 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., | |
| 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 | |
| 1152 it all else can be seen, so the Word of God is not only light in himself, but he makes known | |
| 1153 all things that are known. For since a thing is made known and understood through its form, | |
| 1154 and all forms exist through the Word, who is the art full of living forms, the Word is light not | |
| 1155 only in himself, but as making known all things; “all that appears is light” (Eph 5:13).</p> | |
| 1156 <p>And so it was fitting for the Evangelist to call the Son “light,” because he came as “a | |
| 1157 revealing light to the Gentiles” (Lk 2:32). Above, he called the Son of God the Word, by | |
| 1158 which the Father expresses himself and every creature. Now since he is, properly speaking, | |
| 1159 the light of men, and the Evangelist is considering him here as coming to accomplish the | |
| 1160 salvation of men, he fittingly interrupts the use of the name “Word” when speaking of the | |
| 1161 Son, and says, “light.”</p> | |
| 1162 <p>119 But if that light is adequate of itself to make known all things, and not only itself, what | |
| 1163 need does it have of any witness? This was the objection of the Manichaeans, who wanted to | |
| 1164 destroy the Old Testament. Consequently, the saints gave many reasons, against their opinion, | |
| 1165 why Christ wanted to have the testimony of the prophets.</p> | |
| 1166 <p>Origen gives three reasons. The first is that God wanted to have certain witnesses, not | |
| 1167 because he needed their testimony, but to ennoble those whom he appointed witnesses. Thus | |
| 1168 we see in the order of the universe that God produces certain effects by means of intermediate | |
| 1169 causes, not because he himself is unable to produce them without these intermediaries, but he | |
| 1170 deigns to confer oil them the dignity of causality because he wishes to-ennoble these | |
| 1171 intermediate causes. Similarly, even though God could have enlightened all men by himself | |
| 1172 and lead them to a knowledge of himself, yet to preserve due order in things and to ennoble | |
| 1173 certain men, he willed that divine knowledge reach men through certain other men. “‘You are | |
| 1174 my witnesses,’ says the Lord” (Is 43:10).</p> | |
| 1175 <p>A second reason is that Christ was a light to the world through his miracles. Yet, because they | |
| 1176 were performed in time, they passed away with time and did not reach everyone. But the | |
| 1177 words of the prophets, preserved in Scripture, could reach not only those present, but could | |
| 1178 also reach those to come after. Hence the Lord willed that men come to a knowledge of the | |
| 1179 Word through the testimony of the prophets, in order that not only those present, but also men | |
| 1180 yet lo come, might be enlightened about him. So it says expressly, <span style="font-weight: bold">so that through him all | |
| 1181 men might believe, </span>i.e., not only those present, but also future generations.</p> | |
| 1182 <p>The third reason is that not all men are in the same condition, and all are not led or disposed | |
| 1183 to a knowledge of the truth in the same way. For some are brought to a knowledge of the truth | |
| 1184 by signs and miracles; others are brought more by wisdom. “The Jews require signs, and the | |
| 1185 Greeks seek wisdom” (1 Cor 1:22). And so the Lord, m order to show the path of salvation to | |
| 1186 all, willed both ways to be open. i.e., the way of signs and the way of wisdom, so that those | |
| 1187 who would not be brought to the path of salvation by the miracles of the Old and New | |
| 1188 Testaments, might be brought to a knowledge of the truth by the path of wisdom, as in the | |
| 1189 prophets and other books of Sacred Scripture.</p> | |
| 1190 <p>A fourth reason, given by Chrysostom, is that certain men of weak understanding are unable | |
| 1191 to grasp the truth and knowledge of God by themselves. And so the Lord chose to come down | |
| 1192 to them and to enlighten certain men before others about divine matters, so that these others | |
| 1193 might obtain from them in a human way the knowledge of divine things they could not reach | |
| 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 | |
| 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 | |
| 1196 all men might believe. </span>And so it is plain that the testimonies of the prophets are fitting and | |
| 1197 proper, and should be received as something needed by us for the knowledge of the truth.</p> | |
| 1198 <p>120 He says believe, because there are two ways of participating in the divine light. One is the | |
| 1199 perfect participation which is present in glory, “In your light, we shall see the light” (Ps 3 | |
| 1200 5:10). The other in imperfect and is acquired through faith, since he came as a witness. Of | |
| 1201 these two ways it is said, “Now we see through a mirror, in an obscure manner, but then we | |
| 1202 shall see face to face” (1 Cor 13:12). And in the same place we find, “Now I know in part, but | |
| 1203 then I shall know even as I am known.” Among these two ways, the first is the way of | |
| 1204 participation through faith, because through it we are brought to vision. So in Isaiah (7:9) | |
| 1205 where our version has, “If you do not believe, you will not persist,” another version has, “If | |
| 1206 you do not believe, you will not understand.” “All of us, gazing on the Lord’s glory with | |
| 1207 unveiled faces, are being transformed from glory to glory into his very image,” which we | |
| 1208 have lost (2 Cor 3:18). “From the glory of faith to the glory of vision,” as a Gloss says.</p> | |
| 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 | |
| 1210 perfectly at once, but first they would believe through faith, and later enjoy him through | |
| 1211 vision in heaven.</p> | |
| 1212 <p>121 He says through him, to show that John is different than Christ. For Christ came so that | |
| 1213 all might believe in him. “He who believes in me, as Scripture says, “Out of his heart shall | |
| 1214 flow rivers of living water” (below 7:38). John, on the other hand, <span style="font-weight: bold">came that all men might | |
| 1215 believe, </span>not in him, but in Christ <span style="font-weight: bold">through him.</span></p> | |
| 1216 <p>One may object that not all have believed. So if John came to that all might believe through | |
| 1217 him, he failed. I answer that both on the part of God, who sent John, and of John, who came, | |
| 1218 the method used is adequate to bring all to the truth. But on the <span style="font-weight: bold">part </span>of those “who have fixed | |
| 1219 their eyes on the ground” (Ps 16:11 ), and refused to see the light, there was a failure, because | |
| 1220 all did not believe.</p> | |
| 1221 <p>122 Now although John, of whom so much has been said, even including that he was sent by | |
| 1222 God, is an eminent person, his coming is not sufficient to save men, because the salvation of | |
| 1223 man lies in participating in the light. If John had been the light, his coming would have | |
| 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>. | |
| 1225 Consequently, a light was needed that would suffice to save men.</p> | |
| 1226 <p>Or, we could look at it another way. John came to bear witness to the light. Now it is the | |
| 1227 custom that the one who testifies is of greater authority than the one for whom he bears | |
| 1228 witness. So, lest John be considered to have greater authority than Christ, the Evangelist says, | |
| 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 | |
| 1230 witness not because he is greater, but because he is better known, even though he is not as | |
| 1231 great.</p> | |
| 1232 <p>123 There is a difficulty about his saying, he was not the light. Conflicting with this is, “You | |
| 1233 were at one time darkness, but now you are light in the Lord” (Eph 5:8); and “You are the | |
| 1234 light of the world” (Mt 5:14). Therefore, John and the apostles and all good men are a light.</p> | |
| 1235 <p>I answer that some say that John was not the light, because this belongs to God alone. But if | |
| 1236 “light” is taken without the article, then John and all holy men were made lights. The | |
| 1237 meaning is this: the Son of God is light by his very essence; but John and all the saints are | |
| 1238 light by participation. So, because John participated in the true light, it was fitting that he bear | |
| 1239 witness to the light; for fire is better exhibited by something afire than by anything else, and | |
| 1240 color by something colored.</p> | |
| 1241 <p style="margin-bottom: 0.125in; margin-bottom: 0.125in"> </p> | |
| 1242 <CENTER><p><span style="font-weight: bold">LECTURE 5</span></p> | |
| 1243 <p>9 He [the Word] was the true light,<BR> | |
| 1244 which enlightens every man coming into this world.<BR> | |
| 1245 10 He was in the world, and through him the world was made,<BR> | |
| 1246 and the world did not know him.</CENTER> | |
| 1247 <p>124 Above, the Evangelist considered the precursor and his witness to the incarnate Word; in | |
| 1248 the present section he considers the incarnate Word himself. As to this he does three things. | |
| 1249 First, he shows why it was necessary for the Word to come. Secondly, the benefit we received | |
| 1250 from the coming of the Word (I:11). And thirdly, the way he came (1:14).</p> | |
| 1251 <p>The necessity for the Word’s coming is seen be the lack of divine knowledge in the world. He | |
| 1252 points out this need for his coming when he says, “For this was I born, and I came into the | |
| 1253 world for this, to testify to the truth” (below 18:37). To indicate this lack of divine | |
| 1254 knowledge, the Evangelist does two things. First, he shows that this lack does not pertain to | |
| 1255 God or the Word. Secondly, that it does pertain to men (v 10b).</p> | |
| 1256 <p>He shows in three ways that there was no defect in God or in the Word that prevented men | |
| 1257 from knowing God and from being enlightened by the Word. First, from the efficacy of the | |
| 1258 divine light itself, because <span style="font-weight: bold">He was the true light, which enlightens every man coming into | |
| 1259 this world. </span>Secondly, from the presence of the divine light, because <span style="font-weight: bold">He was in the world. | |
| 1260 </span>Thirdly, from the obviousness of the light, because <span style="font-weight: bold">through him the world was made. </span>So | |
| 1261 the lack of divine knowledge in the world was not due to the Word, because it is sufficient. | |
| 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 | |
| 1263 efficiency, <span style="font-weight: bold">which enlightens every man.</span></p> | |
| 1264 <p>125 The divine Word is efficacious in enlightening because <span style="font-weight: bold">He was the true light. </span>How the | |
| 1265 Word is light, and how he is the light of men need not be discussed again, because it was | |
| 1266 sufficiently explained above. What we must discuss at present is how he is the true light. To | |
| 1267 explain this, we should note that in Scripture the “true” is contrasted with three things. | |
| 1268 Sometimes it is contrasted with the false, as in “Put an end to lying, and let everyone speak | |
| 1269 the truth” (Eph 4:25). Sometimes it is contrasted with what is figurative, as in “The law was | |
| 1270 given through Moses; grace and truth have come through Jesus Christ” (below 1:17), because | |
| 1271 the truth of the figures contained in the law was fulfilled by Christ. Sometimes it is contrasted | |
| 1272 with what is something by participation, as in “that we may be in his true Son” (1 Jn 5:20), | |
| 1273 who is not his Son by participation.</p> | |
| 1274 <p>Before the Word came there was in the world a certain light which the philosophers prided | |
| 1275 themselves on having; but this was a false light, because as is said, “They became stultified in | |
| 1276 their speculations, and their foolish hearts were darkened; claiming to be wise, they became | |
| 1277 fools” (Rom 1:21); “Every man is made foolish by his knowledge” (Jer 10:14). There was | |
| 1278 another light from the teaching of the law which the Jews boasted of having; but this was a | |
| 1279 symbolic light, “The law has a shadow of the good things to come, not the image itself of | |
| 1280 them” (Heb 10:1). There was also a certain light in the angels and in holy men in so far as | |
| 1281 they knew God in a more special way by grace; but this was a participated light, “Upon whom | |
| 1282 does his light not shine?” (Jb 25:3), which is like saying: Whoever shine, shine to the extent | |
| 1283 that they participate in his light, i.e., God’s light.</p> | |
| 1284 <p>But the Word of God was not a false light, nor a symbolic light, nor a participated light, but | |
| 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> | |
| 1286 <p>126 This excludes two errors. First, that of Photinus, who believed that Christ derived his | |
| 1287 beginning from the Virgin. So, lest anyone suppose this, the Evangelist, speaking of the | |
| 1288 incarnation of the Word, says, <span style="font-weight: bold">He was the true light, </span>i.e., eternally, not only before the | |
| 1289 Virgin, but before every creature. This also excludes the error of Arius and Origen; they said | |
| 1290 that Christ was not true God, but God by participation. If this were so, he could not be the | |
| 1291 true light, as the Evangelist says here, and as in “God is light” (1 Jn 1:5), i.e., not by | |
| 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 | |
| 1293 God. Now it is clear how the divine Word is effective in causing divine knowledge.</p> | |
| 1294 <p>127 The effectiveness or efficiency of the Word lies in the fact that he <span style="font-weight: bold">enlightens every man | |
| 1295 coming into this world. </span>For everything which is what it is by participation is derived from | |
| 1296 that which is such by its essence; just as everything afire is so by participation in fire, which | |
| 1297 is fire by its very essence. Then since the Word is the true light by his very essence, then | |
| 1298 everything that shines must do so through him, insofar as it participates in him. And so he | |
| 1299 <span style="font-weight: bold">enlightens every man coming into this world.</span></p> | |
| 1300 <p>128 To understand this, we should know that “world” is taken in three ways in Scripture. | |
| 1301 Sometimes, from the point of view of its creation, as when the Evangelist says here, “through | |
| 1302 him the world was made” (v 10). Sometimes, from the point of view of its perfection, which | |
| 1303 it reaches through Christ, as in “God was, in Christ, reconciling the world to himself” (2 Cor | |
| 1304 5:19). And sometimes it is taken from the point of view of its perversity, as in “The whole | |
| 1305 world lies under the power of the evil one” (1 Jn 5:19).</p> | |
| 1306 <p>On the other hand, “enlightenment” or “being enlightened” by the Word is taken in two ways. | |
| 1307 First, in relation to the light of natural knowledge, as in “The light of your countenance, O | |
| 1308 Lord, is marked upon us” (Ps 4:7). Secondly, as the light of grace, “Be enlightened, O | |
| 1309 Jerusalem” (Is 60:1).</p> | |
| 1310 <p>129 With these two sets of distinctions in mind, it is easy to solve a difficulty which arises | |
| 1311 here. For when the Evangelist says, he <span style="font-weight: bold">enlightens every man, </span>this seems to be false, because | |
| 1312 there are still many in darkness in the world. However, if we bear in mind these distinctions | |
| 1313 and take “world” from the standpoint of its creation, and “enlighten” as referring to the light | |
| 1314 of natural reason, the statement of the Evangelist is beyond reproach. For all men coming into | |
| 1315 this visible world are enlightened by the light of natural knowledge through participating in | |
| 1316 this true light, which is the source of all the light of natural knowledge participated in by men.</p> | |
| 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 | |
| 1318 lived for a certain time outside the world and then came into the world, since this is contrary | |
| 1319 to the teaching of the Apostle in Romans (9:11), “When the children were not yet born nor | |
| 1320 had they done anything good or evil.” Therefore, since they had done nothing before they | |
| 1321 were born, it is plain that the soul does not exist p3or to its union with the body. He refers to | |
| 1322 <span style="font-weight: bold">every man coming into this world, </span>to show that men are enlightened by God with respect to | |
| 1323 that according to which they came into the world, i.e., with respect to the intellect, which is | |
| 1324 something external [to the world]. For man is constituted of a twofold nature, bodily and | |
| 1325 intellectual. According to his bodily or sensible nature, man is enlightened by a bodily and | |
| 1326 sensible light; but according to his soul and intellectual nature, he is enlightened by an | |
| 1327 intellectual and spiritual light. Now man does not come into this world according to his | |
| 1328 bodily nature, but under this aspect, he is from the world. His intellectual nature is derived | |
| 1329 from a source external to the world, as has been said, i.e., from God through creation; as in | |
| 1330 “Until all flesh returns to its origin, and the spirit is directed to God, who made it” (Ecc 12:7). | |
| 1331 For these reasons, when the Evangelist speaks of <span style="font-weight: bold">every man coming into this world</span>, he is | |
| 1332 showing that this enlightenment refers to what is from without, that is, the intellect.</p> | |
| 1333 <p>130 If we understand “enlightenment” with respect to the light of grace, then <span style="font-weight: bold">he enlightens | |
| 1334 every man</span> may be explained in three ways. The first way is by Origen in his homily, “The | |
| 1335 great eagle,” and is this. “World” is understood from the point of view of its perfection, | |
| 1336 which man attains by his reconciliation through Christ. And so we have, he enlightens every | |
| 1337 man coming, by faith, into this world, i.e., this spiritual world, that is, the Church, which has | |
| 1338 been enlightened by the light of grace.</p> | |
| 1339 <p>Chrysostom explains it another way. He takes “world” under the aspect of creation. Then the | |
| 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 | |
| 1341 no one, but rather “wants all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth” (1 | |
| 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 | |
| 1343 enlightened, it is due to himself, because he turns from the light that enlightens.</p> | |
| 1344 <p>Augustine explains it a third way. For him, “every” has a restricted application, so that the | |
| 1345 sense is: He <span style="font-weight: bold">enlightens every man coming into this world, </span>not every man universally, but | |
| 1346 every man who is enlightened, since no one is enlightened except by the Word. According to | |
| 1347 Augustine, the Evangelist says, <span style="font-weight: bold">coming into this world, </span>in order to give the reason why man | |
| 1348 needs to be enlightened, and he is taking “world” from the point of view of its perversity and | |
| 1349 defect. It is as though he were saying: Man needs to be enlightened because he is coming into | |
| 1350 this world which is darkened by perversity and defects and is full of ignorance. (This | |
| 1351 followed the spiritual world of the first man.) As Luke says (1:79), “To enlighten those who | |
| 1352 sit in darkness and in the shadow of death.”</p> | |
| 1353 <p>131 The above statement refutes the error of the Manichaeans, who think than men were | |
| 1354 created in the world from an opposing principle, i.e., the devil. For if man were a creature of | |
| 1355 the devil when coming into this world, he would not be enlightened by God or by the Word, | |
| 1356 for “Christ came into the world to destroy the works of the devil” (1 Jn 3:8).</p> | |
| 1357 <p>132 So it is clear, from the efficacy of the divine Word, that the lack of knowledge in men is | |
| 1358 not due to the Word, because he is effective in enlightening all, being <span style="font-weight: bold">the true light, which | |
| 1359 enlightens </span>every <span style="font-weight: bold">man coming into this world.</span></p> | |
| 1360 <p>But so you do not suppose this lack arose from the withdrawal or absence of the true light, the | |
| 1361 Evangelist rules this out adding, <span style="font-weight: bold">He was in the world</span>. A comparable statement is found in | |
| 1362 “He is not far from any one of us,” that is, God, “for in him we live, and move, and are” (Acts | |
| 1363 17:28). It is as though the Evangelist were saying: The divine Word is effective and is at hand | |
| 1364 in order to enlighten us.</p> | |
| 1365 <p>133 We should remark that something is said to be “in the world” in three ways. In one way, | |
| 1366 by being contained, as a thing in place exists in a place: “They are in the world” (below | |
| 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 | |
| 1368 even though it is not in a place. For example, supernatural substances, although not in the | |
| 1369 world as in a place, are nevertheless in it as parts: “God ... who made heaven and earth, the | |
| 1370 sea, and all things that are in them” (Ps 145:6). But the true light was not in the world in | |
| 1371 either of these ways, because that light is neither localized nor is it a part of the universe. | |
| 1372 Indeed, if we can speak this way, the entire universe is in a certain sense a part, since it | |
| 1373 participates in a partial way in his goodness.</p> | |
| 1374 <p>Accordingly, the true light was in the world in a third way, i.e., as an efficient and preserving | |
| 1375 cause: “I fill heaven and earth” as said in Jeremiah (23:24). However, there is a difference | |
| 1376 between the way the Word acts and causes all things and the way in which other agents act. | |
| 1377 For other agents act as existing externally: since they do not act except by moving and | |
| 1378 altering a thing qualitatively in some way with respect to its exterior, they work from without. | |
| 1379 But God acts in all things from within, because he acts by creating. Now to create is to give | |
| 1380 existence (<i>esse</i>) to the thing created. So, since esse is innermost in each thing, God, who by | |
| 1381 acting gives <i>esse </i>acts in things from within. Hence God was in the world as one giving <i>esse </i>to | |
| 1382 the world.</p> | |
| 1383 <p>134 It is customary to say that God is in all things by his essence, presence and power. To | |
| 1384 understand what this means, we should know that someone is said to be by his power in all | |
| 1385 the things that are subject to his power; as a king is said to be in the entire kingdom subject to | |
| 1386 him, by his power. He is not there, however, by presence or essence., Someone is said to be | |
| 1387 by presence in all the things that are within his range of vision; as a king is said to be in his | |
| 1388 house by presence. And someone is said to be by essence in those things in which his | |
| 1389 substance is; as a king is in one determinate place.</p> | |
| 1390 <p>Now we say that God is everywhere by his power, since all things are subject to his power: | |
| 1391 “If I ascend into heaven, you are there.... If I take my wings early in the morning, and dwell in | |
