Mercurial > hg > Aquinas
diff john/english/John1.html @ 35:178aed5d2c3c
convert to XML
| author | ht |
|---|---|
| date | Mon, 30 Nov 2009 22:05:42 +0000 |
| parents | 25a799388159 |
| children |
line wrap: on
line diff
--- a/john/english/John1.html Mon Nov 30 21:59:53 2009 +0000 +++ b/john/english/John1.html Mon Nov 30 22:05:42 2009 +0000 @@ -1,3713 +1,5782 @@ -<html> +<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" + "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd"> +<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"> <head> -</style> +<meta name="generator" content= +"HTML Tidy for Cygwin (vers 25 March 2009), see www.w3.org" /> +<title></title> </head> - -<body style=text-align:justify><blockquote> -<CENTER><p style="text-align: center"><span style="font-size: 60pt">1</span></p> +<body style="text-align:justify"> +<blockquote> +<center> +<p style="text-align: center"><span style= +"font-size: 60pt">1</span></p> <p>LECTURE I</p> -<p>1 In the beginning was the Word;<BR> -and the Word was with God;<BR> -and the Word was God.<BR> -2 He was in the beginning with God.</CENTER> -<p>23 John the Evangelist, as already indicated, makes it his principal object to show the divinity -of the Incarnate Word. Accordingly, his Gospel is divided into two parts. In the first he states -the divinity of Christ; in the second he shows it by the things Christ did in the flesh (2:1). In -regard to the first, he does two things. First he shows the divinity of Christ; secondly he sets -forth the manner in which Christ’s divinity is made known to us (1:14). Concerning the first -he does two things. First he treats of the divinity of Christ; secondly of the incarnation of the -Word of God (1:6).</p> -<p>Because there are two items to be considered in each thing, namely, its existence and its -operation or power, first he treats the existence of the Word as to his divine nature; secondly -of his power or operation (1:3). In regard to the first he does four things. First he shows when -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 -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 -was in the beginning with God. </span>The first two pertain to the inquiry “whether something -exists”; the second two pertain to the inquiry “what something is.”</p> -<p>24 With respect to the first of these four we must examine the meaning of the statement, <span style="font-weight: bold">In -the beginning was the Word. </span>And here three things present themselves for careful study -according to the three parts of this statement. First it is necessary to investigate the name -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 -beginning.</span></p> -<p>25 To understand the name <span style="font-weight: bold">Word </span>we should note that according to the Philosopher [<i>On -Interpretation </i>16a3] vocal sounds are signs of the affections that exist in our soul. It is -customary in Scripture for the things signified to be themselves called by the names of their -signs, as in the statement, “And the rock was Christ” ( 1 Cor 10:4). It is fitting that what is -within our soul, and which is signified by our external word, be called a “word.” But whether -the name “word” belongs first to the exterior vocal sound or to the conception in our mind, is -not our concern at present. However, it is obvious that what is signified by the vocal sound, as -existing interiorly in the soul, exists prior to the vocal expression inasmuch as it is its actual -cause. Therefore if we wish to grasp the meaning of the interior word, we must first look at -the meaning of that which is exteriorly expressed in words.</p> -<p>Now there are three things in our intellect: the intellectual power itself, the species of the -thing understood (and this species is its form, being to the intellect what the species of a color -is to the eye), and thirdly the very activity of the intellect, which is to understand. But none of -these is what is signified by the exterior vocal word: for the name “stone” does not signify the -substance of the intellect because this is not what the one naming intends; nor does it signify -the species, which is that by which the intellect understands, since this also is not the -intention of the one naming; nor does it signify the act itself of understanding since to -understand is not an action proceeding to the exterior from the one understanding, but an -action remaining within. Therefore, that is properly called an interior word which the one -understanding forms when understanding.</p> -<p>Now the intellect forms two things, according to its two operations. According to its -operation which is called “the understanding of indivisibles,” it forms a definition; while -according to its operation by which it unites and separates, it forms an enunciation or -something of that sort. Hence, what is thus formed and expressed by the operation of the -intellect, whether by defining or enunciating, is what the exterior vocal sound signifies. So the -Philosopher says that the notion (ratio) which a name signifies is a definition. Hence, what is -thus expressed, i.e., formed in the soul, is called an interior word. Consequently it is -compared to the intellect, not as that by which the intellect understands, but as that in which it -understands, because it is in what is thus expressed and formed that it sees the nature of the -thing understood. Thus we have the meaning of the name “word.”</p> -<p>Secondly, from what has been said we are able to understand that a word is always something -that proceeds from an intellect existing in act; and furthermore, that a word is always a notion -(ratio) and likeness of the thing understood. So if the one understanding and the thing -understood are the same, then the word is a notion and likeness of the intellect from which it -proceeds. On the other hand, if the one understanding is other than the thing understood, then -the word is not a likeness and notion of the one understanding but of the thing understood, as -the conception which one has of a stone is a likeness of only the stone. But when the intellect -understands itself, its word is a likeness and notion of the intellect. And so Augustine (<i>On the -Trinity </i>IX, 5)<i> </i>sees a likeness of the Trinity in the Soul insofar as the mind understands itself, -but not insofar as it understands other things.</p> -<p>It is clear then that it is necessary to have a word in any intellectual nature, for it is of the very -nature of understanding that the intellect in understanding should form something. Now what -is formed is called a word, and so it follows that in every being which understands there must -be a word.</p> -<p>However, intellectual natures are of three kinds: human, angelic and divine; and so there are -three kinds of words. The human word, about which it is said in the Psalm (13:1): “The fool -said in his heart, ‘There is no God.’ “ The angelic word, about which it is said in Zechariah -(1:9), and in many places in Sacred Scripture, “And the angel said to me.” The third is the -divine word, of which Genesis (1:3) says, “And God said, ‘Let there be light.’ “ So when the -Evangelist says, <span style="font-weight: bold">In the beginning was the Word, </span>we cannot understand this as a human or -angelic word, because both these words have been made since man and angel have a cause -and principle of their existence and operation, and the word of a man or an angel cannot exist -before they do. The word the Evangelist had in mind he shows by saying that this word was -not made, since all things were made by it. Therefore, the word about which John speaks here -is the Word of God.</p> -<p>26 We should note that this Word differs from our own word in three ways. The first -difference, according to Augustine, is that our word is formable before being formed, for -when I wish to conceive the notion of a stone, I must arrive at it by reasoning. And so it is in -all other things that are understood by us, with the sole possible exception of the first -principles which, since they are known in a simple manner, are known at once without any -discourse of reason. So as long as the intellect, in so reasoning, casts about this way and that, -the formation is not yet complete. It is only when it has conceived the notion of the thing -perfectly that for the first time it has the notion of the complete thing and a word. Thus in our -mind there is both a “cogitation,” meaning the discourse involved in an investigation, and a -word, which is formed according to a perfect contemplation of the truth. So our word is first -in potency before it is in act. But the Word of God is always in act. In consequence, the term -“cogitation” does not properly speaking apply to the Word of God. For Augustine says (<i>On -the Trinity</i> XV)<i>: </i>“The Word of God is spoken of in such a way that cogitation is not included, -lest anything changeable be supposed in God.” Anselm was speaking improperly when he -said: “For the supreme Spirit to speak is for him to look at something while cogitating.”</p> -<p>27 The second difference is that our word is imperfect, but the divine Word is most perfect. -For since we cannot express all our conceptions in one word, we must form many imperfect -words through which we separately express all that is in our knowledge. But it is not that way -with God. For since he understands both himself and everything else through his essence, by -one act, the single divine Word is expressive of all that is in God, not only of the Persons but -also of creatures; otherwise it would be imperfect. So Augustine says: “If there were less in -the Word than is contained in the knowledge of the One speaking it, the Word would be -imperfect; but it is obvious that it is most perfect; therefore, it is only one.” “God speaks -once” (Jb 33:14).</p> -<p>28 The third difference is that our word is not of the same nature as we; but the divine Word -is of the same nature as God. And therefore it is something that subsists in the divine nature. -For the understood notion which the intellect is seen to fonn about some thing has only an -intelligible existence in our soul. Now in our soul, to understand is not the same as the nature -of the soul, because our soul is not its own operation. Consequently, the word which our -intellect forms is not of the essence of our soul, but is an accident of it. But in God, to -understand and to be are the same; and so the Word of the divine intellect is not an accident -but belongs to its nature. Thus it must be subsistent, because whatever is in the nature of God -is God. Thus Damascene says that God is a substantial Word, and a hypostasis, but our words -are concepts in our mind.</p> -<p>29 From the above it is clear that the Word, properly speaking, is always understood as a -Person in the Divinity, since it implies only something expressed, by the one understanding; -also, that in the Divinity the Word is the likeness of that from which it issues; and that it is -co-eternal with that from which it issues, since it was not first formable before being formed, -but was always in act; and that it is equal to the Father, since it is perfect and expressive of -the whole being of the Father; and that it is co-essential and consubstantial with the Father, -since it is his substance.</p> -<p>It is also clear that since in every nature that which issues forth and has a likeness to the -nature from which it issues is called a son, and since this Word issues forth in a likeness and -identity to the nature from which it issues, it is suitably and appropriately called a “Son,” and -its production is called a generation.</p> -<p>So now the first point is clear, the meaning of the <span style="font-weight: bold">term Word.</span></p> -<p>30 There are four questions on this point, two of them from Chrysostom. The first is: Why -did John the Evangelist oinit the Father and begin at once with the Son, saying, <span style="font-weight: bold">In the -beginning was the Word?</span></p> -<p>There are two answers to this. One is that the Father was known to everyone in the Old -Testament, although not under the aspect of Father, but as God; but the Son was not known. -And so in the New Testament, which is concerned with our knowledge of the Word, he +<p>1 In the beginning was the Word;<br /> +and the Word was with God;<br /> +and the Word was God.<br /> +2 He was in the beginning with God.</p> +</center> +<p>23 John the Evangelist, as already indicated, makes it his +principal object to show the divinity of the Incarnate Word. +Accordingly, his Gospel is divided into two parts. In the first he +states the divinity of Christ; in the second he shows it by the +things Christ did in the flesh (2:1). In regard to the first, he +does two things. First he shows the divinity of Christ; secondly he +sets forth the manner in which Christ’s divinity is made +known to us (1:14). Concerning the first he does two things. First +he treats of the divinity of Christ; secondly of the incarnation of +the Word of God (1:6).</p> +<p>Because there are two items to be considered in each thing, +namely, its existence and its operation or power, first he treats +the existence of the Word as to his divine nature; secondly of his +power or operation (1:3). In regard to the first he does four +things. First he shows when 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 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 was in the beginning +with God.</span> The first two pertain to the inquiry +“whether something exists”; the second two pertain to +the inquiry “what something is.”</p> +<p>24 With respect to the first of these four we must examine the +meaning of the statement, <span style="font-weight: bold">In the +beginning was the Word.</span> And here three things present +themselves for careful study according to the three parts of this +statement. First it is necessary to investigate the name 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 beginning.</span></p> +<p>25 To understand the name <span style= +"font-weight: bold">Word</span> we should note that according to +the Philosopher [<i>On Interpretation</i> 16a3] vocal sounds are +signs of the affections that exist in our soul. It is customary in +Scripture for the things signified to be themselves called by the +names of their signs, as in the statement, “And the rock was +Christ” ( 1 Cor 10:4). It is fitting that what is within our +soul, and which is signified by our external word, be called a +“word.” But whether the name “word” belongs +first to the exterior vocal sound or to the conception in our mind, +is not our concern at present. However, it is obvious that what is +signified by the vocal sound, as existing interiorly in the soul, +exists prior to the vocal expression inasmuch as it is its actual +cause. Therefore if we wish to grasp the meaning of the interior +word, we must first look at the meaning of that which is exteriorly +expressed in words.</p> +<p>Now there are three things in our intellect: the intellectual +power itself, the species of the thing understood (and this species +is its form, being to the intellect what the species of a color is +to the eye), and thirdly the very activity of the intellect, which +is to understand. But none of these is what is signified by the +exterior vocal word: for the name “stone” does not +signify the substance of the intellect because this is not what the +one naming intends; nor does it signify the species, which is that +by which the intellect understands, since this also is not the +intention of the one naming; nor does it signify the act itself of +understanding since to understand is not an action proceeding to +the exterior from the one understanding, but an action remaining +within. Therefore, that is properly called an interior word which +the one understanding forms when understanding.</p> +<p>Now the intellect forms two things, according to its two +operations. According to its operation which is called “the +understanding of indivisibles,” it forms a definition; while +according to its operation by which it unites and separates, it +forms an enunciation or something of that sort. Hence, what is thus +formed and expressed by the operation of the intellect, whether by +defining or enunciating, is what the exterior vocal sound +signifies. So the Philosopher says that the notion (ratio) which a +name signifies is a definition. Hence, what is thus expressed, +i.e., formed in the soul, is called an interior word. Consequently +it is compared to the intellect, not as that by which the intellect +understands, but as that in which it understands, because it is in +what is thus expressed and formed that it sees the nature of the +thing understood. Thus we have the meaning of the name +“word.”</p> +<p>Secondly, from what has been said we are able to understand that +a word is always something that proceeds from an intellect existing +in act; and furthermore, that a word is always a notion (ratio) and +likeness of the thing understood. So if the one understanding and +the thing understood are the same, then the word is a notion and +likeness of the intellect from which it proceeds. On the other +hand, if the one understanding is other than the thing understood, +then the word is not a likeness and notion of the one understanding +but of the thing understood, as the conception which one has of a +stone is a likeness of only the stone. But when the intellect +understands itself, its word is a likeness and notion of the +intellect. And so Augustine (<i>On the Trinity</i> IX, 5) sees a +likeness of the Trinity in the Soul insofar as the mind understands +itself, but not insofar as it understands other things.</p> +<p>It is clear then that it is necessary to have a word in any +intellectual nature, for it is of the very nature of understanding +that the intellect in understanding should form something. Now what +is formed is called a word, and so it follows that in every being +which understands there must be a word.</p> +<p>However, intellectual natures are of three kinds: human, angelic +and divine; and so there are three kinds of words. The human word, +about which it is said in the Psalm (13:1): “The fool said in +his heart, ‘There is no God.’ “ The angelic word, +about which it is said in Zechariah (1:9), and in many places in +Sacred Scripture, “And the angel said to me.” The third +is the divine word, of which Genesis (1:3) says, “And God +said, ‘Let there be light.’ “ So when the +Evangelist says, <span style="font-weight: bold">In the beginning +was the Word,</span> we cannot understand this as a human or +angelic word, because both these words have been made since man and +angel have a cause and principle of their existence and operation, +and the word of a man or an angel cannot exist before they do. The +word the Evangelist had in mind he shows by saying that this word +was not made, since all things were made by it. Therefore, the word +about which John speaks here is the Word of God.</p> +<p>26 We should note that this Word differs from our own word in +three ways. The first difference, according to Augustine, is that +our word is formable before being formed, for when I wish to +conceive the notion of a stone, I must arrive at it by reasoning. +And so it is in all other things that are understood by us, with +the sole possible exception of the first principles which, since +they are known in a simple manner, are known at once without any +discourse of reason. So as long as the intellect, in so reasoning, +casts about this way and that, the formation is not yet complete. +It is only when it has conceived the notion of the thing perfectly +that for the first time it has the notion of the complete thing and +a word. Thus in our mind there is both a “cogitation,” +meaning the discourse involved in an investigation, and a word, +which is formed according to a perfect contemplation of the truth. +So our word is first in potency before it is in act. But the Word +of God is always in act. In consequence, the term +“cogitation” does not properly speaking apply to the +Word of God. For Augustine says (<i>On the Trinity</i> XV)<i>:</i> +“The Word of God is spoken of in such a way that cogitation +is not included, lest anything changeable be supposed in +God.” Anselm was speaking improperly when he said: “For +the supreme Spirit to speak is for him to look at something while +cogitating.”</p> +<p>27 The second difference is that our word is imperfect, but the +divine Word is most perfect. For since we cannot express all our +conceptions in one word, we must form many imperfect words through +which we separately express all that is in our knowledge. But it is +not that way with God. For since he understands both himself and +everything else through his essence, by one act, the single divine +Word is expressive of all that is in God, not only of the Persons +but also of creatures; otherwise it would be imperfect. So +Augustine says: “If there were less in the Word than is +contained in the knowledge of the One speaking it, the Word would +be imperfect; but it is obvious that it is most perfect; therefore, +it is only one.” “God speaks once” (Jb +33:14).</p> +<p>28 The third difference is that our word is not of the same +nature as we; but the divine Word is of the same nature as God. And +therefore it is something that subsists in the divine nature. For +the understood notion which the intellect is seen to fonn about +some thing has only an intelligible existence in our soul. Now in +our soul, to understand is not the same as the nature of the soul, +because our soul is not its own operation. Consequently, the word +which our intellect forms is not of the essence of our soul, but is +an accident of it. But in God, to understand and to be are the +same; and so the Word of the divine intellect is not an accident +but belongs to its nature. Thus it must be subsistent, because +whatever is in the nature of God is God. Thus Damascene says that +God is a substantial Word, and a hypostasis, but our words are +concepts in our mind.</p> +<p>29 From the above it is clear that the Word, properly speaking, +is always understood as a Person in the Divinity, since it implies +only something expressed, by the one understanding; also, that in +the Divinity the Word is the likeness of that from which it issues; +and that it is co-eternal with that from which it issues, since it +was not first formable before being formed, but was always in act; +and that it is equal to the Father, since it is perfect and +expressive of the whole being of the Father; and that it is +co-essential and consubstantial with the Father, since it is his +substance.</p> +<p>It is also clear that since in every nature that which issues +forth and has a likeness to the nature from which it issues is +called a son, and since this Word issues forth in a likeness and +identity to the nature from which it issues, it is suitably and +appropriately called a “Son,” and its production is +called a generation.</p> +<p>So now the first point is clear, the meaning of the <span style= +"font-weight: bold">term Word.</span></p> +<p>30 There are four questions on this point, two of them from +Chrysostom. The first is: Why did John the Evangelist oinit the +Father and begin at once with the Son, saying, <span style= +"font-weight: bold">In the beginning was the Word?</span></p> +<p>There are two answers to this. One is that the Father was known +to everyone in the Old Testament, although not under the aspect of +Father, but as God; but the Son was not known. And so in the New +Testament, which is concerned with our knowledge of the Word, he begins with the Word or Son.</p> -<p>The other answer is that we are brought to know the Father through the Son: “Father, I have -manifested your name to the men whom you have given to me” (below 17:6). And so wishing -to lead the faithful to a knowledge of the Father, the Evangelist fittingly began with the Son, -at once adding something about the Father when he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">and the Word was with God.</span></p> -<p>31 The second question is also from Chrysostom. Why did he say <span style="font-weight: bold">Word </span>and not “Son,” -since, as we have said, the Word proceeds as Son?</p> -<p>There are also two answers to this. First, because “son” means something begotten, and when -we hear of the generation of the Son, someone might suppose that this generation is the kind -he can comprehend, that is, a material and changeable generation. Thus he did not say “Son,” -but <span style="font-weight: bold">Word, </span>which signifies an intelligible proceeding, so that it would not be understood as a -material and changeable generation. And so in showing that the Son is born of the Father in -an unchangeable way, he eliminates a faulty conjecture by using the name <span style="font-weight: bold">Word.</span></p> -<p>The second answer is this. The Evangelist was about to consider the Word as having come to -manifest the Father. But since the idea of manifesting is implied better in the name “Word” -than in the name “Son,” he preferred to use the name <span style="font-weight: bold">Word.</span></p> -<p>32 The third question is raised by Augustine in his book <i>Eighty-three Questions; </i>and it is this. -In Greek, where we have “Word,” they have “Logos”; now since “Logos” signifies in Latin -both “notion” and “word” [i.e., <i>ratio et verbum</i>],<i> </i>why did the translators render it as “word” -and not “notion,” since a notion is something interior just as a word is?</p> -<p>I answer that “notion” [ratio], properly speaking, names a conception of the mind precisely as -in the mind, even if through it nothing exterior comes to be; but “word” signifies a reference -to something exterior. And so because the Evangelist, when he said “Logos,” intended to -signify not only a reference to the Son’s existence in the Father, but also the operative power -of the Son, by which, through him, all things were made, our predecessors preferred to -translate it “Word,” which implies a reference to something exterior, rather than “notion “ -which implies merely a concept of the mind.</p> -<p>33 The fourth question is from Origen, and is this. In many passages, Scripture, when -speaking of the Word of God, does not simply call him the Word, but adds “of God,” saying, -“the Word of God,” or “of the Lord”: “The Word of God on high is the foundation of -wisdom” (Sir 1:5); “His name is the Word of God” (Rv 19:13). Why then did the Evangelist, -when speaking here of the Word of God, not say, “In the beginning was the Word of God,” -but said <span style="font-weight: bold">In the beginning was the Word?</span></p> -<p>I answer that although there are many participated truths, there is just one absolute Truth, -which is Truth by its very essence, that is, the divine act of being (<i>esse</i>);<i> </i>and by this Truth all -words are words. Similarly, there is one absolute Wisdom elevated above all things, that is, -the divine Wisdom, by participating in which all wise persons are wise. Further, there is one -absolute Word, by participating in which all persons having a word are called speakers. Now -this is the divine Word which of itself is the Word elevated above all words. So in order that -the Evangelist might signify this supereminence of the divine Word, he pointed out this Word -to us absolutely without any addition.</p> -<p>And because the Greeks, when they wished to signify something separate and elevated above -everything else, did this by affixing the article to the name (as the Platonists, wishing to -signify the separated substances, such as the separated good or the separated man, called them -the good <i>per se, </i>or man <i>per se</i>), so the Evangelist, wishing to signify the separation and -elevation of that Word above all things, affixed an article to the name “Logos,” so that if it -were stated in Latin we would say <i>“the </i>Word.”</p> -<p>34 Secondly, we must consider the meaning of the phrase, <span style="font-weight: bold">In the beginning. </span>We must note -that according to Origen, the word <i>principium </i>has many meanings [such as “principle,” -“source,” or “beginning”]. Since the word <i>principium </i>implies a certain order of one thing to -another, one can find a <i>principium </i>in all those things which have an order. First of all, order -is found in quantified things; and so there is a principle of number and lengths, as for -example, a line. Second, order is found in time; and so we speak of a “beginning” of time, or -of duration. Third, order is found in learning; and this in two ways: as to nature, and as to -ourselves, and in both cases we can speak of a “beginning”: “By this time you ought to be -teachers” (Heb 5:12). As to nature, in Christian doctrine the beginning and principle of our -wisdom is Christ, inasmuch as he is the Wisdom and Word of God, i.e., in his divinity. But as -to ourselves, the beginning is Christ himself inasmuch as the Word has become flesh, i.e., by -his incarnation. Fourth, in order is found in the production of a thing. In this perspective there -can be a <i>principium </i>on the part of the thing generated, that is, the first part of the thing -generated or made; as we say that the foundation is the beginning of a house. Another -<i>principium is </i>on the part of the generator, and in this perspective there are three “principles”: -of intention, which is the purpose, which motivates the agent; of reason, which is the idea in -the mind of the maker; and of execution, which is the operative faculty. Considering these -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 -beginning was the Word.</span></p> -<p>35 We should note that this word can be taken in three ways. In one way so that <i>principium is -</i>understood as the Person of the Son, who is the principle of creatures by reason of his active -power acting with wisdom, which is the conception of the things that are brought into -existence. Hence we read: “Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God” (1 Cor 1:24). -And so the Lord said about himself: “I am the <i>principium </i>who also speaks to you” (below -8:25). Taking <i>principium </i>in this way, we should understand the statement, <span style="font-weight: bold">In the beginning -was the Word, </span>as though he were saying, “The Word was in the Son,” so that the sense -would be: The Word himself is the <i>principium, </i>principle, in the sense in which life is said to -be “in” God, when this life is not something other than God.</p> -<p>And this is the explanation of Origen. And so the Evangelist says <span style="font-weight: bold">In the beginning </span>here in -order, as Chrysostom says, to show at the very outset the divinity of the Word by asserting -that he is a principle because, as determining all, a principle is most honored.</p> -<p>36 In a second way <i>principium </i>can be understood as the Person of the Father, who is the -principle not only of creatures, but of every divine process. It is taken this way in, “Yours is -princely power (<i>principium</i>)<i> </i>in the day of your birth” (Ps 110:3). In this second way one reads -<span style="font-weight: bold">In the beginning was the Word </span>as though it means, “The Son was in the Father.” This is -Augustine’s understanding of it, as well as Origen’s. The Son, however, is said to be in the -Father because both have the same essence. Since the Son is his own essence, then the Son is -in whomsoever the Son’s essence is. Since, therefore, the essence of the Son is in the Father -by consubstantiality, it is fitting that the Son be in the Father. Hence it says below (14:10): “I -am in the Father and the Father is in me.”</p> -<p>37 In a third way, <i>principium</i> can be taken for the beginning of duration, so that the sense of -<span style="font-weight: bold">In the beginning was the Word </span>is that the Word was before all things, as Augustine -explains it. According to Basil and Hilary, this phrase shows the eternity of the Word.</p> -<p>The phrase <span style="font-weight: bold">In the beginning was the Word </span>shows that no matter which beginning of -duration is taken, whether of temporal things which is time, or of aeviternal things which is -the aeon, or of the whole world or any imagined span of time reaching back for many ages, at -that beginning the Word already was. Hence Hilary says (<i>On the Trinity </i>VII):<i> </i>“Go back -season by season, skip over the centuries, take away ages. Set down whatever you want as the -beginning in your opinion: the Word already was.” And this is what Proverbs (8:23) says: -“The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his ways, before he made anything.” But what is -prior to the beginning of duration is eternal.</p> -<p>38 And thus the first explanation asserts the causality of the Word; the second explanation -affirms the consubstantiality of the Word with the Father, who utters the Word; and the third +<p>The other answer is that we are brought to know the Father +through the Son: “Father, I have manifested your name to the +men whom you have given to me” (below 17:6). And so wishing +to lead the faithful to a knowledge of the Father, the Evangelist +fittingly began with the Son, at once adding something about the +Father when he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">and the Word +was with God.</span></p> +<p>31 The second question is also from Chrysostom. Why did he say +<span style="font-weight: bold">Word</span> and not +“Son,” since, as we have said, the Word proceeds as +Son?</p> +<p>There are also two answers to this. First, because +“son” means something begotten, and when we hear of the +generation of the Son, someone might suppose that this generation +is the kind he can comprehend, that is, a material and changeable +generation. Thus he did not say “Son,” but <span style= +"font-weight: bold">Word,</span> which signifies an intelligible +proceeding, so that it would not be understood as a material and +changeable generation. And so in showing that the Son is born of +the Father in an unchangeable way, he eliminates a faulty +conjecture by using the name <span style= +"font-weight: bold">Word.</span></p> +<p>The second answer is this. The Evangelist was about to consider +the Word as having come to manifest the Father. But since the idea +of manifesting is implied better in the name “Word” +than in the name “Son,” he preferred to use the name +<span style="font-weight: bold">Word.