| 1392 the furthest part of the sea, even there your hand will lead me, and your right hand will hold | |
| 1393 me” (Ps 138:8). He is also everywhere by his presence, because “all things are bare and open | |
| 1394 to his eyes,” as is said in Hebrews (4:13). He is present everywhere by his essence, be cause | |
| 1395 his essence is innermost in all things. For every agent, as acting, has to be immediately joined | |
| 1396 to its effect, because mover and moved must be together. Now God is the maker and | |
| 1397 preserver of all things with respect to the <i>esse </i>of each. Hence, since the <i>esse </i>of a thing is | |
| 1398 innermost in that thing, it is plain that God, by his essence, through which he creates all | |
| 1399 things, is in all things.</p> | |
| 1400 <p>135 It should be noted that the Evangelist significantly uses the word “was,” when he says, | |
| 1401 <span style="font-weight: bold">He was in the world, </span>showing that from the beginning of creation he was always in the | |
| 1402 world, causing and preserving all things; because if God for even a moment were to withhold | |
| 1403 his power from the things he established, all would return to nothing and cease to be. Hence | |
| 1404 Origen uses an apt example to show this, when he says that as a human vocal sound is to a | |
| 1405 human word conceived in the mind, so is, the creature to the divine Word; for as our vocal | |
| 1406 sound is the effect of the word conceived in our mind, so the creature is the effect of the | |
| 1407 Word conceived in the divine mind. “For he spoke, and they were created” (Ps 148:5). Hence, | |
| 1408 just as we notice that as soon as our inner word vanishes, the sensible vocal sound also | |
| 1409 ceases, so, if the power of the divine Word were withdrawn from things, all of them would | |
| 1410 immediately cease to be at that moment. And this is because he is “sustaining all things by his | |
| 1411 powerful word” (Heb 1:3).</p> | |
| 1412 <p>136 So it is plain that a lack of divine knowledge in minds is not due to the absence of 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 | |
| 1414 Word, because he has produced a work in which his likeness is clearly reflected, that is, the | |
| 1415 world: “For from the greatness and beauty of creatures, their creator can be seen accordingly” | |
| 1416 (Wis 13:5), and “The invisible things of God are clearly seen, being understood through the | |
| 1417 things that are made” (Rom 1:20). And so the Evangelist at once adds, <span style="font-weight: bold">and through him the | |
| 1418 world was made, </span>in order that that light might be manifested in it. For as a work of art | |
| 1419 manifests the art of the artisan, so the whole world is nothing else than a certain | |
| 1420 representation of the divine wisdom conceived within the mind of the Father, “He poured her | |
| 1421 [wisdom] out upon all his works,” as is said in Sirach (1:10).</p> | |
| 1422 <p>Now it is clear that the lack of divine knowledge is not due to the Word, because he is | |
| 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 | |
| 1424 knowable, since <span style="font-weight: bold">through him the world was made.</span></p> | |
| 1425 <p>137 The Evangelist indicates the source of this lack when he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">and the world did not | |
| 1426 know him. </span>As if to say: It is not due to him, but to the world, who did not know him.</p> | |
| 1427 <p>He says him in the singular, because earlier he had called the Word not only the “light of | |
| 1428 men,” but also “God”; and so when he says him, he means God. Again, he uses “world” for | |
| 1429 man. For the angels knew him by their understanding, and the elements by their obeying him; | |
| 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> | |
| 1431 <p>138 We attribute this lack of divine knowledge either to the nature of man or to his guilt. To | |
| 1432 his nature, indeed, because although all the aforesaid aids were given to man to lead him to | |
| 1433 the knowledge of God, human reason in itself lacks this knowledge. “Man beholds him from | |
| 1434 afar” (Jb 36:25), and immediately after, “God is great beyond our knowledge.” But if some | |
| 1435 have known him, this was not insofar as they were in the world, but above the world; and the | |
| 1436 kind for whom the world was not worthy, because <span style="font-weight: bold">the world did not know him. </span>Hence if | |
| 1437 they mentally perceived anything eternal, that was insofar as they were not of this world.</p> | |
| 1438 <p>But if this lack is attributed to man’s guilt, then the phrase, <span style="font-weight: bold">the world did not know him, </span>is a | |
| 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 | |
| 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 | |
| 1441 lovers of the world. For the love of the world, as Augustine says, is what chiefly withdraws us | |
| 1442 from the knowledge of God, because “Love of the world makes one an enemy to God” (Jas | |
| 1443 4:4); “The sensual man does not perceive the things that pertain to the Spirit of God” ( 1 Cor | |
| 1444 2:14).</p> | |
| 1445 <p>139 From this we call answer the question of the Gentiles who futilely ask this: If it is only | |
| 1446 recently that the Son of God is set before the world as the Savior of men, does it not seem that | |
| 1447 before that time he scorned human nature? We should say to them that he did not scorn the | |
| 1448 world but was always in the world, and on his part is knowable by men; but it was due to their | |
| 1449 own fault that some have not known him, because they were lovers of the world.</p> | |
| 1450 <p>140 We should also note that the Evangelist speaks of the incarnation of the Word to show | |
| 1451 that the incarnate Word and that which “was in the beginning with God,” and God, are the | |
| 1452 same. He repeats what he had said of him earlier. For above he had said he [the Word] “was | |
| 1453 the light of men”; here he says he was <span style="font-weight: bold">the true light. </span>Above, he said that “all things were | |
| 1454 made through him”; here he says that through him the world was made. Earlier he had said, | |
| 1455 “without him nothing was made,” i.e., according to one explanation, he conserves all things; | |
| 1456 here he says, he was in the world, creating and conserving the world and all things. There he | |
| 1457 had said, “the darkness did not overcome it”; here he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">the world did not know him. | |
| 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> | |
| 1459 <p>141 We can gather three reasons from the above why God willed to become incarnate. One is | |
| 1460 because of the perversity of human nature which, because of its own malice, had been | |
| 1461 darkened by vices and the obscurity of its own ignorance. And so he said before, the darkness | |
| 1462 did not overcome it. Therefore, God came in the flesh so that the darkness might apprehend | |
| 1463 the light, i.e., obtain a knowledge of it. “The people who walked in darkness saw a great | |
| 1464 light” (Is 9:2).</p> | |
| 1465 <p>The second reason is that the testimony of the prophets was not enough. For the prophets | |
| 1466 came and John had come; but they were not able to give sufficient enlightenment, because <span style="font-weight: bold">he | |
| 1467 was not the light. </span>And so, after the prophecies of the prophets and the coming of John, it was | |
| 1468 necessary that the light itself come and give the world a knowledge of itself. And this is what | |
| 1469 the Apostle says: “In past times, God spoke in many ways and degrees to our fathers through | |
| 1470 the prophets; in these days he has spoken to us in his Son” as we find in Hebrews (1:1). “We | |
| 1471 have the prophetic message, to which you do well to give attention, until the day dawns” (2 Pt | |
| 1472 1:19).</p> | |
| 1473 <p>The third reason is because of the shortcomings of creatures. For creatures were not sufficient | |
| 1474 to lead to a knowledge of the Creator; hence he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">through him the world was made, and | |
| 1475 the world did not know him. </span>Thus it was necessary that the Creator himself come into the | |
| 1476 world in the flesh, and be known through himself. And this is what the Apostle says: “Since | |
| 1477 in the wisdom of God the world did not know God by its wisdom, it pleased God to save | |
| 1478 those who believe by the foolishness of our preaching” (1 Cor 1:21).</p> | |
| 1479 <p style="margin-bottom: 0.125in; margin-bottom: 0.125in"> </p> | |
| 1480 <CENTER><p style="text-align: center; margin-bottom: 0.125in"><span style="font-weight: bold">LECTURE 6</span></p> | |
| 1481 <p>11 He came unto his own, and his own did not receive him;<BR> | |
| 1482 12 but whoever received him, he gave them power to become<BR> | |
| 1483 the sons of God, to all who believe in his name,<BR> | |
| 1484 13 who are born not from blood, nor from the desires of the flesh,<BR> | |
| 1485 nor from man’s willing it, but from God.</CENTER> | |
| 1486 <p>142 Having given the necessity for the incarnation of the Word, the Evangelist then shows the | |
| 1487 advantage men gained from that incarnation. First, he shows the coming of the light (v 11); | |
| 1488 secondly, its reception by men (v 11b); thirdly, the fruit brought by the coming of the light (v | |
| 1489 12).</p> | |
| 1490 <p>143 He shows that the light which was present in the world and evident, i.e., disclosed by its | |
| 1491 effect, was nevertheless not known by the world. Hence, he came unto his own, in order to be | |
| 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 | |
| 1493 made. And he says this so that you do not think that when he says, he came, he means a local | |
| 1494 motion in the sense that he came as though ceasing to be where he previously was and newly | |
| 1495 beginning to be where he formerly had not been. He came where he already was. “I came | |
| 1496 forth from the Father, and have come into the world,” as said below ( 16:2 8).</p> | |
| 1497 <p>He came, I say, unto his own, i.e., to Judea, according to some, because it was in a special | |
| 1498 way his own. “In Judea God is known” (Ps 75:1); “The vineyard of the Lord of hosts is the | |
| 1499 house of Israel” (Is 5:7). But it is better to say, unto his own, i.e., into the world created by | |
| 1500 him. “The earth is the Lord’s” (Ps 23:1).</p> | |
| 1501 <p>144 But if he was previously in the world, how could he come into the world? I answer that | |
| 1502 “coming to some place” is understood in two ways. First, that someone comes where he | |
| 1503 absolutely had not been before. Or, secondly, that someone begins to be in a new way where | |
| 1504 he was before. For example, a king, who up to a certain time was in a city of his kingdom by | |
| 1505 his power and later visits it in person, is said to have come where he previously was: for he | |
| 1506 comes by his substance where previously he was present only by his power. It was in this way | |
| 1507 that the Son of God came into the world and yet was in the world. For he was there, indeed, | |
| 1508 by his essence, power and presence, but he came by assuming flesh. He was there invisibly, | |
| 1509 and he came in order to be visible.</p> | |
| 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 | |
| 1511 by men, who reacted in different ways. For some did receive him, but these were not his own; | |
| 1512 hence he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">his own did not receive him. </span>“His own” are men, because they were formed | |
| 1513 by him. “The Lord God formed man” (Gn 2:7); “Know that the Lord is God: he made us” (Ps | |
| 1514 99:3). And he made them to his own image, “Let us make man to our image” (Gn 1:26).</p> | |
| 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, | |
| 1516 and by showing honor to him. “I have come in the name of my Father, and you do not receive | |
| 1517 me” (below 5:43), and “I honor my Father and you have dishonored me” (below 8:49). Now | |
| 1518 the Jews are his own because they were chosen by him to be his special people. “The Lord | |
| 1519 chose you to be his special people” (Dt 26:18). They are his own because related according to | |
| 1520 the flesh, “from whom is Christ, according to the flesh,” as said in Romans (9:3). They are | |
| 1521 also his own because enriched by his kindness, “I have reared and brought up sons” (Is 1:2). | |
| 1522 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 | |
| 1524 whoever received him. </span>The Evangelist uses this manner of speaking, saying, but whoever, to | |
| 1525 indicate that the deliverance would be more extensive than the promise, which had been made | |
| 1526 only to his own, i.e., to the Jews. “The Lord is our law giver, the Lord is our king; he will | |
| 1527 save us” (Is 33:22). But this deliverance was not only for his own, but for <span style="font-weight: bold">whoever received | |
| 1528 him, </span>i.e., whoever believe in him. “For I say that Christ was a minister to the circumcised, for | |
| 1529 the sake of God’s truth, to confirm the promises made to the fathers” (Rom 15:8). The | |
| 1530 Gentiles, however, [are delivered] by his mercy, because they were received through his | |
| 1531 mercy.</p> | |
| 1532 <p>147 He says, whoever, to show that God’s grace is given without distinction to all who | |
| 1533 receive Christ. “The grace of the Holy Spirit has been poured out upon the Gentiles”(Acts | |
| 1534 10:45). And not only to free men, but to slaves as well; not only to men, but to women also. | |
| 1535 “In Christ Jesus there is neither male nor female, Jew or Greek, the circumcised or | |
| 1536 uncircumcised” (Gal 3:28).</p> | |
| 1537 <p>148 Then when he says, he gave them power to become the sons of God, we have the fruit of | |
| 1538 his coming. First, he mentions the grandeur of the fruit, for he gave them power. Secondly, he | |
| 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 | |
| 1540 from blood, </span>and so forth.</p> | |
| 1541 <p>149 The fruit of the coming of the Son of God is great, because by it men are made sons of | |
| 1542 God. “God sent his Son made from a woman ... so that we might receive our adoption as | |
| 1543 sons” (Gal 4:5). And it was fitting that we, who. are sons of God by the fact that we are made | |
| 1544 like the Son, should be reformed through the Son.</p> | |
| 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 | |
| 1546 should remark that men become sons of God by being made like God. Hence men are sons of | |
| 1547 God according to a threefold likeness to God. First, by the infusion of grace; hence anyone | |
| 1548 having sanctifying grace is made a son of God. “You did not receive the spirit of slavery ... | |
| 1549 but the spirit of adoption as sons,” as said in Romans (8:15). “Because you are sons of God, | |
| 1550 God sent the Spirit of his Son into your hearts” (Gal 4:6).</p> | |
| 1551 <p>Secondly, we are like God by the perfection of our actions, because one who acts justly is a | |
| 1552 son: “Love your enemies ... so that you may be the children of your Father” (Mt 5:44).</p> | |
| 1553 <p>Thirdly, we are made like God by the attainment of glory. The glory of the soul by the light of | |
| 1554 glory, “When he appears we shall be like him” (1 Jn 3:2); and the glory of the body, “He will | |
| 1555 reform our lowly body” (Phil 3:21). Of these two it is said in Romans (8:23), “We are waiting | |
| 1556 for our adoption as sons of God.”</p> | |
| 1557 <p>151 If we take the power to become the sons of God as referring to the perfection of our | |
| 1558 actions and the attainment of glory, the statement offers no difficulty. For then when he says, | |
| 1559 he gave them power, he is referring to the power of grace; and when a man possesses this, he | |
| 1560 can perform works of perfection and attain glory, since “The grace of God is eternal life” | |
| 1561 (Rom 6:23). According to this way we have, he gave them, to those who received him, power, | |
| 1562 i.e., the infusion of grace, to become the sons of God, by acting well and acquiring glory.</p> | |
| 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, | |
| 1564 </span>gives rise to a difficulty. And this is because it is not in our power to be made sons of God, | |
| 1565 since it is not in our power to possess grace. We can understand, he gave them power, as a | |
| 1566 power of nature; but this does not seem to be true since the infusion of grace is above our | |
| 1567 nature. Or we can understand it as the power of grace, and then to have grace is to have power | |
| 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 | |
| 1569 God, but to be sons of God.</p> | |
| 1570 <p>153 The answer to this is that when grace is given to an adult, his justification requires an act | |
| 1571 of consent by a movement of his free will. So, because it is in the power of men to consent | |
| 1572 and not to consent, <span style="font-weight: bold">he gave them power. </span>However, he gives this power of accepting grace in | |
| 1573 two ways: by preparing it, and by offering it to him. For just as one who writes a book and | |
| 1574 offers it to a man to read is said to give the power to read it, so Christ, through whom grace | |
| 1575 was produced (as will be said below), and who “accomplished salvation on the earth” (Ps | |
| 1576 73:12), <span style="font-weight: bold">gave us power to become the sons of God </span>by offering grace.</p> | |
| 1577 <p>154 Yet this is not sufficient since even free will, if it is to be moved to receive grace, needs | |
| 1578 the help of divine grace, not indeed habitual grace, but movent grace. For this reason, | |
| 1579 secondly, he gives power by moving the free will of man to consent to the reception of grace, | |
| 1580 as in “Convert us to yourself, 0 Lord,” by moving our will to your love, “and we will be | |
| 1581 converted” (Lam 5:21). And in this sense we speak of an interior call, of which it is said, | |
| 1582 “Those whom he called,” by inwardly moving the will to consent to grace, “he justified,” by | |
| 1583 infusing grace (Rom 8:3).</p> | |
| 1584 <p>155 Since by this grace man has the power of maintaining himself in the divine sonship, one | |
| 1585 may read these words in another way. He gave them, i.e., those who receive him, <span style="font-weight: bold">power to | |
| 1586 become the sons of God, </span>i.e., the grace by which they are able to be maintained in the divine | |
| 1587 sonship. “Everyone who is born from God does not sin, but the grace of God,” through which | |
| 1588 we are reborn as children of God, “preserves him” (1 Jn 5:18).</p> | |
| 1589 <p>156 Thus, <span style="font-weight: bold">he gave them power to become the sons of God, </span>through sanctifying grace, | |
| 1590 through the perfection of their actions, and through the attainment of glory; and he did this by | |
| 1591 preparing this grace, moving their wills, and preserving this grace.</p> | |
| 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 | |
| 1593 his coming is conferred. We can understand this in two ways: either as explaining what was | |
| 1594 said before, or as qualifying it. We can regard it as explaining as the Evangelist had said, | |
| 1595 whoever received him, and now to show what it is to receive him, he adds by way of | |
| 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 | |
| 1597 believe in him, because it is through faith that Christ dwells in your hearts, as in “that Christ | |
| 1598 may dwell in your hearts through faith” (Eph 3:17). Therefore, they <span style="font-weight: bold">received him, who | |
| 1599 believe in his name.</span></p> | |
| 1600 <p>158 Origen regards this as a qualifying statement, in his homily, “The spiritual voice.” In this | |
| 1601 sense, many receive Christ, declaring that they are Christians, but they are not sons of God, | |
| 1602 because they do not truly believe in his name; for they propose false dogmas about Christ by | |
| 1603 taking away something from his divinity or humanity, as in “Every spirit that denies Christ is | |
| 1604 not from God” (1 Jn 4:3). And so the Evangelist says, as though contracting his meaning, <span style="font-weight: bold">he | |
| 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, | |
| 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 | |
| 1607 not to lessen anything of the divinity or humanity of Christ.</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 | |
| 1609 become the sons of God, who believe in his name, </span>i.e., those who do the works of salvation | |
| 1610 through a faith formed by charity. For those who have only an unformed faith do not believe | |
| 1611 in his name because they do not work unto salvation.</p> | |
| 1612 <p>However, the first exposition, which is taken as explaining what preceded, is better.</p> | |
| 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 | |
| 1614 fruit is conferred on men. For since he had said that the fruit of the light’s coming is the | |
| 1615 power given to men to become the sons of God, then to forestall the supposition that they are | |
| 1616 born through a material generation he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">not from blood. </span>And although the word “blood” | |
| 1617 (<i>sanguis</i>)<i> </i>has no plural in Latin, but does in Greek, the translator [from Greek into Latin] | |
| 1618 ignored a rule of grammar in order to teach the truth more perfectly. So he does not say, | |
| 1619 “from blood,” in the Latin manner, but “from bloods” (<i>ex sanguinibus</i>)<i>. </i>This indicates | |
| 1620 whatever is generated from blood, serving as the matter in carnal generation. According to the | |
| 1621 Philosopher [<i>On the Generation of Animals, 1, </i>c 18, 726a26-8], “semen is a residue derived | |
| 1622 from useful nourishment in its final form.” So “blood” indicates either the seed of the male or | |
| 1623 the menses of the female.</p> | |
| 1624 <p>The cause moving to the carnal act is the will of those coming together, the man and the | |
| 1625 woman. For although the act of the generative power as such is not subject to the will, the | |
| 1626 preliminaries to it are subject to the will. So he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">nor from the desires of the flesh, | |
| 1627 </span>referring to the woman; <span style="font-weight: bold">nor from man’s willing it, </span>as from an efficient cause; <span style="font-weight: bold">but from | |
| 1628 God. </span>It is as though he were saying: They became sons of God, not carnally, but spiritually.</p> | |
| 1629 <p>According to Augustine, “flesh” is taken here for the woman, because as the flesh obeys the | |
| 1630 spirit, so woman should obey man. Adam (Gn 2:23) said of the woman, “This, at last, is bone | |
| 1631 of my bones.” And note, according to Augustine, that just as the possessions of a household | |
| 1632 are wasted away if the woman rules and the man is subject, so a man is wasted away when the | |
| 1633 flesh rules the spirit. For this reason the Apostle says, “We are not debtors to the flesh, so that | |
| 1634 we should live according to the flesh” (Rom 8:12). Concerning the manner of this carnal | |
| 1635 generation, we read, “In the womb of my mother I was molded into flesh” (Wis 7:1).</p> | |
| 1636 <p>161 Or, we might say that the moving force to carnal generation is twofold: the intellectual | |
| 1637 appetite on the one hand, that is, the will; and on the other hand, the sense appetite, which is | |
| 1638 concupiscence. So, to indicate the material cause he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">not from blood. </span>To indicate the | |
| 1639 efficient cause, in respect to concupiscence, he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">nor from the desires of the flesh</span> [<i>ex | |
| 1640 voluntate carnis</i>, literally, “from the will of the flesh”], even though the concupiscence of the | |
| 1641 flesh is improperly called a “will” in the sense of Galatians (5:17), “The flesh lusts against the | |
| 1642 spirit.” Finally, to indicate the intellectual appetite he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">nor from man’s willing it. </span>So, | |
| 1643 the generation of the sons of God is not carnal but spiritual, because they were born <span style="font-weight: bold">from | |
| 1644 God. </span>“Every one who is born from God conquers the world” (1 Jn 5:4).</p> | |
| 1645 <p>162 Note, however, that this preposition <i>de </i>(“of,” or “from”), always signifies a material | |
| 1646 cause as well as an efficient and even a consubstantial cause. Thus we say a blacksmith | |
| 1647 makes a knife <i>de ferro </i>(“from” iron), and a father generates his son <i>de seipso </i>(“from” | |
| 1648 himself), because something of his concurs somehow in begetting. But the preposition <i>a | |
| 1649 </i>(“by”) always signifies a moving cause. The preposition <i>ex </i>(“from,” or “by”)—[in the sense | |
| 1650 of “out of” or “by reason of”]—is taken as something common, since it implies an efficient as | |
| 1651 well as a material cause, although not a consubstantial cause.</p> | |
| 1652 <p>Consequently, since only the Son of God, who is the Word, is “<i>of</i>”<i> </i>(<i>de</i>)<i> </i>the substance of the | |
| 1653 Father and indeed is one substance with the Father, while the saints, who are adopted sons, | |
| 1654 are not of his substance, the Evangelist uses the preposition <i>ex, </i>saying of others that they are | |
| 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 | |
| 1656 Patre</i>)<i>.</i></p> | |
| 1657 <p>163 Note also that in the light of our last exposition of carnal generation, we can discern the | |
| 1658 difference between carnal and spiritual generation. For since the former is from blood, it is | |
| 1659 carnal; but the latter, because it is not from blood, is spiritual. “What is born from flesh is | |
| 1660 itself flesh; and what is born from Spirit is itself spirit” (below 3:6). Again, because material | |
| 1661 generation is from the desires of the flesh, i.e., from concupiscence, it is unclean and begets | |
| 1662 children who are sinners: “We were by nature children of wrath” as it says in Ephesians (2:3). | |
| 1663 Again, because the former is <span style="font-weight: bold">from man’s willing it, </span>that is, from man, it makes children of | |
| 1664 men; but the latter, because it is from God, makes children of God.</p> | |
| 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 | |
| 1666 which we are reborn as sons of God, we can detect in his words the order of baptism: that is, | |
| 1667 the first thing required is faith, as shown in the case of catechumens, who must first be | |
| 1668 instructed about the faith so that they may believe in his name; then through baptism they are | |
| 1669 reborn, not carnally froin blood, but spiritually from God.</p> | |
| 1670 <p style="margin-bottom: 0.125in; margin-bottom: 0.125in"> </p> | |
| 1671 <CENTER><p><span style="font-weight: bold">LECTURE 7</span></p> | |
| 1672 <p>14a And the Word was made flesh, and made his dwelling among us.</CENTER> | |
| 1673 <p>165 Having explained the necessity for the Word’s coming in the flesh as well as the benefits | |
| 1674 this conferred, the Evangelist now shows the way he came (v 14a). He thus resumes the | |
| 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 | |
| 1676 unto his own. But lest anyone suppose that he came by changing his location, he shows the | |
| 1677 manner in which he came, that is, by an incarnation. For he came in the manner in which he | |
| 1678 was sent by the Father, by whom he was sent, i.e., he was made flesh. “God sent his Son | |
| 1679 made from a woman” (Gal 4:4). And Augustine says about this that “He was sent in the | |
| 1680 manner in which he was made.”</p> | |
| 1681 <p>According to Chrysostom, however, he is here continuing the earlier statement, <span style="font-weight: bold">he gave them | |
| 1682 power to become the sons of God. </span>As if to say: If you wonder how he was able to give this | |
| 1683 power to men, i.e., that they become sons of God, the Evangelist answers: because <span style="font-weight: bold">the Word | |
| 1684 was made flesh, </span>he made it possible for us to be made sons of God. “God sent his Son ... so | |
| 1685 that we might receive our adoption as sons” (Gal 4:5).</p> | |
| 1686 <p>But according to Augustine, he is continuing the earlier statement, <span style="font-weight: bold">who are born from God. | |
| 1687 </span>For since it seemed a hard saying that men be born from God, then, as though arguing in | |
| 1688 support of this and to produce belief in the existence of the Word, the Evangelist adds | |
| 1689 something which seems less seemly, namely, that <span style="font-weight: bold">the Word was made flesh. </span>As if to say: Do | |
| 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 | |
| 1691 man.</p> | |
| 1692 <p>166 It should be noted that this statement, <span style="font-weight: bold">the Word was made flesh, </span>has been | |
| 1693 misinterpreted by some and made the occasion of error. For certain ones have presumed that | |
| 1694 the Word became flesh in the sense that he or something of him was turned into flesh, as | |
| 1695 when flour is made into bread, and air becomes fire. One of these was Eutyches, who | |
| 1696 postulated a mixture of natures in Christ, saying that in him the nature of God and of man was | |
| 1697 the same. We can clearly see that this is false because, as was said above, “the Word was | |
| 1698 God.” Now God is immutable, as is said, “I am the Lord, and I do not change” (Mal 3:6). | |
| 1699 Hence in no way can it be said that he was turned into another nature. Therefore, one must | |
| 1700 say in opposition to <span style="font-weight: bold">Eutyches, the Word was made flesh, </span>i.e., the Word assumed flesh, but | |
| 1701 not in the sense that the Word himself is that flesh. It is as if we were to say: “The man | |
| 1702 became white,” not that he is that whiteness, but that he asstinled whiteness.</p> | |
| 1703 <p>167 There were others who, although they believed that the Word was not changed into flesh | |
| 1704 but assumed it, nevertheless said that he assumed flesh without a soul; for if he had assumed | |
| 1705 flesh with a soul, the Evangelist would have said, “the Word was made flesh with a soul.” | |
| 1706 This was the error of Arius, who said that there was no soul in Christ, but that the Word of | |
| 1707 God was there in place of a soul.</p> | |
| 1708 <p>The falsity of this opinion is obvious, both because it is in conflict with Sacred Scripture, | |
| 1709 which often mentions the soul of Christ, as: “My soul is sad, even to the point of death” (Mt | |
| 1710 26:38), and because certain affections of the soul are observed in Christ which can not | |
| 1711 possibly exist in the Word of God or in flesh alone: “He began to be sorrowful and troubled” | |
| 1712 (Mt 26:37). Also, God cannot be the form of a body. Nor can an angel be united to a body as | |
| 1713 its form, since an angel, according to its very nature, is separated from body, whereas a soul is | |
| 1714 united to a body as its form. Consequently, the Word of God cannot be the form of a body.</p> | |
| 1715 <p>Furthermore, it is plain that flesh does not acquire the specific nature of flesh except through | |
| 1716 its soul. This is shown by the fact that when the soul has withdrawn from the body of a man | |
| 1717 or a cow, the flesh of the man or the cow is called flesh only in an equivocal sense. So if the | |
| 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 | |
| 1719 Word was made flesh; </span>therefore, he assumed flesh with a soul.</p> | |
| 1720 <p>168 And there were others who, influenced by this, said that the Word did indeed assume | |
| 1721 flesh with a soul, but this soul was only a sensitive soul, not an intellectual one; the Word | |
| 1722 took the place of the intellectual soul in Christ’s body. This was the error of Apollinaris. He | |
| 1723 followed Arius for a time, but later in the face of the [scriptural] authorities cited above, was | |
| 1724 forced to admit a soul in Christ which could be the subject of these emotions. But he said this | |
| 1725 soul lacked reason and intellect, and that in the man Christ their place was taken by the Word.</p> | |
| 1726 <p>This too is obviously false, because it conflicts with the authority of Sacred Scripture in | |
| 1727 which certain things are said of Christ that cannot be found in his divinity, nor in a sensitive | |
| 1728 soul, nor in flesh alone; for example, that Christ marvelled, as in Matthew (8:10). For to | |
| 1729 marvel or wonder is a state which arises in a rational and intellectual soul when a desire arises | |
| 1730 to know the hidden cause of an observed effect. Therefore, just as sadness compels one to | |
| 1731 place a sensitive element in the soul of Christ, against Arius, so marvelling or amazement | |
| 1732 forces one to admit, against Apollinaris, an intellectual element in Christ.</p> | |
| 1733 <p>The same conclusion can be reached by reason. For as there is no flesh without a soul, so | |
| 1734 there is no human flesh without a human soul, which is an intellectual soul. So if the Word | |
| 1735 assumed flesh which was animated with a merely sensitive soul to the exclusion of a rational | |
| 1736 soul, he did not assume human flesh; consequently, one could not say: “God became man.”</p> | |
| 1737 <p>Besides, the Word assumed human nature in order to repair it. Therefore, he repaired what he | |
| 1738 assumed. But if he did not assume a rational soul, he would not have repaired it. | |
| 1739 Consequently, no fruit would have accrued to us from the incarnation of the Word; and this is | |
| 1740 false. <span style="font-weight: bold">Therefore, the Word was made flesh, </span>i.e., assumed flesh which was animated by a | |
| 1741 rational soul.</p> | |
| 1742 <p>169 But you may say: If the Word did assume flesh with such a soul, why did the Evangelist | |
| 1743 not mention “rational soul,” instead of only “flesh,” saying, <span style="font-weight: bold">the Word was made flesh? </span>I | |
| 1744 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 | |
| 1746 did not assume true flesh, but only imaginary flesh, since it would not have been becoming | |
| 1747 for the Word of the good God to assume flesh, which they regarded as a creature of the devil. | |
| 1748 And so to exclude this the Evangelist made special mention of the flesh, just as Christ | |
| 1749 showed the truth of the resurrection to the disciples when they took him for a spirit, saying: | |
| 1750 “A spirit does not have flesh and bones, as you see that I have” (Lk 24:39).</p> | |
| 1751 <p>Secondly, to show the greatness of God’s kindness to us. For it is evident that the rational | |
| 1752 soul has a greater conformity to God than does flesh, and that it would have been a great sign | |
| 1753 of compassion if the Word had assumed a human soul, as being conformed to himself. But to | |
| 1754 assume flesh too, which is something far removed from the simplicity of his nature, was a | |
| 1755 sign of a much greater, indeed, of an incomprehensible compassion. As the Apostle says (1 | |
| 1756 Tim 3:16): “Obviously great is the mystery of godliness which appeared in the flesh.” And so | |
| 1757 to indicate this, the Evangelist mentioned only flesh.</p> | |
| 1758 <p>Thirdly, to demonstrate the truth and uniqueness of the union in Christ. For God is indeed | |
| 1759 united to other holy men, but only with respect to their soul; so it is said: “She [wisdom] | |
| 1760 passes into holy souls, making them friends of God and prophets” (Wis 7:27). But that the | |
| 1761 Word of God is united to flesh is unique to Christ, according to the Psalmist: “I am alone | |
| 1762 until I pass” (Ps 140:10). “Gold cannot equal it” (Jb 28:17). So the Evangelist, wishing to | |
| 1763 show the uniqueness of the union in Christ, mentioned only the flesh, saying, <span style="font-weight: bold">the Word was | |
| 1764 made flesh.</span></p> | |
| 1765 <p>Fourthly, to suggest its relevance to man’s restoration For man was weak because of the flesh. | |
| 1766 And thus the Evangelist, wishing to suggest that the coming of’ the Word was suited to the | |
| 1767 task of our restoration, made special mention of the flesh in order to show that the weak flesh | |
| 1768 was repaired by the flesh of the Word. And this is what the Apostle says: “The law was | |
| 1769 powerless because it was weakened by the flesh. God, sending his Son in the likeness of | |
| 1770 sinful flesh and in reparation for sin, condemned sin in his flesh” (Rom 83).</p> | |
| 1771 <p>170 A question arises as to why the Evangelist did not say that the Word assumed flesh, but | |
| 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 | |
| 1773 Nestorius. He said that in Christ there were two persons and two sons, [one being the Son of | |
| 1774 God] the other being the son of the Virgin. Thus he did not admit that the Blessed Virgin was | |
| 1775 the mother of God.</p> | |
| 1776 <p>But if this were so, it would mean that God did not become man, for one particular | |
| 1777 <i>suppositum </i>cannot be predicated of another. Accordingly, if the person or <i>suppositum </i>of the | |
| 1778 Word is different than the person or <i>suppositum </i>of the man, in Christ, then what 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 | |
| 1780 becomes something in order to be it; if, then, the Word is not man, it could not be said that | |
| 1781 the Word became man. And so the Evangelist expressly said was made, and not “assumed,” | |
| 1782 to show that the union of the Word to flesh is not such as was the “lifting up” of the prophets, | |
| 1783 who were not “taken up” into a unity of person, but for the prophetic act. This union is such | |
| 1784 as would truly make God man and man God, i.e., that God would be man.</p> | |
| 1785 <p>171 There were some, too, who, misunderstanding the manner of the incarnation, did indeed | |
| 1786 admit that the aforesaid assumption was terminated at a oneness of person, acknowledging in | |
| 1787 God one person of God and man. But they said that in him there were two hypostases, i.e., | |
| 1788 two <i>supposita; </i>one of a human nature, created and non-eternal, ‘and the other of the divine | |
| 1789 nature, non-created and eternal. This is the first opinion presented in the <i>Sentences </i>(III, d6).</p> | |
| 1790 <p>According to this opinion the proposition, “God was made man and man was made God,” is | |
| 1791 not true. Consequently, this opinion was condemned as heretical by the Fifth Council, where | |
| 1792 it is said: “If anyone shall assert one person and two hypostases in the Lord Jesus Christ, let | |
| 1793 him be anathema.” And so the Evangelist, to exclude any assumption not terminated at a | |
| 1794 oneness of person, says, was made.</p> | |
| 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, | |
| 1796 man, namely, as having human nature. Not that the Word is human nature itself, but he is a | |
| 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 | |
| 1798 not indicate any change in the Word, but only in the nature newly assumed into the oneness of | |
| 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 | |
| 1800 relation. And relations newly said of God with respect to creatures do not imply a change on | |
| 1801 the side of God, but on the side of the creature relating in a new way to God.</p> | |
| 1802 <p>173 Now follows, <span style="font-weight: bold">and made his dwelling among us. </span>This is distinguished in two ways from | |
| 1803 what went before. The first consists in stating that above the Evangelist dealt with the | |
| 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 | |
| 1805 manner of the incarnation, saying, <span style="font-weight: bold">and made his dwelling among us. </span>For according to | |
| 1806 Chrysostom and Hilary, by the Evangelist saying <span style="font-weight: bold">the Word was made flesh, </span>someone might | |
| 1807 think that he was converted into flesh and that there are not two distinct natures in Christ, but | |
| 1808 only one nature compounded from the human and divine natures. And so the Evangelist, | |
| 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 | |
| 1810 remain distinct in his own. For what is converted into something does not remain distinct in | |
| 1811 its nature from that into which it is converted.</p> | |
| 1812 <p>Furthermore, something which is not distinct from another does not dwell in it, because to | |
| 1813 dwell implies a distinction between the dweller and that in which it dwells. But the Word | |
| 1814 dwelt in our nature; therefore, he is distinct in nature from it. And so, inasmuch as human | |
| 1815 nature was distinct from the nature of the Word in Christ, the former is called the dwelling | |
| 1816 place and temple of the divinity, according to John (2:21): “But he spoke of the temple of his | |
| 1817 body.”</p> | |
| 1818 <p>174 Now although what is said here by these holy men is orthodox, care must be taken to | |
| 1819 avoid the reproach which some receive for this. For the early doctors and saints were so intent | |
| 1820 upon refuting the emerging errors concerning the faith that they seemed meanwhile to fall | |
| 1821 into the opposite ones. For example, Augustine, speaking against the Manichaeans, who | |
| 1822 destroyed the freedom of the will, disputed in such terms that he seemed to have fallen into | |
| 1823 the heresy of Pelagius. Along these lines, John the Evangelist added, <span style="font-weight: bold">and made his dwelling | |
| 1824 among us, </span>so that we would not think there was a mingling or transformation of natures in | |
| 1825 Christ because he had said, <span style="font-weight: bold">the Word was made flesh.</span></p> | |
| 1826 <p>Nestorius misunderstood this phrase, <span style="font-weight: bold">and made his dwelling among us, </span>and said that the | |
| 1827 Son of God was united to man in such a way that there was not one person of God and of | |
| 1828 man. For he held that the Word was united to human nature only by an indwelling through | |
| 1829 grace. From this, however, it follows that the Son of God is not man.</p> | |
| 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: “He, | |
| 1838 being in the form of God ... emptied himself, taking the form of a servant” (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 “We will come to him and make our home with him” (below 14:23); and of the Holy Spirit | |
| 1843 the Apostle says: “The Spirit of God dwells in us” (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: “I and the Father are one” (below 10:30), and “Before Abraham came to be, I am,” as | |
| 1846 is said below (8:58). Now “I” 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, “During all | |
| 1852 the time that the Lord Jesus came and went among us” (Acts 1:21). “Afterwards, he was seen | |
| 1853 on earth” (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’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. “We tell | |
| 1863 you ... what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes” (1 Jn 1:1); “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,” that is, “to us who ate and drank with him” (Acts 10:40).</p> | |
| 1866 <p style="margin-bottom: 0.125in; margin-bottom: 0.125in"> </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. “We know of what we speak, and we bear witness of what we see” | |
| 1885 (below 3:11). “We tell you ... what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes” (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: “They looked towards the desert, and saw the glory of the Lord in a cloud” (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: “Fire,” that is, of concupiscence, | |
| 1899 “fell on them, and they did not see the sun,” 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, “Show me your glory” (Ex | |
| 1909 32:18). But he did not deserve to see it; indeed, he was answered by the Lord: “You shall see | |
| 1910 my back” (Ex 33:23), i.e., shadows and figures. But the apostles saw his brightness: “All of | |
| 1911 us, gazing on the Lord’s glory with unveiled faces, are being transformed from glory to glory | |
| 1912 into his very image” (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: “Now we see through a mirror,,in an obscure manner, | |
| 1915 but then face to face” in 1 Corinthians (13:12); and below (12:41), “Isaiah said this when he | |
| 1916 saw his glory.” But the apostles saw the very brilliance of the Word through his bodily | |
| 1917 presence: “All of us, gazing on the Lord’s glory,” and so forth (2 Cor 3:18); “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” (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 “his face shone” (Ex 34:29), or was “horned,” 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, “He [Jesus] was counted worthy of more glory than Moses” (Heb 3:3); “Who among the | |
| 1928 sons of God is like God?” (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 “as” 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 “as” of the Only Begotten of the Father, i.e., such as became the Only Begotten of | |
| 1936 God.</p> | |
| 1937 <p>186 The uniqueness of the glory of the Word is brought out in four ways. First, in the | |
| 1938 testimony which the Father gave to the Son. For John was one of the three who had seen | |
| 1939 Christ transfigured on the mountain and heard the , voice of the Father saying: “This is my | |
| 1940 beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased” (Mt 17:5). Of this glory it is said, “He received | |
| 1941 honor and glory from God the Father ... ‘This is my beloved Son’” (2 Pt 1:17)</p> | |
| 1942 <p>Secondly, it is brought out by the service of the angels. For prior to the incarnation of Christ, | |
| 1943 men were subject to the angels. But after it, angels ministered, as subjects, to Christ. “Angels | |
| 1944 came and ministered to him” (Mt 4:11).</p> | |
| 1945 <p>Thirdly, it is brought out by the submission of nature. For all nature obeyed Christ and heeded | |
| 1946 his slightest command, as something established by him, because “All things were made | |
| 1947 through him” (above 1:3). This is something granted neither to angels nor to any creature, but | |
| 1948 to the incarnate Word alone. And this is what we read, “What kind of man is this, for the | |
| 1949 winds and the sea obey him?” (Mt 8:27).</p> | |
| 1950 <p>Fourthly, we see it in the way he taught and acted. For Moses and the other prophets gave | |
| 1951 commands to men and taught them not on their own authority, but on the authority of God. | |
| 1952 So they said: “The Lord says this”; and “The Lord spoke to Moses.” But Christ speaks as the | |
| 1953 Lord, and as one having power, i.e., by reason of his own power. Hence he says, “I say to | |
| 1954 you” (Mt 5:22). This is the reason why, at the end of the Sermon on the Mountain, it is said | |
| 1955 that he taught as one “having authority” (Mt 7:29). Furthermore, other holy men worked | |