</span></p> +<p>32 The third question is raised by Augustine in his book +<i>Eighty-three Questions;</i> and it is this. In Greek, where we +have “Word,” they have “Logos”; now since +“Logos” signifies in Latin both “notion” +and “word” [i.e., <i>ratio et verbum</i>], why did the +translators render it as “word” and not +“notion,” since a notion is something interior just as +a word is?</p> +<p>I answer that “notion” [ratio], properly speaking, +names a conception of the mind precisely as in the mind, even if +through it nothing exterior comes to be; but “word” +signifies a reference to something exterior. And so because the +Evangelist, when he said “Logos,” intended to signify +not only a reference to the Son’s existence in the Father, +but also the operative power of the Son, by which, through him, all +things were made, our predecessors preferred to translate it +“Word,” which implies a reference to something +exterior, rather than “notion “ which implies merely a +concept of the mind.</p> +<p>33 The fourth question is from Origen, and is this. In many +passages, Scripture, when speaking of the Word of God, does not +simply call him the Word, but adds “of God,” saying, +“the Word of God,” or “of the Lord”: +“The Word of God on high is the foundation of wisdom” +(Sir 1:5); “His name is the Word of God” (Rv 19:13). +Why then did the Evangelist, when speaking here of the Word of God, +not say, “In the beginning was the Word of God,” but +said <span style="font-weight: bold">In the beginning was the +Word?</span></p> +<p>I answer that although there are many participated truths, there +is just one absolute Truth, which is Truth by its very essence, +that is, the divine act of being (<i>esse</i>); and by this Truth +all words are words. Similarly, there is one absolute Wisdom +elevated above all things, that is, the divine Wisdom, by +participating in which all wise persons are wise. Further, there is +one absolute Word, by participating in which all persons having a +word are called speakers. Now this is the divine Word which of +itself is the Word elevated above all words. So in order that the +Evangelist might signify this supereminence of the divine Word, he +pointed out this Word to us absolutely without any addition.</p> +<p>And because the Greeks, when they wished to signify something +separate and elevated above everything else, did this by affixing +the article to the name (as the Platonists, wishing to signify the +separated substances, such as the separated good or the separated +man, called them the good <i>per se,</i> or man <i>per se</i>), so +the Evangelist, wishing to signify the separation and elevation of +that Word above all things, affixed an article to the name +“Logos,” so that if it were stated in Latin we would +say <i>“the</i> Word.”</p> +<p>34 Secondly, we must consider the meaning of the phrase, +<span style="font-weight: bold">In the beginning.</span> We must +note that according to Origen, the word <i>principium</i> has many +meanings [such as “principle,” “source,” or +“beginning”]. Since the word <i>principium</i> implies +a certain order of one thing to another, one can find a +<i>principium</i> in all those things which have an order. First of +all, order is found in quantified things; and so there is a +principle of number and lengths, as for example, a line. Second, +order is found in time; and so we speak of a +“beginning” of time, or of duration. Third, order is +found in learning; and this in two ways: as to nature, and as to +ourselves, and in both cases we can speak of a +“beginning”: “By this time you ought to be +teachers” (Heb 5:12). As to nature, in Christian doctrine the +beginning and principle of our wisdom is Christ, inasmuch as he is +the Wisdom and Word of God, i.e., in his divinity. But as to +ourselves, the beginning is Christ himself inasmuch as the Word has +become flesh, i.e., by his incarnation. Fourth, in order is found +in the production of a thing. In this perspective there can be a +<i>principium</i> on the part of the thing generated, that is, the +first part of the thing generated or made; as we say that the +foundation is the beginning of a house. Another <i>principium +is</i> on the part of the generator, and in this perspective there +are three “principles”: of intention, which is the +purpose, which motivates the agent; of reason, which is the idea in +the mind of the maker; and of execution, which is the operative +faculty. Considering these 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 beginning was the Word.</span></p> +<p>35 We should note that this word can be taken in three ways. In +one way so that <i>principium is</i> understood as the Person of +the Son, who is the principle of creatures by reason of his active +power acting with wisdom, which is the conception of the things +that are brought into existence. Hence we read: “Christ the +power of God and the wisdom of God” (1 Cor 1:24). And so the +Lord said about himself: “I am the <i>principium</i> who also +speaks to you” (below 8:25). Taking <i>principium</i> in this +way, we should understand the statement, <span style= +"font-weight: bold">In the beginning was the Word,</span> as though +he were saying, “The Word was in the Son,” so that the +sense would be: The Word himself is the <i>principium,</i> +principle, in the sense in which life is said to be +“in” God, when this life is not something other than +God.</p> +<p>And this is the explanation of Origen. And so the Evangelist +says <span style="font-weight: bold">In the beginning</span> here +in order, as Chrysostom says, to show at the very outset the +divinity of the Word by asserting that he is a principle because, +as determining all, a principle is most honored.</p> +<p>36 In a second way <i>principium</i> can be understood as the +Person of the Father, who is the principle not only of creatures, +but of every divine process. It is taken this way in, “Yours +is princely power (<i>principium</i>) in the day of your +birth” (Ps 110:3). In this second way one reads <span style= +"font-weight: bold">In the beginning was the Word</span> as though +it means, “The Son was in the Father.” This is +Augustine’s understanding of it, as well as Origen’s. +The Son, however, is said to be in the Father because both have the +same essence. Since the Son is his own essence, then the Son is in +whomsoever the Son’s essence is. Since, therefore, the +essence of the Son is in the Father by consubstantiality, it is +fitting that the Son be in the Father. Hence it says below (14:10): +“I am in the Father and the Father is in me.”</p> +<p>37 In a third way, <i>principium</i> can be taken for the +beginning of duration, so that the sense of <span style= +"font-weight: bold">In the beginning was the Word</span> is that +the Word was before all things, as Augustine explains it. According +to Basil and Hilary, this phrase shows the eternity of the +Word.</p> +<p>The phrase <span style="font-weight: bold">In the beginning was +the Word</span> shows that no matter which beginning of duration is +taken, whether of temporal things which is time, or of aeviternal +things which is the aeon, or of the whole world or any imagined +span of time reaching back for many ages, at that beginning the +Word already was. Hence Hilary says (<i>On the Trinity</i> VII): +“Go back season by season, skip over the centuries, take away +ages. Set down whatever you want as the beginning in your opinion: +the Word already was.” And this is what Proverbs (8:23) says: +“The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his ways, before +he made anything.” But what is prior to the beginning of +duration is eternal.</p> +<p>38 And thus the first explanation asserts the causality of the +Word; the second explanation affirms the consubstantiality of the +Word with the Father, who utters the Word; and the third explanation affirms the co-eternity of the Word.</p> -<p>39 Now we should consider that it says that the Word was (<i>erat</i>),<i> </i>which is stated in the past -imperfect tense. This tense is most appropriate for designating eternal things if we consider -the nature of time and of the things that exist in time. For what is future is not yet in act; but -what is at present is in act, and by the fact that it is in act what is present is not described as -having been. Now the past perfect tense indicates that something has existed, has already -come to an end, and has now ceased to be. The past imperfect tense, on the other hand, -indicates that something has been, has not yet come to an end, nor has ceased to be, but still -endures. Thus, whenever John mentions eternal things he expressly says “was” (<i>erat, </i>past -imperfect tense), but when he refers to anything temporal he says “has been” (<i>fuit, </i>past -perfect tense), as will be clear later.</p> -<p>But so far as concerns the notion of the present, the best way to designate eternity is the -present tense, which indicates that some thing is in act, and this is always the characteristic of -eternal things. And so it says in Exodus (3:14): “I am who am.” And Augustine says: “He -alone truly is whose being does not know a past and a future.</p> -<p>40 We should also note that this verb was, according to the Gloss, is not understood here as -indicating temporal changes, as other verbs do, but as signifying the existence of a thing. -Thus it is also called a substantive verb.</p> -<p>41 Someone may ask how the Word can be co-eternal with the Father since he is begotten by -the Father: for a human son, born from a human father, is subsequent to his father.</p> -<p>I answer that there are three reasons why an originative principle is prior in duration to that -which derives from that principle. First of all, if the originative principle of anything precedes -in time the action by which it produces the thing of which it is the principle; thus a man does -not begin to write as soon as he exists, and so he precedes his writing in time. Secondly, if an -action is successive; consequently, even if the action should happen to begin at the same time -as the agent, the termination of the action is nevertheless subsequent to the agent. Thus, as -soon as fire has been generated in a lower region, it begins to ascend; but the fire exists before -it has ascended, because the motion by which it tends upward requires some time. Thirdly, by -the fact that sometimes the beginning of a thing depends on the will of its principle, just as -the beginning of a creature’s coming-to-be depends on the will of God, such that God existed -before any creature.</p> -<p>Yet none of these three is found in the generation of the divine Word. God did not first exist -and then begin to generate the Word: for since the generation of the Word is nothing other -than an intelligible conception, it would follow that God would be understanding in potency -before understanding in act, which is impossible. Again, it is impossible that the generation of -the Word involve succession: for then the divine Word would be unformed before it was -formed (as happens in us who form words by “cogitating”), which is false, as was said. -Again, we cannot say that the Father pre-established a beginning of duration for his Son by -his own will, because God the Father does not generate the Son by his will, as the Arians -held, but naturally: for God the Father, understanding himself, conceives the Word; and so -God the Father did not exist prior to the Son.</p> -<p>An example of this, to a limited degree, appears in fire and in the brightness issuing from it: -for this brightness issues naturally and without succession from the fire. Again, if the fire -were eternal, its brightness would be coeternal with it. This is why the Son is called the -brightness of the Father: “the brightness of his glory” (Heb 1:3). But this example lacks an -illustration of the identity of nature. And so we call him Son, although in human sonship we -do not find coeternity: for we must attain our knowledge of divine things from many -likenesses in material things, for one likeness is not enough.</p> -<p>The Council of Ephesus says that the Son always coexists with the Father: for “brightness” -indicates his unchangeability, “birth” points to the Word himself, but the name “Son” -suggests his consubstantiality.</p> -<p>42 And so we give the Son various names to express his perfection, which cannot be -expressed by one name. We call him “Son” to show that he is of the same nature as the -Father; we call him “image” to show that he is not unlike the Father in any way; we call him -“brightness” to show that he is coeternal; and he is called the “Word” to show that he is -begotten in an immaterial manner.</p> -<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 -account. The first thing to consider is the meaning of the two words which did not appear in -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 -“Word,” and “beginning. “Let us continue carefully by examining these two new words, and -to better understand the explanation of this second clause, we must say something about the -meaning of each so far as it is relevant to our purpose.</p> -<p>44 At the outset, we should note that the name “God” signifies the divinity concretely and as -inherent in a subject, while the name “deity” signifies the divinity in the abstract and -absolutely. Thus the name “deity” cannot naturally and by its mode of signifying stand for a -[divine] person, but only for the [divine] nature. But the name “God” can, by its natural mode -of signifying, stand for any one of the [divine] persons, just as the name “man” stands for any -individual (<i>suppositum</i>) possessing humanity. Therefore, whenever the truth of a statement or -its predicate requires that the name “God” stand for the person, then it stands for the person, -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 -is necessary that God stand for the person of the Father, because the preposition <span style="font-weight: bold">with -</span>signifies the distinction of the Word, which is said to be <span style="font-weight: bold">with God. </span>And although this -preposition signifies a distinction in person, it does not signify a distinction in nature, since -the nature of the Father and of the Son is the same. Consequently, the Evangelist wished to -signify the person of the Father when he said God.</p> -<p>45 Here we should note that the preposition <span style="font-weight: bold">with </span>signifies a certain union of the thing -signified by its grammatical antecedent to the thing signified by its grammatical object, just as -the preposition “in” does. However, there is a difference, because the preposition “in” -signifies a certain intrinsic union, whereas the preposition <span style="font-weight: bold">with </span>implies in a certain way an -extrinsic union. And we state both in divine matters, namely, that the Son is <i>in </i>the Father and -<i>with </i>the Father. Here the intrinsic union pertains to consubstantiality, but the extrinsic union -(if we may use such an expression, since “extrinsic” is improperly employed in divine -matters) refers only to a personal distinction, because the Son is distinguished from the Father -by origin alone. And so these two words designate both a consubstantiality in nature and -distinction in person: consubstantiality inasmuch as a certain union is implied; but distinction, -inasmuch as a certain otherness is signified as was said above.</p> -<p>The preposition “in,” as was said, principally signifies consubstantiality, as implying an -intrinsic union and, by way of consequence, a distinction of persons, inasmuch as every -preposition is transitive. The preposition “with” principally signifies a personal distinction, -but also a consubstantiality inasmuch as it signifies a certain extrinsic, so to speak, union. For -these reasons the Evangelist specifically used here the preposition “with” in order to express -the distinction of the person of the Son from the Father, saying, <span style="font-weight: bold">and the Word was with -God, </span>that is, the Son was with the Father as one person with another.</p> -<p>46 We should note further that this preposition <span style="font-weight: bold">with </span>has four meanings, and these eliminate -four objections. First, the preposition with signifies the subsistence of its antecedent, because -things that do not subsist of themselves are not properly said to be “with” another; thus we do -not say that a color is with a body, and the same applies to other things that do not subsist of -themselves. But things that do subsist of themselves are properly said to be “with” another; -thus we say that a man is with a man, and a stone with a stone.</p> -<p>Secondly, it signifies authority in its grammatical object. For we do not, properly speaking, -say that a king is with a soldier, but that the soldier is with the king. Thirdly, it asserts a -distinction. For it is not proper to say that a person is with himself but rather that one man is -with another. Fourthly, it signifies a certain union and fellowship. For when some person is -said to be with another, it suggests to us that there is some social union between them.</p> -<p>Considering these four conditions implied in the meaning of this preposition <span style="font-weight: bold">with, </span>the -Evangelist quite appropriately joins to the first clause, <span style="font-weight: bold">In the beginning was the Word, </span>this -second clause, <span style="font-weight: bold">and the Word was with God. </span>For if we omit one of the three explanations of, -<span style="font-weight: bold">In the beginning was the Word </span>(namely, the one in which <i>principium</i> was understood as the -Son), certain heretics make a twofold objection against each of the other explanations -(namely, the one in which <i>principium</i> means the same as “before all things,” and the one in -which it is understood as the Father). Thus there are four objections, and we can answer these -by the four conditions indicated by this preposition <span style="font-weight: bold">with.</span></p> -<p>47 The first of these objections is this. You say that the Word was in the beginning, i.e., -before all things. But before all things there was nothing. So if before all things there was -nothing, where then was the Word? This objection arises due to the imaginings of those who -think that whatever exists is somewhere and in some place. But this is rejected by John when -he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">with God, </span>which indicates the union mentioned in the last four conditions. So, -according to Basil, the meaning is this: Where was the Word? The answer is: <span style="font-weight: bold">with God; </span>not -in some place, since he is unsurroundable, but he is with the Father, who is not enclosed by -any place.</p> -<p>48 The second objection against the same explanation is this. You say that the Word was in -the beginning, i.e., before all things. But whatever exists before all things appears to proceed -from no one, since that from which something proceeds seems to be prior to that which -proceeds from it. Therefore, the Word does not proceed from another. This objection is -rejected when he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">the Word was with God, </span>taking “with” according to its second -condition, as implying authority in what is causing. So the meaning, according to Hilary, is -this: From whom is the Word if he exists before all things? The Evangelist answers: <span style="font-weight: bold">the -Word was with God, </span>i.e., although the Word has no beginning of duration, still he does not -lack a <i>principium </i>or author, for he was with God as his author.</p> -<p>49 The third objection, directed to the explanation in which <i>principium</i> is understood as the -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. -But that which is in something does not seem to be subsistent, as a hypostasis; just as the -whiteness in a body does not subsist. This objection is solved by the statement, <span style="font-weight: bold">the Word -was with God, </span>taking “with” in its first condition, as implying the subsistence of its -grammatical antecedent. So according to Chrysostom, the meaning is this: <span style="font-weight: bold">In the beginning -was the Word, </span>not as an accident, but he was <span style="font-weight: bold">with God, </span>as subsisting, and a divine -hypostasis.</p> -<p>50 The fourth objection, against the same explanation, is this. You say that the Word was in -the beginning, i.,e., in the Father. But whatever is in something is not distinct from it. So the -Son is not distinct from the Father. This objection is answered by the statement, <span style="font-weight: bold">and the -Word was with God, </span>taking “with” in its third condition, as indicating distinction. Thus the -meaning, according to Alcuin and Bede, is this: <span style="font-weight: bold">The Word was with God, </span>and he was with -the Father by a consubstantiality of nature, while still being “with” him through a distinction -in person.</p> -<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 -nature, according to Basil; their distinction in person, according to Alcuin and Bede; the -subsistence of the Word in the divine nature, according to Chrysostom; and the authorship of -the Father in relation to the Word, according to Hilary.</p> -<p>52 We should also note, according to Origen, that <span style="font-weight: bold">the Word was with God </span>shows that the -Son has always been with the Father. For in the Old Testament it says that the word of the -Lord “came” to Jeremiah or to someone else, as is plain in many passages of sacred Scripture. -But it does not say that the word of the Lord was “with” Jeremiah or anyone else, because the -word “comes” to those who begin to have the word after not having it. Thus the Evangelist -did not say that the Word “came” to the Father, but was “with” the Father, because, given the +<p>39 Now we should consider that it says that the Word was +(<i>erat</i>), which is stated in the past imperfect tense. This +tense is most appropriate for designating eternal things if we +consider the nature of time and of the things that exist in time. +For what is future is not yet in act; but what is at present is in +act, and by the fact that it is in act what is present is not +described as having been. Now the past perfect tense indicates that +something has existed, has already come to an end, and has now +ceased to be. The past imperfect tense, on the other hand, +indicates that something has been, has not yet come to an end, nor +has ceased to be, but still endures. Thus, whenever John mentions +eternal things he expressly says “was” (<i>erat,</i> +past imperfect tense), but when he refers to anything temporal he +says “has been” (<i>fuit,</i> past perfect tense), as +will be clear later.</p> +<p>But so far as concerns the notion of the present, the best way +to designate eternity is the present tense, which indicates that +some thing is in act, and this is always the characteristic of +eternal things. And so it says in Exodus (3:14): “I am who +am.” And Augustine says: “He alone truly is whose being +does not know a past and a future.</p> +<p>40 We should also note that this verb was, according to the +Gloss, is not understood here as indicating temporal changes, as +other verbs do, but as signifying the existence of a thing. Thus it +is also called a substantive verb.</p> +<p>41 Someone may ask how the Word can be co-eternal with the +Father since he is begotten by the Father: for a human son, born +from a human father, is subsequent to his father.</p> +<p>I answer that there are three reasons why an originative +principle is prior in duration to that which derives from that +principle. First of all, if the originative principle of anything +precedes in time the action by which it produces the thing of which +it is the principle; thus a man does not begin to write as soon as +he exists, and so he precedes his writing in time. Secondly, if an +action is successive; consequently, even if the action should +happen to begin at the same time as the agent, the termination of +the action is nevertheless subsequent to the agent. Thus, as soon +as fire has been generated in a lower region, it begins to ascend; +but the fire exists before it has ascended, because the motion by +which it tends upward requires some time. Thirdly, by the fact that +sometimes the beginning of a thing depends on the will of its +principle, just as the beginning of a creature’s coming-to-be +depends on the will of God, such that God existed before any +creature.</p> +<p>Yet none of these three is found in the generation of the divine +Word. God did not first exist and then begin to generate the Word: +for since the generation of the Word is nothing other than an +intelligible conception, it would follow that God would be +understanding in potency before understanding in act, which is +impossible. Again, it is impossible that the generation of the Word +involve succession: for then the divine Word would be unformed +before it was formed (as happens in us who form words by +“cogitating”), which is false, as was said. Again, we +cannot say that the Father pre-established a beginning of duration +for his Son by his own will, because God the Father does not +generate the Son by his will, as the Arians held, but naturally: +for God the Father, understanding himself, conceives the Word; and +so God the Father did not exist prior to the Son.</p> +<p>An example of this, to a limited degree, appears in fire and in +the brightness issuing from it: for this brightness issues +naturally and without succession from the fire. Again, if the fire +were eternal, its brightness would be coeternal with it. This is +why the Son is called the brightness of the Father: “the +brightness of his glory” (Heb 1:3). But this example lacks an +illustration of the identity of nature. And so we call him Son, +although in human sonship we do not find coeternity: for we must +attain our knowledge of divine things from many likenesses in +material things, for one likeness is not enough.</p> +<p>The Council of Ephesus says that the Son always coexists with +the Father: for “brightness” indicates his +unchangeability, “birth” points to the Word himself, +but the name “Son” suggests his consubstantiality.</p> +<p>42 And so we give the Son various names to express his +perfection, which cannot be expressed by one name. We call him +“Son” to show that he is of the same nature as the +Father; we call him “image” to show that he is not +unlike the Father in any way; we call him “brightness” +to show that he is coeternal; and he is called the +“Word” to show that he is begotten in an immaterial +manner.</p> +<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 +account. The first thing to consider is the meaning of the two +words which did not appear in 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 “Word,” and “beginning. “Let us +continue carefully by examining these two new words, and to better +understand the explanation of this second clause, we must say +something about the meaning of each so far as it is relevant to our +purpose.</p> +<p>44 At the outset, we should note that the name “God” +signifies the divinity concretely and as inherent in a subject, +while the name “deity” signifies the divinity in the +abstract and absolutely. Thus the name “deity” cannot +naturally and by its mode of signifying stand for a [divine] +person, but only for the [divine] nature. But the name +“God” can, by its natural mode of signifying, stand for +any one of the [divine] persons, just as the name “man” +stands for any individual (<i>suppositum</i>) possessing humanity. +Therefore, whenever the truth of a statement or its predicate +requires that the name “God” stand for the person, then +it stands for the person, 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 is necessary +that God stand for the person of the Father, because the +preposition <span style="font-weight: bold">with</span> signifies +the distinction of the Word, which is said to be <span style= +"font-weight: bold">with God.</span> And although this preposition +signifies a distinction in person, it does not signify a +distinction in nature, since the nature of the Father and of the +Son is the same. Consequently, the Evangelist wished to signify the +person of the Father when he said God.</p> +<p>45 Here we should note that the preposition <span style= +"font-weight: bold">with</span> signifies a certain union of the +thing signified by its grammatical antecedent to the thing +signified by its grammatical object, just as the preposition +“in” does. However, there is a difference, because the +preposition “in” signifies a certain intrinsic union, +whereas the preposition <span style="font-weight: bold">with</span> +implies in a certain way an extrinsic union. And we state both in +divine matters, namely, that the Son is <i>in</i> the Father and +<i>with</i> the Father. Here the intrinsic union pertains to +consubstantiality, but the extrinsic union (if we may use such an +expression, since “extrinsic” is improperly employed in +divine matters) refers only to a personal distinction, because the +Son is distinguished from the Father by origin alone. And so these +two words designate both a consubstantiality in nature and +distinction in person: consubstantiality inasmuch as a certain +union is implied; but distinction, inasmuch as a certain otherness +is signified as was said above.</p> +<p>The preposition “in,” as was said, principally +signifies consubstantiality, as implying an intrinsic union and, by +way of consequence, a distinction of persons, inasmuch as every +preposition is transitive. The preposition “with” +principally signifies a personal distinction, but also a +consubstantiality inasmuch as it signifies a certain extrinsic, so +to speak, union. For these reasons the Evangelist specifically used +here the preposition “with” in order to express the +distinction of the person of the Son from the Father, saying, +<span style="font-weight: bold">and the Word was with God,</span> +that is, the Son was with the Father as one person with +another.</p> +<p>46 We should note further that this preposition <span style= +"font-weight: bold">with</span> has four meanings, and these +eliminate four objections. First, the preposition with signifies +the subsistence of its antecedent, because things that do not +subsist of themselves are not properly said to be +“with” another; thus we do not say that a color is with +a body, and the same applies to other things that do not subsist of +themselves. But things that do subsist of themselves are properly +said to be “with” another; thus we say that a man is +with a man, and a stone with a stone.</p> +<p>Secondly, it signifies authority in its grammatical object. For +we do not, properly speaking, say that a king is with a soldier, +but that the soldier is with the king. Thirdly, it asserts a +distinction. For it is not proper to say that a person is with +himself but rather that one man is with another. Fourthly, it +signifies a certain union and fellowship. For when some person is +said to be with another, it suggests to us that there is some +social union between them.</p> +<p>Considering these four conditions implied in the meaning of this +preposition <span style="font-weight: bold">with,</span> the +Evangelist quite appropriately joins to the first clause, +<span style="font-weight: bold">In the beginning was the +Word,</span> this second clause, <span style= +"font-weight: bold">and the Word was with God.</span> For if we +omit one of the three explanations of, <span style= +"font-weight: bold">In the beginning was the Word</span> (namely, +the one in which <i>principium</i> was understood as the Son), +certain heretics make a twofold objection against each of the other +explanations (namely, the one in which <i>principium</i> means the +same as “before all things,” and the one in which it is +understood as the Father). Thus there are four objections, and we +can answer these by the four conditions indicated by this +preposition <span style="font-weight: bold">with.</span></p> +<p>47 The first of these objections is this. You say that the Word +was in the beginning, i.e., before all things. But before all +things there was nothing. So if before all things there was +nothing, where then was the Word? This objection arises due to the +imaginings of those who think that whatever exists is somewhere and +in some place. But this is rejected by John when he says, +<span style="font-weight: bold">with God,</span> which indicates +the union mentioned in the last four conditions. So, according to +Basil, the meaning is this: Where was the Word? The answer is: +<span style="font-weight: bold">with God;</span> not in some place, +since he is unsurroundable, but he is with the Father, who is not +enclosed by any place.</p> +<p>48 The second objection against the same explanation is this. +You say that the Word was in the beginning, i.e., before all +things. But whatever exists before all things appears to proceed +from no one, since that from which something proceeds seems to be +prior to that which proceeds from it. Therefore, the Word does not +proceed from another. This objection is rejected when he says, +<span style="font-weight: bold">the Word was with God,</span> +taking “with” according to its second condition, as +implying authority in what is causing. So the meaning, according to +Hilary, is this: From whom is the Word if he exists before all +things? The Evangelist answers: <span style="font-weight: bold">the +Word was with God,</span> i.e., although the Word has no beginning +of duration, still he does not lack a <i>principium</i> or author, +for he was with God as his author.</p> +<p>49 The third objection, directed to the explanation in which +<i>principium</i> is understood as the 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. But that which is in +something does not seem to be subsistent, as a hypostasis; just as +the whiteness in a body does not subsist. This objection is solved +by the statement, <span style="font-weight: bold">the Word was with +God,</span> taking “with” in its first condition, as +implying the subsistence of its grammatical antecedent. So +according to Chrysostom, the meaning is this: <span style= +"font-weight: bold">In the beginning was the Word,</span> not as an +accident, but he was <span style="font-weight: bold">with +God,</span> as subsisting, and a divine hypostasis.