| 1956 miracles, but not by their own power. But Christ worked them by his own power. In these | |
| 1957 ways, then, the glory of the Word is unique.</p> | |
| 1958 <p>187 Note that sometimes in Scripture we call Christ the Only Begotten, as here, and below (1 | |
| 1959 :18): “it is the Only Begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, who has made him | |
| 1960 known.” At other times we call him the First-born: “When he brings the Firstborn into the | |
| 1961 world, he says, ‘Let all the angels of God adore him’ “ (Heb 1:6). The reason for this is that | |
| 1962 just as it belongs to the whole Blessed Trinity to be God, so it belongs to the Word of God to | |
| 1963 be God Begotten. Sometimes, too, he is called God according to what he is in himself; and in | |
| 1964 this way he alone is uniquely God by his own essence. It is in this way that we say there is but | |
| 1965 one God: “Hear, O Israel: the Lord your God is one” (Dt 6:4). At times, we even apply the | |
| 1966 name of deity to others, insofar as a certain likeness of the divinity is given to men; in this | |
| 1967 sense we speak of many gods: “Indeed, there are many gods and many lords” (1 Cor 8:5).</p> | |
| 1968 <p>Along these lines, if we consider what is proper to the Son as Begotten, and consider the way | |
| 1969 in which this sonship is attributed to him, that is, through nature, we say that he is the Only | |
| 1970 Begotten of God: because, since he alone is naturally begotten by the Father, the Begotten of | |
| 1971 the Father is one only. But if we consider the Son, insofar as sonship is conferred on others | |
| 1972 through a likeness to him, then there are many sons of God through participation. And | |
| 1973 because they are called sons of God by a likeness to him, he is called the First-born of all. | |
| 1974 “Those whom he foreknew, he predestined to become conformed to the image of his Son, so | |
| 1975 that he might be the First-born of many brothers” (Rom 8:29).</p> | |
| 1976 <p>So, Christ is called the Only Begotten of God by nature; but he is called the First-born insofar | |
| 1977 as from his natural sonship, by means of a certain likeness and participation, a sonship is | |
| 1978 granted to many.</p> | |
| 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 | |
| 1980 to say: His glory is such that he is full of grace and divinity. Now these words can be applied | |
| 1981 to Christ in three ways.</p> | |
| 1982 <p>First, from the point of view of union. For grace is given to someone so that he might be | |
| 1983 united to God through it. So he who is most perfectly united to God is full of grace. Now | |
| 1984 some are joined to God by participating in a natural likeness: “Let us make man to our image | |
| 1985 and likeness” (Gn 1:26). Some are joined by faith: “That Christ may dwell in your hearts | |
| 1986 through faith” (Eph 3:17). And others are united by charity, because “He who abides in love | |
| 1987 abides in God” (1 Jn 4:16). But all these ways are partial: because one is not perfectly united | |
| 1988 to God by participating a natural likeness; nor is God seen as he is by faith; nor is he loved to | |
| 1989 the extent that he is lovable by charity—for since he is the infinite Good, his lovableness is | |
| 1990 infinite, and the love of no creature is able to love this infinitely. And so these unions are not | |
| 1991 full.</p> | |
| 1992 <p>But in Christ, in whom human nature is united to the divinity in the unity of a <i>suppositum</i>, we | |
| 1993 find a full and perfect union with God. The reason for this is that this union was such that all | |
| 1994 the acts not only of his divine but also of his human nature were acts of the <i>suppositum</i> [or | |
| 1995 person]. So he was <span style="font-weight: bold">full of grace </span>insofar he did not receive any special gratuitous gift from | |
| 1996 God, but that he should be God himself. “He gave him,” i.e., God the Father gave to the Son, | |
| 1997 “a name which is above every name” (Phil 2:9). “He was foreordained to be the Son of God | |
| 1998 in power” (Rom 1:4). He was also <span style="font-weight: bold">full of truth, </span>because the human nature in Christ attained | |
| 1999 to the divine truth itself, that is, that this man should be the divine Truth itself. In other men | |
| 2000 we find many participated truths, insofar as the First Truth gleams back into their minds | |
| 2001 through many likenesses; but Christ is Truth itself. Thus it is said: “In whom all the treasures | |
| 2002 of wisdom are hidden” (Col 2:3).</p> | |
| 2003 <p>189 Secondly, these words can be applied in relation to the perfection of his soul. Then he is | |
| 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 | |
| 2005 without measure: “God does not bestow the Spirit in fractions,” as we read below (3:34). Yet | |
| 2006 it was given in fractions to all rational creatures, both angels and men. For according to | |
| 2007 Augustine, just as there is one sense common to all the parts of the body, namely, the sense of | |
| 2008 touch, while all the senses are found in the head, so in Christ, who is the head of every | |
| 2009 rational creature (and in a special way of the saints who are united to him by faith and | |
| 2010 charity), all virtues and graces and gifts are found superabundantly; but in others, i.e., the | |
| 2011 saints, we find participations of the graces and gifts, although there is a gift common to all the | |
| 2012 saints, and that is charity. We read about this fulness of Christ’s grace: “There shall come | |
| 2013 forth a shoot out of the root of Jesse, and a flower shall spring up out of his root. And the | |
| 2014 spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him: the spirit of wisdom and of understanding, the spirit of | |
| 2015 counsel and of fortitude, the spirit of knowledge and of piety” (Is 11:1).</p> | |
| 2016 <p>Further, Christ was also <span style="font-weight: bold">full of truth </span>because his precious and h1essed soul knew every truth, | |
| 2017 human and divine, from the instant of his conception. And so Peter said to him, “You know | |
| 2018 all things” (below 21:17). And the Psalm (88:25) says: “My truth,” i.e., the knowledge of | |
| 2019 every truth, “and my mercy,” i.e., the fulness of all graces, “shall be with him.”</p> | |
| 2020 <p>190 In a third way these words can be explained in relation to his dignity as head, i.e., | |
| 2021 inasmuch as Christ is the head of the Church. In this way it is his prerogative to communicate | |
| 2022 grace to others, both by producing virtue in the minds of men through the inpouring of grace | |
| 2023 and by meriting, through his teaching and works and the sufferings of his death, | |
| 2024 superabundant grace for an infinite number of worlds, if there were such. Therefore, he is <span style="font-weight: bold">full | |
| 2025 of grace </span>insofar as he conferred perfect justice upon us. We could not acquire this perfect | |
| 2026 justice through the law, which was infirm and could make no one just or bring anyone to | |
| 2027 perfection. As we read: “The law was powerless because it was weakened by the flesh. God, | |
| 2028 sending his Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and in reparation for sin, condemned sin in his | |
| 2029 flesh” (Rom 8:3).</p> | |
| 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 | |
| 2031 made to the fathers. “Christ was a minister to the circumcised to confirm the promises made | |
| 2032 to the fathers” (Rom 15:8); “All the promises of God are fulfilled in him” (2 Cor 1:20).</p> | |
| 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 | |
| 2034 gracious. “Grace is poured out upon your lips” (Ps 44:3). And so it is said, “All the people | |
| 2035 came to him early in the morning,” i.e., in the morning they were eager to come (Lk 21:38). | |
| 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 | |
| 2037 vices of men, but preached the truth to all, openly and without deception. As it says below: | |
| 2038 “Now you are speaking plainly” (16:29).</p> | |
| 2039 <p style="margin-bottom: 0.125in; margin-bottom: 0.125in"> </p> | |
| 2040 <CENTER><p><span style="font-weight: bold">LECTURE 9</span></p> | |
| 2041 <p>15 John bore witness to him, and he cried out saying:<BR> | |
| 2042 “This is the one of whom I said:<BR> | |
| 2043 ‘He who comes after me, ranks ahead of me,<BR> | |
| 2044 because he existed before me.’”</CENTER> | |
| 2045 <p>191 Having given the evidence by which the Word was made known to the apostles by sight, | |
| 2046 the Evangelist then presents the evidence by which the Word was made known to persons | |
| 2047 other than the apostles by their hearing the testimony of John. He does three things about this. | |
| 2048 First, the witness is presented. Secondly, his manner of testifying is indicated. Thirdly, his | |
| 2049 testimony is given.</p> | |
| 2050 <p>192 So he says: We indeed have seen his glory, the glory as of the Only Begotten of the | |
| 2051 Father. But we are not believed, perhaps because we are held in suspicion. So let his witness | |
| 2052 come forth, that is, John the Baptist, who bears witness to Christ. He is a faithful witness who | |
| 2053 will not lie: “A faithful witness will not lie” (Prv 14:5), “You sent [messengers] to John, and | |
| 2054 he bore witness to the truth” (below 5:33). John gives his testimony here and fulfills his office | |
| 2055 with perseverance because he came as a witness. As Proverbs (12:19) says, “Truthful lips | |
| 2056 endure forever.”</p> | |
| 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 | |
| 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. | |
| 2059 “Cry out in a loud voice.... Say to the cities of Judah: Here is your God” (Is 40:9). He cried | |
| 2060 out ardently and with great fervor, because it is said, “His word burned like a torch” (Si 48:1); | |
| 2061 “Seraphim cried one to another” (Is 6:3), which is expressive of a more interior eagerness of | |
| 2062 spirit. The use of a cry shows that the statements of the witness are not made to a few in | |
| 2063 figurative language or secretly, but that a truth is being declared openly and publicly, and told | |
| 2064 not to a few but to many. “Cry out, and do not stop” (Is 58:1).</p> | |
| 2065 <p>194 Then he adds his testimony. And he does two things. First, he shows that his testimony | |
| 2066 was continuous. Secondly, he describes the person to whom he bore witness.</p> | |
| 2067 <p>195 The testimony of the Baptist was continuous because he bore witness to him not only | |
| 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 | |
| 2069 one of whom I </span>said, i.e., before I saw him in the flesh I bore witness to him. “And you, child, | |
| 2070 shall be called the prophet of the Most High” (Lk 1:76). He pointed him out both as present | |
| 2071 and when about to come. And his testimony is certain because he not only predicted that he | |
| 2072 would come, but pointed him out when he was present, saying, <span style="font-weight: bold">Look! There is the Lamb of | |
| 2073 God. </span>This implies that Christ was physically present to John; for he had often come to John | |
| 2074 before being baptized.</p> | |
| 2075 <p>196 Then he describes the one to whom he bore witness, saying, <span style="font-weight: bold">He who comes after me, | |
| 2076 ranks ahead of me. </span>Here we should note that John does not at once preach to his disciples | |
| 2077 that Christ is the Son of God, but he draws them little by little to higher things: first, by | |
| 2078 preferring Christ to himself, even though John had such a great reputation and authority as to | |
| 2079 be considered the Christ or one of the great prophets. Now he compares Christ to himself: | |
| 2080 first, with regard to the order of their preaching; secondly, as to the order of dignity; and | |
| 2081 thirdly, as to the time of their existence.</p> | |
| 2082 <p>197 With respect to the order of their preaching, John preceded Christ as a servant precedes | |
| 2083 his master, and as a soldier his king, or as the morning star the sun: “See, I am sending my | |
| 2084 messenger, and he will prepare the way before me” (Mal 3:1 ). So, He comes after me, in | |
| 2085 being known to men, through my preaching. Observe that <span style="font-weight: bold">comes</span> is in the present tense, | |
| 2086 became in Greek the present participle is used.</p> | |
| 2087 <p>Now John preceded Christ for two reasons. First, according to Chrysostom, because John was | |
| 2088 a blood relation of Christ according to the flesh: “your relative, Elizabeth” (Lk 1.36). | |
| 2089 Therefore, had he borne witness to Christ after knowing him, his testimony might have been | |
| 2090 open to question; accordingly, John came preaching before he was acquainted with Christ, in | |
| 2091 order that his testimony might have more force. Hence he says, “And I did not know him! | |
| 2092 And yet it was to reveal him to Israel that I came baptizing with water” (below 1:31).</p> | |
| 2093 <p>Secondly, John preceded Christ because in things that pass into act from potency, the | |
| 2094 imperfect is naturally prior to the perfect; hence it is said in 1 Corinthians (15:46): “The | |
| 2095 spiritual is not first, but the animal.” Accordingly, the perfect doctrine of Christ should have | |
| 2096 been preceded by the less perfect teaching of John, which was in a certain manner midway | |
| 2097 between the doctrine of the law and the prophets (which announced the coming of Christ | |
| 2098 from afar), and the doctrine of Christ, which was clear and plainly made Christ known.</p> | |
| 2099 <p>198 He [John] compares him to himself with respect to dignity when he says, he <span style="font-weight: bold">ranks ahead | |
| 2100 of me </span>[<i>ante me factus est, </i>literally, he “was made before me”]. It should be noted that it is | |
| 2101 from this text that the Arians took occasion for their error. For they said that “He who comes | |
| 2102 after me,” is to be understood of Christ as to the flesh he assumed, but what follows, “was | |
| 2103 made before me,” can only be understood of the Word of God, who existed before the flesh; | |
| 2104 and for this reason Christ as the Word was made, and was not coeternal with the Father.</p> | |
| 2105 <p>According to Chrysostom, however, this exposition is stupid, because if it were true, the | |
| 2106 Baptist would not have said, he “was made before me, because he existed before me,” since | |
| 2107 no one is unaware that if he was before him, he was made before him. He rather would have | |
| 2108 said the opposite: “He was before me, because he was made before me.” And so, according to | |
| 2109 Chrysostom, these words should be taken as referring to his [Christ’s] dignity, that is, he was | |
| 2110 preferred to me and placed ahead of me. It is as though he said: Although Jesus came to | |
| 2111 preach after me, he was made more worthy than I both in eminence of authority and in the | |
| 2112 repute of men: “Gold will not be equal to it” (Jb 28:17). Or alternatively: he is preferred | |
| 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 | |
| 2114 say: Before my eyes, i.e., in my sight, because he came into my view and was recognized.</p> | |
| 2115 <p>199 He compares him to himself with respect to their duration, saying, <span style="font-weight: bold">because he existed | |
| 2116 before me. </span>As if to say: He was God from all eternity, I am a frail man of time. And | |
| 2117 therefore, even though I came to preach ahead of him, yet it was fitting that he rank before me | |
| 2118 in the reputation and opinion of men, because he preceded all things by his eternity: “Jesus | |
| 2119 Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever” (Heb 13:8). “Before Abraham came to be, I | |
| 2120 am,” as we read below (8:58).</p> | |
| 2121 <p>If we understand this passage as saying that he “was made before me,” it can be explained as | |
| 2122 referring to the order of time according to the flesh. For in the instant of his conception Christ | |
| 2123 was perfect God and perfect man, having a rational soul perfected by the virtues, and a body | |
| 2124 possessed of all its distinctive features, except that it lacked perfect size: “A woman shall | |
| 2125 enclose a man,” i.e., a perfect man (Jer 31:22). Now it is evident that Christ was conceived as | |
| 2126 a perfect man before John was born; consequently he says that he “was made before me,” | |
| 2127 because he was a perfect man before I came forth from the womb.</p> | |
| 2128 <p style="margin-bottom: 0.125in; margin-bottom: 0.125in"> </p> | |
| 2129 <CENTER><p><span style="font-weight: bold">LECTURE10</span></p> | |
| 2130 <p>16 Of his fullness we have all received—indeed, grace upon grace;<BR> | |
| 2131 17 because, while the law was given through Moses,<BR> | |
| 2132 grace and truth have come through Jesus Christ.</CENTER> | |
| 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 | |
| 2134 19), “This is the testimony of John,” are taken in two ways. According to Origen, these are | |
| 2135 the words of John the Baptist and are added by him to support what he had said previously. It | |
| 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, | |
| 2137 not only I but all, including the prophets and patriarchs, <span style="font-weight: bold">have received, </span>because all had the | |
| 2138 grace they possessed by faith in the incarnate Word. According to this explanation, John the | |
| 2139 Baptist began weaving the story of the incarnation at, “John bore witness to him” (v 15).</p> | |
| 2140 <p>But according to Augustine and Chrysostom, the words from “John bore witness to him” (v | |
| 2141 15), are those of John the Evangelist. And they are connected with the previous words, “full | |
| 2142 of grace and truth,” as though he were saying: Above, the Evangelist gave the evidence for | |
| 2143 the Word which was learned through sight and by hearing, but here he explains each. First, | |
| 2144 how he was made known to the apostles through sight, which was tantamount to receiving the | |
| 2145 evidence from Christ. Secondly, how John bore witness to him, at “This is the testimony of | |
| 2146 John” (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 | |
| 2147 fountain, of every spiritual grace. Secondly, he shows that grace is dispensed to us through | |
| 2148 him and from him.</p> | |
| 2149 <p>201 He says first of all: We know from our own experience that we have seen him full of | |
| 2150 grace and truth, because <span style="font-weight: bold">of his fullness we have all received. </span>Now one fullness is that of | |
| 2151 sufficiency, by which one is able to perform acts that are meritorious and excellent, as in the | |
| 2152 case of Stephen. Again, there is a fullness of superabundance, by which the Blessed Virgin | |
| 2153 excels all the saints because of the eminence and abundance of her merits. Further, there is a | |
| 2154 fullness of efficiency and overflow, which belongs only to the man Christ as the author of | |
| 2155 grace. For although the Blessed Virgin superabounds her grace into us, it is never as authoress | |
| 2156 of grace. But grace flowed over from her soul into her body: for through the grace of the Holy | |
| 2157 Spirit, not only was the mind of the Virgin perfectly united to God by love, but her womb was | |
| 2158 supernaturally impregnated by the Holy Spirit. And so after Gabriel said, “Hail, full of grace,” | |
| 2159 he refers at once to the fullness of her womb, adding, “the Lord is with you” (Lk 1:28). And | |
| 2160 so the Evangelist, in order to show this unique fullness of efficiency and overflow in Christ, | |
| 2161 said, <span style="font-weight: bold">Of his fullness we have all received, </span>i.e., all the apostles and patriarchs and prophets | |
| 2162 and just men who have existed, do now exist, and will exist, and even all the angels.</p> | |
| 2163 <p>202 Note that the preposition <i>de </i>[of, from] sometimes signifies efficiency, i.e., an originative | |
| 2164 cause, as when it is said that a ray is or proceeds “from” the sun. In this way it signifies the | |
| 2165 efficiency of grace in Christ, i.e., authorship, because the fullness of grace in Christ is the | |
| 2166 cause of all graces that are in intellectual creatures. “Come to me, all you who desire me, and | |
| 2167 be filled with my fruits,” that is to say, share in the fullness of those fruits which come from | |
| 2168 me (Si 24:26).</p> | |
| 2169 <p>But sometimes this preposition <i>de </i>signifies consubstantiality, as when it is said that the Son is | |
| 2170 “of” the Father [<i>de Patre</i>]<i>. </i>In this usage, the fullness of Christ is the Holy Spirit, who | |
| 2171 proceeds from him, consubstantial with him in nature, in power and in majesty. For although | |
| 2172 the habitual gifts in the soul of Christ are other than those in us, nevertheless it is one and the | |
| 2173 same Holy Spirit who is in him and who fills all those to be sanctified. “One and the same | |
| 2174 Spirit produces all these” (1 Cor 12:11); “I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh” (JI 2:28); | |
| 2175 “If anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to him” (Rom 8:9). For the | |
| 2176 unity of the Holy Spirit produces unity in the Church: “The Spirit of the Lord filled the whole | |
| 2177 world” (Wis 1:7).</p> | |
| 2178 <p>In a third way, the preposition de [of, from] can signify it portion, as when we say “take | |
| 2179 ‘from’ this bread or wine [<i>de hoc pane, vel vino</i>],” i.e., take a portion and not the whole. | |
| 2180 Taken in this way it signifies that those who take a part derive it from the fullness. For he | |
| 2181 [Christ] received all the gifts of the Holy Spirit without measure, according to a perfect | |
| 2182 fullness; but we participate through him some portion of his fullness; and this is according to | |
| 2183 the measure which God grants to each. “Grace has been given to each of us according to the | |
| 2184 degree to which Christ gives it” (Eph 4:7).</p> | |
| 2185 <p>203 Then when he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">grace upon grace, </span>he shows the distribution of graces into us | |
| 2186 through Christ. Here he does two things. First, he shows that we receive grace from Christ, as | |
| 2187 its author. Secondly, that we receive wisdom from him (1:18). As to the first he does two | |
| 2188 things. First, he shows that we have received of his fullness. Secondly, our need to receive it.</p> | |
| 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 | |
| 2190 upon grace. </span>In the light of what is said, we are forced to understand that of his fullness we | |
| 2191 have received grace, and that upon that grace we have received another. Accordingly, we | |
| 2192 must see what that first grace is upon which we have received a second one, and also what | |
| 2193 that second grace is.</p> | |
| 2194 <p>According to Chrysostom, the first grace, which was received by the whole human race, was | |
| 2195 the grace of the Old Testament received in the law. And this was indeed a great grace: “I will | |
| 2196 give you a good gift” (Prv 4:2). For it was a great benefit for idolatrous men to receive | |
| 2197 precepts from God, and a true knowledge of the one true God. “What is the advantage of | |
| 2198 being a Jew, or the benefit of circumcision? It is great in every way. First indeed, because the | |
| 2199 words of God were entrusted to them” (Rom 3:1). Upon that grace, then, which was first, we | |
| 2200 have received a second far better. “He will follow grace with grace” (Zec 4:7).</p> | |
| 2201 <p>But was not the first grace sufficient? I answer that it was not, because the law gives only a | |
| 2202 knowledge of sin, but does not take it away. “The law brought nothing to perfection” (Heb | |
| 2203 7:19). Hence it was necessary that another grace come that would take away sin and reconcile | |
| 2204 one with God.</p> | |
| 2205 <p>205 And so he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">because, while the law was given through Moses, grace and truth | |
| 2206 have come through Jesus Christ. </span>Here the Evangelist ranks Christ above Moses the | |
| 2207 lawgiver, whom the Baptist ranked above himself. Now Moses was regarded as the greatest | |
| 2208 of the prophets: “There did not arise again in Israel a prophet like Moses” (Dt 34:10). But he | |
| 2209 ranks Christ above Moses in excellence Mid in dignity of’ works, <span style="font-weight: bold">because the law was given | |
| 2210 through Moses; </span>and between these two, the One excels the other as the reality excels the | |
| 2211 symbol and the truth the shadow: “The law had a shadow of the good things to come” (Heb | |
| 2212 10:1). Further, Christ excels him in the way he works, because the law was given by Moses as | |
| 2213 by one proclaiming it, but not originating it; for “The Lord alone is our lawgiver” (Is 33:22). | |
| 2214 But <span style="font-weight: bold">grace and truth have come through Jesus Christ, </span>as through the Lord and Author of | |
| 2215 truth and grace, as was explained above.</p> | |
| 2216 <p>206 According to Augustine, however, the first grace is justifying and prevenient grace, | |
| 2217 which is not given to us because of our works: “If it is by grace, it is not now by works” (Rom | |
| 2218 11:6). Upon that grace, then, which is imperfect, we have received another grace which is | |
| 2219 perfect, i.e., the grace of eternal life. And although eternal life is in some way acquired by | |
| 2220 merits, nevertheless, because the principle of meriting in everyone is prevenient grace, eternal | |
| 2221 life is called a grace: “The grace of God is eternal life” (Rom 6:23). To be brief, whatever | |
| 2222 grace is added to prevenient grace, the whole is called <span style="font-weight: bold">grace upon grace.</span></p> | |
| 2223 <p>The need for this second grace arises from the insufficiency of the law, which showed what | |
| 2224 was to be done and what avoided; but it gave no help to fulfill what was commanded. Indeed, | |
| 2225 what seemed to have been directed to life was the occasion for producing death. Hence the | |
| 2226 Apostle says that the law was a minister of death: “If the ministry that condemned had glory, | |
| 2227 the ministry that justifies has much more glory” (2 Cor 3:9). Also, it promised the help of | |
| 2228 grace but did not fulfill, because “The law brought nothing to perfection” (Heb 7:19). Again, | |
| 2229 it prefigured the truth of the new grace by its sacrifices and ceremonies; indeed, its very rites | |
| 2230 proclaimed that it was a figure. Hence is was necessary that Christ come, who by his own | |
| 2231 death would destroy other deaths and grant the help of new grace, in order that we might both | |
| 2232 fulfill his precepts with ease and joy, and die to our sins and our old way of life: “Our old self | |
| 2233 was crucified with him” (Rom 6:6), and in order that the truth of the figures contained in the | |
| 2234 law might be revealed and the promises made to the fathers be fulfilled.</p> | |
| 2235 <p>This can be explained in another way: <span style="font-weight: bold">truth has come through Jesus Christ, </span>as to the | |
| 2236 wisdom and truth which was hidden for centuries, and which he openly taught when he came | |
| 2237 into the world: “I came into the world for this, to testify to the truth,” as we read below | |
| 2238 (18:37).</p> | |
| 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 | |
| 2240 made] through him, because nothing can make itself? I answer that by his essence he is the | |
| 2241 uncreated Truth, which is eternal and not made, but is begotten of the Father; but all created | |
| 2242 truths were made through him, and these are certain participations and reflections of the first | |
| 2243 Truth, which shines out in those souls who are holy.</p> | |
| 2244 <p style="margin-bottom: 0.125in; margin-bottom: 0.125in"> </p> | |
| 2245 <CENTER><p><span style="font-weight: bold">LECTURE 11</span></p> | |
| 2246 <p>18 No one has ever seen God;<BR> | |
| 2247 it is the Only Begotten Son,<BR> | |
| 2248 who is in the bosom of the Father,<BR> | |
| 2249 who has made him known.</CENTER> | |
| 2250 <p>208 Above, the Evangelist showed how the apostles received grace from Christ as its author; | |
| 2251 here he shows how they received it from him as a teacher. About this he does three things. | |
| 2252 First, he shows the need for this teaching. Secondly, the competency of the teacher. Thirdly, | |
| 2253 the teaching itself.</p> | |
| 2254 <p>209 The need for this teaching arose from the lack of wisdom among men, which the | |
| 2255 Evangelist implies by alluding to the ignorance concerning God which prevailed among men, | |
| 2256 saying: <span style="font-weight: bold">No one has ever seen God. </span>And he does this fittingly, for wisdom consists properly | |
| 2257 in the knowledge of God and of divine things. Hence Augustine says that wisdom is the | |
| 2258 knowledge of divine things, as science is the knowledge of human things.</p> | |
| 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 | |
| 2260 many passages of divine Scripture. For it is said in Isaiah (6:1): “I saw the Lord seated on a | |
| 2261 high and lofty throne.” And about the same is found in 2 Samuel (6:2). Again in Matthew | |
| 2262 (5:8), the Lord says: “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.”If someone were | |
| 2263 to answer this last statement by saying that it is true that in the past no one has seen God, but | |
| 2264 will see him in the future, as the Lord promises, the Apostle would exclude this, saying, “He | |
| 2265 dwells in unapproachable light, whom no man has seen or can see” (1 Tim 6:16).</p> | |
| 2266 <p>Because the Apostle says, “no man has seen,” someone might say that if he cannot be seen by | |
| 2267 men, then at least he can be seen by angels; especially since God says, “Their angels in | |
| 2268 heaven always see the face of my Father” (Mt 18:10). But it cannot be taken in this way | |
| 2269 either, because it is said, “The sons of the resurrection will be like the angels of God in | |
| 2270 heaven” (Mt 22:30). If, therefore, the angels see God in heaven, then it is plain that the sons | |
| 2271 of the resurrection also see him: “When he appears we shall be like him, and we shall see him | |
| 2272 as he is” (1 Jn 3:2).</p> | |
| 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 | |
| 2274 understand it we must know that God is said to be seen in three ways. First, through a created | |
| 2275 substitute presented to the bodily sight; as Abraham is believed to have seen God when he | |
| 2276 saw three [men] and adored one (Gn 18). He adored one because he recognized the mystery | |
| 2277 of the Trinity in the three, whom he first thought to be men, and later believed to be angels. In | |
| 2278 a second way, through a representation in the imagination; and in this way Isaiah saw the | |
| 2279 Lord seated on a high and lofty throne. Many visions of this sort are recorded in the | |
| 2280 Scriptures. In a third way, he is seen through an intelligible species abstracted from material | |
| 2281 things; and in this way he is seen by those who, considering the greatness of creatures, see | |
| 2282 with their intellect the greatness of the Creator, as it is said: “From the greatness and beauty | |
| 2283 of creatures, their Creator can be seen accordingly” (Wis 13:5); “The invisible things of God | |
| 2284 are clearly seen, being understood through the things that are made,” as found in Romans | |
| 2285 (1:20). In another way, God is seen through a certain spiritual light infused by God into | |
| 2286 spiritual minds during contemplation; and this is the way Jacob saw God face to face, as it | |
| 2287 says in Genesis (32:30). According to Gregory, this vision came about through his lofty | |
| 2288 contemplation.</p> | |
| 2289 <p>But the vision of the divine essence is not attained by any of the above visions: for no created | |
| 2290 species, whether it be that by which an external sense is informed, or by which the | |
| 2291 imagination is informed, or by which the intellect is informed, is representative of the divine | |
| 2292 essence as it is. Now man knows as to its essence only what the species he has in his intellect | |
| 2293 represents as it is. Therefore, the vision of the divine essence is not attained through any | |
| 2294 species.</p> | |
| 2295 <p>The reason why no created species can represent the divine essence is plain: for nothing finite | |
| 2296 can represent the infinite as it is; but every created species is finite; therefore [it cannot | |
| 2297 represent the infinite as it is]. Further, God is his own <i>esse; </i>and therefore his wisdom and | |
| 2298 greatness and anything else are the same. But all those cannot be represented through one | |
| 2299 created thing. Therefore, the knowledge by which God is seen through creatures is not a | |
| 2300 knowledge of his essence, but a knowledge that is dark and mirrored, and from afar. | |
| 2301 “Everyone sees him,” in one of the above ways, “from afar” (Jb 36:25), because we do not | |
| 2302 know what God is by all these acts of knowing, but what he is not, or that he is. Hence Denis | |
| 2303 says, in his <i>Mystical Theology, </i>that the perfect way in which God is known in this present life | |
| 2304 is by taking away all creatures and every thing understood by us.</p> | |
| 2305 <p>212 There have been some who said that the divine essence will never by seen by any created | |
| 2306 intellect, and that it is seen neither by the angels nor by the blessed. But this statement is | |
| 2307 shown to be false and heretical in three ways, First, because it is contrary to the authority of | |
| 2308 divine Scripture: “We shall see him as he is” (1 Jn 3:2); “This is eternal life, that they know | |
| 2309 you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent” (below 17:3). Secondly, | |
| 2310 because the brightness of God is the same as his substance; for he does not give forth light by | |
| 2311 participating in light, but through himself. And thirdly, because it is impossible for anyone to | |
| 2312 attain perfect happiness except in the vision of the divine essence. This is because the natural | |
| 2313 desire of the intellect is to understand and know the causes of all the effects that it knows; but | |
| 2314 this desire cannot be fulfilled unless it understands and knows the first universal cause of all | |
| 2315 things, which is a cause that is not composed of cause and effect, as second causes are. | |
| 2316 Therefore, to take away the possibility of the vision of the divine essence by man is to fake | |
| 2317 away happiness itself. Therefore, in order for the created intellect to be happy, it is necessary | |
| 2318 that the divine essence be seen. “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God” (Mt | |
| 2319 5:8).</p> | |
| 2320 <p>213 Three things should be noted about the vision of the divine essence. First, it will never be | |
| 2321 seen with a bodily eye, either by sense or imagination, since only sensate bodily things are | |
| 2322 perceived by the senses, and God is not bodily: “God is spirit” (below 4:24). Secondly, that as | |
| 2323 long as the human intellect is in the body it cannot see God, because it is weighed down by | |
| 2324 the body so that it cannot attain the summit of contemplation. So it is that the more a soul is | |
| 2325 free of passions and is purged from affections for earthly things, the higher it rises in the | |
| 2326 contemplation of truth and tastes how sweet the Lord is. Now the highest degree of | |
| 2327 contemplation is to see God through his essence; and so as long as a man lives in a body | |
| 2328 which is necessarily subject to many passions, he cannot see God through his essence. “Man | |
| 2329 will not see me and live” (Ex 33:20). Therefore, if the human intellect is to see the divine | |
| 2330 essence it must wholly depart from the body: either by death, as the Apostle says, “We would | |
| 2331 prefer to be absent from the body and present with the Lord” (2 Cor 5:8); or by being wholly | |
| 2332 abstracted by rapture from the senses of the body, as is mentioned of Paul in 2 Corinthians | |
| 2333 (12:3).</p> | |
| 2334 <p>Thirdly, no created intellect (however abstracted, either by death, or separated from the body) | |
| 2335 which does see the divine essence, can comprehend it in any way. And so it is commonly said | |
| 2336 that although the whole divine essence is seen by the blessed, since it is most simple and has | |
| 2337 no parts, yet it is not wholly seen, because this would be to comprehend it. For “wholly” | |
| 2338 implies a certain mode. But any mode of God is the divine essence. Hence one who does not | |
| 2339 see him wholly does not comprehend him. For one is properly said to comprehend a thing | |
| 2340 through knowledge when he knows that thing to the extent that it is knowable in itself; | |
| 2341 otherwise, although he may know it, he does not comprehend it. For example, one who | |
| 2342 knows this proposition, “A triangle has three angles equal to two right angles,” by a | |
| 2343 dialectical syllogism, does not know it as well as it is knowable in itself; thus he does not | |
| 2344 know it wholly. But one who knows this by a demonstrative syllogism does know it wholly. | |
| 2345 For each thing is knowable to the extent that it has being and truth; while one is a knower | |
| 2346 according to his amount of cognitive power. Now a created intellectual substance is finite; | |
| 2347 hence it knows in a finite way. And since God is infinite in power and being, and as a | |
| 2348 consequence is infinitely knowable, he cannot be known by any created intellect to the degree | |
| 2349 that he is knowable. And thus he remains incomprehensible to every created intellect. | |
| 2350 “Behold, God is great, exceeding our knowledge” (Jb 36:26). He alone contemplates himself | |
| 2351 comprehensively, because his power to know is as great as his entity in being. “O most | |
| 2352 mighty, great, powerful, your name is Lord of hosts, great in counsel, incomprehensible in | |
| 2353 thought” (Jer 32:18).</p> | |
| 2354 <p>214 Using the above explanations, we can understand, <span style="font-weight: bold">No one has ever seen God. </span>First, No | |
| 2355 one, i.e, no man, has seen God, that is, the divine essence, with the eye of the body of or the | |
| 2356 imagination. Secondly, No one, living in this mortal life, has seen the divine essence in itself. | |
| 2357 Thirdly, No one, man or angel, has seen God by a vision of comprehension. So when it is said | |
| 2358 that certain ones have seen God with their eyes or while living in the body, he is not seen | |
| 2359 through his essence, but through a creature acting as a substitute, as was said. And thus it was | |
| 2360 necessary for us to receive wisdom, because No one has ever seen God.</p> | |
| 2361 <p>215 The Evangelist mentions the competent teacher of this wisdom when he adds, <span style="font-weight: bold">it is the | |
| 2362 Only Begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father. </span>He shows the competence of this | |
| 2363 teacher in three ways: by a natural likeness, by a singular excellence, and by a most perfect | |
| 2364 consubstantiality.</p> | |
| 2365 <p>216 By natural likeness, because a son is naturally like his father. Wherefore it also follows | |
| 2366 that one is called a son of God insofar as he shares in the likeness of his natural son; and one | |
| 2367 knows him insofar he has a likeness to him, since knowledge is attained through assimilation | |
| 2368 [or “likeness to”]. Hence 1 John (3:2) says, “Now we are sons of God,” and he immediately | |
| 2369 adds, “when he comes, we will be like him, and we will see him as he is.” Therefore, when | |
| 2370 the Evangelist says Son, he implies a likeness as well as all aptitude for knowing God.</p> | |
| 2371 <p>217 Because this teacher knows God in a more special way than other sons do, the Evangelist | |
| 2372 suggests this by his singular excellence, saying, <span style="font-weight: bold">the Only Begotten. </span>As if to say: He knows | |
| 2373 God more than other sons do. Hence, because he is the natural Son, having the same nature | |
| 2374 and knowledge as the Father, he is <span style="font-weight: bold">called the Only Begotten. </span>“The Lord said to me: ‘You are | |
| 2375 my Son’” (Ps 2:7).</p> | |
| 2376 <p>218 Although he may know in a unique way, he would be lacking the ability to teach if he | |
| 2377 were not to know wholly. Hence he adds a third point, namely, his consubstantiality to the | |
| 2378 Father, when he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">who is in the bosom of the Father. </span>“Bosom” is not to be taken here as | |
| 2379 referring to men in their garments, but it indicates the secret things of the Father. For what we | |
| 2380 carry in our bosom we do in secret. The secret things of the Father refer to his unsurpassed | |
| 2381 power and knowledge, since the divine essence is infinite. Therefore, in that bosom, i.e., in | |
| 2382 the most secret things of the paternal nature and essence, which transcends all the power of | |
| 2383 the creature, is <span style="font-weight: bold">the Only Begotten Son; </span>and so he is consubstantial with the Father.</p> | |
| 2384 <p>What the Evangelist signifies by “bosom,” David expressed by “womb,” saying: “From the | |
| 2385 womb, before the daystar,” i.e., from the inmost secret things of my essence, | |
| 2386 incomprehensible to every created intellect, “I begot you” (Ps 109:3), consubstantial with me, | |
| 2387 and of the same nature and power, and virtue and knowledge. “What man knows the things of | |
| 2388 a man except the spirit of the man that is in him? So also, no one knows the things of God | |
| 2389 except the Spirit of God” (1 Cor 2:11). Therefore, he comprehends the divine essence, which | |
| 2390 is his own.</p> | |
| 2391 <p>219 But the soul of Christ, which knows God, does not comprehend him, because this is | |
| 2392 attributed only to the Only Begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father. So the Lord also | |
| 2393 says: “No one knows the Father except the Son, and any to whom the Son wishes to reveal | |
| 2394 him”(Mt 11:27); we should understand this as referring to the knowledge of comprehension, | |
| 2395 about which the Evangelist seems to be speaking here. For no one comprehends the divine | |
| 2396 essence except the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. And so we have shown the | |
| 2397 competence of the teacher.</p> | |
| 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 | |
| 2399 those who say that the Father is invisible, but the Son is visible, though he was not seen in the | |
| 2400 Old Testament. For from the fact that he is among the hidden things of the Father, it is plain | |
| 2401 that he is naturally invisible, as is the Father. So it is said of him: “Truly, you are a hidden | |
| 2402 God” (Is 45:15). And so Scripture mentions the incomprehensibility of the Son: “No one | |
| 2403 knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son” (Mt 11:27), | |
| 2404 “What is the name of his son, if you know?” as we read in Proverbs (30:4)</p> | |
| 2405 <p>221 Then the Evangelist indicates the way in which this teaching is handed down, saying that | |
| 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 | |
| 2407 Son revealed knowledge of God through the prophets, who made him known to the extent | |
| 2408 that they shared in the eternal Word. Hence they said things like, “The Word of the Lord | |
| 2409 came to me.” But now the Only Begotten Son <span style="font-weight: bold">has made him known </span>to the faithful: “It is I | |
| 2410 who spoke; here I am” (Is 52:6); “God, who in many and varied ways, spoke to the fathers in | |
| 2411 past times through the prophets, has spoken to us in these days in his Son” (Heb 1:1).</p> | |
| 2412 <p>And this teaching surpasses all other teachings in dignity, authority and usefulness, because it | |
| 2413 was handed on immediately by the Only Begotten Son, who is the first Wisdom. “It was first | |
| 2414 announced by the Lord, and confirmed to us by those who heard him” (Heb 2:3).</p> | |
| 2415 <p>222 But what did he make known except the one God? And even Moses did this: “Hear, O | |
| 2416 Israel: the Lord your God is one” (Dt 6:4). What did this add to Moses? It added the mystery | |
| 2417 of the Trinity, and many other things that neither Moses nor any of the prophets made known.</p> | |
| 2418 <p style="margin-bottom: 0.125in; margin-bottom: 0.125in"> </p> | |
| 2419 <p style="text-align: center; margin-bottom: 0.125in"><span style="font-weight: bold">LECTURE12</span></p> | |
| 2420 <BLOCKQUOTE><p>19 This is the testimony of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jeru’salem to | |
| 2421 him, to ask him: “Who are you?” 20 He declared openly, and did not deny, and stated clearly, | |
| 2422 “I am not the Messiah.” 21 And they questioned him, “Who then? Are you Elijah?” And he | |
| 2423 said, “I am not.” “Are you the Prophet?” And he responded, “No.” 22 They therefore said to | |
| 2424 him, “Who are you? We must take back an answer to those who sent us. What have you to | |
| 2425 say about yourself9" 23 He said, quoting the prophet Isaiah, “I am 6 a voice that cries in the | |
| 2426 wilderness: Make a straight way for the Lord’” [Is 40:3].</p></BLOCKQUOTE> | |
| 2427 <p>223 Above, the Evangelist showed how Christ was made known to the apostles through the | |
| 2428 testimony of John; here he develops this testimony more fully. First, he presents John’s | |
| 2429 testimony to the people. Secondly, the testimony he gave of Christ to his own disciples | |
| 2430 (below 1:35). If we carefully consider what was said, we discover a twofold testimony of | |
| 2431 John to Christ: one which he gave to Christ in his presence, the other in his absence. For he | |
| 2432 would not have said, “It is he” (below 1:30), unless he had given testimony in Christ’s | |
| 2433 presence; and he would not have said, “of whom I said,” unless he gave testimony to him in | |
| 2434 his absence. So first, the Evangelist develops the testimony John gave to Christ in his | |
| 2435 absence; secondly, that he gave in his presence (v 29).</p> | |
| 2436 <p>Now these two testimonies differ, because the first was given when he was questioned; the | |
| 2437 other was spontaneous. So in the first instance, we are given not only his testimony, but also | |
| 2438 the questions. First, he was asked about himself; secondly, about his office (v 24). First we | |
| 2439 are shown how John stated that he was not what he really was not; secondly, that he did not | |
| 2440 deny what he was.</p> | |
| 2441 <p>224 As to the first, there are three questions and three answers, as is plain from the text. In the | |
| 2442 first question there is great respect for John shown by the Jews. They had sent certain ones to | |
| 2443 him to ask about his testimony. The greatness of their respect is gathered from four facts. | |
| 2444 First, from the dignity of those who sent the questioners; for they were not sent by Galileans, | |