</p> +<p>50 The fourth objection, against the same explanation, is this. +You say that the Word was in the beginning, i.,e., in the Father. +But whatever is in something is not distinct from it. So the Son is +not distinct from the Father. This objection is answered by the +statement, <span style="font-weight: bold">and the Word was with +God,</span> taking “with” in its third condition, as +indicating distinction. Thus the meaning, according to Alcuin and +Bede, is this: <span style="font-weight: bold">The Word was with +God,</span> and he was with the Father by a consubstantiality of +nature, while still being “with” him through a +distinction in person.</p> +<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 +nature, according to Basil; their distinction in person, according +to Alcuin and Bede; the subsistence of the Word in the divine +nature, according to Chrysostom; and the authorship of the Father +in relation to the Word, according to Hilary.</p> +<p>52 We should also note, according to Origen, that <span style= +"font-weight: bold">the Word was with God</span> shows that the Son +has always been with the Father. For in the Old Testament it says +that the word of the Lord “came” to Jeremiah or to +someone else, as is plain in many passages of sacred Scripture. But +it does not say that the word of the Lord was “with” +Jeremiah or anyone else, because the word “comes” to +those who begin to have the word after not having it. Thus the +Evangelist did not say that the Word “came” to the +Father, but was “with” the Father, because, given the Father, the Word was with him.</p> -<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 -follows most appropriately considering the order of teaching. For since John had said both -<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 -was God, </span>taking “Word” as the subject, and “God” as the predicate.</p> -<p>54 But since one should first inquire what a thing is before investigating where and when it is, -it seems that John violated this order by discussing these latter first.</p> -<p>Origen answers this by saying that the Word of God is with man and with God in different -ways. The Word is with man as perfecting him, because it is through him that man becomes -wise and good: “She makes friends of God and prophets” (Wis 7:27). But the Word is not -with God as though the Father were perfected and enlightened by him. Rather, the Word is -with God as receiving natural divinity from him, who utters the Word, and from whom he has -it that he is the same God with him. And so, since the Word was with God by origin, it was -necessary to show first that the Word was in the Father and with the Father before showing -that the Word was God.</p> -<p>55 This clause also enables us to answer two objections which arise from the foregoing. The -first is based on the name “Word,” and is this. You say that <span style="font-weight: bold">In the beginning was the Word, -</span>and that the Word was with God. Now it is obvious that “word” is generally understood to -signify a vocal sound and the statement of something necessary, a manifesting of thoughts. -But these words pass away and do not subsist. Accordingly, someone could think that the -Evangelist was speaking of a word like these.</p> -<p>According to Hilary and Augustine, this question is sufficiently answered by the above -account. Augustine says (Homily I <i>On John</i>)<i> </i>that it is obvious that in this passage “Word” -cannot be understood as a statement because, since a statement is in motion and passes away, -it could not be said that <span style="font-weight: bold">In the beginning was the Word, </span>if this Word were something -passing away and in motion. The same thing is clear from <span style="font-weight: bold">and the Word was with God: </span>for -to be “in” another is not the same as to be “with” another. Our word, since it does not subsist, -is not “with” us, but “in” us; but the Word of God is subsistent, and therefore “with” God. -And so the Evangelist expressly says, and the Word was with God. To entirely remove the -ground of the objection, he adds the nature and being of the Word, saying, <span style="font-weight: bold">and the Word -was God.</span></p> -<p>56 The other question comes from his saying, <span style="font-weight: bold">with God. </span>For since “with” indicates a -distinction, it could be thought that <span style="font-weight: bold">the Word was with God, </span>i.e., the Father, as distinct from -him in nature. So to exclude this he adds at once the consubstantiality of the Word with the -Father, saying, <span style="font-weight: bold">and the Word was God. </span>As if to say: the Word is not separated from the -Father by a diversity of nature, because the Word itself is God.</p> -<p>57 Note also the special way of signifying, since he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">the Word was God, </span>using “God” -absolutely to show that he is not God in the same way in which the name of the deity is given -to a creature in Sacred Scripture. For a creature sometimes shares this name with some added -qualification, as when it says, “I have appointed you the God of Pharaoh” (Ex 7:1), in order to -indicate that he was not God absolutely or by nature, because he was appointed the god of -someone in a qualified sense. Again, it says in the Psalm (81:6): “I said, ‘You are gods.’” -—as if to say: in my opinion, but not in reality. Thus the Word is called God absolutely -because he is God by his own essence, and not by participation, as men and angels are.</p> -<p>58 We should note that Origen disgracefully misunderstood this clause, led astray by the -Greek manner of speaking. It is the custom among the Greeks to put the article before every -name in order to indicate a distinction. In the Greek version of John’s Gospel the name -“Word” in the statement, <span style="font-weight: bold">In the beginning was the Word, </span>and also the name “God” in the -statement, <span style="font-weight: bold">and the Word was with God, </span>are prefixed by the article, so as to read “the Word” -and “the God,” in order to indicate the eminence and distinction of the Word from other -words, and the principality of the Father in the divinity. But in the statement, <span style="font-weight: bold">the Word was -God, </span>the article is not prefixed to the noun “God,” which stands for the person of the Son. -Because of this Origen blasphemed that the Word, although he was Word by essence, was not -God by essence, but is called God by participation; while the Father alone is God by essence. -And so he held that the Son is inferior to the Father.</p> -<p>59 Chrysostom proves that this is not true, because if the article used with the name “God” -implied the superiority of the Father in respect to the Son, it would never be used with the -name “God” when it is used as a predicate of another, but only when it is predicated of the -Father. Further, whenever said of the Father, it would be accompanied by the article. -However, we find the opposite to be the case in two statements of the Apostle, who calls -Christ “God,” using the article. For in Titus (2:13) he says, “the coming of the glory of the -great God and our Savior Jesus Christ,” where “God” stands for the Son, and in the Greek the -article is used. Therefore, Christ is the great God. Again he says (Rom 9:5): “Christ, who is -God over all things, blessed forever,” and again the article is used with “God” in the Greek. -Further, in 1 John (5:20) it says: “That we may be in his true Son, Jesus Christ; he is the true -God and eternal life.” Thus, Christ is not God by participation, but truly God. And so the -theory of Origen is clearly false.</p> -<p>Chrysostom gives us the reason why the Evangelist did not use the article with the name -“God,” namely, because he had already mentioned God twice using the article, and so it was -not necessary to repeat it a third time, but it was implied. Or, a better reason would be that -“God” is used here as the predicate and is taken formally. And it is not the custom for the -article to accompany names used as predicates, since the article indicates separation. But if -“God” were used here as the subject, it could stand for any of the persons, as the Son or the -Holy Spirit; then, no doubt, the article would be used in the Greek.</p> -<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 -introduced because of the preceding clause. For from the Evangelist’s statement that <span style="font-weight: bold">the -Word was God, </span>two false interpretations could be held by those who misunderstand. One of -these is by the pagans, who acknowledge many and different gods, and say that their wills are -in opposition. For example, those who put out the fable of Jupiter fighting with Saturn; or as -the Manicheans, who have two contrary principles of nature. The Lord said against this error -(Dt 6:4): “Hear O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord.”</p> -<p>Since the Evangelist had said, <span style="font-weight: bold">the Word was with God; and the Word was God, </span>they could -adduce this in support of their error by understanding the God with whom the Word is to be -one [God],and the Word to be another, having another, or contrary, will to the former; and -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 -with God, </span>as if to say, according to Hilary: I say that the Word is God, not as if he has a -distinct divinity, but he is with God, that is, in the one same nature in which lie is. Further, -lest his statement, <span style="font-weight: bold">and the Word was God, </span>be taken to mean that the Word has an opposed -will, he added that the Word <span style="font-weight: bold">was in the beginning with God, </span>namely, the Father; not as -divided from him or opposed, but having an identity of nature with him and a harmony of -will. This union comes about by the sharing of the divine nature in the three persons, and by -the bond of the natural love of the Father and the Son.</p> -<p>61 The Arians were able to draw out another error from the above. They think that the Son is -less than the Father because it says below (14:28): “The Father is greater than I” And they say -the Father is greater than the Son both as to eternity and as to divinity of nature. And so to -exclude this the Evangelist added: <span style="font-weight: bold">He was in the beginning with God. </span>For Arius admits the -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 -taken for the Father, but rather for the beginning of creatures. So he says that the Word was in -the beginning of creatures, and consequently is in no sense coeternal with the Father. But this -is excluded, according to Chrysostom, by this clause, <span style="font-weight: bold">He was in the beginning, </span>not of -creatures, but <span style="font-weight: bold">in the beginning with God, </span>i.e., whenever God existed. For the Father was -never alone without the Son or Word, but He, that is, the Word, was always <span style="font-weight: bold">with God.</span></p> -<p>62 Again, Arius admits that the Word was God, but nevertheless inferior to the Father. This is -excluded by what follows. For there are two attributes proper to the great God which Arius -attributed solely to God the Father, that is, eternity and omnipotence. So in whomever these -two attributes are found, he is the great God, than whom none is greater. But the Evangelist -attributes these two to the Word. Therefore, the Word is the great God and not inferior. He -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 -was with God from eternity, and not only in the beginning of creatures (as Arius held) , but -with God, receiving being and divinity from him. Further, he attributes omnipotence to the -Word when he adds, <span style="font-weight: bold">Through him all things came into being.</span></p> -<p>63 Origen gives a rather beautiful explanation of this clause, <span style="font-weight: bold">He was in the beginning with -God, </span>when he says that it is not separate from the first three, but is in a certain sense their -epilogue. For the Evangelist, after he had indicated that truth was the Son’s and was about to -describe his power, in a way gathers together in a summary form, in this fourth clause, what -he had said in the first three. For in saying He, he understands the third clause; by adding <span style="font-weight: bold">was -in the beginning, </span>he recalls the first clause; and by adding <span style="font-weight: bold">with God, </span>he recalls the second, -so that we do not think that the Word which was in the beginning is different than the Word -which was God; but this Word which was God <span style="font-weight: bold">was in the beginning with God.</span></p> -<p>64 If one considers these four propositions well, he will find that they clearly destroy all the -errors of the heretics and of the philosophers. For some heretics, as Ebion and Cerinthus, said -that Christ did not exist before the Blessed Virgin, but took from her the beginning of his -being and duration; for they held that he was a mere man, who had merited divinity by his -good works. Photinus and Paul of Samosata, following them, said the same thing. But the -Evangelist excludes their errors saying, <span style="font-weight: bold">In the beginning was the Word, </span>i.e., before all -things, and in the Father from eternity. Thus he did not derive his beginning from the Virgin.</p> -<p>Sabellius, on the other hand, although he admitted that the God who took flesh did not -receive his beginning from the Virgin, but existed from eternity, still said that the person of -the Father, who existed from eternity, was not distinct from the person of the Son, who took -flesh from the Virgin. He maintained that the Father and Son were the same person; and so he -failed to distinguish the trinity of persons in the deity. The Evangelist says against this error, -<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> -<p>Eunomius declared that the Son is entirely unlike the Father. The Evangelist rejects this when -he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">and the Word was God. </span>Finally, Arius said that the Son was less than the Father. -The Evangelist excludes this by saying, <span style="font-weight: bold">He was in the beginning with God, </span>as was -explained above.</p> -<p>65 These words also exclude the errors of the philosophers. I`or some of the ancient -philosophers, namely, the natural philosophers, maintained that the world did not come from -any intellect or through some purpose, but by chance. Consequently, they did not place at the -beginning as the cause of things a reason or intellect, but only matter in flux; for example, -atoms, as Democritus thought, or other material principles of this kind as different -philosophers inaintained. Against these the Evangelist says, <span style="font-weight: bold">In the beginning was the Word, -</span>from whom, and not from chance, things derive their beginning.</p> -<p>Plato, however, thought that the Ideas of all the things that were made were subsistent, i.e., -existing separately in their own natures; and material things exist by participating in these. -For example, he thought men existed through the separated Idea of man, which he called Man -<i>per se. </i>So lest you suppose, as did Plato, that this Idea through which all things were made be -Ideas separated from God, the Evangelist adds, <span style="font-weight: bold">and the Word was with God.</span></p> -<p>Other Platonists, as Chrysostom relates, maintained that God the Father was most eminent -and first, but under him they placed a certain mind in which there were the likenesses and -ideas of all things. So lest you think that the Word was with the Father in such a way as to be -under him and less than he, the Evangelist adds, <span style="font-weight: bold">and the Word was God.</span></p> -<p>Aristotle, however, thought that the ideas of all things are in God, and that in God, the -intellect, the one understanding, and what is understood, are the same. Nevertheless, he -thought that the world is coeternal with him. Against this the Evangelist says, He, the Word -alone, was <span style="font-weight: bold">in the beginning with God, </span>in such a way that He does not exclude another -person, but only another coeternal nature.</p> -<p>66 Note the difference in what has been said between John and the other Evangelists: how he -began his Gospel on a loftier plane than they. They announced Christ the Son of God born in -time: “When Jesus was born in Bethlehem” (Mt 2:1); but John presents him existing from -eternity: <span style="font-weight: bold">In the beginning was the Word. </span>They show him suddenly appearing among men: -“Now you dismiss your servant, 0 Lord, in peace, according to your word; because my eyes -have seen your salvation” (Lk 2:29); but John says that he always existed with the Father: and -the Word was with God. The others show him as a man: “They gave glory to God who had -given such authority to men” (Mt 9:8); but John says that he is God: and the Word was God. -The others say he lives with men: “While living in Galilee, Jesus said to them” (Mt 17:21); -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> -<p>67 Note also how the Evangelist designedly uses the word was (<i>erat) </i>to show that the Word -of God transcends all times: present, past and future. It is as though he were saying: He was +<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 follows most appropriately considering the order of +teaching. For since John had said both <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 was God,</span> taking +“Word” as the subject, and “God” as the +predicate.</p> +<p>54 But since one should first inquire what a thing is before +investigating where and when it is, it seems that John violated +this order by discussing these latter first.</p> +<p>Origen answers this by saying that the Word of God is with man +and with God in different ways. The Word is with man as perfecting +him, because it is through him that man becomes wise and good: +“She makes friends of God and prophets” (Wis 7:27). But +the Word is not with God as though the Father were perfected and +enlightened by him. Rather, the Word is with God as receiving +natural divinity from him, who utters the Word, and from whom he +has it that he is the same God with him. And so, since the Word was +with God by origin, it was necessary to show first that the Word +was in the Father and with the Father before showing that the Word +was God.</p> +<p>55 This clause also enables us to answer two objections which +arise from the foregoing. The first is based on the name +“Word,” and is this. You say that <span style= +"font-weight: bold">In the beginning was the Word,</span> and that +the Word was with God. Now it is obvious that “word” is +generally understood to signify a vocal sound and the statement of +something necessary, a manifesting of thoughts. But these words +pass away and do not subsist. Accordingly, someone could think that +the Evangelist was speaking of a word like these.</p> +<p>According to Hilary and Augustine, this question is sufficiently +answered by the above account. Augustine says (Homily I <i>On +John</i>) that it is obvious that in this passage +“Word” cannot be understood as a statement because, +since a statement is in motion and passes away, it could not be +said that <span style="font-weight: bold">In the beginning was the +Word,</span> if this Word were something passing away and in +motion. The same thing is clear from <span style= +"font-weight: bold">and the Word was with God:</span> for to be +“in” another is not the same as to be +“with” another. Our word, since it does not subsist, is +not “with” us, but “in” us; but the Word of +God is subsistent, and therefore “with” God. And so the +Evangelist expressly says, and the Word was with God. To entirely +remove the ground of the objection, he adds the nature and being of +the Word, saying, <span style="font-weight: bold">and the Word was +God.</span></p> +<p>56 The other question comes from his saying, <span style= +"font-weight: bold">with God.</span> For since “with” +indicates a distinction, it could be thought that <span style= +"font-weight: bold">the Word was with God,</span> i.e., the Father, +as distinct from him in nature. So to exclude this he adds at once +the consubstantiality of the Word with the Father, saying, +<span style="font-weight: bold">and the Word was God.</span> As if +to say: the Word is not separated from the Father by a diversity of +nature, because the Word itself is God.</p> +<p>57 Note also the special way of signifying, since he says, +<span style="font-weight: bold">the Word was God,</span> using +“God” absolutely to show that he is not God in the same +way in which the name of the deity is given to a creature in Sacred +Scripture. For a creature sometimes shares this name with some +added qualification, as when it says, “I have appointed you +the God of Pharaoh” (Ex 7:1), in order to indicate that he +was not God absolutely or by nature, because he was appointed the +god of someone in a qualified sense. Again, it says in the Psalm +(81:6): “I said, ‘You are gods.’” —as +if to say: in my opinion, but not in reality. Thus the Word is +called God absolutely because he is God by his own essence, and not +by participation, as men and angels are.</p> +<p>58 We should note that Origen disgracefully misunderstood this +clause, led astray by the Greek manner of speaking. It is the +custom among the Greeks to put the article before every name in +order to indicate a distinction. In the Greek version of +John’s Gospel the name “Word” in the statement, +<span style="font-weight: bold">In the beginning was the +Word,</span> and also the name “God” in the statement, +<span style="font-weight: bold">and the Word was with God,</span> +are prefixed by the article, so as to read “the Word” +and “the God,” in order to indicate the eminence and +distinction of the Word from other words, and the principality of +the Father in the divinity. But in the statement, <span style= +"font-weight: bold">the Word was God,</span> the article is not +prefixed to the noun “God,” which stands for the person +of the Son. Because of this Origen blasphemed that the Word, +although he was Word by essence, was not God by essence, but is +called God by participation; while the Father alone is God by +essence. And so he held that the Son is inferior to the Father.</p> +<p>59 Chrysostom proves that this is not true, because if the +article used with the name “God” implied the +superiority of the Father in respect to the Son, it would never be +used with the name “God” when it is used as a predicate +of another, but only when it is predicated of the Father. Further, +whenever said of the Father, it would be accompanied by the +article. However, we find the opposite to be the case in two +statements of the Apostle, who calls Christ “God,” +using the article. For in Titus (2:13) he says, “the coming +of the glory of the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ,” +where “God” stands for the Son, and in the Greek the +article is used. Therefore, Christ is the great God. Again he says +(Rom 9:5): “Christ, who is God over all things, blessed +forever,” and again the article is used with +“God” in the Greek. Further, in 1 John (5:20) it says: +“That we may be in his true Son, Jesus Christ; he is the true +God and eternal life.” Thus, Christ is not God by +participation, but truly God. And so the theory of Origen is +clearly false.</p> +<p>Chrysostom gives us the reason why the Evangelist did not use +the article with the name “God,” namely, because he had +already mentioned God twice using the article, and so it was not +necessary to repeat it a third time, but it was implied. Or, a +better reason would be that “God” is used here as the +predicate and is taken formally. And it is not the custom for the +article to accompany names used as predicates, since the article +indicates separation. But if “God” were used here as +the subject, it could stand for any of the persons, as the Son or +the Holy Spirit; then, no doubt, the article would be used in the +Greek.</p> +<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 +introduced because of the preceding clause. For from the +Evangelist’s statement that <span style= +"font-weight: bold">the Word was God,</span> two false +interpretations could be held by those who misunderstand. One of +these is by the pagans, who acknowledge many and different gods, +and say that their wills are in opposition. For example, those who +put out the fable of Jupiter fighting with Saturn; or as the +Manicheans, who have two contrary principles of nature. The Lord +said against this error (Dt 6:4): “Hear O Israel: The Lord +our God is one Lord.”</p> +<p>Since the Evangelist had said, <span style= +"font-weight: bold">the Word was with God; and the Word was +God,</span> they could adduce this in support of their error by +understanding the God with whom the Word is to be one [God],and the +Word to be another, having another, or contrary, will to the +former; and 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 with God,</span> as if to say, according to Hilary: I say +that the Word is God, not as if he has a distinct divinity, but he +is with God, that is, in the one same nature in which lie is. +Further, lest his statement, <span style="font-weight: bold">and +the Word was God,</span> be taken to mean that the Word has an +opposed will, he added that the Word <span style= +"font-weight: bold">was in the beginning with God,</span> namely, +the Father; not as divided from him or opposed, but having an +identity of nature with him and a harmony of will. This union comes +about by the sharing of the divine nature in the three persons, and +by the bond of the natural love of the Father and the Son.</p> +<p>61 The Arians were able to draw out another error from the +above. They think that the Son is less than the Father because it +says below (14:28): “The Father is greater than I” And +they say the Father is greater than the Son both as to eternity and +as to divinity of nature. And so to exclude this the Evangelist +added: <span style="font-weight: bold">He was in the beginning with +God.</span> For Arius admits the 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 taken for the +Father, but rather for the beginning of creatures. So he says that +the Word was in the beginning of creatures, and consequently is in +no sense coeternal with the Father. But this is excluded, according +to Chrysostom, by this clause, <span style="font-weight: bold">He +was in the beginning,</span> not of creatures, but <span style= +"font-weight: bold">in the beginning with God,</span> i.e., +whenever God existed. For the Father was never alone without the +Son or Word, but He, that is, the Word, was always <span style= +"font-weight: bold">with God.</span></p> +<p>62 Again, Arius admits that the Word was God, but nevertheless +inferior to the Father. This is excluded by what follows. For there +are two attributes proper to the great God which Arius attributed +solely to God the Father, that is, eternity and omnipotence. So in +whomever these two attributes are found, he is the great God, than +whom none is greater. But the Evangelist attributes these two to +the Word. Therefore, the Word is the great God and not inferior. He +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 was with God from eternity, and not only in the beginning +of creatures (as Arius held) , but with God, receiving being and +divinity from him. Further, he attributes omnipotence to the Word +when he adds, <span style="font-weight: bold">Through him all +things came into being.</span></p> +<p>63 Origen gives a rather beautiful explanation of this clause, +<span style="font-weight: bold">He was in the beginning with +God,</span> when he says that it is not separate from the first +three, but is in a certain sense their epilogue. For the +Evangelist, after he had indicated that truth was the Son’s +and was about to describe his power, in a way gathers together in a +summary form, in this fourth clause, what he had said in the first +three. For in saying He, he understands the third clause; by adding +<span style="font-weight: bold">was in the beginning,</span> he +recalls the first clause; and by adding <span style= +"font-weight: bold">with God,</span> he recalls the second, so that +we do not think that the Word which was in the beginning is +different than the Word which was God; but this Word which was God +<span style="font-weight: bold">was in the beginning with +God.</span></p> +<p>64 If one considers these four propositions well, he will find +that they clearly destroy all the errors of the heretics and of the +philosophers. For some heretics, as Ebion and Cerinthus, said that +Christ did not exist before the Blessed Virgin, but took from her +the beginning of his being and duration; for they held that he was +a mere man, who had merited divinity by his good works. Photinus +and Paul of Samosata, following them, said the same thing. But the +Evangelist excludes their errors saying, <span style= +"font-weight: bold">In the beginning was the Word,</span> i.e., +before all things, and in the Father from eternity. Thus he did not +derive his beginning from the Virgin.</p> +<p>Sabellius, on the other hand, although he admitted that the God +who took flesh did not receive his beginning from the Virgin, but +existed from eternity, still said that the person of the Father, +who existed from eternity, was not distinct from the person of the +Son, who took flesh from the Virgin. He maintained that the Father +and Son were the same person; and so he failed to distinguish the +trinity of persons in the deity. The Evangelist says against this +error, <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> +<p>Eunomius declared that the Son is entirely unlike the Father. +The Evangelist rejects this when he says, <span style= +"font-weight: bold">and the Word was God.</span> Finally, Arius +said that the Son was less than the Father. The Evangelist excludes +this by saying, <span style="font-weight: bold">He was in the +beginning with God,</span> as was explained above.</p> +<p>65 These words also exclude the errors of the philosophers. I`or +some of the ancient philosophers, namely, the natural philosophers, +maintained that the world did not come from any intellect or +through some purpose, but by chance. Consequently, they did not +place at the beginning as the cause of things a reason or +intellect, but only matter in flux; for example, atoms, as +Democritus thought, or other material principles of this kind as +different philosophers inaintained. Against these the Evangelist +says, <span style="font-weight: bold">In the beginning was the +Word,</span> from whom, and not from chance, things derive their +beginning.</p> +<p>Plato, however, thought that the Ideas of all the things that +were made were subsistent, i.e., existing separately in their own +natures; and material things exist by participating in these. For +example, he thought men existed through the separated Idea of man, +which he called Man <i>per se.</i> So lest you suppose, as did +Plato, that this Idea through which all things were made be Ideas +separated from God, the Evangelist adds, <span style= +"font-weight: bold">and the Word was with God.</span></p> +<p>Other Platonists, as Chrysostom relates, maintained that God the +Father was most eminent and first, but under him they placed a +certain mind in which there were the likenesses and ideas of all +things. So lest you think that the Word was with the Father in such +a way as to be under him and less than he, the Evangelist adds, +<span style="font-weight: bold">and the Word was God.</span></p> +<p>Aristotle, however, thought that the ideas of all things are in +God, and that in God, the intellect, the one understanding, and +what is understood, are the same. Nevertheless, he thought that the +world is coeternal with him. Against this the Evangelist says, He, +the Word alone, was <span style="font-weight: bold">in the +beginning with God,</span> in such a way that He does not exclude +another person, but only another coeternal nature.</p> +<p>66 Note the difference in what has been said between John and +the other Evangelists: how he began his Gospel on a loftier plane +than they. They announced Christ the Son of God born in time: +“When Jesus was born in Bethlehem” (Mt 2:1); but John +presents him existing from eternity: <span style= +"font-weight: bold">In the beginning was the Word.</span> They show +him suddenly appearing among men: “Now you dismiss your +servant, 0 Lord, in peace, according to your word; because my eyes +have seen your salvation” (Lk 2:29); but John says that he +always existed with the Father: and the Word was with God. The +others show him as a man: “They gave glory to God who had +given such authority to men” (Mt 9:8); but John says that he +is God: and the Word was God. The others say he lives with men: +“While living in Galilee, Jesus said to them” (Mt +17:21); 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> +<p>67 Note also how the Evangelist designedly uses the word was +(<i>erat)</i> to show that the Word of God transcends all times: +present, past and future. It is as though he were saying: He was beyond time: present, past and future, as the Gloss says.</p> -<p style="margin-bottom: 0.125in; margin-bottom: 0.125in"> </p> -<CENTER><p><span style="font-weight: bold">LECTURE 2</span></p> -<p>3 All things were made through him,<BR> -and without him nothing was made.<BR> -What was made 4a in him was life.</CENTER> -<p>68 After the Evangelist has told of the existence and nature of the Divine Word, so far as it -can be told by man, he then shows the might of his power. First, he shows his power with -respect to all things that come into existence. Secondly, with respect to man. As to the first, -he uses three clauses; and we will not distinguish these at present because they will be -distinguished in different ways according to the different explanations given by the saints.</p> -<p>69 The first clause, <span style="font-weight: bold">All thifngs were made through him</span>, is used to show three things -concerning the Word. First, according to Chrysostom, to show the equality of the Word to the -Father. For as stated earlier, the error of Arius was rejected by the Evangelist when he showed -the coeternity of the Son with the Father by saying, “He was in the beginning with God.” -Here he excludes the same error when he shows the omnipotence of the Son, saying, <span style="font-weight: bold">All -things were made through him</span>. For to be the principle of all the things that are made is -proper to the great omnipotent God, as the Psalm (134:6) says, “Whatever the Lord wills he -does, in heaven and on earth.”Thus the Word, through whom all things were made, is God, -great and coequal to the Father.</p> -<p>70 Secondly, according to Hilary, this clause is used to show the coeternity of the Word with -the Father. For since someone might understand the earlier statement, “In the beginning was -the Word,” as referring to the beginning of creatures, i.e., that before there were any creatures -there was a time in which the Word did not exist, the Evangelist rejects this by saying, <span style="font-weight: bold">All -things were made through him. </span>For if all things were made through the Word, then time -was also. From this we can form the following argument: If all time was made through him, -there was no time before him or with him, because before all these, he was. Therefore they -[the Son and the Father] are eternally coeternal.</p> -<p>71 Thirdly, according to Augustine, this clause is used to show the consubstantiality of the -Word with the Father. For if all things were made through the Word, the Word himself cannot -be said to have been made; because, if made, he was made through some Word, since all -things were made through the Word. Consequently, there would have been another Word -through whom was made the Word of whom the Evangelist is speaking. This Word, through -whom all things are made, we call the only begotten Son of God, because he is neither made -nor is he a creature. And if he is not a creature, it is necessary to say that he is of the same -substance with the Father, since every substance other than the divine essence is made. But a -substance that is not a creature is God. And so the Word, through whom all things were made, -is consubstantial with the Father, since he is neither made, nor is he a creature.</p> -<p>72 And so in saying <span style="font-weight: bold">All things were made through him, </span>you have, according to -Chrysostom, the equality of the Word with the Father; the coeternity of the Word with the -Father, according to Hilary; and the consubstantiality of the Word with the Father, according -to Augustine.</p> -<p>73 Here we must guard against three errors. First, the error of Valentine. He understood <span style="font-weight: bold">All -things were made through him </span>to mean that the Word proferred to the Creator the cause of -his creating the world; so that all things were made through the Word as if the Father’s -creating the world came from the Word. This leads to the position of those who said that God -created the world because of some exterior cause; and this is contrary to Proverbs (16:4), -“The Lord made all things for himself.” The reason this is an error is that, as Origen says, if -the Word had been a cause to the Creator by offering him the material for making things, he -would not have said, <span style="font-weight: bold">All things were made through him, </span>but on the contrary, that all things -were made through the Creator by the Word.</p> -<p>74 Secondly, we must avoid the error of Origen. He said that the Holy Spirit was included -among all the things made through the Word; from which it follows that he is a creature. And -this is what Origen thought. This is heretical and blasphemous, since the Holy Spirit has the -same glory and substance and dignity as the Father and the Son, according to the words of -Matthew (28:19), “Make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the -Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” And, “There are three who give testimony’ in -heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one” (l Jn 5:7). Thus -when the Evangelist says, <span style="font-weight: bold">All things were made through him</span>, one should not understand -“all things” absolutely, but in the realm of creatures and of things made. As if to say: All -things that were made, were made through him. Otherwise, if “all things” were taken -absolutely, it would follow that the Father and the Holy Spirit were made through him; and -this is blasphemous. Consequently, neither the Father nor anything substantial with the Father -was made through the Word.</p> -<p>75 Thirdly, we must avoid another of Origen’s errors. For he said that all things were made -through the Word as something is made by a greater through a lesser, as if the Son were -inferior to, and an instrument of, the Father. But it is clear from many places in Scripture that -the preposition “through” (<i>per</i>)<i> </i>does not signify inferiority in the thing which is its -grammatical object, i.e., in the Son or Word. For the Apostle says, “God is faithful, through -whom you were called into the fellowship of his Son” (1 Cor 1:9). If he “through” whom -something is done has a superior, then the Father has a superior. But this is false. Therefore, -the preposition “through” does not signify any inferiority in the Son when all things are said -to have been made through him.</p> -<p>76 To explain this point further, we should note that when something is said to be made -through someone, the preposition “through” (<i>per</i>)<i> </i>denotes some sort of causality in its object -with respect to an operation; but not always the same kind of causality. For since an -operation, according to our manner of signifying, is considered to be medial between the one -acting and the thing produced, the operation itself can be regarded in two ways. In one way, -as issuing from the one operating, who is the cause of the action itself; in another way, as -terminated in the thing produced. Accordingly, the preposition “through” sometimes signifies -the cause of the operation insofar as it issues from the one operating: but sometimes as -terminated in the thing which is produced. It signifies the cause of the operation as issuing -from the one operating when the object of the preposition is either the efficient or formal -cause why the one operating is operating. For example, we have a formal cause when fire is -heating through heat; for heat is the formal cause of the fire’s heating. We have a movent or -efficient cause in cases where secondary agents act through primary agents; as when I say that -the bailiff acts through the king, because the king is the efficient cause of the bailiff’s acting. -This is the way Valentine understood that all things were made through the Word: as though -the Word were the cause of the maker’s production of all things. The preposition “through” -implies the causality of the operation as terminated in the thing produced when what is -signified through that causality is not the cause which operates, but the cause of the operation -precisely as terminated in the thing produced. So when I say, “The carpenter is making a -bench through [by means of] a hatchet,” the hatchet is not the cause of the carpenter’s -operating; but we do say that it is the cause of the bench’s being made by the one acting.</p> -<p>And so when it says that <span style="font-weight: bold">All things were made through him, </span>if the “through” denotes the -efficient or movent cause, causing the Father to act, then in this sense the Father does nothing -through the Son, but he does all things through himself, as has been said. But if the “through” -denotes a formal cause, as when the Father operates through his widsom, which is his -essence, he operates through his wisdom as he operates through his essence. And because the -wisdom and power of the Father are attributed to the Son, as when we say, “Christ, the power -of God and the wisdom of God” (1 Cor 1:24), then by appropriation we say that the Father -does all things through the Son, i.e., through his wisdom. And so Augustine says that the -phrase “from whom all things,” is appropriated to the Father; “through whom all things,” is -appropriated to the Son; and “in whom all things,” is appropriated to the Holy Spirit. But if -the “through” denotes causality from the standpoint of the thing produced, then the statement, -“The Father does all things through the Son,” is not [mere] appropriation but proper to the -Word, because the fact that he is a cause of creatures is had from someone else, namely the -Father, from whom he has being.</p> -<p>However, it does not follow from this that the Word is the instrument of the Father, although -whatever is moved by another to effect something partakes of the nature of an instrument. For -when I say that someone works through a power received from another, this can be -understood in two ways. In one way, as meaning that the power of the giver and of the -receiver is numerically one and the same power; and in this way the one operating through a -power received from another is not inferior but equal to the one from whom he receives it. -Therefore, since the same power which the Father has he gives to the Son, through which the -Son works, when it is said that “the Father works through the Son,” one should not on that -account say that the Son is inferior to the Father or is his instrument. This would be the case, -rather, in those who receive from another not the same power, but another and created one. -And so it is plain that neither the Holy Spirit nor the Son are causes of the Father’s working, -and that neither is the minister or instrument of the Father, as Origen raved.</p> -<p>77 If we carefully consider the words, <span style="font-weight: bold">All things were made through him, </span>we can clearly -see that the Evangelist spoke with the utmost exactitude. For whoever makes something must -preconceive it in his wisdom, which is the form and pattern of the thing made: as the form -preconceived in the mind of an artisan is the pattern of the cabinet to be made. So, God makes -nothing except through the conception of his intellect, which is an eternally conceived -wisdom, that is, the Word of God, and the Son of God. Accordingly, it is impossible that he -should make anything except through the Son. And so Augustine says, in <i>The Trinity, </i>that the -Word is the art full of the living patterns of all things. Thus it is clear that all things which the -Father makes, he makes through him.</p> -<p>78 It should be remarked that, according to Chrysostom, all the things which Moses -enumerates individually in God’s production of things, saying, “And God said, ‘Let there be -light’” (Gn 1:3) and so forth, all these the Evangelist transcends and embraces in one phrase, -saying, <span style="font-weight: bold">All things were made through him. </span>The reason is that Moses wished to teach the -emanation of creatures from God; hence he enumerated them one by one. But John, hastening -toward loftier things, intends in this book to lead us specifically to a knowledge of the Creator -himself.</p> -<p>79 Then he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">and without him nothing was made. </span>This is the second clause which some -have distorted, as Augustine says in his work, <i>The Nature of the Good. </i>Because of John’s -manner of speaking here, they believed that he was using “nothing” in an affirmative sense; -as though nothing was something which was made without the Word. And so they claimed -that this clause was added by the Evangelist in order to exclude something which was not -made by the Word. They say that the Evangelist, having said that <span style="font-weight: bold">All things were made -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 -things were made through him in such a way that still something was made without him, that -is, the “nothing”.</p> -<p>80 Three heresies came from this. First, that of Valentine. He affirmed, as Origen says, a -multitude of principles, and taught that from them came thirty eras. The first principles he -postulates are two: the Deep, which he calls God the Father, and Silence. And from these -proceed ten eras. But from the Deep and from Silence, he says, there are two other principles, -Mind and Truth; and from these issued eight eras. Then from Mind and Truth, there are two -other principles, Word and Life; and from these issued twelve eras; thus making a total of -thirty. Finally, from the Word and Life there proceeded in time, the man Christ and the -Church. In this way Valentine affirmed many eras previous to the issuing forth of the Word. -And so he said that because the Evangelist had stated that <span style="font-weight: bold">all things were made through -him, </span>then, lest anyone think that those previous eras had been effected through the Word, he -added, <span style="font-weight: bold">and without him nothing was made, </span>i.e., all the preceding eras and all that had -existed in them. All of these John calls “nothing,” because they transcend human reason and -cannot be grasped by the mind.</p> -<p>81 The second error to arise from this was that of Manichaeus, who affirmed two opposing -principles: one is the source of incorruptible things, and the other of corruptible things. He -said that after John had stated that <span style="font-weight: bold">All things were made through him, </span>then, lest it be -thought that the Word is the cause of corruptible things, he immediately added, <span style="font-weight: bold">and without -him nothing was made, </span>i.e., things subject to corruption, which are called “nothing” because -their being consists in being continually transformed into nothing.</p> -<p>82 The third error is that of those who claim that by “nothing” we should understand the -devil, according to Job (18:15), “May the companions of him who is not dwell in his house.” -And so they say that all things except the devil were made through the Word. In this way they -explain, <span style="font-weight: bold">without him nothing was made, </span>that is, the devil.</p> -<p>83 All these three errors, arising as they do from the same source, namely, taking “nothing” in -a positive sense, are excluded by the fact that “nothing” in not used here in an affirmative, but -in a merely negative sense: the sense being that all things were made through the Word in -such a way that there is nothing participating in existence that was not made through him.</p> -<p>84 Perhaps someone will object and say that it was superfluous to add this clause, if it is to be -understood negatively, on the ground that the Evangelist, in stating that <span style="font-weight: bold">All things were -made through him, </span>seems to have already said adequately enough that there is not -something that was not made through the Word.</p> -<p>The answer to this is that, according to many expositors, this clause was added in many ways -for a number of reasons. One of these reasons is, according to Chrysostom, so that no one -reading the Old Testament and finding only visible things listed by Moses in the creation of -things, would think that these were the only things made through the Word. And so after he -had said, <span style="font-weight: bold">All things were made through him, </span>namely, those that Moses listed, the -Evangelist then added, <span style="font-weight: bold">and without him nothing was made, </span>as though he were saying: None -of the things which exist, whether visible or invisible, was made without the Word. Indeed, -the Apostle also speaks in this way (Col 1:16), saying that all things, visible and invisible, -were created in Christ; and here the Apostle makes specific mention of invisible things -because Moses had made no express mention of them on account of the lack of erudition of -that people, who could not be raised above the things of sense.</p> -<p>Chrysostom also gives another reason why this clause was added. For someone reading in the -Gospels of the many signs and miracles worked by Christ, such as, “The blind see, the lame -walk, lepers are cleansed” (Mt 11:5), might believe that in saying, <span style="font-weight: bold">All things were made -through him, </span>John meant that only the things mentioned in those Gospels, and nothing else, -were made through him. So lest anyone suspect this, the Evangelist adds, <span style="font-weight: bold">and without him -nothing was made. </span>As if to say: Not only all the things contained in the Gospels were made -through him, but none of the things that were made, was made without him. And so, -according to Chrysostom, this clause is added to bring out his total causality, and serves, as it -were, to complete his previous statement.</p> -<p>85 According to Hilary, however, this clause is introduced to show that the Word has -operative power from another. For since the Evangelist had said, <span style="font-weight: bold">All things were made -through him, </span>it might be supposed that the Father is excluded from all causality. For that -reason he added, <span style="font-weight: bold">and without him nothing was made. </span>As if to say: All things were made -through him, but in such a way that the Father made all things with him. For “without him” is -equivalent to saying, “not alone,” so that the meaning is: It is not he alone through whom all -things were made, but he is the other one without whom nothing was made. It is as if he said: -<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 -was with him forming all things” (Prv 8:30).</p> -<p>86 In a certain homily attributed to Origen, and which begins, “The spiritual voice of the -eagle,” we find another rather beautiful exposition. It says there that the Greek has <i>thoris -</i>where the Latin has <i>sine </i>(without). Now <i>thoris</i> is the same as “outside” or “outside of.” It is -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 -was made. </span>And so he says this to show that all things are conserved through the Word and in -the Word, as stated in Hebrews ( 1:3), “He sustains all things by his powerful word.” Now -there are certain things that do not need their producer except to bring them into existence, -since after they have been produced they are able to subsist without any further activity on the -part of the producer. For example, a house needs a builder if it is to come into existence, but -it continues to exist without any further action on the part of the builder. So lest anyone -suppose that all things were made through the Word in such a way that he is merely the cause -of their production and not of their continuation in existence, the Evangelist added, <span style="font-weight: bold">and -without him nothing was made, </span>i.e., nothing was made outside of him, because he -encompasses all things, preserving them.</p> -<p>87 This clause is also explained by Augustine and Origen and several others in such a way -that “nothing” indicates sin. Accordingly, because <span style="font-weight: bold">All things were made through him </span>might -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 -made. </span>For just as art is not the principle or cause of the defects in its products, but is through -itself the cause of their perfection and form, so the Word, who is the art of the Father, full of -living archetypes, is not the cause of any evil or disarrangement in things, particularly of the -evil of sin, which carries the full notion of evil. The <i>per se </i>cause of this evil is the will of the -creature, either a man or an angel, freely declining from the end to which it is ordained by its -nature. One who can act in virtue of his art but purposely violates it, is the cause of the -defects occurring in his works, not by reason of his art, but by reason of his will. So in such -cases, his art is not the source or cause of the defects, but his will is. Consequently, evil is a -defect of the will and not of any art. And so to the extent that it is such [i.e., a defect], it is +<p style="margin-bottom: 0.125in; margin-bottom: 0.125in"> + </p> +<center> +<p><span style="font-weight: bold">LECTURE 2</span></p> +<p>3 All things were made through him,<br /> +and without him nothing was made.<br /> +What was made 4a in him was life.</p> +</center> +<p>68 After the Evangelist has told of the existence and nature of +the Divine Word, so far as it can be told by man, he then shows the +might of his power. First, he shows his power with respect to all +things that come into existence. Secondly, with respect to man. As +to the first, he uses three clauses; and we will not distinguish +these at present because they will be distinguished in different +ways according to the different explanations given by the +saints.</p> +<p>69 The first clause, <span style="font-weight: bold">All thifngs +were made through him</span>, is used to show three things +concerning the Word. First, according to Chrysostom, to show the +equality of the Word to the Father. For as stated earlier, the +error of Arius was rejected by the Evangelist when he showed the +coeternity of the Son with the Father by saying, “He was in +the beginning with God.” Here he excludes the same error when +he shows the omnipotence of the Son, saying, <span style= +"font-weight: bold">All things were made through him</span>. For to +be the principle of all the things that are made is proper to the +great omnipotent God, as the Psalm (134:6) says, “Whatever +the Lord wills he does, in heaven and on earth.”Thus the +Word, through whom all things were made, is God, great and coequal +to the Father.</p> +<p>70 Secondly, according to Hilary, this clause is used to show +the coeternity of the Word with the Father. For since someone might +understand the earlier statement, “In the beginning was the +Word,” as referring to the beginning of creatures, i.e., that +before there were any creatures there was a time in which the Word +did not exist, the Evangelist rejects this by saying, <span style= +"font-weight: bold">All things were made through him.</span> For if +all things were made through the Word, then time was also. From +this we can form the following argument: If all time was made +through him, there was no time before him or with him, because +before all these, he was. Therefore they [the Son and the Father] +are eternally coeternal.</p> +<p>71 Thirdly, according to Augustine, this clause is used to show +the consubstantiality of the Word with the Father. For if all +things were made through the Word, the Word himself cannot be said +to have been made; because, if made, he was made through some Word, +since all things were made through the Word. Consequently, there +would have been another Word through whom was made the Word of whom +the Evangelist is speaking. This Word, through whom all things are +made, we call the only begotten Son of God, because he is neither +made nor is he a creature. And if he is not a creature, it is +necessary to say that he is of the same substance with the Father, +since every substance other than the divine essence is made. But a +substance that is not a creature is God. And so the Word, through +whom all things were made, is consubstantial with the Father, since +he is neither made, nor is he a creature.</p> +<p>72 And so in saying <span style="font-weight: bold">All things +were made through him,</span> you have, according to Chrysostom, +the equality of the Word with the Father; the coeternity of the +Word with the Father, according to Hilary; and the +consubstantiality of the Word with the Father, according to +Augustine.</p> +<p>73 Here we must guard against three errors. First, the error of +Valentine. He understood <span style="font-weight: bold">All things +were made through him</span> to mean that the Word proferred to the +Creator the cause of his creating the world; so that all things +were made through the Word as if the Father’s creating the +world came from the Word. This leads to the position of those who +said that God created the world because of some exterior cause; and +this is contrary to Proverbs (16:4), “The Lord made all +things for himself.” The reason this is an error is that, as +Origen says, if the Word had been a cause to the Creator by +offering him the material for making things, he would not have +said, <span style="font-weight: bold">All things were made through +him,</span> but on the contrary, that all things were made through +the Creator by the Word.</p> +<p>74 Secondly, we must avoid the error of Origen. He said that the +Holy Spirit was included among all the things made through the +Word; from which it follows that he is a creature. And this is what +Origen thought. This is heretical and blasphemous, since the Holy +Spirit has the same glory and substance and dignity as the Father +and the Son, according to the words of Matthew (28:19), “Make +disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the +Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” And, +“There are three who give testimony’ in heaven, the +Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are +one” (l Jn 5:7). Thus when the Evangelist says, <span style= +"font-weight: bold">All things were made through him</span>, one +should not understand “all things” absolutely, but in +the realm of creatures and of things made. As if to say: All things +that were made, were made through him. Otherwise, if “all +things” were taken absolutely, it would follow that the +Father and the Holy Spirit were made through him; and this is +blasphemous. Consequently, neither the Father nor anything +substantial with the Father was made through the Word.</p> +<p>75 Thirdly, we must avoid another of Origen’s errors. For +he said that all things were made through the Word as something is +made by a greater through a lesser, as if the Son were inferior to, +and an instrument of, the Father. But it is clear from many places +in Scripture that the preposition “through” +(<i>per</i>) does not signify inferiority in the thing which is its +grammatical object, i.e., in the Son or Word. For the Apostle says, +“God is faithful, through whom you were called into the +fellowship of his Son” (1 Cor 1:9). If he +“through” whom something is done has a superior, then +the Father has a superior. But this is false. Therefore, the +preposition “through” does not signify any inferiority +in the Son when all things are said to have been made through +him.</p> +<p>76 To explain this point further, we should note that when +something is said to be made through someone, the preposition +“through” (<i>per</i>) denotes some sort of causality +in its object with respect to an operation; but not always the same +kind of causality. For since an operation, according to our manner +of signifying, is considered to be medial between the one acting +and the thing produced, the operation itself can be regarded in two +ways. In one way, as issuing from the one operating, who is the +cause of the action itself; in another way, as terminated in the +thing produced. Accordingly, the preposition “through” +sometimes signifies the cause of the operation insofar as it issues +from the one operating: but sometimes as terminated in the thing +which is produced. It signifies the cause of the operation as +issuing from the one operating when the object of the preposition +is either the efficient or formal cause why the one operating is +operating. For example, we have a formal cause when fire is heating +through heat; for heat is the formal cause of the fire’s +heating. We have a movent or efficient cause in cases where +secondary agents act through primary agents; as when I say that the +bailiff acts through the king, because the king is the efficient +cause of the bailiff’s acting. This is the way Valentine +understood that all things were made through the Word: as though +the Word were the cause of the maker’s production of all +things. The preposition “through” implies the causality +of the operation as terminated in the thing produced when what is +signified through that causality is not the cause which operates, +but the cause of the operation precisely as terminated in the thing +produced. So when I say, “The carpenter is making a bench +through [by means of] a hatchet,” the hatchet is not the +cause of the carpenter’s operating; but we do say that it is +the cause of the bench’s being made by the one acting.</p> +<p>And so when it says that <span style="font-weight: bold">All +things were made through him,</span> if the “through” +denotes the efficient or movent cause, causing the Father to act, +then in this sense the Father does nothing through the Son, but he +does all things through himself, as has been said. But if the +“through” denotes a formal cause, as when the Father +operates through his widsom, which is his essence, he operates +through his wisdom as he operates through his essence. And because +the wisdom and power of the Father are attributed to the Son, as +when we say, “Christ, the power of God and the wisdom of +God” (1 Cor 1:24), then by appropriation we say that the +Father does all things through the Son, i.e., through his wisdom. +And so Augustine says that the phrase “from whom all +things,” is appropriated to the Father; “through whom +all things,” is appropriated to the Son; and “in whom +all things,” is appropriated to the Holy Spirit. But if the +“through” denotes causality from the standpoint of the +thing produced, then the statement, “The Father does all +things through the Son,” is not [mere] appropriation but +proper to the Word, because the fact that he is a cause of +creatures is had from someone else, namely the Father, from whom he +has being.</p> +<p>However, it does not follow from this that the Word is the +instrument of the Father, although whatever is moved by another to +effect something partakes of the nature of an instrument. For when +I say that someone works through a power received from another, +this can be understood in two ways. In one way, as meaning that the +power of the giver and of the receiver is numerically one and the +same power; and in this way the one operating through a power +received from another is not inferior but equal to the one from +whom he receives it. Therefore, since the same power which the +Father has he gives to the Son, through which the Son works, when +it is said that “the Father works through the Son,” one +should not on that account say that the Son is inferior to the +Father or is his instrument. This would be the case, rather, in +those who receive from another not the same power, but another and +created one. And so it is plain that neither the Holy Spirit nor +the Son are causes of the Father’s working, and that neither +is the minister or instrument of the Father, as Origen raved.</p> +<p>77 If we carefully consider the words, <span style= +"font-weight: bold">All things were made through him,</span> we can +clearly see that the Evangelist spoke with the utmost exactitude. +For whoever makes something must preconceive it in his wisdom, +which is the form and pattern of the thing made: as the form +preconceived in the mind of an artisan is the pattern of the +cabinet to be made. So, God makes nothing except through the +conception of his intellect, which is an eternally conceived +wisdom, that is, the Word of God, and the Son of God. Accordingly, +it is impossible that he should make anything except through the +Son. And so Augustine says, in <i>The Trinity,</i> that the Word is +the art full of the living patterns of all things. Thus it is clear +that all things which the Father makes, he makes through him.</p> +<p>78 It should be remarked that, according to Chrysostom, all the +things which Moses enumerates individually in God’s +production of things, saying, “And God said, ‘Let there +be light’” (Gn 1:3) and so forth, all these the +Evangelist transcends and embraces in one phrase, saying, +<span style="font-weight: bold">All things were made through +him.</span> The reason is that Moses wished to teach the emanation +of creatures from God; hence he enumerated them one by one. But +John, hastening toward loftier things, intends in this book to lead +us specifically to a knowledge of the Creator himself.</p> +<p>79 Then he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">and without him +nothing was made.</span> This is the second clause which some have +distorted, as Augustine says in his work, <i>The Nature of the +Good.</i> Because of John’s manner of speaking here, they +believed that he was using “nothing” in an affirmative +sense; as though nothing was something which was made without the +Word. And so they claimed that this clause was added by the +Evangelist in order to exclude something which was not made by the +Word. They say that the Evangelist, having said that <span style= +"font-weight: bold">All things were made 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 things were made +through him in such a way that still something was made without +him, that is, the “nothing”.</p> +<p>80 Three heresies came from this. First, that of Valentine. He +affirmed, as Origen says, a multitude of principles, and taught +that from them came thirty eras. The first principles he postulates +are two: the Deep, which he calls God the Father, and Silence. And +from these proceed ten eras. But from the Deep and from Silence, he +says, there are two other principles, Mind and Truth; and from +these issued eight eras. Then from Mind and Truth, there are two +other principles, Word and Life; and from these issued twelve eras; +thus making a total of thirty. Finally, from the Word and Life +there proceeded in time, the man Christ and the Church. In this way +Valentine affirmed many eras previous to the issuing forth of the +Word. And so he said that because the Evangelist had stated that +<span style="font-weight: bold">all things were made through +him,</span> then, lest anyone think that those previous eras had +been effected through the Word, he added, <span style= +"font-weight: bold">and without him nothing was made,</span> i.e., +all the preceding eras and all that had existed in them. All of +these John calls “nothing,” because they transcend +human reason and cannot be grasped by the mind.