| 2445 but by those who were first in rank among the people of Israel, namely, Judeans, of the tribe | |
| 2446 of Juda, who lived about Jerusalem. It was from Juda that God chose the princes of the | |
| 2447 people.</p> | |
| 2448 <p>Secondly, from the preeminence of the place, that is, from Jerusalem, which is the city of the | |
| 2449 priesthood, the city dedicated to divine worship: “You people claim that Jerusalem is the | |
| 2450 place where men must worship God” (below 4:20); “They will worship him with sacrifices | |
| 2451 and offerings” (Is 19:21). Thirdly, from the authority of the messengers, who were religious | |
| 2452 and from among the holier of the people, namely, priests and Levites; “You will be called the | |
| 2453 priests of the Lord” (Is 61:6).</p> | |
| 2454 <p>Fourthly, from the fact that they sent them so that John might bear witness to himself, | |
| 2455 indicating that they put such trust in his words as to believe John even when giving testimony | |
| 2456 about himself. Hence he says they were sent to ask him, Who are you? They did not do this to | |
| 2457 Christ; in fact they said to him: “You are bearing witness to yourself; your testimony is not | |
| 2458 true” (below 8:13).</p> | |
| 2459 <p>225 Then when he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">He declared openly, and did not deny, </span>John’s answer is given. The | |
| 2460 Evangelist twice mentioned that John spoke forth to show his humility; for although he was | |
| 2461 held in such high esteem among the Jews that they believed he might be the Messiah, he, on | |
| 2462 his part, usurped no honor what was not due him; <span style="font-weight: bold">indeed, he stated clearly, I am not the | |
| 2463 Messiah.</span></p> | |
| 2464 <p>226 What of’ the statement, <span style="font-weight: bold">He declared openly, and did not deny</span>? For it seems that he did | |
| 2465 deny, because he said that he was not the Messiah. It must be answered that he did not deny | |
| 2466 the truth, for he said he was not the Messiah; otherwise he would have denied the truth. “A | |
| 2467 very great iniquity, and a denial of the most high God” (Jb 31:28). Thus he did not deny the | |
| 2468 truth, because however great he might have been considered, he did not become proud, | |
| 2469 usurping for himself the honor of another. He stated clearly, <span style="font-weight: bold">I am not the Messiah; </span>because | |
| 2470 in truth he was not. “He was not the light,” as was said above (1:8).</p> | |
| 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 | |
| 2472 if he was the Messiah, but who he himself was? I answer that John directed his answer more | |
| 2473 to the mind of the questioners than to their question. And we can understand this in two ways. | |
| 2474 According to Origen, the priests and Levites came to John with a good intention. For they | |
| 2475 knew from the Scriptures, and particularly from the prophecy of Daniel, that the time for the | |
| 2476 coming of the Messiah had arrived. So, seeing John’s holiness, they suspected that he might | |
| 2477 be the Messiah. So they sent to John, wishing to learn by their question, <span style="font-weight: bold">Who are you? | |
| 2478 </span>whether John would admit that he was the Messiah. And so he directs his answer to their | |
| 2479 thoughts: <span style="font-weight: bold">I am not the Messiah.</span></p> | |
| 2480 <p>Chrysostom, however, says that they questioned him as a stratagem. For John was related to | |
| 2481 priests, being the son of a chief priest, and he was holy. Yet, he bore witness to Christ, whose | |
| 2482 family seemed lowly; for that reason they even said, “Is not this the son of the carpenter?”; | |
| 2483 and they did not know him. So, preferring to have John as their master, not Christ, they sent | |
| 2484 to him, intending to entice him by flattery and persuade him to take this honor for himself, | |
| 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 | |
| 2486 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 | |
| 2488 should note that just as the Jews awaited the Lord who was to come, so to they waited for | |
| 2489 Elijah, who would precede the Messiah: “I will send you Elijah, the prophet” (Mal 4:5). And | |
| 2490 so those who were sent, seeing that John did not say that he was the Messiah, pressed him | |
| 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> | |
| 2492 <p>229 There are certain heretics who say that souls migrate from one body to another. And this | |
| 2493 belief was current among the Jews of that time. For this reason they believed that the soul of | |
| 2494 Elijah was in John’s body, because of the similarity of John’s actions to those of Elijah. And | |
| 2495 they say that these messengers asked John whether he was Elijah, i.e., whether the soul of | |
| 2496 Elijah was in John. They support this with Christ’s statement, “He is Elijah who is to come,” | |
| 2497 as is found in Matthew (11:14). But John’s answer conflicts with their opinion, as he says, I | |
| 2498 am not. i.e., Elijah.</p> | |
| 2499 <p>They counter this by saying that John answered in ignorance, not knowing whether his soul | |
| 2500 was the soul of Elijah. But Origen says in answer to this that it seems most unreasonable that | |
| 2501 John, a prophet enlightened by the Spirit, and telling such things about the Only Begotten Son | |
| 2502 of God, should be ignorant of himself, and not know whether his soul had been in Elijah.</p> | |
| 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 | |
| 2504 took it from Scripture (2 Kings 2:11) that Elijah did not die, but had been carried alive by a | |
| 2505 whirlwind into heaven. Accordingly, they believed that he had suddenly appeared among | |
| 2506 them.</p> | |
| 2507 <p>But against this opinion is the fact that John was born from parents who were known, and his | |
| 2508 birth had been known to everyone. So it says in Luke (1:66) that all said, “What do you think | |
| 2509 this child will be?” One might say to this that it is not incredible that they should regard John | |
| 2510 in the manner described. For a similar situation in found in Matthew (14:1): for Herod | |
| 2511 thought that Christ was John, whom he had beheaded, even though Christ had been preaching | |
| 2512 and was known for some time before John had been beheaded. And so from a similar | |
| 2513 stupidity and madness the Jews asked John whether he was Elijah.</p> | |
| 2514 <p>231 Why does John say, I am not Elijah, while Christ said, “He is Elijah” (Mt 11:14). The | |
| 2515 angel gives us the answer: “He will go before him in the spirit and power of Elijah” (Lk | |
| 2516 1:17), i.e., in his works. Thus he was not Elijah in person, but in spirit and power, i.e., | |
| 2517 because he showed a similarity to Elijah in his works.</p> | |
| 2518 <p>232 This likeness can be found in three matters. First, in their office: because as Elijah will | |
| 2519 precede the second coming of Christ, so John preceded the first. Thus the angel said, “He will | |
| 2520 go before him.” Secondly, in their manner of living. For Elijah lived in desert places, ate little | |
| 2521 food and wore coarse clothing, as recorded in 1 and 2 Kings. John, also, lived in the desert, | |
| 2522 his food was locusts and wild honey, and he wore clothing of camel’s hair. Thirdly, in their | |
| 2523 zeal. For Elijah was filled with zeal; thus it was said, “I have been very zealous for the Lord” | |
| 2524 (1 Kgs 19:10). So, also, John died because of his zeal for the truth, as is clear from Matthew | |
| 2525 (14:6)</p> | |
| 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 | |
| 2527 difficulty, for since it is said in Luke (1:76), “And you, child, shall be called the prophet of | |
| 2528 the Most High,” why does John, when asked if he is a prophet, answer that he is not a | |
| 2529 prophet?</p> | |
| 2530 <p>There are three ways of answering this. One is that John is not just a prophet, but more than a | |
| 2531 prophet. For the other prophets only predicted future things from afar: “if there is a delay, | |
| 2532 wait for it” (Hb 2:2).. But John proclaimed that the Messiah was present, pointing him out | |
| 2533 with his finger: “Look, there is the Lamb of God,” as it says below (1:36). And so the Lord | |
| 2534 says that he is more than a prophet (Mt 11:9).</p> | |
| 2535 <p>Again, in another way, according to Origen, because through a misunderstanding the Jews | |
| 2536 associated three great personages with the coming of Christ: Christ himself, Elijah, and some | |
| 2537 other person, the greatest of the prophets, about whom Deuteronomy (18:15) says: “The Lord | |
| 2538 your God will raise up a prophet for you.” And although this greatest of the prophets is in fact | |
| 2539 none other than Christ, according to the Jews he is someone other than Christ. And so they do | |
| 2540 not ask simply whether he is a prophet, but whether he is that “greatest of the prophets.” And | |
| 2541 this is clear from the order of their questions. For they first ask whether he is the Messiah; | |
| 2542 secondly, whether he is Elijah; thirdly, whether he is that prophet. Accordingly, in Greek, the | |
| 2543 article is used here as signifying <i>the </i>prophet, as it were, antonomastically.</p> | |
| 2544 <p>In a third way, because the Pharisees were indignant at John for assuming the office of | |
| 2545 baptizing outside the order of the law and their tradition. For the Old Testament mentions | |
| 2546 three persons to whom this office could belong. First, to the Messiah, since “I will pour clean | |
| 2547 water upon you, and you will be cleansed” (Ez 36:25), are words considered as spoken by the | |
| 2548 person of the Messiah. Secondly, to Elijah, of whom it says in 2 Kings that he divided the | |
| 2549 water of the Jordan, and crossing over, was taken up. Finally, to Elisha, who made Naaman | |
| 2550 the Syrian wash seven times in the Jordan so as to be cured of leprosy, as mentioned in 2 | |
| 2551 Kings (c 5). And so when the Jews saw that John was baptizing, they believed that he was | |
| 2552 one of those three: the Messiah, or Elijah, or Elisha. Accordingly, when they ask here, <span style="font-weight: bold">Are | |
| 2553 you the Prophet? </span>they are asking whether he is Elisha, who is called “prophet” in a special | |
| 2554 way because of the many miracles he had performed; hence he himself says, “Let him come | |
| 2555 to me, so that he may know that there is a prophet in Israel” (2 Kgs 5:8). And to this John | |
| 2556 answers, No, I am not Elisha.</p> | |
| 2557 <p>234 Then he shows how he declared who he was. First, the question of the messengers is | |
| 2558 given; secondly, his answer (v 23).</p> | |
| 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 | |
| 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> | |
| 2561 <p>Notice John’s devotion. He has already fulfilled what the Apostle says, “It is not I who now | |
| 2562 live, but Christ lives in me” (Gal 2:20). And so he does not answer, “I am the son of | |
| 2563 Zachary,” or this or that, but only the way in which he followed Christ.</p> | |
| 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 | |
| 2565 because from the point of view of origin, a voice comes after the [mental, interior] word, but | |
| 2566 before the knowledge it causes. For we know a [mental, interior] word conceived in the heart | |
| 2567 by means of the voice which speaks it, since it is its sign. But God the Father sent the | |
| 2568 precursor John, who came to be in time, in order to make known his Word, which was | |
| 2569 conceived from eternity. And so he fittingly says, <span style="font-weight: bold">I am a voice.</span></p> | |
| 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 | |
| 2571 preaching in the wilderness; or to Christ crying in him, according to, “Do you want proof that | |
| 2572 Christ is speaking in me” (2 Cor 13:3).</p> | |
| 2573 <p>Now he cries for four reasons. First of all, a cry implies a showing; and so he cries in order to | |
| 2574 show that Christ is clearly speaking in John and in himself: “Now on the last, the great day of | |
| 2575 the feast, Jesus stood and cried out, saying, ‘If any one thirsts, let him come to me and drink’” | |
| 2576 (below 7:37). But he did not cry out in the prophets because prophecies were given in | |
| 2577 enigmas and figures; so it is said that he was “wrapped in dark rain-clouds” (Ps 17:12). | |
| 2578 Secondly, because a cry is made to those who are at a distance; and the Jews were far from | |
| 2579 God. Thus it was necessary that he cry: “You have taken my friends and neighbors away from | |
| 2580 me” (Ps 88:19). He cries, in the third place, because they were deaf: “Who is deaf, but my | |
| 2581 servant?” (Is 42:19). He cries, fourthly, because he speaks with indignation, for they deserved | |
| 2582 God’s wrath: “He will speak to them in his anger” (Ps 2:5).</p> | |
| 2583 <p>238 Note that he cries <span style="font-weight: bold">in the wilderness, </span>because “The word of the Lord came to John, the | |
| 2584 son of Zechariah, in the desert,” as we read in Luke (3:2). There can be both a literal and a | |
| 2585 mystical reason for this. The literal reason is that by living in the desert he would be immune | |
| 2586 from all sin, and so be more worthy to bear witness to Christ, and his testimony would be | |
| 2587 more credible to men because of his life.</p> | |
| 2588 <p>The mystical reason is twofold. For the wilderness or desert designates paganism, according | |
| 2589 to Isaiah (54:1); “She who is deserted has more children than she who has a husband.” | |
| 2590 Accordingly, in order to show that God’s teaching would from now on not be in Jerusalem | |
| 2591 alone, but also among the pagans, he cried <span style="font-weight: bold">in the wilderness. </span>“The kingdom of God will be | |
| 2592 taken away from you, and given to a people that will produce its fruits” (Mt 21:43). Again, | |
| 2593 the desert can indicate Judea, which was already deserted: “Your house will be left to You, | |
| 2594 deserted” (Mt 23:38). And so he cried in the desert, <span style="font-weight: bold">in the wilderness, </span>i.e., in Judea, to | |
| 2595 indicate that the people to whom he was preaching had already been deserted by God: “in a | |
| 2596 desert land, where there is no way or water, so I have come to your sanctuary” (Ps 62:3).</p> | |
| 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 | |
| 2598 he was sent. “And you, child, will be called the prophet of the Most High, for you will go | |
| 2599 before the face of the Lord to prepare his way” (Lk 1:76). The way, prepared and straight, for | |
| 2600 receiving the Lord is the way of justice, according to Isaiah (26:7): “The way of the just is | |
| 2601 straight.” For the way of the just is straight when the whole man is subject to God, i.e., the | |
| 2602 intellect through faith, the will through love, and actions through obedience, are all subject to | |
| 2603 God.</p> | |
| 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 | |
| 2605 whom these things are fulfilled.</p> | |
| 2606 <p style="margin-bottom: 0.125in; margin-bottom: 0.125in"> </p> | |
| 2607 <p style="text-align: center; margin-bottom: 0.125in"><span style="font-weight: bold">LECTURE13</span></p> | |
| 2608 <BLOCKQUOTE><p>24 Now these men had been sent from the Pharisees, 25 and they put this further question to | |
| 2609 him: “Why then do you baptize, if you are not the Messiah, nor Elijah, nor the Prophet?” 26 | |
| 2610 John replied, “I baptize with water. But there is one standing in your midst whom you do not | |
| 2611 recognize—27 the one who is to come after me, who ranks ahead of me—the strap of whose | |
| 2612 sandal I am not worthy to unfasten.” 28 This happened at Bethany, on the far side of the | |
| 2613 Jordan, where John was baptizing.</p></BLOCKQUOTE> | |
| 2614 <p>240 Above, we saw John bear witness to Christ as he was being questioned on matters | |
| 2615 concerning himself; here, on matters concerning his office. Four things are set forth: first, | |
| 2616 those who question him; secondly, their questions; thirdly, his answer, in which he bore | |
| 2617 witness; and fourthly, the place where all this happened.</p> | |
| 2618 <p>241 His interrogators were Pharisees. Hence he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">Now these men had been sent from | |
| 2619 the Pharisees. </span>According to Origen, what is being said from this point on describes a | |
| 2620 different testimony given by John; and further, those who were sent from the Pharisees are | |
| 2621 not the same as those priests and Levites sent by the generality of the Jews, but others who | |
| 2622 were specifically sent by the Pharisees. And according to this it says: <span style="font-weight: bold">Now these men had | |
| 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 | |
| 2624 Pharisees. </span>So he says about this that because the priests and Levites were educated and | |
| 2625 respectful, they ask John humbly and respectfully whether he is the Messiah, or Elijah, or the | |
| 2626 Prophet. But these others, who were from the Pharisees, according to their name “separated” | |
| 2627 and importunate, used disdainful language. Thus they asked him, <span style="font-weight: bold">Why then do you baptize, | |
| 2628 if you are not the Messiah, nor Elijah, nor the Prophet?</span></p> | |
| 2629 <p>But according to others, such as Gregory, Chrysostom, and Augustine, these Pharisees are the | |
| 2630 same priests and Levites who had been sent by the Jews. For there was among the Jews a | |
| 2631 certain sect which was separated from the others by reason of its external cult; and for this | |
| 2632 reason its members were called Pharisees, i.e., “divided.” In this sect there were some priests | |
| 2633 and Levites, and some of the people. And so, in order that the delegates [to John] might | |
| 2634 possess a greater authority, they sent priests and Levites, who were Pharisees, thus furnishing | |
| 2635 them with the dignity of a priestly caste and with religious authority.</p> | |
| 2636 <p>242 The Evangelist adds, <span style="font-weight: bold">these men had been sent from the Pharisees, </span>to disclose, first, the | |
| 2637 reason why they asked about John’s baptizing, which was not why they were sent. It is as | |
| 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 | |
| 2639 baptize? </span>because they were from the Pharisees, whose religion was being challenged. | |
| 2640 Secondly, as Gregory says, in order to show with what intention they asked John, “Who are | |
| 2641 you?” (1:19). For the Pharisees, more than all the others, showed themselves crafty and | |
| 2642 insulting to Christ. Thus they said of him: “He casts out devils by Beelzebub, the prince of | |
| 2643 devils” (Mt 12:24). Further, they consulted with the Herodians on how to trap Jesus in his | |
| 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 | |
| 2645 shows that they were disrespectful and were questioning him out of envy.</p> | |
| 2646 <p>243 Their questions concerned his office of baptizing. Hence he says that they asked him, | |
| 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 | |
| 2648 obstruct. For since they saw many people coming to John because of the new rite of baptism, | |
| 2649 foreign both to the rite of the Pharisees and of the law, they became envious of John and tried | |
| 2650 all they could to hinder his baptism. But being unable to contain themselves any longer, they | |
| 2651 reveal their envy and say, <span style="font-weight: bold">Why then do you baptize if you are not the Messiah, nor Elijah, | |
| 2652 nor the Prophet? </span>As if to say: You should not baptize, since you deny that you are any of | |
| 2653 those three persons in whom baptism was prefigured, as was said above. In other words, <span style="font-weight: bold">if | |
| 2654 you are not the Messiah, </span>who will possess the fountain by which sins are washed away, <span style="font-weight: bold">nor | |
| 2655 Elijah, nor the Prophet, </span>i.e., Elisha, who made a dry passageway through the Jordan (2 Kgs | |
| 2656 2:8), how do you dare baptize’? They are like envious persons who hinder the progress of | |
| 2657 souls, “who say to the seers, ‘See no visions’” (Is 30:10).</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: | |
| 2659 You should not be disturbed, if I, who am not the Messiah, nor Elijah, nor the Prophet, | |
| 2660 baptize; because my baptism is not completive but imperfect. For the perfection of baptism | |
| 2661 requires the washing of the body and of the soul; and the body, by its nature, is indeed washed | |
| 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 | |
| 2663 body with something bodily; but another will come who will baptize perfectly, namely, with | |
| 2664 water and with the Holy Spirit; God and man, who will wash the body with water and the | |
| 2665 spirit with the Spirit, in such a way that the sanctification of the spirit will be distributed | |
| 2666 throughout the body. “For John indeed baptized with water but you will be baptized with the | |
| 2667 Holy Spirit not many days from now” (Acts 1:5).</p> | |
| 2668 <p>245 Then he bears witness to Christ. First, in relation to the Jews. Secondly, in relation to | |
| 2669 himself (v 27).</p> | |
| 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 | |
| 2671 to say: I have done an incomplete work, but there is another who will complete my work, and | |
| 2672 he is <span style="font-weight: bold">standing in your midst.</span></p> | |
| 2673 <p>This is explained in a number of ways. First, according to Gregory, Chrysostom and | |
| 2674 Augustine, it refers to the ordinary way Christ lived among men, because according to his | |
| 2675 human nature he appeared to be like other men: “He, being in the form of God ... emptied | |
| 2676 himself, taking the form of a servant” (Phil 2:6). And according to this he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">there is one | |
| 2677 standing in your midst, </span>i.e., in many ways he lived as one of you: “I am in your midst” (Lk | |
| 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. | |
| 2679 Likewise, you do not recognize how great he is according to the divine nature which is | |
| 2680 concealed in him: “God is great, and exceeds our knowledge” (Jb 36:26). And so, as | |
| 2681 Augustine says, “The lantern was lighted,” namely, John, “so that Christ might be found.” “I | |
| 2682 have prepared a lamp for my anointed” (Ps 131:17).</p> | |
| 2683 <p>It is explained differently by Origen; and in two ways. First, as referring to the divinity of | |
| 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 | |
| 2685 the midst of all things; because he, as Word, has filled all from the beginning of creation: “I | |
| 2686 fill heaven and earth” (Jer 23:24). <span style="font-weight: bold">Whom you do not recognize, </span>because, as was said above | |
| 2687 (1:10), “He was in the world ... and the world did not know him.”</p> | |
| 2688 <p>It is explained another way as referring to his causality of human wisdom. <span style="font-weight: bold">But there is one | |
| 2689 standing in your midst, </span>i.e., he shines in everyone’s understanding; because whatever light | |
| 2690 and whatever wisdom exists in men has come to them from participating in the Word. And he | |
| 2691 says, <span style="font-weight: bold">in your midst, </span>because in the midst of man’s body lies the heart, to which is attributed a | |
| 2692 certain wisdom and understanding; hence, although the intellect has no bodily organ, yet | |