</p> +<p>81 The second error to arise from this was that of Manichaeus, +who affirmed two opposing principles: one is the source of +incorruptible things, and the other of corruptible things. He said +that after John had stated that <span style="font-weight: bold">All +things were made through him,</span> then, lest it be thought that +the Word is the cause of corruptible things, he immediately added, +<span style="font-weight: bold">and without him nothing was +made,</span> i.e., things subject to corruption, which are called +“nothing” because their being consists in being +continually transformed into nothing.</p> +<p>82 The third error is that of those who claim that by +“nothing” we should understand the devil, according to +Job (18:15), “May the companions of him who is not dwell in +his house.” And so they say that all things except the devil +were made through the Word. In this way they explain, <span style= +"font-weight: bold">without him nothing was made,</span> that is, +the devil.</p> +<p>83 All these three errors, arising as they do from the same +source, namely, taking “nothing” in a positive sense, +are excluded by the fact that “nothing” in not used +here in an affirmative, but in a merely negative sense: the sense +being that all things were made through the Word in such a way that +there is nothing participating in existence that was not made +through him.</p> +<p>84 Perhaps someone will object and say that it was superfluous +to add this clause, if it is to be understood negatively, on the +ground that the Evangelist, in stating that <span style= +"font-weight: bold">All things were made through him,</span> seems +to have already said adequately enough that there is not something +that was not made through the Word.</p> +<p>The answer to this is that, according to many expositors, this +clause was added in many ways for a number of reasons. One of these +reasons is, according to Chrysostom, so that no one reading the Old +Testament and finding only visible things listed by Moses in the +creation of things, would think that these were the only things +made through the Word. And so after he had said, <span style= +"font-weight: bold">All things were made through him,</span> +namely, those that Moses listed, the Evangelist then added, +<span style="font-weight: bold">and without him nothing was +made,</span> as though he were saying: None of the things which +exist, whether visible or invisible, was made without the Word. +Indeed, the Apostle also speaks in this way (Col 1:16), saying that +all things, visible and invisible, were created in Christ; and here +the Apostle makes specific mention of invisible things because +Moses had made no express mention of them on account of the lack of +erudition of that people, who could not be raised above the things +of sense.</p> +<p>Chrysostom also gives another reason why this clause was added. +For someone reading in the Gospels of the many signs and miracles +worked by Christ, such as, “The blind see, the lame walk, +lepers are cleansed” (Mt 11:5), might believe that in saying, +<span style="font-weight: bold">All things were made through +him,</span> John meant that only the things mentioned in those +Gospels, and nothing else, were made through him. So lest anyone +suspect this, the Evangelist adds, <span style= +"font-weight: bold">and without him nothing was made.</span> As if +to say: Not only all the things contained in the Gospels were made +through him, but none of the things that were made, was made +without him. And so, according to Chrysostom, this clause is added +to bring out his total causality, and serves, as it were, to +complete his previous statement.</p> +<p>85 According to Hilary, however, this clause is introduced to +show that the Word has operative power from another. For since the +Evangelist had said, <span style="font-weight: bold">All things +were made through him,</span> it might be supposed that the Father +is excluded from all causality. For that reason he added, +<span style="font-weight: bold">and without him nothing was +made.</span> As if to say: All things were made through him, but in +such a way that the Father made all things with him. For +“without him” is equivalent to saying, “not +alone,” so that the meaning is: It is not he alone through +whom all things were made, but he is the other one without whom +nothing was made. It is as if he said: <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 was with him forming all +things” (Prv 8:30).</p> +<p>86 In a certain homily attributed to Origen, and which begins, +“The spiritual voice of the eagle,” we find another +rather beautiful exposition. It says there that the Greek has +<i>thoris</i> where the Latin has <i>sine</i> (without). Now +<i>thoris</i> is the same as “outside” or +“outside of.” It is 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 was +made.</span> And so he says this to show that all things are +conserved through the Word and in the Word, as stated in Hebrews ( +1:3), “He sustains all things by his powerful word.” +Now there are certain things that do not need their producer except +to bring them into existence, since after they have been produced +they are able to subsist without any further activity on the part +of the producer. For example, a house needs a builder if it is to +come into existence, but it continues to exist without any further +action on the part of the builder. So lest anyone suppose that all +things were made through the Word in such a way that he is merely +the cause of their production and not of their continuation in +existence, the Evangelist added, <span style= +"font-weight: bold">and without him nothing was made,</span> i.e., +nothing was made outside of him, because he encompasses all things, +preserving them.</p> +<p>87 This clause is also explained by Augustine and Origen and +several others in such a way that “nothing” indicates +sin. Accordingly, because <span style="font-weight: bold">All +things were made through him</span> might 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 made.</span> For just as art is +not the principle or cause of the defects in its products, but is +through itself the cause of their perfection and form, so the Word, +who is the art of the Father, full of living archetypes, is not the +cause of any evil or disarrangement in things, particularly of the +evil of sin, which carries the full notion of evil. The <i>per +se</i> cause of this evil is the will of the creature, either a man +or an angel, freely declining from the end to which it is ordained +by its nature. One who can act in virtue of his art but purposely +violates it, is the cause of the defects occurring in his works, +not by reason of his art, but by reason of his will. So in such +cases, his art is not the source or cause of the defects, but his +will is. Consequently, evil is a defect of the will and not of any +art. And so to the extent that it is such [i.e., a defect], it is nothing.</p> -<p>88 So then, this clause is added to show the universal causality of the Word, according to -Chrysostom; his association with the Father, according to Hilary; the power of the Word in -the preserving of things, according to Origen; and finally, the purity of his causality, because -he is so the cause of good as not to be the cause of sin, according to Augustine, Origen, and a -number of others.</p> -<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 -avoid the false interpretation of Manichaeus, who was led by this to maintain that everything -that exists is alive: for example, stones, wood, men, and anything else in the world. He -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 -unless alive. Therefore, whatever was made in him is alive. He also claimed that “in him” is -the same as saying “through him,” since very often in Scripture “in him” and “through him” -are interchangeable, as in “in him and through him all things were created” (Col 1:16). -However, our present explanation shows that this interpretation is false.</p> -<p>90 There are, nevertheless, a number of ways to explain it without error. In that homily, “The -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 -life, </span>not in each thing itself, but in its cause. For in the case of all things that are caused, it is -always true that effects, whether produced by nature or by will, exist in their causes, not -according to their own existence, but according to the power of their appropriate cause. Thus, -lower effects are in the sun as in their cause, not according to their respective existences but -according to the power of the sun. Therefore, since the cause of all effects produced by God is -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., -through him, <span style="font-weight: bold">was life, </span>in its cause, i.e., in God.</p> -<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 -things can be considered in two ways: as they are in themselves, and as they are in the Word. -If they are considered as they are in themselves, then it is not true that all things are life or -even alive, but some lack life and some are alive. For example, the earth was made and -metals were made, but none is life, none is living; animals and men were made, and these, -considered in themselves, are not life, but merely living. Yet considered as they are in the -Word, they are not merely living, but also life. For the archetypes which exist spiritually in -the wisdom of God, and through which things were made by the Word, are life, just as a chest -made by an artisan is in itself neither alive nor life, yet the exemplar of the chest in the -artisan’s mind prior to the existence of the chest is in some sense living, insofar as it has an -intellectual existence in the mind of the artisan. Nevertheless it is not life, because it is neither -in his essence nor is it his existence through the act of understanding of the artisan. But in -God, his act of understanding is his life and his essence. And so whatever is in God is not -only living, but is life itself, because whatever is in God is his essence. Hence the creature in -God is the creating essence. Thus, if things are considered as they are in the Word, they are -life. This is explained in another place.</p> -<p>92 Origen, commenting on John, gives another reading, thus: <span style="font-weight: bold">That which was made in him; -</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; -for example, that he is God, omnipotent, and the like. And some things are said of him in -relation to ourselves; for example, we say he is Savior and Redeemer. Some things are said in -both ways, such as wisdom and justice. Now in all things said absolutely and of the Son as -such, it is not said that he was “made”, for example, we do not say that the Son was made -God or omnipotent. But in things said in reference to us, or in both ways, the notion of being -made can be used, as in, “God made him [Jesus Christ] our wisdom, our justice, our -sanctification and redemption” (1 Cor 1:30). And so, although he was always wisdom and -justice in himself, yet it can be said that he was newly made justice and wisdom for us.</p> -<p>And so Origen, explaining it along these lines, says that although in himself the Son is life, -yet he was made life for us by the fact that he gave us life, as is said, “Just as in Adam all die, -so in Christ all will come to life” (1 Cor 15:22). And so he says “the Word that was made” -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 -immediately adds, <span style="font-weight: bold">and that life was the light of men.</span></p> -<p>93 Hilary reads the clause differently, thus: <span style="font-weight: bold">And without him was made nothing, which -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 -Evangelist says <span style="font-weight: bold">without him nothing was made, </span>one might be perplexed and ask whether -there are still other things made by him, that were not made through him, although not -without him, but with respect to which he was associated with the maker; and this clause is -added to correct the aforesaid error. Therefore lest this be so understood, when the Evangelist -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, -</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> -<p>For it is plain that all things are said to have been made through the Word inasmuch as the -Word, who proceeds from the Father, is God. But let us suppose that some father has a son -who does not perfectly exercise the operations of a man, but reaches such a state gradually. In -that case the father will do many things, not through the son, yet not without [having] him. -Since, therefore, the Son of God has from all eternity the same life that the Father has—“Just -as the Father possesses life in himself, so has he granted it to the Son to have life in himself” -(below 5:26)—one cannot say that God the Father, although he made nothing without the -Son, nevertheless made some things not through him, because he was life. For in living things -which participate life, it can happen that imperfect life precedes perfect life; but in <i>per se </i>life, -which does not participate life but is simply and absolutely life, there can be no imperfection -at all. Accordingly, because the Word is <i>per se </i>life, there was never imperfect life in him, but -always perfect life. And so in such a way that nothing was made without him that was not -also made in him, i.e., through him.</p> -<p>94 Chrysostom has a different reading and punctuation, thus: <span style="font-weight: bold">And without him was made -nothing that was made. </span>The reason for this is that someone might believe that the Holy -Spirit was made through the Word. So to exclude this, the Evangelist says, <span style="font-weight: bold">that was made, -</span>because the Holy Spirit is not something that is made. And afterward follows, <span style="font-weight: bold">In him was -life, </span>which is introduced for two reasons. First, to show that after the creation of all things his -causality was indefectible not only with respect to the things already produced, but also with -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 -produce all things, but which has an unfailing flow and a causality for producing things -continually without undergoing any change, being a living fountain which is not diminished -in spite of its continuous outflow; whereas collected water, that is not living [i..e., running] -water, is diminished when it flows out, and is used up. So the Psalm (35:10) says, “With you -is the fountain of life.” The second reason is to show that things are governed by the: Word. -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 -a necessity of his nature, and that he governs the things he made. “The Word of God is -living” (Heb 4:12).</p> -<p>Chrysostom is held in such esteem by the Greeks in his explanations that they admit no other -where he expounded anything in Holy Scripture. For this reason, this passage in all the Greek -works is found to be punctuated exactly as Chrysostom did, namely, <span style="font-weight: bold">And without him was -made nothing that was made.</span></p> -<p style="margin-bottom: 0.125in; margin-bottom: 0.125in"> </p> -<CENTER><p><span style="font-weight: bold">LECTURE 3</span></p> -<p>4b And that life was the light of men.<BR> -5 And the light shines in the darkness,<BR> -and the darkness did not overcome it.</p></CENTER> -<p>95 Above, the Evangelist described the power of the Word insofar as he brought all things -into existence; here he describes his power as it is related to men, saying that this Word is a -light to men. First, he introduces a certain light to us (v 4b); secondly, the light’s irradiation -(v 5a); thirdly, participation in the light (v 5b). This whole section may be explained in two -ways: first, according to the influx of natural knowledge; secondly, according to participation -in grace.</p> -<p>As to the first point he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">And that life was the light of men.</span></p> -<p>96 Here we should note first that, according to Augustine and many others, light is more -properly said of spiritual things than of sensible things. Ambrose, however, thinks that -brightness is said metaphorically of God. But this is not a great issue, for in whatever way the -name “light” is used, it implies a manifestation, whether that manifesting concerns intelligible -or sensible things. If we compare sensible and intelligible manifestation, then, according to -the nature of things, light is found first in spiritual things. But for us, who give names to -things on the basis of their properties as known to us, light is discovered first in sensible -things, because we first used this name to signify sensible light before intelligible light; -although as to power, light belongs to spiritual things in a prior and truer way than to sensible -things.</p> -<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 -are many grades of life. For some things live, but do so without light, because they have no -knowledge; for example, plants. Hence their life is not light. Other things both live and know, -but their knowledge, since it is on the sense level, is concerned only with individual and -material things, as is the case with the brutes. So they have both life and a certain light. But -they do not have the light of men, who live, and know, not only truths, but also the very -nature of truth itself. Such are rational creatures, to whom not only this or that are made -manifest, but truth itself, which can be manifested and is manifestive to all.</p> -<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 -anyone suppose he means life without knowledge. And he says that he is the <span style="font-weight: bold">light of men, -</span>lest anyone suppose he meant only sensible knowledge, such as exists in the brutes.</p> -<p>98 But since he is also the light of angels, why did he say, of men? Two answers have been -given to this. Chrysostom says that the Evangelist intended in this Gospel to give us a -knowledge of the Word precisely as directed to the salvation of men and therefore refers, in -keeping with his aim, more to men than to angels. Origen, however, says that participation in -this light pertains to men insofar as they have a rational nature; accordingly, when the -Evangelist says, <span style="font-weight: bold">the light of men, </span>he wants us to understand every rational nature. </p> -<p>99 We also see from this the perfection and dignity of this life, because it is intellectual or -rational. For whereas all things that in some way move themselves are called living, only -those that perfectly move themselves are said to have perfect life; and among lower creatures -only man moves himself, properly speaking, and perfectly. For although other things are -moved by themselves by some inner principle, that inner principle is nevertheless not open to -opposite alternatives; hence they are not moved freely but from necessity. As a result, those -things that are moved by such a principle are more truly made to act than act themselves. But -man, since he is master of his act, moves himself freely to all that he wills. Consequently, -man has perfect life, as does every intellectual nature. And so the life of the Word, which is -the light of men, is perfect life.</p> -<p>100 We find a fitting order in the above. For in the natural order of things, existence is first; -and the Evangelist implies this in his first statement, <span style="font-weight: bold">In the beginning was the Word. -</span>Secondly, comes life; and this is mentioned next, <span style="font-weight: bold">In him was life. </span>Thirdly comes -understanding; and that is mentioned next; <span style="font-weight: bold">And that life was the light of men. </span>And, -according to Origen, he fittingly attributes light to life because light can be attributed only to -the living.</p> -<p>101 We should note that light can be related in two ways to what is living: as an object and as -something in which they participate, as is clear in external sight. For the eyes know external -light as an object, but if they are to see it, they must participate in an inner light by which the -eyes are adapted and disposed for seeing the external light. And so his statement, <span style="font-weight: bold">And that -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 -as an object that man alone can look upon, because the rational creature alone can see it, since -he alone is capable of the vision of God who “teaches us more than the beasts of the earth, -and enlightens us more than the birds of the air” Jb 35:11); for although other animals may -know certain things that are true, nevertheless, man alone knows the nature itself of truth.</p> -<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 -able to look upon the Word and light itself except through a participation in it; and this -participation is in man and is the superior part of our soul, i.e., the intellectual light, about -which the Psalm (4:7) says, “The light of your countenance, O Lord, is marked upon us,” i.e., -of your Son, who is your face, by whom you are manifested.</p> -<p>102 Having introduced a certain light, the Evangelist now considers its irradiation, saying, -And the light shines in the darkness. This can be explained in two ways, according to the two -meanings of “darkness.”</p> -<p>First, we might take “darkness” as a natural defect, that of the created mind. For the mind is -to that light of which the Evangelist speaks here as air is to the light of the sun; because, -although air is receptive of the light of the sun, considered in itself it is a darkness. According -to this the meaning is: the light, i.e., that life which is the light of men, shines in the darkness, -i.e., in created souls and minds, by always shedding its light on all. “On a man from whom -the light is hidden” (Jb 3:23).</p> -<p><span style="font-weight: bold">And the darkness did not overcome it, </span>i.e., enclose it [i.e., intellectually]. For to overcome -something [<i>comprehendere, </i>to overcome, to comprehend, to seize or apprehend, and so -forth], is to enclose and understand its boundaries. As Augustine says, to reach God with the -mind is a great happiness; but to overcome [comprehend] him is impossible. And so, the -darkness did not overcome it. “Behold, God is great, exceeding our knowledge” (Jb 36:26); -“Great in counsel, incomprehensible in thought” as Jeremiah (32:19) says. This explanation is -found in that homily which begins, “The spiritual voice of the eagle.”</p> -<p>103 We can explain this passage in another way by taking “darkness” as Augustine does, for -the natural lack of wisdom in man, which is called a darkness. “And I saw that wisdom -excells folly as much as light excells knowledge” (Ecc 2:13). Someone is without wisdom, -therefore, because he lacks the light of divine wisdom. Consequently, just as the minds of the -wise are lucid by reason of a participation in that divine light and wisdom, so by the lack of it -they are darkness. Now the fact that some are darkness is not due to a defect in that light, -since on its part it shines in the darkness and radiates upon all. Rather, the foolish are -‘without that light because <span style="font-weight: bold">the darkness did not overcome it, </span>i.e., they did not apprehend it, -not being able to attain a participation in it due to their foolishness; after having been lifted -up, they did not persevere. “From the savage,” i.e., from the proud, “he hides his light,” i.e., -the light of wisdom, “and shows his friend that it belongs to him, and that he may approach -it” (Jb 36:32); “They did not know the way to wisdom, nor did they remember her paths” (Bar -3:23).</p> -<p>Although some minds are darkness, i.e., they lack savory and lucid wisdom, nevertheless no -man is in such darkness as to be completely devoid of divine light, because whatever truth is -know by anyone is due to a participation in that light which shines in the darkness; for every -truth, no matter by whom it is spoken, comes from the Holy Spirit. Yet the darkness, i.e., men -in darkness, did not overcome it, apprehend it in truth. This is the way, [ i.e., with respect to -the natural influx of knowledge] that Origen and Augustine explain this clause.</p> -<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, -according to the influx of grace, since we are illuminated by Christ.</p> -<p>After he had considered the creation of things through the Word, the Evangelist considers -here the restoration of the rational creature through Christ, saying, <span style="font-weight: bold">And that life, </span>of the Word, -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 -assumed flesh and came into the world to illumine all men with grace and truth. “I came into -the world for this, to testify to the truth” (below 18:37); “As long as I am in the world I am -the light of the world” (below 9:5). So he does not say, “the light of the Jews,” because -although previously he had been known only in Judea, he later became known to the world. “I -have given you as a light to the nations, that you might be my salvation to the ends of the -earth” (Is 49:6).</p> -<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 -show that these two have come to us through Christ: life, through a participation in grace, -“Grace and truth have come through Jesus Christ” (below 1:17); and light, by a knowledge of -truth and wisdom.</p> -<p>105 According to this explanation, <span style="font-weight: bold">the light shines in the darkness, </span>can be expounded in -three ways, in the light of the three meanings of “darkness.”</p> -<p>In one way, we can take “darkness” for punishment. For any sadness and suffering of heart -can be called a darkness, just as any joy can be called a light. “When I sit in darkness and in -suffering the Lord is my light,” i.e., my joy and consolation (Mi 7:8). And so Origen says: In -this explanation, <span style="font-weight: bold">the light shines in the darkness, </span>is Christ coming into the world, having a -body capable of suffering and without sin, but “in the likeness of sinful flesh” (Rom 8:3). The -light is in the flesh, that is, the flesh of Christ, which is called a darkness insofar as it has a -likeness to sinful flesh. As if to say: The light, i.e., the Word of God, veiled about by the -darkness of the flesh, shines on the world; “I will cover the sun with a cloud” (Ez 32:7).</p> -<p>106 Secondly, we can take “darkness” to mean the devils, as in Ephesians (6:12), “Our -struggle is not against flesh and blood; but against principalities and powers, against the -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 -God, <span style="font-weight: bold">shines in the darkness, </span>i.e., has descended into the world where darkness, i.e., the -devils, hold sway: “Now the prince of this world will be cast out” (below 12:31). <span style="font-weight: bold">And the -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 -temptations, as is plain in Matthew (c 4)</p> -<p>107 Thirdly, we can take “darkness” for the error or ignorance which filled the whole world -before the coming of Christ, “You were at one time darkness” (Eph 5:8). And so he says that -<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 -world, who are blinded by the darkness or error and ignorance. “To enlighten those who sit in -darkness and in the shadow of death” (Lk 1:79), “The people who were sitting in darkness -saw a great light” (Is 9:2).</p> -<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 -number of men darkened by sin, blinded by envy, shadowed over by pride, who have -struggled against Christ (as is plain from the Gospel) by upbraiding him, heaping insults and -calumnies upon him, and finally killing him, nevertheless they did not overcome it, i.e., gain -the victory of so obscuring him that his brightness would not shine throughout the whole -world. Wisdom (7:30) says, “Compared to light, she takes precedence, for night supplants it, -but wisdom,” that is, the incarnate Son of God, “is not overcome by wickedness,” that is, of -the Jews and of heretics, because it says, “She gave him the prize for his stern struggle that he -might know that wisdom is mightier than all else” (Wis 10:12).</p> -<p style="margin-bottom: 0.125in; margin-bottom: 0.125in"> </p> -<CENTER><p>LECTURE 4</p> -<p>6 There was a man sent by God, whose name was John.<BR> -7 He came as a witness, that he might bear witness to the light,<BR> -so that through him all men might believe. 8 He was not the light,<BR> -but [he came] in order to bear witness to the light.</CENTER> -<p>108 Above, the Evangelist considered the divinity of the Word; here he begins to consider the -incarnation of the Word. And he does two things concerning this: first, he treats of the -witness to the incarnate Word, or the precursor; secondly, of the coming of the Word ( 1:9). -As to the first, he does two things: first, he describes the precursor who comes to bear -witness; secondly, he shows that he was incapable of the work of our salvation (1:8).</p> -<p>He describes the precursor in four ways. First, according to his nature, <span style="font-weight: bold">There was a man. -</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 -name was John. </span>Fourthly, as to the dignity of his office, <span style="font-weight: bold">He came as a witness.</span></p> -<p>109 We should note with respect to the first that, as soon as the Evangelist begins speaking of -something temporal, he changes his manner of speech. When speaking above of eternal -things, he used the word “was” (<i>erat</i>), which is the past imperfect tense; and this indicates -that eternal things are without end. But now, when he is speaking of temporal things, he uses -“was” (<i>fuit</i>, i.e., “has been”); this indicates temporal things as having taken place in the past -and coming to an end there.</p> -<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 -incorrect opinion of certain heretics who were in error on the condition or nature of John. -They believed that John was an angel in nature, basing themselves on the words of the Lord, -“I send my messenger [in Greek, <i>angelos</i>]<i> </i>before you, who will prepare your way” (Mt -11:10); and the same thing is found in Mark (1:2). But the Evangelist rejects this, saying, -<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 -contend in judgment with one who is stronger than himself” (Ecc 6:10).</p> -<p>Now it “ is fitting that a man be sent to men, for men are more easily drawn to a man, since -he is like themselves. So in Hebrews (7:28) it says, “The law appoints men, who have -weakness, priests.” God could have governed men through angels, but he preferred men so -that we could be more instructed by their example. And so John was a man, and not an angel.</p> -<p>11 1 John is described by his authority when it says, sent by God. Indeed, although John was -not an angel in nature, he was so by his office, because he was sent by God. For the -distinctive office of angels is that they are sent by God and are messengers of God. “All are -ministering spirits, sent to serve” (Heb 1:14). Hence it is that “angel” means “messenger.” -And so men who are sent by God to announce something can be called angels. “Haggai the -messenger of the Lord” (Hg 1:13).</p> -<p>If someone is to bear witness to God, it is necessary that he be sent by God. “How can they -preach unless they are sent?” as is said in Romans (10:15). And since they are sent by God, -they seek the things of Jesus Christ, not their own. “We do not preach ourselves, but Jesus -Christ” (2 Cor 4:5). On the other hand, one who sends himself, and is not sent by God, seeks -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 -a man sent by God, </span>so that we would understand that John proclaimed something divine, not -human.</p> -<p>112 Note that there are three ways in which we see men sent by God. First, by an inward -inspiration. “And now the Lord God has sent me, and his spirit” (Is 48:16). As if to say: I -have been sent by God through an inward inspiration of the spirit. Secondly, by an expressed -and clear command, perceived by the bodily senses or the imagination. Isaiah was also sent in -this way; and so he says, “And I heard the voice of the Lord saying, ‘Whom shall I send, and -who will go for us?’ Then I said, ‘Here I am! Send me’” (Is 6:8). Thirdly, by the order of a -prelate, who acts in the place of God in this matter. “I have pardoned in the person of Christ -for your sake” as it says in 2 Corinthians (2:10). This is why those who are sent by a prelate -are sent by God, as Barnabas and Timothy were sent by the Apostle.</p> -<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 -by God through an inward inspiration, or perhaps even by an outward command. “He who -sent me to baptize with water had said to me: ‘The man on whom you see the Spirit come -down and rest is the one who is to baptize with the Holy Spirit’ “ (below 1:33).</p> -<p>113 We should not understand, <span style="font-weight: bold">There was a man sent by God, </span>as some heretics did, who -believed that from the very beginning human souls were created without bodies along with -the angels, and that one’s soul is sent into the body when he is born, and that John was sent to -life, i.e., his soul was sent to a body. Rather, we should understand that he was sent by God to -baptize and preach.</p> -<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 -the office of bearing witness, because unless a witness is qualified, then no matter in what -way he is sent by another, his testimony is not acceptable. Now a man becomes qualified by -the grace, of God. “By the grace of God I am what I am” (1 Cor 15:10); “who has made us fit -ministers of a new covenant” (2 Cor 3:6). So, the Evangelist appropriately implies the -precursor’s fitness from his name when he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">whose name was John, </span>which is interpreted, -“in whom is grace.”</p> -<p>This name was not given to him meaninglessly, but by divine preordination and before he was -born, as is clear from Luke (1:13), “You will name him John,” as the angel said to Zechariah. -Hence he can say what is said in Isaiah (49:1), “The Lord called me from the womb”; “He -who will be, his name is already called” (Ecc 6:10). The Evangelist also indicates this from -his manner of speaking, when he says was, as to God’s preordination.</p> -<p>115 Then he is described by the dignity of his office. First, his office is mentioned. Secondly, -the reason for his office, <span style="font-weight: bold">to bear witness to the light.</span></p> -<p>116 Now his office is to bear witness; hence he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">He came as a witness.</span></p> -<p>Here it should be remarked that God makes men, and everything else he makes, for himself. -“The Lord made all things for himself” (Prv 16:4). Not, indeed, to add anything to himself, -since he has no need of our good, but so that his goodness might be made manifest in all of -the things made by him, in that “his eternal power and divinity are clearly seen, being -understood through the things that are made”(Rom 1:20). Thus, each creature is made as a -witness to God in so far as each creature is a certain witness of the divine goodness. So, the -vastness of creation is a witness to God’s power and omnipotence; and its beauty is a witness -to the divine wisdom. But certain men are ordained by God in a special way, so that they hear -witness to God not only naturally by their existence, but also spiritually by their good works. -Hence all holy men are witnesses to God inasmuch as God is glorified among men by their -good works. “Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and -glorify your Father who is in heaven” (Mt 5:16). But those who not only share in God’s gifts -in themselves by acting well through the grace of God, but also spread them to others by their -teaching, influencing and encouraging others, are in a more special way witnesses to God. -“Everyone who calls upon my name, I have created for my glory” (Is 43:7). And so John -came as a witness in order to spread to others the gifts of God and to proclaim his praise.</p> -<p>117 This office of John, that of bearing witness, is very great, because no one can testify -about something except in the manner in which he has shared in it. “We know of what we -speak, and we bear witness of what we see” (below 3:11). Hence, to bear witness to divine -truth indicates a knowledge of that truth. So Christ also had this office: “I have come into the -world for this, to testify to the truth” (below 18:37). But Christ testifies in one way and John -in another. Christ bears witness as the light who comprehends all things, indeed, as the -existing light itself. John bears witness only as participating in that light. And so Christ gives -testimony in a perfect manner and perfectly manifests the truth, while John and other holy -men give testimony in so far as they have a share of divine truth. John’s office, therefore, is -great both because of his participation in the divine light and because of a likeness to Christ, -who carried out this office. “I made him a witness to the peoples, a leader and a commander -of the nations” (Is 55:4).</p> -<p>118 The purpose of this office is given when he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">that he might bear witness to the -light. </span>Here we should understand that there are two reasons for bearing witness about -something. One reason can be on the part of the thing with which the witness is concerned; -for example, if there is some doubt or uncertainty about that thing. The other is on the part of -those who hear it; if they are hard of heart and slow to believe. John came as a witness, not -because of the thing about which he bore witness, for it was light. Hence he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">bear -witness to the light, </span>i.e., not to something obscure, but to something clear. He came, -therefore, to bear witness on account of those to whom he testified, <span style="font-weight: bold">so that through him </span>(i.e., -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 -it all else can be seen, so the Word of God is not only light in himself, but he makes known -all things that are known. For since a thing is made known and understood through its form, -and all forms exist through the Word, who is the art full of living forms, the Word is light not -only in himself, but as making known all things; “all that appears is light” (Eph 5:13).</p> -<p>And so it was fitting for the Evangelist to call the Son “light,” because he came as “a -revealing light to the Gentiles” (Lk 2:32). Above, he called the Son of God the Word, by -which the Father expresses himself and every creature. Now since he is, properly speaking, -the light of men, and the Evangelist is considering him here as coming to accomplish the -salvation of men, he fittingly interrupts the use of the name “Word” when speaking of the -Son, and says, “light.”</p> -<p>119 But if that light is adequate of itself to make known all things, and not only itself, what -need does it have of any witness? This was the objection of the Manichaeans, who wanted to -destroy the Old Testament. Consequently, the saints gave many reasons, against their opinion, -why Christ wanted to have the testimony of the prophets.</p> -<p>Origen gives three reasons. The first is that God wanted to have certain witnesses, not -because he needed their testimony, but to ennoble those whom he appointed witnesses. Thus -we see in the order of the universe that God produces certain effects by means of intermediate -causes, not because he himself is unable to produce them without these intermediaries, but he -deigns to confer oil them the dignity of causality because he wishes to-ennoble these -intermediate causes. Similarly, even though God could have enlightened all men by himself -and lead them to a knowledge of himself, yet to preserve due order in things and to ennoble -certain men, he willed that divine knowledge reach men through certain other men. “‘You are -my witnesses,’ says the Lord” (Is 43:10).</p> -<p>A second reason is that Christ was a light to the world through his miracles. Yet, because they -were performed in time, they passed away with time and did not reach everyone. But the -words of the prophets, preserved in Scripture, could reach not only those present, but could -also reach those to come after. Hence the Lord willed that men come to a knowledge of the -Word through the testimony of the prophets, in order that not only those present, but also men -yet lo come, might be enlightened about him. So it says expressly, <span style="font-weight: bold">so that through him all -men might believe, </span>i.e., not only those present, but also future generations.</p> -<p>The third reason is that not all men are in the same condition, and all are not led or disposed -to a knowledge of the truth in the same way. For some are brought to a knowledge of the truth -by signs and miracles; others are brought more by wisdom. “The Jews require signs, and the -Greeks seek wisdom” (1 Cor 1:22). And so the Lord, m order to show the path of salvation to -all, willed both ways to be open. i.e., the way of signs and the way of wisdom, so that those -who would not be brought to the path of salvation by the miracles of the Old and New -Testaments, might be brought to a knowledge of the truth by the path of wisdom, as in the -prophets and other books of Sacred Scripture.</p> -<p>A fourth reason, given by Chrysostom, is that certain men of weak understanding are unable -to grasp the truth and knowledge of God by themselves. And so the Lord chose to come down -to them and to enlighten certain men before others about divine matters, so that these others -might obtain from them in a human way the knowledge of divine things they could not reach -by themselves. And so he says, that <span style="font-weight: bold">through him all men might believe. </span>As if to say: he -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 -all men might believe. </span>And so it is plain that the testimonies of the prophets are fitting and -proper, and should be received as something needed by us for the knowledge of the truth.</p> -<p>120 He says believe, because there are two ways of participating in the divine light. One is the -perfect participation which is present in glory, “In your light, we shall see the light” (Ps 3 -5:10). The other in imperfect and is acquired through faith, since he came as a witness. Of -these two ways it is said, “Now we see through a mirror, in an obscure manner, but then we -shall see face to face” (1 Cor 13:12). And in the same place we find, “Now I know in part, but -then I shall know even as I am known.” Among these two ways, the first is the way of -participation through faith, because through it we are brought to vision. So in Isaiah (7:9) -where our version has, “If you do not believe, you will not persist,” another version has, “If -you do not believe, you will not understand.” “All of us, gazing on the Lord’s glory with -unveiled faces, are being transformed from glory to glory into his very image,” which we -have lost (2 Cor 3:18). “From the glory of faith to the glory of vision,” as a Gloss says.</p> -<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 -perfectly at once, but first they would believe through faith, and later enjoy him through -vision in heaven.</p> -<p>121 He says through him, to show that John is different than Christ. For Christ came so that -all might believe in him. “He who believes in me, as Scripture says, “Out of his heart shall -flow rivers of living water” (below 7:38). John, on the other hand, <span style="font-weight: bold">came that all men might -believe, </span>not in him, but in Christ <span style="font-weight: bold">through him.</span></p> -<p>One may object that not all have believed. So if John came to that all might believe through -him, he failed. I answer that both on the part of God, who sent John, and of John, who came, -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 -their eyes on the ground” (Ps 16:11 ), and refused to see the light, there was a failure, because -all did not believe.</p> -<p>122 Now although John, of whom so much has been said, even including that he was sent by -God, is an eminent person, his coming is not sufficient to save men, because the salvation of -man lies in participating in the light. If John had been the light, his coming would have -sufficed to save men; but he was not the light. So he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">he was not the light</span>. -Consequently, a light was needed that would suffice to save men.</p> -<p>Or, we could look at it another way. John came to bear witness to the light. Now it is the -custom that the one who testifies is of greater authority than the one for whom he bears -witness. So, lest John be considered to have greater authority than Christ, the Evangelist says, -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 -witness not because he is greater, but because he is better known, even though he is not as -great.</p> -<p>123 There is a difficulty about his saying, he was not the light. Conflicting with this is, “You -were at one time darkness, but now you are light in the Lord” (Eph 5:8); and “You are the -light of the world” (Mt 5:14). Therefore, John and the apostles and all good men are a light.</p> -<p>I answer that some say that John was not the light, because this belongs to God alone. But if -“light” is taken without the article, then John and all holy men were made lights. The -meaning is this: the Son of God is light by his very essence; but John and all the saints are -light by participation. So, because John participated in the true light, it was fitting that he bear -witness to the light; for fire is better exhibited by something afire than by anything else, and -color by something colored.</p> -<p style="margin-bottom: 0.125in; margin-bottom: 0.125in"> </p> -<CENTER><p><span style="font-weight: bold">LECTURE 5</span></p> -<p>9 He [the Word] was the true light,<BR> -which enlightens every man coming into this world.<BR> -10 He was in the world, and through him the world was made,<BR> -and the world did not know him.</CENTER> -<p>124 Above, the Evangelist considered the precursor and his witness to the incarnate Word; in -the present section he considers the incarnate Word himself. As to this he does three things. -First, he shows why it was necessary for the Word to come. Secondly, the benefit we received -from the coming of the Word (I:11). And thirdly, the way he came (1:14).</p> -<p>The necessity for the Word’s coming is seen be the lack of divine knowledge in the world. He -points out this need for his coming when he says, “For this was I born, and I came into the -world for this, to testify to the truth” (below 18:37). To indicate this lack of divine -knowledge, the Evangelist does two things. First, he shows that this lack does not pertain to -God or the Word. Secondly, that it does pertain to men (v 10b).</p> -<p>He shows in three ways that there was no defect in God or in the Word that prevented men -from knowing God and from being enlightened by the Word. First, from the efficacy of the -divine light itself, because <span style="font-weight: bold">He was the true light, which enlightens every man coming into -this world. </span>Secondly, from the presence of the divine light, because <span style="font-weight: bold">He was in the world. -</span>Thirdly, from the obviousness of the light, because <span style="font-weight: bold">through him the world was made. </span>So -the lack of divine knowledge in the world was not due to the Word, because it is sufficient. -First, he shows the nature of this efficiency, that is, <span style="font-weight: bold">He was the true light. </span>Secondly, its very -efficiency, <span style="font-weight: bold">which enlightens every man.</span></p> -<p>125 The divine Word is efficacious in enlightening because <span style="font-weight: bold">He was the true light. </span>How the -Word is light, and how he is the light of men need not be discussed again, because it was -sufficiently explained above. What we must discuss at present is how he is the true light. To -explain this, we should note that in Scripture the “true” is contrasted with three things. -Sometimes it is contrasted with the false, as in “Put an end to lying, and let everyone speak -the truth” (Eph 4:25). Sometimes it is contrasted with what is figurative, as in “The law was -given through Moses; grace and truth have come through Jesus Christ” (below 1:17), because -the truth of the figures contained in the law was fulfilled by Christ. Sometimes it is contrasted -with what is something by participation, as in “that we may be in his true Son” (1 Jn 5:20), -who is not his Son by participation.</p> -<p>Before the Word came there was in the world a certain light which the philosophers prided -themselves on having; but this was a false light, because as is said, “They became stultified in -their speculations, and their foolish hearts were darkened; claiming to be wise, they became -fools” (Rom 1:21); “Every man is made foolish by his knowledge” (Jer 10:14). There was -another light from the teaching of the law which the Jews boasted of having; but this was a -symbolic light, “The law has a shadow of the good things to come, not the image itself of -them” (Heb 10:1). There was also a certain light in the angels and in holy men in so far as -they knew God in a more special way by grace; but this was a participated light, “Upon whom -does his light not shine?” (Jb 25:3), which is like saying: Whoever shine, shine to the extent -that they participate in his light, i.e., God’s light.</p> -<p>But the Word of God was not a false light, nor a symbolic light, nor a participated light, but -the true light, i.e., light by his essence. Therefore he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">He was the true light.</span></p> -<p>126 This excludes two errors. First, that of Photinus, who believed that Christ derived his -beginning from the Virgin. So, lest anyone suppose this, the Evangelist, speaking of the -incarnation of the Word, says, <span style="font-weight: bold">He was the true light, </span>i.e., eternally, not only before the -Virgin, but before every creature. This also excludes the error of Arius and Origen; they said -that Christ was not true God, but God by participation. If this were so, he could not be the -true light, as the Evangelist says here, and as in “God is light” (1 Jn 1:5), i.e., not by -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 -God. Now it is clear how the divine Word is effective in causing divine knowledge.</p> -<p>127 The effectiveness or efficiency of the Word lies in the fact that he <span style="font-weight: bold">enlightens every man -coming into this world. </span>For everything which is what it is by participation is derived from -that which is such by its essence; just as everything afire is so by participation in fire, which -is fire by its very essence. Then since the Word is the true light by his very essence, then -everything that shines must do so through him, insofar as it participates in him. And so he -<span style="font-weight: bold">enlightens every man coming into this world.</span></p> -<p>128 To understand this, we should know that “world” is taken in three ways in Scripture. -Sometimes, from the point of view of its creation, as when the Evangelist says here, “through -him the world was made” (v 10). Sometimes, from the point of view of its perfection, which -it reaches through Christ, as in “God was, in Christ, reconciling the world to himself” (2 Cor -5:19). And sometimes it is taken from the point of view of its perversity, as in “The whole -world lies under the power of the evil one” (1 Jn 5:19).</p> -<p>On the other hand, “enlightenment” or “being enlightened” by the Word is taken in two ways. -First, in relation to the light of natural knowledge, as in “The light of your countenance, O -Lord, is marked upon us” (Ps 4:7). Secondly, as the light of grace, “Be enlightened, O -Jerusalem” (Is 60:1).</p> -<p>129 With these two sets of distinctions in mind, it is easy to solve a difficulty which arises -here. For when the Evangelist says, he <span style="font-weight: bold">enlightens every man, </span>this seems to be false, because -there are still many in darkness in the world. However, if we bear in mind these distinctions -and take “world” from the standpoint of its creation, and “enlighten” as referring to the light -of natural reason, the statement of the Evangelist is beyond reproach. For all men coming into -this visible world are enlightened by the light of natural knowledge through participating in -this true light, which is the source of all the light of natural knowledge participated in by men.</p> -<p>When the Evangelist speaks of <span style="font-weight: bold">man coming into this world, </span>he does not mean that men had -lived for a certain time outside the world and then came into the world, since this is contrary -to the teaching of the Apostle in Romans (9:11), “When the children were not yet born nor -had they done anything good or evil.” Therefore, since they had done nothing before they -were born, it is plain that the soul does not exist p3or to its union with the body. He refers to -<span style="font-weight: bold">every man coming into this world, </span>to show that men are enlightened by God with respect to -that according to which they came into the world, i.e., with respect to the intellect, which is -something external [to the world]. For man is constituted of a twofold nature, bodily and -intellectual. According to his bodily or sensible nature, man is enlightened by a bodily and -sensible light; but according to his soul and intellectual nature, he is enlightened by an -intellectual and spiritual light. Now man does not come into this world according to his -bodily nature, but under this aspect, he is from the world. His intellectual nature is derived -from a source external to the world, as has been said, i.e., from God through creation; as in -“Until all flesh returns to its origin, and the spirit is directed to God, who made it” (Ecc 12:7). -For these reasons, when the Evangelist speaks of <span style="font-weight: bold">every man coming into this world</span>, he is -showing that this enlightenment refers to what is from without, that is, the intellect.</p> -<p>130 If we understand “enlightenment” with respect to the light of grace, then <span style="font-weight: bold">he enlightens -every man</span> may be explained in three ways. The first way is by Origen in his homily, “The -great eagle,” and is this. “World” is understood from the point of view of its perfection, -which man attains by his reconciliation through Christ. And so we have, he enlightens every -man coming, by faith, into this world, i.e., this spiritual world, that is, the Church, which has -been enlightened by the light of grace.</p> -<p>Chrysostom explains it another way. He takes “world” under the aspect of creation. Then the -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 -no one, but rather “wants all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth” (1 -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 -enlightened, it is due to himself, because he turns from the light that enlightens.</p> -<p>Augustine explains it a third way. For him, “every” has a restricted application, so that the -sense is: He <span style="font-weight: bold">enlightens every man coming into this world, </span>not every man universally, but -every man who is enlightened, since no one is enlightened except by the Word. According to -Augustine, the Evangelist says, <span style="font-weight: bold">coming into this world, </span>in order to give the reason why man -needs to be enlightened, and he is taking “world” from the point of view of its perversity and -defect. It is as though he were saying: Man needs to be enlightened because he is coming into -this world which is darkened by perversity and defects and is full of ignorance. (This -followed the spiritual world of the first man.) As Luke says (1:79), “To enlighten those who -sit in darkness and in the shadow of death.”</p> -<p>131 The above statement refutes the error of the Manichaeans, who think than men were -created in the world from an opposing principle, i.e., the devil. For if man were a creature of -the devil when coming into this world, he would not be enlightened by God or by the Word, -for “Christ came into the world to destroy the works of the devil” (1 Jn 3:8).</p> -<p>132 So it is clear, from the efficacy of the divine Word, that the lack of knowledge in men is -not due to the Word, because he is effective in enlightening all, being <span style="font-weight: bold">the true light, which -enlightens </span>every <span style="font-weight: bold">man coming into this world.</span></p> -<p>But so you do not suppose this lack arose from the withdrawal or absence of the true light, the -Evangelist rules this out adding, <span style="font-weight: bold">He was in the world</span>. A comparable statement is found in -“He is not far from any one of us,” that is, God, “for in him we live, and move, and are” (Acts -17:28). It is as though the Evangelist were saying: The divine Word is effective and is at hand -in order to enlighten us.</p> -<p>133 We should remark that something is said to be “in the world” in three ways. In one way, -by being contained, as a thing in place exists in a place: “They are in the world” (below -17:11). In another way, as a part in a whole; for a part of the world is said to be in the world -even though it is not in a place. For example, supernatural substances, although not in the -world as in a place, are nevertheless in it as parts: “God ... who made heaven and earth, the -sea, and all things that are in them” (Ps 145:6). But the true light was not in the world in -either of these ways, because that light is neither localized nor is it a part of the universe. -Indeed, if we can speak this way, the entire universe is in a certain sense a part, since it -participates in a partial way in his goodness.</p> -<p>Accordingly, the true light was in the world in a third way, i.e., as an efficient and preserving -cause: “I fill heaven and earth” as said in Jeremiah (23:24). However, there is a difference -between the way the Word acts and causes all things and the way in which other agents act. -For other agents act as existing externally: since they do not act except by moving and -altering a thing qualitatively in some way with respect to its exterior, they work from without. -But God acts in all things from within, because he acts by creating. Now to create is to give -existence (<i>esse</i>) to the thing created. So, since esse is innermost in each thing, God, who by -acting gives <i>esse </i>acts in things from within. Hence God was in the world as one giving <i>esse </i>to -the world.</p> -<p>134 It is customary to say that God is in all things by his essence, presence and power. To -understand what this means, we should know that someone is said to be by his power in all -the things that are subject to his power; as a king is said to be in the entire kingdom subject to -him, by his power. He is not there, however, by presence or essence., Someone is said to be -by presence in all the things that are within his range of vision; as a king is said to be in his -house by presence. And someone is said to be by essence in those things in which his -substance is; as a king is in one determinate place.</p> -<p>Now we say that God is everywhere by his power, since all things are subject to his power: -“If I ascend into heaven, you are there.... If I take my wings early in the morning, and dwell in -the furthest part of the sea, even there your hand will lead me, and your right hand will hold -me” (Ps 138:8). He is also everywhere by his presence, because “all things are bare and open -to his eyes,” as is said in Hebrews (4:13). He is present everywhere by his essence, be cause -his essence is innermost in all things. For every agent, as acting, has to be immediately joined -to its effect, because mover and moved must be together. Now God is the maker and -preserver of all things with respect to the <i>esse </i>of each. Hence, since the <i>esse </i>of a thing is -innermost in that thing, it is plain that God, by his essence, through which he creates all -things, is in all things.</p> -<p>135 It should be noted that the Evangelist significantly uses the word “was,” when he says, -<span style="font-weight: bold">He was in the world, </span>showing that from the beginning of creation he was always in the -world, causing and preserving all things; because if God for even a moment were to withhold -his power from the things he established, all would return to nothing and cease to be. Hence -Origen uses an apt example to show this, when he says that as a human vocal sound is to a -human word conceived in the mind, so is, the creature to the divine Word; for as our vocal -sound is the effect of the word conceived in our mind, so the creature is the effect of the -Word conceived in the divine mind. “For he spoke, and they were created” (Ps 148:5). Hence, -just as we notice that as soon as our inner word vanishes, the sensible vocal sound also -ceases, so, if the power of the divine Word were withdrawn from things, all of them would -immediately cease to be at that moment. And this is because he is “sustaining all things by his -powerful word” (Heb 1:3).</p> -<p>136 So it is plain that a lack of divine knowledge in minds is not due to the absence of the -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 -Word, because he has produced a work in which his likeness is clearly reflected, that is, the -world: “For from the greatness and beauty of creatures, their creator can be seen accordingly” -(Wis 13:5), and “The invisible things of God are clearly seen, being understood through the -things that are made” (Rom 1:20). And so the Evangelist at once adds, <span style="font-weight: bold">and through him the -world was made, </span>in order that that light might be manifested in it. For as a work of art -manifests the art of the artisan, so the whole world is nothing else than a certain -representation of the divine wisdom conceived within the mind of the Father, “He poured her -[wisdom] out upon all his works,” as is said in Sirach (1:10).</p> -<p>Now it is clear that the lack of divine knowledge is not due to the Word, because he is -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 -knowable, since <span style="font-weight: bold">through him the world was made.</span></p> -<p>137 The Evangelist indicates the source of this lack when he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">and the world did not -know him. </span>As if to say: It is not due to him, but to the world, who did not know him.</p> -<p>He says him in the singular, because earlier he had called the Word not only the “light of -men,” but also “God”; and so when he says him, he means God. Again, he uses “world” for -man. For the angels knew him by their understanding, and the elements by their obeying him; -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> -<p>138 We attribute this lack of divine knowledge either to the nature of man or to his guilt. To -his nature, indeed, because although all the aforesaid aids were given to man to lead him to -the knowledge of God, human reason in itself lacks this knowledge. “Man beholds him from -afar” (Jb 36:25), and immediately after, “God is great beyond our knowledge.” But if some -have known him, this was not insofar as they were in the world, but above the world; and the -kind for whom the world was not worthy, because <span style="font-weight: bold">the world did not know him. </span>Hence if -they mentally perceived anything eternal, that was insofar as they were not of this world.</p> -<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 -kind of reason why God was not known by man; in this sense <span style="font-weight: bold">world </span>is taken for inordinate -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 -lovers of the world. For the love of the world, as Augustine says, is what chiefly withdraws us -from the knowledge of God, because “Love of the world makes one an enemy to God” (Jas -4:4); “The sensual man does not perceive the things that pertain to the Spirit of God” ( 1 Cor -2:14).</p> -<p>139 From this we call answer the question of the Gentiles who futilely ask this: If it is only -recently that the Son of God is set before the world as the Savior of men, does it not seem that -before that time he scorned human nature? We should say to them that he did not scorn the -world but was always in the world, and on his part is knowable by men; but it was due to their -own fault that some have not known him, because they were lovers of the world.</p> -<p>140 We should also note that the Evangelist speaks of the incarnation of the Word to show -that the incarnate Word and that which “was in the beginning with God,” and God, are the -same. He repeats what he had said of him earlier. For above he had said he [the Word] “was -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 -made through him”; here he says that through him the world was made. Earlier he had said, -“without him nothing was made,” i.e., according to one explanation, he conserves all things; -here he says, he was in the world, creating and conserving the world and all things. There he -had said, “the darkness did not overcome it”; here he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">the world did not know him. -</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> -<p>141 We can gather three reasons from the above why God willed to become incarnate. One is -because of the perversity of human nature which, because of its own malice, had been -darkened by vices and the obscurity of its own ignorance. And so he said before, the darkness -did not overcome it. Therefore, God came in the flesh so that the darkness might apprehend -the light, i.e., obtain a knowledge of it. “The people who walked in darkness saw a great -light” (Is 9:2).</p> -<p>The second reason is that the testimony of the prophets was not enough. For the prophets -came and John had come; but they were not able to give sufficient enlightenment, because <span style="font-weight: bold">he -was not the light. </span>And so, after the prophecies of the prophets and the coming of John, it was -necessary that the light itself come and give the world a knowledge of itself. And this is what -the Apostle says: “In past times, God spoke in many ways and degrees to our fathers through -the prophets; in these days he has spoken to us in his Son” as we find in Hebrews (1:1). “We -have the prophetic message, to which you do well to give attention, until the day dawns” (2 Pt -1:19).</p> -<p>The third reason is because of the shortcomings of creatures. For creatures were not sufficient -to lead to a knowledge of the Creator; hence he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">through him the world was made, and -the world did not know him. </span>Thus it was necessary that the Creator himself come into the -world in the flesh, and be known through himself. And this is what the Apostle says: “Since -in the wisdom of God the world did not know God by its wisdom, it pleased God to save -those who believe by the foolishness of our preaching” (1 Cor 1:21).</p> -<p style="margin-bottom: 0.125in; margin-bottom: 0.125in"> </p> -<CENTER><p style="text-align: center; margin-bottom: 0.125in"><span style="font-weight: bold">LECTURE 6</span></p> -<p>11 He came unto his own, and his own did not receive him;<BR> -12 but whoever received him, he gave them power to become<BR> -the sons of God, to all who believe in his name,<BR> -13 who are born not from blood, nor from the desires of the flesh,<BR> -nor from man’s willing it, but from God.</CENTER> -<p>142 Having given the necessity for the incarnation of the Word, the Evangelist then shows the -advantage men gained from that incarnation. First, he shows the coming of the light (v 11); -secondly, its reception by men (v 11b); thirdly, the fruit brought by the coming of the light (v -12).