| 2693 because the heart is our chief organ, it is the custom to take it for the intellect. So he is said to | |
| 2694 stand among men because of this likeness, insofar as he “enlightens every man coming into | |
| 2695 this world” (1:9). <span style="font-weight: bold">Whom you do not recognize, </span>because, as was said above (1:5), “The light | |
| 2696 shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not overcome it.”</p> | |
| 2697 <p>In a fourth way, it is explained as referring to the prophetic foretelling of the Messiah. In this | |
| 2698 sense the answer is directed chiefly to the Pharisees, who continually searched the writings of | |
| 2699 the Old Testament in which the Messiah was foretold; and yet they did not recognize him. | |
| 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 | |
| 2701 Scriptures which you are always considering: “Search the Scriptures” (below 5:39); <span style="font-weight: bold">whom | |
| 2702 you do not recognize, </span>because your heart is hardened by unbelief, and your eyes blinded, so | |
| 2703 that you do not recognize as present the person you believe is to come.</p> | |
| 2704 <p>247 Then John compares Christ to himself. First, he states the superiority of Christ as | |
| 2705 compared to himself. Secondly, he shows the greatness of this superiority.</p> | |
| 2706 <p>248 He shows the superiority of Christ in comparison to himself both in preaching and in | |
| 2707 dignity. Now, as to the order of preaching, John was the first to become known. Thus he says, | |
| 2708 the one who is to come after me, to preach, to baptize and to die; because as was said in Luke | |
| 2709 (1:76): “You will go before the face of the Lord to prepare his way.” John preceded Christ as | |
| 2710 the imperfect the perfect, and as the disposition the form; for as is said, “The spiritual is not | |
| 2711 first, but the animal” (1 Cor 15:46). For the entire life of John was a preparation for Christ; so | |
| 2712 he said above, that he was “a voice that cries in the wilderness.”</p> | |
| 2713 <p>But Christ preceded John and all of us as the perfect precedes the imperfect and the exemplar | |
| 2714 precedes the copy: “If any one wishes to come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his | |
| 2715 cross, and follow me” (Mt 16:24); “Christ suffered for us, leaving you an example” (1 Pt | |
| 2716 2:21).</p> | |
| 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 | |
| 2718 has been placed above me and is above me in dignity, because as he says (below 3:30), “he | |
| 2719 must increase, and I must decrease.”</p> | |
| 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 | |
| 2721 am not worthy to unfasten</span>. As if to say: You must not suppose that he ranks ahead of me in | |
| 2722 dignity in the way that one man is placed ahead of another, rather he is ranked so far above | |
| 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 | |
| 2724 strap of whose sandal I am not worthy to unfasten, </span>which is the least service that can be | |
| 2725 done for men. It is clear from this that John had made great progress in the knowledge of | |
| 2726 God, so far that from the consideration of God’s infinite greatness, he completely lowered | |
| 2727 himself and said that he himself was nothing. So did Abraham, when he recognized God, and | |
| 2728 said (Gn 18:27), “1 will speak to my Lord, although I am but dust and ashes.” And so also did | |
| 2729 Job, saying, “Now I see you, and so I reprove myself, and do penance in dust and ashes” (Jb | |
| 2730 42:5). Isaiah also said, after he had seen the glory of God, “Before him all the nations are as if | |
| 2731 they are not” (Is 40:17). And this is the literal explanation.</p> | |
| 2732 <p>250 This is also explained mystically. Gregory explains it so that the sandal, made from the | |
| 2733 hides of dead animals, indicates our mortal human nature, which Christ assumed: “I will | |
| 2734 stretch out my sandal to Edom” (Ps 59:10). The strap of Christ’s sandal is the union of his | |
| 2735 divinity and humanity, which neither John nor anyone can unfasten or fully investigate, since | |
| 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 | |
| 2737 sandal I am not worthy to unfasten, </span>i.e., to explain the mystery of the incarnation perfectly | |
| 2738 and fully. For John and other preachers unfasten the strap of Christ’s sandal in some way, | |
| 2739 although imperfectly.</p> | |
| 2740 <p>It is explained in another way by recalling that it was ordered in the Old Law that when a man | |
| 2741 died without children, his brother was obligated to marry the wife of the dead man and raise | |
| 2742 up children from her as his brother’s. And if he refused to marry her, then a close relative of | |
| 2743 the dead man, if willing to marry her, was to remove the sandals of the dead man as a sign of | |
| 2744 this willingness and marry her; and his home was then to be called the home of the man | |
| 2745 whose sandals were removed (Dt 25:5). And so according to this he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">the strap of whose | |
| 2746 sandal I am not worthy to unfasten, </span>i.e., I am not worthy to have the bride, that is, the | |
| 2747 Church, to which Christ has a right. As if to say: I am not worthy to be called the bridegroom | |
| 2748 of the Church, which is consecrated to Christ in the baptism of the Spirit; but I baptize only in | |
| 2749 water. As it says below (3:29): “It is the groom who has the bride.”</p> | |
| 2750 <p>251 The place where these events happened is mentioned when he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">This happened at | |
| 2751 Bethany, on the far side of the Jordan. </span>A question arises on this: Since Bethany is on the | |
| 2752 Mount of Olives, which is near Jerusalem, as is said in John (11:1 ) and also in Matthew | |
| 2753 (26:6), how can he say that these things happened beyond the Jordan, which is quite far from | |
| 2754 Jerusalem? Origen and Chrysostom answer that it should be called Bethabora, not Bethany, | |
| 2755 which is a village on the far side of the Jordan; and that the reading “Bethany” is due to a | |
| 2756 copyist’s error. However, since both the Greek and Latin versions have Bethany, one should | |
| 2757 rather say that there are two places called Bethany: one is near Jerusalem on the side of the | |
| 2758 Mount of Olives, and the other is on the far side of the Jordan where John was baptizing.</p> | |
| 2759 <p>252 The fact that he mentions the place has both a literal and a mystical reason. The literal | |
| 2760 reason, according to Chrysostom, is that John wrote this Gospel for certain ones, perhaps still | |
| 2761 alive, who would recall the time and who saw the place where these things happened. And so, | |
| 2762 to lead us to a greater certitude, he makes them witnesses of the things they had seen.</p> | |
| 2763 <p>The mystical reason is that these places are appropriate for baptism. For in saying “Bethany,” | |
| 2764 which is interpreted as “house of obedience,” he indicates that one must come to be baptized | |
| 2765 through obedience to the faith. “To bring all the nations to have obedience to the faith” (Rom | |
| 2766 1:5). But if the name of the place is “Bethabora,” which is interpreted as “house of | |
| 2767 preparation,” it signifies that a man is prepared for eternal life through baptism.</p> | |
| 2768 <p>There is also a mystery in the fact that this happened on the far side of the Jordan. For | |
| 2769 “Jordan” is interpreted as “the descent of them”; and according to Origen it signifies Christ, | |
| 2770 who descended from heaven, as he himself says that he descended from heaven to do the will | |
| 2771 of his Father (below 6:38).</p> | |
| 2772 <p>Further, the river Jordan aptly signifies baptism. For it is the border line between those who | |
| 2773 received their inheritance from Moses on one side of the Jordan, and those who received it | |
| 2774 from Josue on the other side. Thus baptism is a kind of border between Jews and Gentiles, | |
| 2775 who journey to this place to wash themselves by coming to Christ so that they might put off | |
| 2776 the debasement of sin. Forjust as the Jews had to cross the Jordan to enter the promised land, | |
| 2777 so one must pass through baptism to enter into the heavenly land. And he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">on the far | |
| 2778 side of the Jordan, </span>to show that John preached the baptism of repentance even to those who | |
| 2779 trangressed the law and sinners; and so the Lord also says, “I did not come to call the | |
| 2780 righteous, but sinners” (Mt 9:13).</p> | |
| 2781 <p style="margin-bottom: 0.125in; margin-bottom: 0.125in"> </p> | |
| 2782 <p style="text-align: center; margin-bottom: 0.125in"><span style="font-weight: bold">LECTURE14</span></p> | |
| 2783 <BLOCKQUOTE><p>29 The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and he said, “Look! There is the Lamb of | |
| 2784 God who takes away the sins of the world. 30 It is he of whom I said:</p> | |
| 2785 <p style="margin-left: 0.259167in; margin-right: 0.259167in">‘After me is to come a man, who ranks ahead of me, because he existed before me.’<BR> | |
| 2786 31 And I did not know him! And yet it was to reveal him to Israel that I came baptizing with | |
| 2787 water.” | |
| 2788 <P>32 John gave this testimony also:</p> | |
| 2789 <p style="margin-left: 0.259167in; margin-right: 0.259167in; margin-bottom: 0.125in">“I saw the Spirit coming down on him from heaven like a dove, and resting on him. | |
| 2790 33 And I did not know him, but he who sent me to baptize with water had said to me: | |
| 2791 ‘The man on whom you see the Spirit come down and rest is the one who is to baptize | |
| 2792 with the Holy Spirit.’ 34 Now I have seen for myself and have given testimony that he | |
| 2793 is the Son of God.”</p></BLOCKQUOTE> | |
| 2794 <p>253 Above, John had given testimony to Christ when he was questioned. Here, he gives | |
| 2795 testimony to him on his own initiative. First, he gives the testimony; secondly, he confirms it | |
| 2796 (v 32). As to the first: first, the circumstances of the testimony are given; and secondly, the | |
| 2797 testimony itself is given (v 29); thirdly, suspicion is removed from the witness (v 3 1).</p> | |
| 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 | |
| 2799 gives credit to John for his steadfastness, because he bore witness to Christ not for just one | |
| 2800 day or once, but on many days and frequently: “Every day I will bless you” (Ps 144:2). His | |
| 2801 progress, too, is cited, because one day should not be just like the day before, but the | |
| 2802 succeeding day should be different, i.e., better: “They will go from strength to strength” (Ps | |
| 2803 83:8).</p> | |
| 2804 <p>Another circumstance mentioned is his manner of testifying, because <span style="font-weight: bold">John saw Jesus. </span>This | |
| 2805 shows his certitude, for testimony based on sight is most certain. The last circumstance he | |
| 2806 mentions is about the one to whom he bore witness. Hence he says that he saw <span style="font-weight: bold">Jesus coming | |
| 2807 toward him, </span>i.e., from Galilee, as it says, “Jesus came from Galilee” (Mt 3:13). We should | |
| 2808 not understand this as referring to the time when he came to be baptized, of which Matthew is | |
| 2809 here speaking, but of another time, i.e., a time when he came to John after he had already | |
| 2810 been baptized and was staying near the Jordan. Otherwise, he Would not have said, “‘The | |
| 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.’ Now I have seen” (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 “the one who is to come after me” (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, “The greater | |
| 2823 you are the more humble you should be in all matters” (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’s mother, Elizabeth, that John, still in his mother’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’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 “gave | |
| 2837 himself for us as an offering to God,” 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 “morning | |
| 2849 knowledge”; and we are instructed how to use earthly things without staining ourselves, and | |
| 2850 this pertains to “evening knowledge.” 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 “God was, in Christ, reconciling the world to himself” | |
| 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, “Where is the victim for the holocaust?” he answered, “God himself | |
| 2860 will provide a victim for the holocaust” (Gn 22:7); “God did not spare his own Son, but | |
| 2861 delivered him up for all of us” (Rom 8:32).</p> | |
| 2862 <p>258 Christ is called a Lamb, first, because of his purity: “Your lamb will be without blemish” | |
| 2863 (Ex 12:5); “You were not redeemed by perishable gold or silver” (1 Pt 1:18). Secondly, | |
| 2864 because of his gentleness: “Like a lamb before the shearer, he will not open his mouth” (Is | |
| 2865 53:7). Thirdly, because of his fruit; both with respect to what we put on: “Lambs will be your | |
| 2866 clothing” (Prv 27:26), “Put on the Lord Jesus Christ” (Rom 13:14); and with respect to food: | |
| 2867 “My flesh is for the life of the world” (below 6:52). And so Isaiah said (16:1 ): “Send forth, O | |
| 2868 Lord, the lamb, the ruler of the earth.”</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), “It is impossible that sins be taken away by the blood of | |
| 2872 bulls and goats.” This blood takes away, i.e., removes, <span style="font-weight: bold">the sins of the world. </span>“Take away all | |
| 2873 iniquity” (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, “He bore our sins in his own body” (1 Pt 2:24); “It was our infirmities that he bore, | |
| 2875 our sufferings that he endured,” as we read in Isaiah (53:4).</p> | |
| 2876 <p>However, according to a Gloss, he says sin, and not “sins,” in order to show in a universal | |
| 2877 way that he has taken away every kind of sin: “He is the offering for our sins” (1 Jn 2:2); or | |
| 2878 because he died for one sin, that is, original sin: “Sin entered into this world through one | |
| 2879 man” (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: “Jesus was now about thirty years of age” (Lk | |
| 2887 3:23). He is also called a man because of the perfection of all the virtues that were in him: | |
| 2888 “Seven women,” i.e., the virtues, “will take hold of one man,” the perfect Christ (Is 4:1); | |
| 2889 “Look, a man! His name is the Orient,” 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: “You will call me ‘my husband’” (Hos 2:16); “I espoused you to one husband” (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. “See, he comes, leaping upon the mountains, skipping over the hills” (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), “He must increase, and I must decrease.”</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 “he was | |
| 2902 made before me,” as though he were a creature, but he existed before me, from eternity, | |
| 2903 before every creature: “The Lord brought me forth before all the hills,” 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): “This beginning of signs Jesus worked in Cana of Galilee.” 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, “And Jesus | |
| 2923 increased in grace and wisdom” (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: “Indeed, you are a hidden | |
| 2926 God” (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: “He was not the | |
| 2930 light, but he came in order to bear witness to the light,” 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’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’s baptism was useful | |
| 2938 because of Christ’s humility, which he showed by willing to be baptized by John: “Christ | |
| 2939 came to John, to be baptized by him” (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’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’Christ were all the more shown: “And the voice of the Father | |
| 2944 was heard: ‘This is my beloved Son’” (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 “Father, I have manifested your name” (below 17:6), so the Holy Spirit, existing by the Son, | |
| 2955 manifests the Son, “He will glorify me, because he will receive from me” (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: “Baptizing them in | |
| 2958 the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” (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: “We have not received the spirit of this world, but the spirit of God,” 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’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: “Every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights” (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, “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” (below 3:8), and because a spirit does not come down | |
| 2977 but goes up, “The spirit lifted me up” (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’s seed. Yet it was a real dove, | |
| 2991 for as Augustine says in his work, <i>The Christian Combat: </i>“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.”</p> | |
| 2995 <p>Cyprian, in his <i>The Unity of the Church, </i>says: “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.”</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: “Be wise as serpents, and simple | |
| 3003 as doves” (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: “One is my dove” (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 “There are different kinds of gifts” (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 “pleads for us with indescribable groanings” (Rom 8:26); “Her maidens, | |
| 3020 groaning like doves” (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: “His eyes are like doves | |
| 3026 beside brooks of water” (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’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. “The | |
| 3043 Spirit of the Lord will rest on him” (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: “This day a Savior has | |
| 3050 been born for you in the city of David, Christ the Lord” (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’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), “1 did not send the prophets, yet they ran.” 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: “I ought to be baptized by you, and you come to | |
| 3066 me?” (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, “I ought to be | |
| 3070 baptized by you,” 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, “I ought to be baptized by you,” 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: “Baptizing them in the name of the Father, | |
| 3087 and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” (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’s merits, for the sacraments have their power from the merit of Christ’s | |
| 3096 passion: “All of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus, have been baptized into his | |
| 3097 death” (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, “I ought to be baptized by you,” 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: “Conformed to the image of his Son” (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. “You did | |
| 3118 not receive the spirit of slavery ... but the spirit of adoption” (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: “that we may be in his true Son” (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"> </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, “Look! There is the Lamb of God.” 37 Hearing this, the two | |
| 3128 disciples followed Jesus. 38 Jesus turned around, and seeing them following him said, “What | |
| 3129 are you looking for?” They replied, “Rabbi (which means Teacher), where do you live?” 39 | |
| 3130 “Come and see,” 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’s brother, | |
| 3133 Andrew. 41 The first thing fie did was to look for his brother Simon, and say to him, “We | |
| 3134 have found the Messiah” (which means the Christ), 42 and he brought him to Jesus. Looking | |
| 3135 at hini intently Jesus said, “You are Simon, son of John; you are to be called Cephas” (which | |
| 3136 is translated Peter).</p> | |
| 3137 <p>280 Above, the Evangelist presented the Baptist’s testimony to the people; here he presents | |
| 3138 his testimony to John’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: “Jesus traveled over all Galilee” (Mt 4:23). The apostles | |
| 3146 also traveled the world teaching: “Go to the whole world, and preach the good news to every | |
| 3147 creature” (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, “John performed no sign” (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’s perseverence in the truth is noted, because John was not a reed shaken by | |
| 3159 the wind, but was firm in the faith; “Let him who thinks that he stands, take heed so he will | |
| 3160 not fall” (1 Cor 10:12); “1 will stand my watch” (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: “The oil stood,” 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: “All the prophets bear witness to him” (Acts 10:43). So did the apostles as they | |
| 3168 traveled the world: “You will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all of’ Judea and Samaria, | |
| 3169 and to the remotest parts of the world” (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: “Look on the face of your Christ” (Ps 83:10); “They will | |
| 3174 see eye to eye” (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: “I came forth from the Father, and have come into the world,” | |
| 3177 as it says below (16:2 8).</p> | |
| 3178 <p>283 Then he gives John’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: “His name will be | |
| 3180 called Wonderful” (Is 9:6). And this Lamb did possess truly wonderful power, because being | |
| 3181 slain, it killed the lion—that lion, I say, of which it says: “Your enemy, the devil, goes about | |
| 3182 like a roaring lion, seeking whom he can devour” (1 Pt 5:8). And so this Lamb, victorius and | |
| 3183 glorious, deserved to be called a lion: “Look! The Lion of the tribe of Judah has conquered” | |
| 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’s | |
| 3188 intention, whose only aim was to lead them to Christ. Yet he does not say, “Go to him,” 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’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’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, “Look! There is the Lamb of God,” <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 “ranks ahead of me,” and “I am not worthy to unfasten the strap of his sandal.” But | |
| 3212 the disciples followed Christ when John revealed Christ’s humility and about the mystery of | |
| 3213 the incarnation; and this is because we are more moved by Christ’s humility and the | |
| 3214 sufferings he endured for us. So it is said: “Your name is like oil poured out,” i.e., mercy, by | |
| 3215 which you have obtained salvation for all; and the text immediately follows with, “young | |
| 3216 maidens have greatly loved you” (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’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: “There is a time and fitness | |
| 3224 for everything” (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 “the law brought nothing to perfection” (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: “She goes to meet those who desire her” (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: “Show us your face, and we will be saved” (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, “You will see my back” (Ex 33:23). Again, he turns to give | |