</p> -<p>143 He shows that the light which was present in the world and evident, i.e., disclosed by its -effect, was nevertheless not known by the world. Hence, he came unto his own, in order to be -known. The Evangelist says, <span style="font-weight: bold">unto his own, </span>i.e., to things that were his own, which he had -made. And he says this so that you do not think that when he says, he came, he means a local -motion in the sense that he came as though ceasing to be where he previously was and newly -beginning to be where he formerly had not been. He came where he already was. “I came -forth from the Father, and have come into the world,” as said below ( 16:2 8).</p> -<p>He came, I say, unto his own, i.e., to Judea, according to some, because it was in a special -way his own. “In Judea God is known” (Ps 75:1); “The vineyard of the Lord of hosts is the -house of Israel” (Is 5:7). But it is better to say, unto his own, i.e., into the world created by -him. “The earth is the Lord’s” (Ps 23:1).</p> -<p>144 But if he was previously in the world, how could he come into the world? I answer that -“coming to some place” is understood in two ways. First, that someone comes where he -absolutely had not been before. Or, secondly, that someone begins to be in a new way where -he was before. For example, a king, who up to a certain time was in a city of his kingdom by -his power and later visits it in person, is said to have come where he previously was: for he -comes by his substance where previously he was present only by his power. It was in this way -that the Son of God came into the world and yet was in the world. For he was there, indeed, -by his essence, power and presence, but he came by assuming flesh. He was there invisibly, -and he came in order to be visible.</p> -<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 -by men, who reacted in different ways. For some did receive him, but these were not his own; -hence he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">his own did not receive him. </span>“His own” are men, because they were formed -by him. “The Lord God formed man” (Gn 2:7); “Know that the Lord is God: he made us” (Ps -99:3). And he made them to his own image, “Let us make man to our image” (Gn 1:26).</p> -<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, -and by showing honor to him. “I have come in the name of my Father, and you do not receive -me” (below 5:43), and “I honor my Father and you have dishonored me” (below 8:49). Now -the Jews are his own because they were chosen by him to be his special people. “The Lord -chose you to be his special people” (Dt 26:18). They are his own because related according to -the flesh, “from whom is Christ, according to the flesh,” as said in Romans (9:3). They are -also his own because enriched by his kindness, “I have reared and brought up sons” (Is 1:2). +<p>88 So then, this clause is added to show the universal causality +of the Word, according to Chrysostom; his association with the +Father, according to Hilary; the power of the Word in the +preserving of things, according to Origen; and finally, the purity +of his causality, because he is so the cause of good as not to be +the cause of sin, according to Augustine, Origen, and a number of +others.</p> +<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 +avoid the false interpretation of Manichaeus, who was led by this +to maintain that everything that exists is alive: for example, +stones, wood, men, and anything else in the world. He 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 unless alive. Therefore, whatever +was made in him is alive. He also claimed that “in him” +is the same as saying “through him,” since very often +in Scripture “in him” and “through him” are +interchangeable, as in “in him and through him all things +were created” (Col 1:16). However, our present explanation +shows that this interpretation is false.</p> +<p>90 There are, nevertheless, a number of ways to explain it +without error. In that homily, “The 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 life,</span> not in each thing itself, but +in its cause. For in the case of all things that are caused, it is +always true that effects, whether produced by nature or by will, +exist in their causes, not according to their own existence, but +according to the power of their appropriate cause. Thus, lower +effects are in the sun as in their cause, not according to their +respective existences but according to the power of the sun. +Therefore, since the cause of all effects produced by God is 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., +through him, <span style="font-weight: bold">was life,</span> in +its cause, i.e., in God.</p> +<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 things can be +considered in two ways: as they are in themselves, and as they are +in the Word. If they are considered as they are in themselves, then +it is not true that all things are life or even alive, but some +lack life and some are alive. For example, the earth was made and +metals were made, but none is life, none is living; animals and men +were made, and these, considered in themselves, are not life, but +merely living. Yet considered as they are in the Word, they are not +merely living, but also life. For the archetypes which exist +spiritually in the wisdom of God, and through which things were +made by the Word, are life, just as a chest made by an artisan is +in itself neither alive nor life, yet the exemplar of the chest in +the artisan’s mind prior to the existence of the chest is in +some sense living, insofar as it has an intellectual existence in +the mind of the artisan. Nevertheless it is not life, because it is +neither in his essence nor is it his existence through the act of +understanding of the artisan. But in God, his act of understanding +is his life and his essence. And so whatever is in God is not only +living, but is life itself, because whatever is in God is his +essence. Hence the creature in God is the creating essence. Thus, +if things are considered as they are in the Word, they are life. +This is explained in another place.</p> +<p>92 Origen, commenting on John, gives another reading, thus: +<span style="font-weight: bold">That which was made in him;</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; +for example, that he is God, omnipotent, and the like. And some +things are said of him in relation to ourselves; for example, we +say he is Savior and Redeemer. Some things are said in both ways, +such as wisdom and justice. Now in all things said absolutely and +of the Son as such, it is not said that he was “made”, +for example, we do not say that the Son was made God or omnipotent. +But in things said in reference to us, or in both ways, the notion +of being made can be used, as in, “God made him [Jesus +Christ] our wisdom, our justice, our sanctification and +redemption” (1 Cor 1:30). And so, although he was always +wisdom and justice in himself, yet it can be said that he was newly +made justice and wisdom for us.</p> +<p>And so Origen, explaining it along these lines, says that +although in himself the Son is life, yet he was made life for us by +the fact that he gave us life, as is said, “Just as in Adam +all die, so in Christ all will come to life” (1 Cor 15:22). +And so he says “the Word that was made” 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 immediately +adds, <span style="font-weight: bold">and that life was the light +of men.</span></p> +<p>93 Hilary reads the clause differently, thus: <span style= +"font-weight: bold">And without him was made nothing, which 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 Evangelist says <span style= +"font-weight: bold">without him nothing was made,</span> one might +be perplexed and ask whether there are still other things made by +him, that were not made through him, although not without him, but +with respect to which he was associated with the maker; and this +clause is added to correct the aforesaid error. Therefore lest this +be so understood, when the Evangelist 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,</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> +<p>For it is plain that all things are said to have been made +through the Word inasmuch as the Word, who proceeds from the +Father, is God. But let us suppose that some father has a son who +does not perfectly exercise the operations of a man, but reaches +such a state gradually. In that case the father will do many +things, not through the son, yet not without [having] him. Since, +therefore, the Son of God has from all eternity the same life that +the Father has—“Just as the Father possesses life in +himself, so has he granted it to the Son to have life in +himself” (below 5:26)—one cannot say that God the +Father, although he made nothing without the Son, nevertheless made +some things not through him, because he was life. For in living +things which participate life, it can happen that imperfect life +precedes perfect life; but in <i>per se</i> life, which does not +participate life but is simply and absolutely life, there can be no +imperfection at all. Accordingly, because the Word is <i>per se</i> +life, there was never imperfect life in him, but always perfect +life. And so in such a way that nothing was made without him that +was not also made in him, i.e., through him.</p> +<p>94 Chrysostom has a different reading and punctuation, thus: +<span style="font-weight: bold">And without him was made nothing +that was made.</span> The reason for this is that someone might +believe that the Holy Spirit was made through the Word. So to +exclude this, the Evangelist says, <span style= +"font-weight: bold">that was made,</span> because the Holy Spirit +is not something that is made. And afterward follows, <span style= +"font-weight: bold">In him was life,</span> which is introduced for +two reasons. First, to show that after the creation of all things +his causality was indefectible not only with respect to the things +already produced, but also with 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 produce all things, but +which has an unfailing flow and a causality for producing things +continually without undergoing any change, being a living fountain +which is not diminished in spite of its continuous outflow; whereas +collected water, that is not living [i..e., running] water, is +diminished when it flows out, and is used up. So the Psalm (35:10) +says, “With you is the fountain of life.” The second +reason is to show that things are governed by the: Word. 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 a +necessity of his nature, and that he governs the things he made. +“The Word of God is living” (Heb 4:12).</p> +<p>Chrysostom is held in such esteem by the Greeks in his +explanations that they admit no other where he expounded anything +in Holy Scripture. For this reason, this passage in all the Greek +works is found to be punctuated exactly as Chrysostom did, namely, +<span style="font-weight: bold">And without him was made nothing +that was made.</span></p> +<p style="margin-bottom: 0.125in; margin-bottom: 0.125in"> + </p> +<center> +<p><span style="font-weight: bold">LECTURE 3</span></p> +<p>4b And that life was the light of men.<br /> +5 And the light shines in the darkness,<br /> +and the darkness did not overcome it.</p> +</center> +<p>95 Above, the Evangelist described the power of the Word insofar +as he brought all things into existence; here he describes his +power as it is related to men, saying that this Word is a light to +men. First, he introduces a certain light to us (v 4b); secondly, +the light’s irradiation (v 5a); thirdly, participation in the +light (v 5b). This whole section may be explained in two ways: +first, according to the influx of natural knowledge; secondly, +according to participation in grace.</p> +<p>As to the first point he says, <span style= +"font-weight: bold">And that life was the light of men.</span></p> +<p>96 Here we should note first that, according to Augustine and +many others, light is more properly said of spiritual things than +of sensible things. Ambrose, however, thinks that brightness is +said metaphorically of God. But this is not a great issue, for in +whatever way the name “light” is used, it implies a +manifestation, whether that manifesting concerns intelligible or +sensible things. If we compare sensible and intelligible +manifestation, then, according to the nature of things, light is +found first in spiritual things. But for us, who give names to +things on the basis of their properties as known to us, light is +discovered first in sensible things, because we first used this +name to signify sensible light before intelligible light; although +as to power, light belongs to spiritual things in a prior and truer +way than to sensible things.</p> +<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 +are many grades of life. For some things live, but do so without +light, because they have no knowledge; for example, plants. Hence +their life is not light. Other things both live and know, but their +knowledge, since it is on the sense level, is concerned only with +individual and material things, as is the case with the brutes. So +they have both life and a certain light. But they do not have the +light of men, who live, and know, not only truths, but also the +very nature of truth itself. Such are rational creatures, to whom +not only this or that are made manifest, but truth itself, which +can be manifested and is manifestive to all.</p> +<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 anyone suppose he means life without knowledge. And he says +that he is the <span style="font-weight: bold">light of men,</span> +lest anyone suppose he meant only sensible knowledge, such as +exists in the brutes.</p> +<p>98 But since he is also the light of angels, why did he say, of +men? Two answers have been given to this. Chrysostom says that the +Evangelist intended in this Gospel to give us a knowledge of the +Word precisely as directed to the salvation of men and therefore +refers, in keeping with his aim, more to men than to angels. +Origen, however, says that participation in this light pertains to +men insofar as they have a rational nature; accordingly, when the +Evangelist says, <span style="font-weight: bold">the light of +men,</span> he wants us to understand every rational nature.</p> +<p>99 We also see from this the perfection and dignity of this +life, because it is intellectual or rational. For whereas all +things that in some way move themselves are called living, only +those that perfectly move themselves are said to have perfect life; +and among lower creatures only man moves himself, properly +speaking, and perfectly. For although other things are moved by +themselves by some inner principle, that inner principle is +nevertheless not open to opposite alternatives; hence they are not +moved freely but from necessity. As a result, those things that are +moved by such a principle are more truly made to act than act +themselves. But man, since he is master of his act, moves himself +freely to all that he wills. Consequently, man has perfect life, as +does every intellectual nature. And so the life of the Word, which +is the light of men, is perfect life.</p> +<p>100 We find a fitting order in the above. For in the natural +order of things, existence is first; and the Evangelist implies +this in his first statement, <span style="font-weight: bold">In the +beginning was the Word.</span> Secondly, comes life; and this is +mentioned next, <span style="font-weight: bold">In him was +life.</span> Thirdly comes understanding; and that is mentioned +next; <span style="font-weight: bold">And that life was the light +of men.</span> And, according to Origen, he fittingly attributes +light to life because light can be attributed only to the +living.</p> +<p>101 We should note that light can be related in two ways to what +is living: as an object and as something in which they participate, +as is clear in external sight. For the eyes know external light as +an object, but if they are to see it, they must participate in an +inner light by which the eyes are adapted and disposed for seeing +the external light. And so his statement, <span style= +"font-weight: bold">And that 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 as an object that +man alone can look upon, because the rational creature alone can +see it, since he alone is capable of the vision of God who +“teaches us more than the beasts of the earth, and enlightens +us more than the birds of the air” Jb 35:11); for although +other animals may know certain things that are true, nevertheless, +man alone knows the nature itself of truth.</p> +<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 +able to look upon the Word and light itself except through a +participation in it; and this participation is in man and is the +superior part of our soul, i.e., the intellectual light, about +which the Psalm (4:7) says, “The light of your countenance, O +Lord, is marked upon us,” i.e., of your Son, who is your +face, by whom you are manifested.</p> +<p>102 Having introduced a certain light, the Evangelist now +considers its irradiation, saying, And the light shines in the +darkness. This can be explained in two ways, according to the two +meanings of “darkness.”</p> +<p>First, we might take “darkness” as a natural defect, +that of the created mind. For the mind is to that light of which +the Evangelist speaks here as air is to the light of the sun; +because, although air is receptive of the light of the sun, +considered in itself it is a darkness. According to this the +meaning is: the light, i.e., that life which is the light of men, +shines in the darkness, i.e., in created souls and minds, by always +shedding its light on all. “On a man from whom the light is +hidden” (Jb 3:23).</p> +<p><span style="font-weight: bold">And the darkness did not +overcome it,</span> i.e., enclose it [i.e., intellectually]. For to +overcome something [<i>comprehendere,</i> to overcome, to +comprehend, to seize or apprehend, and so forth], is to enclose and +understand its boundaries. As Augustine says, to reach God with the +mind is a great happiness; but to overcome [comprehend] him is +impossible. And so, the darkness did not overcome it. +“Behold, God is great, exceeding our knowledge” (Jb +36:26); “Great in counsel, incomprehensible in thought” +as Jeremiah (32:19) says. This explanation is found in that homily +which begins, “The spiritual voice of the eagle.”</p> +<p>103 We can explain this passage in another way by taking +“darkness” as Augustine does, for the natural lack of +wisdom in man, which is called a darkness. “And I saw that +wisdom excells folly as much as light excells knowledge” (Ecc +2:13). Someone is without wisdom, therefore, because he lacks the +light of divine wisdom. Consequently, just as the minds of the wise +are lucid by reason of a participation in that divine light and +wisdom, so by the lack of it they are darkness. Now the fact that +some are darkness is not due to a defect in that light, since on +its part it shines in the darkness and radiates upon all. Rather, +the foolish are ‘without that light because <span style= +"font-weight: bold">the darkness did not overcome it,</span> i.e., +they did not apprehend it, not being able to attain a participation +in it due to their foolishness; after having been lifted up, they +did not persevere. “From the savage,” i.e., from the +proud, “he hides his light,” i.e., the light of wisdom, +“and shows his friend that it belongs to him, and that he may +approach it” (Jb 36:32); “They did not know the way to +wisdom, nor did they remember her paths” (Bar 3:23).</p> +<p>Although some minds are darkness, i.e., they lack savory and +lucid wisdom, nevertheless no man is in such darkness as to be +completely devoid of divine light, because whatever truth is know +by anyone is due to a participation in that light which shines in +the darkness; for every truth, no matter by whom it is spoken, +comes from the Holy Spirit. Yet the darkness, i.e., men in +darkness, did not overcome it, apprehend it in truth. This is the +way, [ i.e., with respect to the natural influx of knowledge] that +Origen and Augustine explain this clause.</p> +<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, +according to the influx of grace, since we are illuminated by +Christ.</p> +<p>After he had considered the creation of things through the Word, +the Evangelist considers here the restoration of the rational +creature through Christ, saying, <span style= +"font-weight: bold">And that life,</span> of the Word, 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 +assumed flesh and came into the world to illumine all men with +grace and truth. “I came into the world for this, to testify +to the truth” (below 18:37); “As long as I am in the +world I am the light of the world” (below 9:5). So he does +not say, “the light of the Jews,” because although +previously he had been known only in Judea, he later became known +to the world. “I have given you as a light to the nations, +that you might be my salvation to the ends of the earth” (Is +49:6).</p> +<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 show that these two have come to us through Christ: life, +through a participation in grace, “Grace and truth have come +through Jesus Christ” (below 1:17); and light, by a knowledge +of truth and wisdom.</p> +<p>105 According to this explanation, <span style= +"font-weight: bold">the light shines in the darkness,</span> can be +expounded in three ways, in the light of the three meanings of +“darkness.”</p> +<p>In one way, we can take “darkness” for punishment. +For any sadness and suffering of heart can be called a darkness, +just as any joy can be called a light. “When I sit in +darkness and in suffering the Lord is my light,” i.e., my joy +and consolation (Mi 7:8). And so Origen says: In this explanation, +<span style="font-weight: bold">the light shines in the +darkness,</span> is Christ coming into the world, having a body +capable of suffering and without sin, but “in the likeness of +sinful flesh” (Rom 8:3). The light is in the flesh, that is, +the flesh of Christ, which is called a darkness insofar as it has a +likeness to sinful flesh. As if to say: The light, i.e., the Word +of God, veiled about by the darkness of the flesh, shines on the +world; “I will cover the sun with a cloud” (Ez +32:7).</p> +<p>106 Secondly, we can take “darkness” to mean the +devils, as in Ephesians (6:12), “Our struggle is not against +flesh and blood; but against principalities and powers, against the +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 God, <span style="font-weight: bold">shines in the +darkness,</span> i.e., has descended into the world where darkness, +i.e., the devils, hold sway: “Now the prince of this world +will be cast out” (below 12:31). <span style= +"font-weight: bold">And the 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 temptations, as is plain in +Matthew (c 4)</p> +<p>107 Thirdly, we can take “darkness” for the error or +ignorance which filled the whole world before the coming of Christ, +“You were at one time darkness” (Eph 5:8). And so he +says that <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 world, who are +blinded by the darkness or error and ignorance. “To enlighten +those who sit in darkness and in the shadow of death” (Lk +1:79), “The people who were sitting in darkness saw a great +light” (Is 9:2).</p> +<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 +number of men darkened by sin, blinded by envy, shadowed over by +pride, who have struggled against Christ (as is plain from the +Gospel) by upbraiding him, heaping insults and calumnies upon him, +and finally killing him, nevertheless they did not overcome it, +i.e., gain the victory of so obscuring him that his brightness +would not shine throughout the whole world. Wisdom (7:30) says, +“Compared to light, she takes precedence, for night supplants +it, but wisdom,” that is, the incarnate Son of God, “is +not overcome by wickedness,” that is, of the Jews and of +heretics, because it says, “She gave him the prize for his +stern struggle that he might know that wisdom is mightier than all +else” (Wis 10:12).</p> +<p style="margin-bottom: 0.125in; margin-bottom: 0.125in"> + </p> +<center> +<p>LECTURE 4</p> +<p>6 There was a man sent by God, whose name was John.<br /> +7 He came as a witness, that he might bear witness to the +light,<br /> +so that through him all men might believe. 8 He was not the +light,<br /> +but [he came] in order to bear witness to the light.</p> +</center> +<p>108 Above, the Evangelist considered the divinity of the Word; +here he begins to consider the incarnation of the Word. And he does +two things concerning this: first, he treats of the witness to the +incarnate Word, or the precursor; secondly, of the coming of the +Word ( 1:9). As to the first, he does two things: first, he +describes the precursor who comes to bear witness; secondly, he +shows that he was incapable of the work of our salvation (1:8).</p> +<p>He describes the precursor in four ways. First, according to his +nature, <span style="font-weight: bold">There was a man.</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 name was John.</span> +Fourthly, as to the dignity of his office, <span style= +"font-weight: bold">He came as a witness.</span></p> +<p>109 We should note with respect to the first that, as soon as +the Evangelist begins speaking of something temporal, he changes +his manner of speech. When speaking above of eternal things, he +used the word “was” (<i>erat</i>), which is the past +imperfect tense; and this indicates that eternal things are without +end. But now, when he is speaking of temporal things, he uses +“was” (<i>fuit</i>, i.e., “has been”); this +indicates temporal things as having taken place in the past and +coming to an end there.</p> +<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 +incorrect opinion of certain heretics who were in error on the +condition or nature of John. They believed that John was an angel +in nature, basing themselves on the words of the Lord, “I +send my messenger [in Greek, <i>angelos</i>] before you, who will +prepare your way” (Mt 11:10); and the same thing is found in +Mark (1:2). But the Evangelist rejects this, saying, <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 contend in +judgment with one who is stronger than himself” (Ecc +6:10).</p> +<p>Now it “ is fitting that a man be sent to men, for men are +more easily drawn to a man, since he is like themselves. So in +Hebrews (7:28) it says, “The law appoints men, who have +weakness, priests.” God could have governed men through +angels, but he preferred men so that we could be more instructed by +their example. And so John was a man, and not an angel.</p> +<p>11 1 John is described by his authority when it says, sent by +God. Indeed, although John was not an angel in nature, he was so by +his office, because he was sent by God. For the distinctive office +of angels is that they are sent by God and are messengers of God. +“All are ministering spirits, sent to serve” (Heb +1:14). Hence it is that “angel” means +“messenger.” And so men who are sent by God to announce +something can be called angels. “Haggai the messenger of the +Lord” (Hg 1:13).</p> +<p>If someone is to bear witness to God, it is necessary that he be +sent by God. “How can they preach unless they are +sent?” as is said in Romans (10:15). And since they are sent +by God, they seek the things of Jesus Christ, not their own. +“We do not preach ourselves, but Jesus Christ” (2 Cor +4:5). On the other hand, one who sends himself, and is not sent by +God, seeks 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 a man sent by God,</span> so that we would understand that John +proclaimed something divine, not human.</p> +<p>112 Note that there are three ways in which we see men sent by +God. First, by an inward inspiration. “And now the Lord God +has sent me, and his spirit” (Is 48:16). As if to say: I have +been sent by God through an inward inspiration of the spirit. +Secondly, by an expressed and clear command, perceived by the +bodily senses or the imagination. Isaiah was also sent in this way; +and so he says, “And I heard the voice of the Lord saying, +‘Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?’ Then I +said, ‘Here I am! Send me’” (Is 6:8). Thirdly, by +the order of a prelate, who acts in the place of God in this +matter. “I have pardoned in the person of Christ for your +sake” as it says in 2 Corinthians (2:10). This is why those +who are sent by a prelate are sent by God, as Barnabas and Timothy +were sent by the Apostle.</p> +<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 by +God through an inward inspiration, or perhaps even by an outward +command. “He who sent me to baptize with water had said to +me: ‘The man on whom you see the Spirit come down and rest is +the one who is to baptize with the Holy Spirit’ “ +(below 1:33).</p> +<p>113 We should not understand, <span style= +"font-weight: bold">There was a man sent by God,</span> as some +heretics did, who believed that from the very beginning human souls +were created without bodies along with the angels, and that +one’s soul is sent into the body when he is born, and that +John was sent to life, i.e., his soul was sent to a body. Rather, +we should understand that he was sent by God to baptize and +preach.</p> +<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 the office of bearing witness, because unless a +witness is qualified, then no matter in what way he is sent by +another, his testimony is not acceptable. Now a man becomes +qualified by the grace, of God. “By the grace of God I am +what I am” (1 Cor 15:10); “who has made us fit +ministers of a new covenant” (2 Cor 3:6). So, the Evangelist +appropriately implies the precursor’s fitness from his name +when he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">whose name was +John,</span> which is interpreted, “in whom is +grace.”</p> +<p>This name was not given to him meaninglessly, but by divine +preordination and before he was born, as is clear from Luke (1:13), +“You will name him John,” as the angel said to +Zechariah. Hence he can say what is said in Isaiah (49:1), +“The Lord called me from the womb”; “He who will +be, his name is already called” (Ecc 6:10). The Evangelist +also indicates this from his manner of speaking, when he says was, +as to God’s preordination.</p> +<p>115 Then he is described by the dignity of his office. First, +his office is mentioned. Secondly, the reason for his office, +<span style="font-weight: bold">to bear witness to the +light.</span></p> +<p>116 Now his office is to bear witness; hence he says, +<span style="font-weight: bold">He came as a witness.</span></p> +<p>Here it should be remarked that God makes men, and everything +else he makes, for himself. “The Lord made all things for +himself” (Prv 16:4). Not, indeed, to add anything to himself, +since he has no need of our good, but so that his goodness might be +made manifest in all of the things made by him, in that “his +eternal power and divinity are clearly seen, being understood +through the things that are made”(Rom 1:20). Thus, each +creature is made as a witness to God in so far as each creature is +a certain witness of the divine goodness. So, the vastness of +creation is a witness to God’s power and omnipotence; and its +beauty is a witness to the divine wisdom. But certain men are +ordained by God in a special way, so that they hear witness to God +not only naturally by their existence, but also spiritually by +their good works. Hence all holy men are witnesses to God inasmuch +as God is glorified among men by their good works. “Let your +light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and +glorify your Father who is in heaven” (Mt 5:16). But those +who not only share in God’s gifts in themselves by acting +well through the grace of God, but also spread them to others by +their teaching, influencing and encouraging others, are in a more +special way witnesses to God. “Everyone who calls upon my +name, I have created for my glory” (Is 43:7). And so John +came as a witness in order to spread to others the gifts of God and +to proclaim his praise.</p> +<p>117 This office of John, that of bearing witness, is very great, +because no one can testify about something except in the manner in +which he has shared in it. “We know of what we speak, and we +bear witness of what we see” (below 3:11). Hence, to bear +witness to divine truth indicates a knowledge of that truth. So +Christ also had this office: “I have come into the world for +this, to testify to the truth” (below 18:37). But Christ +testifies in one way and John in another. Christ bears witness as +the light who comprehends all things, indeed, as the existing light +itself. John bears witness only as participating in that light. And +so Christ gives testimony in a perfect manner and perfectly +manifests the truth, while John and other holy men give testimony +in so far as they have a share of divine truth. John’s +office, therefore, is great both because of his participation in +the divine light and because of a likeness to Christ, who carried +out this office. “I made him a witness to the peoples, a +leader and a commander of the nations” (Is 55:4).</p> +<p>118 The purpose of this office is given when he says, +<span style="font-weight: bold">that he might bear witness to the +light.</span> Here we should understand that there are two reasons +for bearing witness about something. One reason can be on the part +of the thing with which the witness is concerned; for example, if +there is some doubt or uncertainty about that thing. The other is +on the part of those who hear it; if they are hard of heart and +slow to believe. John came as a witness, not because of the thing +about which he bore witness, for it was light. Hence he says, +<span style="font-weight: bold">bear witness to the light,</span> +i.e., not to something obscure, but to something clear. He came, +therefore, to bear witness on account of those to whom he +testified, <span style="font-weight: bold">so that through +him</span> (i.e., 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 it all else can be seen, so the Word of +God is not only light in himself, but he makes known all things +that are known. For since a thing is made known and understood +through its form, and all forms exist through the Word, who is the +art full of living forms, the Word is light not only in himself, +but as making known all things; “all that appears is +light” (Eph 5:13).