| 3239 us the riches of his mercy. This is requested in Psalm 89 (13): “Turn to us, 0 Lord.” 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, “This | |
| 3252 is the one of whom I said.” The second is when he said, “I am not worthy to unfasten the strap | |
| 3253 of his sandal.” The third is, “I baptize with water. But there is one standing in your midst | |
| 3254 whom you do not recognize.” The fourth is, “Look! There is the Lamb of God.” The fifth, “I | |
| 3255 saw the Spirit coming down on him from heaven like a dove.” The sixth, when he says here, | |
| 3256 “Look! There is the Lamb of God.” 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): “You have one Teacher, the Christ.” 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: “If you see a man of understanding, go to him early” (Sir 6:36), and “Happy is the man | |
| 3270 who hears me, who watches daily at my gates” (Prv 8:34).</p> | |
| 3271 <p>In the allegorical sense, God’s home is in heaven, according to the Psalm (122:1 ): “I have | |
| 3272 lifted up my eyes to you, who live in heaven.” 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: “You are being built into a dwelling place for God.” And | |
| 3277 the Song (1:6) says: “Show me, you whom my soul loves, where you graze your flock, where | |
| 3278 you rest at midday.”</p> | |
| 3279 <p>291 Then when he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">Come and </span>see, Christ’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, “The Son of Man does not have any place to lay his head” (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, “The Son of Man does not have any place to lay his head,” he showed that he had | |
| 3286 no home of his own, but not that he did not remain in someone else’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: “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” (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: “When shall I come and appear before the face of God” (Ps 41:3). | |
| 3295 Secondly, by the rest or stillness of the mind: “Be still and see” (Ps 45:10). Thirdly, by tasting | |
| 3296 the divine sweetness: “Taste and see that the I.ord is sweet” O’s 33:9). Fourthly, by acts of | |
| 3297 devotion: “Let us lift up our hearts and hands in prayer” (Lam 3:41). And so the Lord says: “it | |
| 3298 is I myself. Feel and see” (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): “Every one who hears the | |
| 3302 Father, and has learned, comes to me.” 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: “Happy are your | |
| 3305 men, and happy are your servants, who always stand before you” (1 Kgs 8:10). And as | |
| 3306 Augustine says: “Let us also build a dwelling in our heart and fashion a home where he may | |
| 3307 come and teach us.”</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. “In the morning sow your seed, and in the evening do not let | |
| 3315 your hands be idle” (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., “manly”. “Act manfully, | |
| 3328 and let Your heart be strong,” 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’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’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: “On the following day Jesus wanted to go to Galilee, and coming upon Philip” | |
| 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: “My foot has followed in his steps” (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: “A brother that is helped by his brother is like a strong city” (Prv | |
| 3358 18:19); “Let him who hears say, ‘Come’ “ (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 “Happy is the man who finds wisdom” (Prv 3:13).</p> | |
| 3366 <p>“Messiah,” which is Hebrew, is translated as “Christos” in Greek, and in Latin as “Unctus” | |
| 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: “Your God has anointed you with | |
| 3369 the oil of gladness above your fellows,” 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 “Messiah,” 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’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: “What we preach is not ourselves, but Jesus | |
| 3379 Christ,” 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: “Man sees the appearances, but the Lord sees the heart” (I Sm 16:7). This name is | |
| 3386 appropriate for the mystery. For “Simon” means “obedient,” to indicate that obedience is | |
| 3387 necessary for one who has been converted to Christ through faith: “He gives the Holy Spirit | |
| 3388 to all who obey him” (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’s father; or he says, “son of Jonah,” as we find in Matthew (16:17), | |
| 3391 “Simon Bar-Jonah.” And each name is appropriate to this mystery. For “John” means | |
| 3392 “grace,” to indicate that it is through grace that men come to the faith of Christ: “You are | |
| 3393 saved by his grace” (Eph 2:5). And “Jonah” means “dove,” 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: “The love of | |
| 3395 God is poured out into our hearts by the Holy Spirit” (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, “head.” 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: “You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church.”</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’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’s womb. But sometimes a special grace is given during the | |
| 3407 course of one’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—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 “Peter” (<i>Petrus</i>) is derived from “rock” (<i>petra</i>). But the rock. was | |
| 3416 Christ. Thus, the name “Peter” 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, “You are Peter, and upon this rock I will | |
| 3423 build my church” (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’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: “From now on | |
| 3430 you will be catching men” (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"> </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 “Follow me.” 44 Now Philip came from Bethsaida, the same town as Andrew and Peter. 45 | |
| 3437 Philip sought out Nathanael, and said to him, “We have found the one Moses spoke of in the | |
| 3438 law - the prophets too - Jesus, son of Joseph, from Nazareth.” 46 “From Nazareth!” Nathanael | |
| 3439 replied, “What good can come from th1t place?” Philip said, “Come and see.” 47 When Jesus | |
| 3440 saw Nathanael coming toward him, he said of him: “Here is a true Israelite, in whom there is | |
| 3441 no guile.” 48 Nathanael asked him, “How do you know me?” Jesus replied and said, “Before | |
| 3442 Philip called you, I saw you when you were sitting under the fig tree.” 49 “Rabbi,” said | |
| 3443 Nathanael, “you are the Son of God; you are the King of Israel.” 50 Jesus responded and said, | |
| 3444 “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.” 51 He went on to say, “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.”</p></BLOCKQUOTE> | |
| 3447 <p>309 After having shown the fruit produced by John’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’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’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: “No prophet is to rise | |
| 3460 from Galilee” (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: “He has | |
| 3462 turned the desert into pools of water,” as we read in Psalm 106 (v 35).</p> | |
| 3463 <p>The third reason is mystical: for “Galilee” means “passage.” So Christ desired to go from | |
| 3464 Judea into Galilee in order to indicate that on “on the following day,” 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: “Is he going to go to those who are dispersed among the Gentiles, and teach the | |
| 3467 Gentiles?” (below 7:35).</p> | |
| 3468 <p>311 A disciple’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: “He who | |
| 3470 finds me will find life, and will have salvation from the Lord” (Prv 8:35). And at other times | |
| 3471 God finds the man, in order to bestow honor and greatness upon him: “I have found David, | |
| 3472 my servant” (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’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’s voice had power not only to act on one’s | |
| 3484 hearing from without, but also on the heart from within: “My words are like fire” (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 “Bethsaida” means “house of hunters,” 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: “I will send my hunters” (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’s response; and thirdly, Philip’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 “Nathanael” means “gift of God”; and it is | |
| 3503 God’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—the | |
| 3507 prophets too—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: “If you believed Moses, you would perhaps | |
| 3511 believe me, for he wrote of me” (below 5:46). <span style="font-weight: bold">The prophets too </span>wrote of Christ: “All the | |
| 3512 prophets bear witness to him” (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: “I will send them a Savior” (Is 19:20); “1 will rejoice in God, my Jesus” (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: “the son of Joseph (as was supposed)” (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: “Your father and I have been looking for you in | |
| 3523 sorrow” (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: “I will raise up a just branch for David” (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: “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” (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’s | |
| 3538 affirmation. If it is taken as an assertion, as Augustine does, the meaning is: “Some good can | |
| 3539 come from Nazareth.” 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 “Nazareth” means “flower.” 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—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: “Indeed, some good can come | |
| 3546 from Nazareth.”</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: “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,” as we read in Matthew (2:6). And so, not | |
| 3554 finding Philip’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’s advice is given, <span style="font-weight: bold">Come and see. </span>And this advice suits either interpretation | |
| 3557 of Nathanael’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: “Come and see ... “Come to him, and be enlightened” (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. “Tell us what is to come, and we will say that you are gods” (Is 41:23); | |
| 3575 “Prophecies are for those who believe.” 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> | |
| 3581 <p>He mentions things hidden in the present when he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">Here is a true Israelite, in whom | |
| 3582 there is no guile. </span>Here we have, first, the prior revelation of Christ; secondly, Nathanael’s | |
| 3583 question, <span style="font-weight: bold">How do you know me?</span></p> | |
| 3584 <p>322 First he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">When Jesus saw Nathanael coming toward him. </span>As if to say: Before | |
| 3585 Nathanael reached him, Jesus said, <span style="font-weight: bold">Here is a true Israelite. </span>He said this about him before he | |
| 3586 came to him, because had he said it after he came, Nathanael might have believed that Jesus | |
| 3587 had heard it from Philip.</p> | |
| 3588 <p>Christ said, <span style="font-weight: bold">Here is a true Israelite, in whom there is no guile. </span>Now “Israel” has two | |
| 3589 meanings. One of these, as the Gloss says, is “most righteous”.—“Do not fear, my most | |
| 3590 righteous servant, whom I have chosen” (Is 44:2). Its second meaning is “the man who sees | |
| 3591 God.” And according to each meaning Nathanael is a true Israelite. For since one in whom | |
| 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 | |
| 3593 no guile. </span>As if to say: You truly represent your race because you are righteous and without | |
| 3594 guile. Further, because man sees God through cleanness of heart and simplicity, Christ said, <span style="font-weight: bold">a | |
| 3595 true Israelite, </span>i.e., you are a man who truly sees God because you are simple and without | |
| 3596 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 | |
| 3598 that Nathanael asked: <span style="font-weight: bold">What good can come from that place?</span></p> | |
| 3599 <p>323 Augustine has a different explanation of this passage. It is clear that all are born under | |
| 3600 sin. Now those who have sin in their hearts but outwardly pretend to be just are called | |
| 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 | |
| 3602 true Israelite, in whom there is no guile, </span>not because Nathanael was without sin, or because | |
| 3603 he had no need of a physician, for no one is born in such a way as not to need a physician; but | |
| 3604 he was praised by Christ because he admitted his sins.</p> | |
| 3605 <p>324 Then when he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">How do you know me?, </span>we have Nathanael’s question. For | |
| 3606 Nathanael, in wonder at the divine power in this revelation of what is hidden, because this can | |
| 3607 only be from God—“The heart is depraved and inscrutable, and who is able to know it? I the | |
| 3608 Lord search the heart and probe the loins” (Jer 17:9); “Man sees the appearances, but the Lord | |
| 3609 sees the heart” (I Sin 16:7)—asks, <span style="font-weight: bold">How do you know me? </span>Here we can recognize | |
| 3610 Nathanael’s humility, because, although he had been praised, he did not become elated, but | |
| 3611 held this praise of himself suspect. “My people, who call you blessed, they are deceiving you” | |
| 3612 (Is 3:12).</p> | |
| 3613 <p>325 Then he touches on matters in the past, saying, <span style="font-weight: bold">Before Philip called you, I saw you | |
| 3614 when you were sitting under the fig tree. </span>First we have the statement of Christ; secondly, | |
| 3615 the confession of Nathanael.</p> | |
| 3616 <p>326 As to the first, we should note that Nathanael might have had two misgivings about | |
| 3617 Christ. One, that Christ said this in order to win his friendship by flattery; the other, that | |
| 3618 Christ had learned what he knew from others. So, to remove Nathanael’s suspicions and raise | |
| 3619 him to higher things, Christ reveals certain hidden matters that no one could know except in a | |
| 3620 divine way, that is, things that related only to Nathanael. He refers to these when he says, | |
| 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 | |
| 3622 sense, this means that Nathanael was under a fig tree when he was called by Philip—which | |
| 3623 Christ knew by divine power, for “The eyes of the Lord are far brighter than the sun” (Sir | |
| 3624 23:28).</p> | |
| 3625 <p>In the mystical sense, the fig tree signifies sin: both because we find a fig tree, bearing only | |
| 3626 leaves but no fruit, being cursed, as a symbol of sin (Mt 11:19); and because Adam and Eve, | |
| 3627 after they had sinned, made clothes from fig leaves. So he says here, when you were sitting | |
| 3628 under the fig tree, i.e., under the shadow of sin, before you were called to grace, I saw you, | |
| 3629 with the eye of mercy; for God’s predestination looks upon the predestined, who are living | |
| 3630 under sin, with an eye of pity, for as Ephesians (1:4) says, “ He chose us before the | |
| 3631 foundation of the world.” And he speaks of this eye here: I saw you, by predestining you from | |
| 3632 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 | |
| 3634 tree</span>, i.e., under the shadow of the law. “The law has only a shadow of the good things to | |
| 3635 come” (Heb 10:1).</p> | |
| 3636 <p>327 Hearing this, Nathanael is immediately converted, and, seeing the power of the divinity | |
| 3637 in Christ, breaks out in words of conversion and praise, saying, <span style="font-weight: bold">Rabbi, you are the Son of | |
| 3638 God</span>. Here he considers three things about Christ. First, the fullness of his knowledge, when | |
| 3639 he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">Rabbi, </span>which is translated as Teacher. As if to say: You are perfect in knowledge. | |
| 3640 For he had already realized what is said in Matthew (23:10): “You have one Teacher, the | |
| 3641 Christ.” Secondly, the excellence of his singular grace, when he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">you are the Son of | |
| 3642 God</span>. For it is due to grace alone that one becomes a son of God by adoption. And it is also | |
| 3643 through grace that one is a son of God through union; and this is exclusive to the man Christ, | |
| 3644 because that man is the Son of God not due to any preceding merit, but through the grace of | |
| 3645 union. Thirdly, he considers the greatness of his power when he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">you are the King of | |
| 3646 Israel</span>, i.e., awaited by Israel as its king and defender: “His power is everlasting” (Dn 7:14).</p> | |
| 3647 <p>328 A question comes up at this point, according to Chrysostom. For since Peter, who after | |
| 3648 many miracles and much teaching, confessed what Nathanael confesses here about Christ, | |
| 3649 that is, you are <span style="font-weight: bold">the Son of God, </span>merited a blessing, as the Lord said: “Blessed are you, Simon | |
| 3650 Bar-Jona” (Mt 16:17), why not the same for Nathanael, who said the same thing before seeing | |
| 3651 any miracles or receiving any teaching? Chrysostom answers that the reason for this is that | |
| 3652 even though Nathanael and Peter spoke the same words, the meaning of the two was not the | |
| 3653 same. For Peter acknowledged that Christ was the true Son of God by nature, i.e., he was | |
| 3654 man, and yet truly God; but Nathanael acknowledged that Christ was the Son of God by | |
| 3655 means of adoption, in the sense of, “I said: You are gods, and all of you the sons of the Most | |
| 3656 High”(Ps 81:6). This is clear from what Nathanael said next: for if he had understood that | |
| 3657 Christ was the Son of God by nature, he would not have said, you are the King of Israel, but | |
| 3658 “of the whole world.” It is also clear from the fact that Christ added nothing to the faith of | |
| 3659 Peter, since it was perfect, but stated that he would build the Church on that profession. But | |
| 3660 he raises Nathanael to greater things, since the greater part of his profession was deficient; to | |
| 3661 greater things, i.e., to a knowledge of his divinity.</p> | |
| 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 | |
| 3663 to the future. As if to say: Because I have revealed the past to you, you believe that I am the | |
| 3664 Son of God only by adoption, and the King of Israel; but I will bring you to greater | |
| 3665 knowledge, so that you may believe that I am the natural Son of God, and the King of all | |
| 3666 ages. And accordingly he says, Amen, amen, I say to <span style="font-weight: bold">you, you will see the heavens opened | |
| 3667 and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man. </span>By this, according to | |
| 3668 Chrysostom, the Lord wishes to prove that he is the true Son of God, and God. For the | |
| 3669 peculiar task of angels is to minister and be subject: “Bless the Lord, all of you, his angels, his | |
| 3670 ministers, who do his will” (Ps 102:20). So when you see angels minister to me, you will be | |
| 3671 certain that I am the true Son of God. “When he leads his First-Begotten into the world, he | |
| 3672 says: ‘Let all the angels of God adore him’” (Heb 1:6).</p> | |
| 3673 <p>330 When did the apostles see this? They saw it, I say, during the passion, when an angel | |
| 3674 stood by to comfort Christ (Lk 22:13); again, at the resurrection, when the apostles found two | |
| 3675 angels who were standing over the tomb. Again, at the ascension, when the angels said to the | |
| 3676 apostles: “Men of Galilee, why are you standing here looking up to heaven? This Jesus, who | |
| 3677 has been taken from you into heaven, will come in the same way as you have seen him going | |
| 3678 into heaven” (Acts 1:11 ).</p> | |
| 3679 <p>331 Because Christ spoke the truth about the past, it was easier for Nathanael to believe what | |
| 3680 he foretells about the future, saying, <span style="font-weight: bold">you will see</span>. For one who has revealed the truth about | |
| 3681 things hidden in the past, has an evident argument that what he is saying about the future is | |
| 3682 true. He says, <span style="font-weight: bold">the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man, </span>because, in | |
| 3683 his mortal flesh, he was a little less than the angels; and from this point of view, angels | |
| 3684 ascend and descend upon him. But insofar as he is the Son of God, he is above the angels, as | |
| 3685 was said.</p> | |
| 3686 <p>332 According to Augustine, Christ is here revealing his divinity in a beautiful way. For it is | |
| 3687 recorded that Jacob dreamed of a ladder, standing on the ground, with “the angels of God | |
| 3688 ascending and descending on it” (Gn 28:16). Then Jacob arose and poured oil on a stone and | |
| 3689 said, “Truly, the Lord is in this place” (Gn 28:16). Now that stone is Christ, whom the | |
| 3690 builders rejected; and the invisible oil of the Holy Spirit was poured on him. He is set up as a | |
| 3691 pillar, because he was to be the foundation of the Church: “No one can lay another foundation | |
| 3692 except that which has been laid” (1 Cor 3:11). The angels are ascending and descending | |
| 3693 inasmuch as they are ministering and serving before him. So he said, <span style="font-weight: bold">Amen, amen, I say to | |
| 3694 you, you will see the heavens opened, </span>and so forth, as if to say: Because you are truly an | |
| 3695 Israelite, give heed to what Israel saw, so that you many believe that I am the one signified by | |
| 3696 the stone anointed by Jacob, for you also will see angels ascending and descending upon him | |
| 3697 [viz. Jesus].</p> | |
| 3698 <p>333 Or, the angels are, according to Augustine, the preachers of Christ: “Go, swift angels, to a | |
| 3699 nation rent and torn to pieces,” as it says in Isaiah (18:2). They ascend through contemplation, | |
| 3700 just as Paul had ascended even to the third heaven (2 Cor 12:2); and they descend by | |
| 3701 instructing their neighbor. <span style="font-weight: bold">On the Son of Man, </span>i.e., for the honor of Christ, because “what | |
| 3702 we preach is not ourselves, but Jesus Christ” (2 Cor 4:5). In order that they might ascend and | |
| 3703 descend, the heavens were opened, because heavenly graces must be given to preachers if | |
| 3704 they are to ascend and descend. “The heavens broke at the presence of God” (Ps 67:9); “1 saw | |
| 3705 the heavens open” (Rv 4:1 ).</p> | |
| 3706 <p>334 Now the reason why Nathanael was not chosen to be an apostle after such a profession of | |
| 3707 faith is that Christ did not want the conversion of the world to the faith to be attributed to | |
| 3708 human wisdom, but solely to the power of God. And so he did not choose Nathanael as an | |
| 3709 apostle, since he was very learned in the law; he rather chose simple and uneducated men. | |
| 3710 “Not many of you are learned,” and “God chose the simple of the world” (1 Cor 1:26).</p> | |
| 3711 </body> | |
| 3712 | |
| 3713 </html> |