</p> +<p>And so it was fitting for the Evangelist to call the Son +“light,” because he came as “a revealing light to +the Gentiles” (Lk 2:32). Above, he called the Son of God the +Word, by which the Father expresses himself and every creature. Now +since he is, properly speaking, the light of men, and the +Evangelist is considering him here as coming to accomplish the +salvation of men, he fittingly interrupts the use of the name +“Word” when speaking of the Son, and says, +“light.”</p> +<p>119 But if that light is adequate of itself to make known all +things, and not only itself, what need does it have of any witness? +This was the objection of the Manichaeans, who wanted to destroy +the Old Testament. Consequently, the saints gave many reasons, +against their opinion, why Christ wanted to have the testimony of +the prophets.</p> +<p>Origen gives three reasons. The first is that God wanted to have +certain witnesses, not because he needed their testimony, but to +ennoble those whom he appointed witnesses. Thus we see in the order +of the universe that God produces certain effects by means of +intermediate causes, not because he himself is unable to produce +them without these intermediaries, but he deigns to confer oil them +the dignity of causality because he wishes to-ennoble these +intermediate causes. Similarly, even though God could have +enlightened all men by himself and lead them to a knowledge of +himself, yet to preserve due order in things and to ennoble certain +men, he willed that divine knowledge reach men through certain +other men. “‘You are my witnesses,’ says the +Lord” (Is 43:10).</p> +<p>A second reason is that Christ was a light to the world through +his miracles. Yet, because they were performed in time, they passed +away with time and did not reach everyone. But the words of the +prophets, preserved in Scripture, could reach not only those +present, but could also reach those to come after. Hence the Lord +willed that men come to a knowledge of the Word through the +testimony of the prophets, in order that not only those present, +but also men yet lo come, might be enlightened about him. So it +says expressly, <span style="font-weight: bold">so that through him +all men might believe,</span> i.e., not only those present, but +also future generations.</p> +<p>The third reason is that not all men are in the same condition, +and all are not led or disposed to a knowledge of the truth in the +same way. For some are brought to a knowledge of the truth by signs +and miracles; others are brought more by wisdom. “The Jews +require signs, and the Greeks seek wisdom” (1 Cor 1:22). And +so the Lord, m order to show the path of salvation to all, willed +both ways to be open. i.e., the way of signs and the way of wisdom, +so that those who would not be brought to the path of salvation by +the miracles of the Old and New Testaments, might be brought to a +knowledge of the truth by the path of wisdom, as in the prophets +and other books of Sacred Scripture.</p> +<p>A fourth reason, given by Chrysostom, is that certain men of +weak understanding are unable to grasp the truth and knowledge of +God by themselves. And so the Lord chose to come down to them and +to enlighten certain men before others about divine matters, so +that these others might obtain from them in a human way the +knowledge of divine things they could not reach by themselves. And +so he says, that <span style="font-weight: bold">through him all +men might believe.</span> As if to say: he 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 all men might believe.</span> +And so it is plain that the testimonies of the prophets are fitting +and proper, and should be received as something needed by us for +the knowledge of the truth.</p> +<p>120 He says believe, because there are two ways of participating +in the divine light. One is the perfect participation which is +present in glory, “In your light, we shall see the +light” (Ps 3 5:10). The other in imperfect and is acquired +through faith, since he came as a witness. Of these two ways it is +said, “Now we see through a mirror, in an obscure manner, but +then we shall see face to face” (1 Cor 13:12). And in the +same place we find, “Now I know in part, but then I shall +know even as I am known.” Among these two ways, the first is +the way of participation through faith, because through it we are +brought to vision. So in Isaiah (7:9) where our version has, +“If you do not believe, you will not persist,” another +version has, “If you do not believe, you will not +understand.” “All of us, gazing on the Lord’s +glory with unveiled faces, are being transformed from glory to +glory into his very image,” which we have lost (2 Cor 3:18). +“From the glory of faith to the glory of vision,” as a +Gloss says.</p> +<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 +perfectly at once, but first they would believe through faith, and +later enjoy him through vision in heaven.</p> +<p>121 He says through him, to show that John is different than +Christ. For Christ came so that all might believe in him. “He +who believes in me, as Scripture says, “Out of his heart +shall flow rivers of living water” (below 7:38). John, on the +other hand, <span style="font-weight: bold">came that all men might +believe,</span> not in him, but in Christ <span style= +"font-weight: bold">through him.</span></p> +<p>One may object that not all have believed. So if John came to +that all might believe through him, he failed. I answer that both +on the part of God, who sent John, and of John, who came, 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 their eyes on the ground” (Ps 16:11 ), and refused +to see the light, there was a failure, because all did not +believe.</p> +<p>122 Now although John, of whom so much has been said, even +including that he was sent by God, is an eminent person, his coming +is not sufficient to save men, because the salvation of man lies in +participating in the light. If John had been the light, his coming +would have sufficed to save men; but he was not the light. So he +says, <span style="font-weight: bold">he was not the light</span>. +Consequently, a light was needed that would suffice to save +men.</p> +<p>Or, we could look at it another way. John came to bear witness +to the light. Now it is the custom that the one who testifies is of +greater authority than the one for whom he bears witness. So, lest +John be considered to have greater authority than Christ, the +Evangelist says, 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 witness not because he is greater, but because he is +better known, even though he is not as great.</p> +<p>123 There is a difficulty about his saying, he was not the +light. Conflicting with this is, “You were at one time +darkness, but now you are light in the Lord” (Eph 5:8); and +“You are the light of the world” (Mt 5:14). Therefore, +John and the apostles and all good men are a light.</p> +<p>I answer that some say that John was not the light, because this +belongs to God alone. But if “light” is taken without +the article, then John and all holy men were made lights. The +meaning is this: the Son of God is light by his very essence; but +John and all the saints are light by participation. So, because +John participated in the true light, it was fitting that he bear +witness to the light; for fire is better exhibited by something +afire than by anything else, and color by something colored.</p> +<p style="margin-bottom: 0.125in; margin-bottom: 0.125in"> + </p> +<center> +<p><span style="font-weight: bold">LECTURE 5</span></p> +<p>9 He [the Word] was the true light,<br /> +which enlightens every man coming into this world.<br /> +10 He was in the world, and through him the world was made,<br /> +and the world did not know him.</p> +</center> +<p>124 Above, the Evangelist considered the precursor and his +witness to the incarnate Word; in the present section he considers +the incarnate Word himself. As to this he does three things. First, +he shows why it was necessary for the Word to come. Secondly, the +benefit we received from the coming of the Word (I:11). And +thirdly, the way he came (1:14).</p> +<p>The necessity for the Word’s coming is seen be the lack of +divine knowledge in the world. He points out this need for his +coming when he says, “For this was I born, and I came into +the world for this, to testify to the truth” (below 18:37). +To indicate this lack of divine knowledge, the Evangelist does two +things. First, he shows that this lack does not pertain to God or +the Word. Secondly, that it does pertain to men (v 10b).</p> +<p>He shows in three ways that there was no defect in God or in the +Word that prevented men from knowing God and from being enlightened +by the Word. First, from the efficacy of the divine light itself, +because <span style="font-weight: bold">He was the true light, +which enlightens every man coming into this world.</span> Secondly, +from the presence of the divine light, because <span style= +"font-weight: bold">He was in the world.</span> Thirdly, from the +obviousness of the light, because <span style= +"font-weight: bold">through him the world was made.</span> So the +lack of divine knowledge in the world was not due to the Word, +because it is sufficient. First, he shows the nature of this +efficiency, that is, <span style="font-weight: bold">He was the +true light.</span> Secondly, its very efficiency, <span style= +"font-weight: bold">which enlightens every man.</span></p> +<p>125 The divine Word is efficacious in enlightening because +<span style="font-weight: bold">He was the true light.</span> How +the Word is light, and how he is the light of men need not be +discussed again, because it was sufficiently explained above. What +we must discuss at present is how he is the true light. To explain +this, we should note that in Scripture the “true” is +contrasted with three things. Sometimes it is contrasted with the +false, as in “Put an end to lying, and let everyone speak the +truth” (Eph 4:25). Sometimes it is contrasted with what is +figurative, as in “The law was given through Moses; grace and +truth have come through Jesus Christ” (below 1:17), because +the truth of the figures contained in the law was fulfilled by +Christ. Sometimes it is contrasted with what is something by +participation, as in “that we may be in his true Son” +(1 Jn 5:20), who is not his Son by participation.</p> +<p>Before the Word came there was in the world a certain light +which the philosophers prided themselves on having; but this was a +false light, because as is said, “They became stultified in +their speculations, and their foolish hearts were darkened; +claiming to be wise, they became fools” (Rom 1:21); +“Every man is made foolish by his knowledge” (Jer +10:14). There was another light from the teaching of the law which +the Jews boasted of having; but this was a symbolic light, +“The law has a shadow of the good things to come, not the +image itself of them” (Heb 10:1). There was also a certain +light in the angels and in holy men in so far as they knew God in a +more special way by grace; but this was a participated light, +“Upon whom does his light not shine?” (Jb 25:3), which +is like saying: Whoever shine, shine to the extent that they +participate in his light, i.e., God’s light.</p> +<p>But the Word of God was not a false light, nor a symbolic light, +nor a participated light, but the true light, i.e., light by his +essence. Therefore he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">He was +the true light.</span></p> +<p>126 This excludes two errors. First, that of Photinus, who +believed that Christ derived his beginning from the Virgin. So, +lest anyone suppose this, the Evangelist, speaking of the +incarnation of the Word, says, <span style="font-weight: bold">He +was the true light,</span> i.e., eternally, not only before the +Virgin, but before every creature. This also excludes the error of +Arius and Origen; they said that Christ was not true God, but God +by participation. If this were so, he could not be the true light, +as the Evangelist says here, and as in “God is light” +(1 Jn 1:5), i.e., not by 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 God. Now it is clear how +the divine Word is effective in causing divine knowledge.</p> +<p>127 The effectiveness or efficiency of the Word lies in the fact +that he <span style="font-weight: bold">enlightens every man coming +into this world.</span> For everything which is what it is by +participation is derived from that which is such by its essence; +just as everything afire is so by participation in fire, which is +fire by its very essence. Then since the Word is the true light by +his very essence, then everything that shines must do so through +him, insofar as it participates in him. And so he <span style= +"font-weight: bold">enlightens every man coming into this +world.</span></p> +<p>128 To understand this, we should know that “world” +is taken in three ways in Scripture. Sometimes, from the point of +view of its creation, as when the Evangelist says here, +“through him the world was made” (v 10). Sometimes, +from the point of view of its perfection, which it reaches through +Christ, as in “God was, in Christ, reconciling the world to +himself” (2 Cor 5:19). And sometimes it is taken from the +point of view of its perversity, as in “The whole world lies +under the power of the evil one” (1 Jn 5:19).</p> +<p>On the other hand, “enlightenment” or “being +enlightened” by the Word is taken in two ways. First, in +relation to the light of natural knowledge, as in “The light +of your countenance, O Lord, is marked upon us” (Ps 4:7). +Secondly, as the light of grace, “Be enlightened, O +Jerusalem” (Is 60:1).</p> +<p>129 With these two sets of distinctions in mind, it is easy to +solve a difficulty which arises here. For when the Evangelist says, +he <span style="font-weight: bold">enlightens every man,</span> +this seems to be false, because there are still many in darkness in +the world. However, if we bear in mind these distinctions and take +“world” from the standpoint of its creation, and +“enlighten” as referring to the light of natural +reason, the statement of the Evangelist is beyond reproach. For all +men coming into this visible world are enlightened by the light of +natural knowledge through participating in this true light, which +is the source of all the light of natural knowledge participated in +by men.</p> +<p>When the Evangelist speaks of <span style= +"font-weight: bold">man coming into this world,</span> he does not +mean that men had lived for a certain time outside the world and +then came into the world, since this is contrary to the teaching of +the Apostle in Romans (9:11), “When the children were not yet +born nor had they done anything good or evil.” Therefore, +since they had done nothing before they were born, it is plain that +the soul does not exist p3or to its union with the body. He refers +to <span style="font-weight: bold">every man coming into this +world,</span> to show that men are enlightened by God with respect +to that according to which they came into the world, i.e., with +respect to the intellect, which is something external [to the +world]. For man is constituted of a twofold nature, bodily and +intellectual. According to his bodily or sensible nature, man is +enlightened by a bodily and sensible light; but according to his +soul and intellectual nature, he is enlightened by an intellectual +and spiritual light. Now man does not come into this world +according to his bodily nature, but under this aspect, he is from +the world. His intellectual nature is derived from a source +external to the world, as has been said, i.e., from God through +creation; as in “Until all flesh returns to its origin, and +the spirit is directed to God, who made it” (Ecc 12:7). For +these reasons, when the Evangelist speaks of <span style= +"font-weight: bold">every man coming into this world</span>, he is +showing that this enlightenment refers to what is from without, +that is, the intellect.</p> +<p>130 If we understand “enlightenment” with respect to +the light of grace, then <span style="font-weight: bold">he +enlightens every man</span> may be explained in three ways. The +first way is by Origen in his homily, “The great +eagle,” and is this. “World” is understood from +the point of view of its perfection, which man attains by his +reconciliation through Christ. And so we have, he enlightens every +man coming, by faith, into this world, i.e., this spiritual world, +that is, the Church, which has been enlightened by the light of +grace.</p> +<p>Chrysostom explains it another way. He takes “world” +under the aspect of creation. Then the 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 no one, but rather +“wants all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of +the truth” (1 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 enlightened, it is due to himself, because he turns +from the light that enlightens.</p> +<p>Augustine explains it a third way. For him, “every” +has a restricted application, so that the sense is: He <span style= +"font-weight: bold">enlightens every man coming into this +world,</span> not every man universally, but every man who is +enlightened, since no one is enlightened except by the Word. +According to Augustine, the Evangelist says, <span style= +"font-weight: bold">coming into this world,</span> in order to give +the reason why man needs to be enlightened, and he is taking +“world” from the point of view of its perversity and +defect. It is as though he were saying: Man needs to be enlightened +because he is coming into this world which is darkened by +perversity and defects and is full of ignorance. (This followed the +spiritual world of the first man.) As Luke says (1:79), “To +enlighten those who sit in darkness and in the shadow of +death.”</p> +<p>131 The above statement refutes the error of the Manichaeans, +who think than men were created in the world from an opposing +principle, i.e., the devil. For if man were a creature of the devil +when coming into this world, he would not be enlightened by God or +by the Word, for “Christ came into the world to destroy the +works of the devil” (1 Jn 3:8).</p> +<p>132 So it is clear, from the efficacy of the divine Word, that +the lack of knowledge in men is not due to the Word, because he is +effective in enlightening all, being <span style= +"font-weight: bold">the true light, which enlightens</span> every +<span style="font-weight: bold">man coming into this +world.</span></p> +<p>But so you do not suppose this lack arose from the withdrawal or +absence of the true light, the Evangelist rules this out adding, +<span style="font-weight: bold">He was in the world</span>. A +comparable statement is found in “He is not far from any one +of us,” that is, God, “for in him we live, and move, +and are” (Acts 17:28). It is as though the Evangelist were +saying: The divine Word is effective and is at hand in order to +enlighten us.</p> +<p>133 We should remark that something is said to be “in the +world” in three ways. In one way, by being contained, as a +thing in place exists in a place: “They are in the +world” (below 17:11). In another way, as a part in a whole; +for a part of the world is said to be in the world even though it +is not in a place. For example, supernatural substances, although +not in the world as in a place, are nevertheless in it as parts: +“God ... who made heaven and earth, the sea, and all things +that are in them” (Ps 145:6). But the true light was not in +the world in either of these ways, because that light is neither +localized nor is it a part of the universe. Indeed, if we can speak +this way, the entire universe is in a certain sense a part, since +it participates in a partial way in his goodness.</p> +<p>Accordingly, the true light was in the world in a third way, +i.e., as an efficient and preserving cause: “I fill heaven +and earth” as said in Jeremiah (23:24). However, there is a +difference between the way the Word acts and causes all things and +the way in which other agents act. For other agents act as existing +externally: since they do not act except by moving and altering a +thing qualitatively in some way with respect to its exterior, they +work from without. But God acts in all things from within, because +he acts by creating. Now to create is to give existence +(<i>esse</i>) to the thing created. So, since esse is innermost in +each thing, God, who by acting gives <i>esse</i> acts in things +from within. Hence God was in the world as one giving <i>esse</i> +to the world.</p> +<p>134 It is customary to say that God is in all things by his +essence, presence and power. To understand what this means, we +should know that someone is said to be by his power in all the +things that are subject to his power; as a king is said to be in +the entire kingdom subject to him, by his power. He is not there, +however, by presence or essence., Someone is said to be by presence +in all the things that are within his range of vision; as a king is +said to be in his house by presence. And someone is said to be by +essence in those things in which his substance is; as a king is in +one determinate place.</p> +<p>Now we say that God is everywhere by his power, since all things +are subject to his power: “If I ascend into heaven, you are +there.... If I take my wings early in the morning, and dwell in the +furthest part of the sea, even there your hand will lead me, and +your right hand will hold me” (Ps 138:8). He is also +everywhere by his presence, because “all things are bare and +open to his eyes,” as is said in Hebrews (4:13). He is +present everywhere by his essence, be cause his essence is +innermost in all things. For every agent, as acting, has to be +immediately joined to its effect, because mover and moved must be +together. Now God is the maker and preserver of all things with +respect to the <i>esse</i> of each. Hence, since the <i>esse</i> of +a thing is innermost in that thing, it is plain that God, by his +essence, through which he creates all things, is in all things.</p> +<p>135 It should be noted that the Evangelist significantly uses +the word “was,” when he says, <span style= +"font-weight: bold">He was in the world,</span> showing that from +the beginning of creation he was always in the world, causing and +preserving all things; because if God for even a moment were to +withhold his power from the things he established, all would return +to nothing and cease to be. Hence Origen uses an apt example to +show this, when he says that as a human vocal sound is to a human +word conceived in the mind, so is, the creature to the divine Word; +for as our vocal sound is the effect of the word conceived in our +mind, so the creature is the effect of the Word conceived in the +divine mind. “For he spoke, and they were created” (Ps +148:5). Hence, just as we notice that as soon as our inner word +vanishes, the sensible vocal sound also ceases, so, if the power of +the divine Word were withdrawn from things, all of them would +immediately cease to be at that moment. And this is because he is +“sustaining all things by his powerful word” (Heb +1:3).</p> +<p>136 So it is plain that a lack of divine knowledge in minds is +not due to the absence of the Word, because <span style= +"font-weight: bold">He was in the world</span>; nor is it due to +the invisibility or concealment of the Word, because he has +produced a work in which his likeness is clearly reflected, that +is, the world: “For from the greatness and beauty of +creatures, their creator can be seen accordingly” (Wis 13:5), +and “The invisible things of God are clearly seen, being +understood through the things that are made” (Rom 1:20). And +so the Evangelist at once adds, <span style="font-weight: bold">and +through him the world was made,</span> in order that that light +might be manifested in it. For as a work of art manifests the art +of the artisan, so the whole world is nothing else than a certain +representation of the divine wisdom conceived within the mind of +the Father, “He poured her [wisdom] out upon all his +works,” as is said in Sirach (1:10).</p> +<p>Now it is clear that the lack of divine knowledge is not due to +the Word, because he is 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 knowable, since <span style="font-weight: bold">through him the +world was made.</span></p> +<p>137 The Evangelist indicates the source of this lack when he +says, <span style="font-weight: bold">and the world did not know +him.</span> As if to say: It is not due to him, but to the world, +who did not know him.</p> +<p>He says him in the singular, because earlier he had called the +Word not only the “light of men,” but also +“God”; and so when he says him, he means God. Again, he +uses “world” for man. For the angels knew him by their +understanding, and the elements by their obeying him; 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> +<p>138 We attribute this lack of divine knowledge either to the +nature of man or to his guilt. To his nature, indeed, because +although all the aforesaid aids were given to man to lead him to +the knowledge of God, human reason in itself lacks this knowledge. +“Man beholds him from afar” (Jb 36:25), and immediately +after, “God is great beyond our knowledge.” But if some +have known him, this was not insofar as they were in the world, but +above the world; and the kind for whom the world was not worthy, +because <span style="font-weight: bold">the world did not know +him.</span> Hence if they mentally perceived anything eternal, that +was insofar as they were not of this world.</p> +<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 kind of reason why God was not known by man; in +this sense <span style="font-weight: bold">world</span> is taken +for inordinate 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 lovers of the world. For the love of the world, +as Augustine says, is what chiefly withdraws us from the knowledge +of God, because “Love of the world makes one an enemy to +God” (Jas 4:4); “The sensual man does not perceive the +things that pertain to the Spirit of God” ( 1 Cor 2:14).</p> +<p>139 From this we call answer the question of the Gentiles who +futilely ask this: If it is only recently that the Son of God is +set before the world as the Savior of men, does it not seem that +before that time he scorned human nature? We should say to them +that he did not scorn the world but was always in the world, and on +his part is knowable by men; but it was due to their own fault that +some have not known him, because they were lovers of the world.</p> +<p>140 We should also note that the Evangelist speaks of the +incarnation of the Word to show that the incarnate Word and that +which “was in the beginning with God,” and God, are the +same. He repeats what he had said of him earlier. For above he had +said he [the Word] “was 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 made through him”; +here he says that through him the world was made. Earlier he had +said, “without him nothing was made,” i.e., according +to one explanation, he conserves all things; here he says, he was +in the world, creating and conserving the world and all things. +There he had said, “the darkness did not overcome it”; +here he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">the world did not +know him.</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> +<p>141 We can gather three reasons from the above why God willed to +become incarnate. One is because of the perversity of human nature +which, because of its own malice, had been darkened by vices and +the obscurity of its own ignorance. And so he said before, the +darkness did not overcome it. Therefore, God came in the flesh so +that the darkness might apprehend the light, i.e., obtain a +knowledge of it. “The people who walked in darkness saw a +great light” (Is 9:2).</p> +<p>The second reason is that the testimony of the prophets was not +enough. For the prophets came and John had come; but they were not +able to give sufficient enlightenment, because <span style= +"font-weight: bold">he was not the light.</span> And so, after the +prophecies of the prophets and the coming of John, it was necessary +that the light itself come and give the world a knowledge of +itself. And this is what the Apostle says: “In past times, +God spoke in many ways and degrees to our fathers through the +prophets; in these days he has spoken to us in his Son” as we +find in Hebrews (1:1). “We have the prophetic message, to +which you do well to give attention, until the day dawns” (2 +Pt 1:19).</p> +<p>The third reason is because of the shortcomings of creatures. +For creatures were not sufficient to lead to a knowledge of the +Creator; hence he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">through him +the world was made, and the world did not know him.</span> Thus it +was necessary that the Creator himself come into the world in the +flesh, and be known through himself. And this is what the Apostle +says: “Since in the wisdom of God the world did not know God +by its wisdom, it pleased God to save those who believe by the +foolishness of our preaching” (1 Cor 1:21).</p> +<p style="margin-bottom: 0.125in; margin-bottom: 0.125in"> + </p> +<center> +<p style="text-align: center; margin-bottom: 0.125in"><span style= +"font-weight: bold">LECTURE 6</span></p> +<p>11 He came unto his own, and his own did not receive him;<br /> +12 but whoever received him, he gave them power to become<br /> +the sons of God, to all who believe in his name,<br /> +13 who are born not from blood, nor from the desires of the +flesh,<br /> +nor from man’s willing it, but from God.</p> +</center> +<p>142 Having given the necessity for the incarnation of the Word, +the Evangelist then shows the advantage men gained from that +incarnation. First, he shows the coming of the light (v 11); +secondly, its reception by men (v 11b); thirdly, the fruit brought +by the coming of the light (v 12).</p> +<p>143 He shows that the light which was present in the world and +evident, i.e., disclosed by its effect, was nevertheless not known +by the world. Hence, he came unto his own, in order to be known. +The Evangelist says, <span style="font-weight: bold">unto his +own,</span> i.e., to things that were his own, which he had made. +And he says this so that you do not think that when he says, he +came, he means a local motion in the sense that he came as though +ceasing to be where he previously was and newly beginning to be +where he formerly had not been. He came where he already was. +“I came forth from the Father, and have come into the +world,” as said below ( 16:2 8).</p> +<p>He came, I say, unto his own, i.e., to Judea, according to some, +because it was in a special way his own. “In Judea God is +known” (Ps 75:1); “The vineyard of the Lord of hosts is +the house of Israel” (Is 5:7). But it is better to say, unto +his own, i.e., into the world created by him. “The earth is +the Lord’s” (Ps 23:1).</p> +<p>144 But if he was previously in the world, how could he come +into the world? I answer that “coming to some place” is +understood in two ways. First, that someone comes where he +absolutely had not been before. Or, secondly, that someone begins +to be in a new way where he was before. For example, a king, who up +to a certain time was in a city of his kingdom by his power and +later visits it in person, is said to have come where he previously +was: for he comes by his substance where previously he was present +only by his power. It was in this way that the Son of God came into +the world and yet was in the world. For he was there, indeed, by +his essence, power and presence, but he came by assuming flesh. He +was there invisibly, and he came in order to be visible.</p> +<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 by +men, who reacted in different ways. For some did receive him, but +these were not his own; hence he says, <span style= +"font-weight: bold">his own did not receive him.</span> “His +own” are men, because they were formed by him. “The +Lord God formed man” (Gn 2:7); “Know that the Lord is +God: he made us” (Ps 99:3). And he made them to his own +image, “Let us make man to our image” (Gn 1:26).</p> +<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, and by showing +honor to him. “I have come in the name of my Father, and you +do not receive me” (below 5:43), and “I honor my Father +and you have dishonored me” (below 8:49). Now the Jews are +his own because they were chosen by him to be his special people. +“The Lord chose you to be his special people” (Dt +26:18). They are his own because related according to the flesh, +“from whom is Christ, according to the flesh,” as said +in Romans (9:3). They are also his own because enriched by his +kindness, “I have reared and brought up sons” (Is 1:2). But although the Jews were his own, they did not receive him.</p> -<p>146 However, there were not lacking those who did receive him. Hence he adds, <span style="font-weight: bold">but -whoever received him. </span>The Evangelist uses this manner of speaking, saying, but whoever, to -indicate that the deliverance would be more extensive than the promise, which had been made -only to his own, i.e., to the Jews. “The Lord is our law giver, the Lord is our king; he will -save us” (Is 33:22). But this deliverance was not only for his own, but for <span style="font-weight: bold">whoever received -him, </span>i.e., whoever believe in him. “For I say that Christ was a minister to the circumcised, for -the sake of God’s truth, to confirm the promises made to the fathers” (Rom 15:8). The -Gentiles, however, [are delivered] by his mercy, because they were received through his -mercy.</p> -<p>147 He says, whoever, to show that God’s grace is given without distinction to all who -receive Christ. “The grace of the Holy Spirit has been poured out upon the Gentiles”(Acts -10:45). And not only to free men, but to slaves as well; not only to men, but to women also. -“In Christ Jesus there is neither male nor female, Jew or Greek, the circumcised or -uncircumcised” (Gal 3:28).</p> -<p>148 Then when he says, he gave them power to become the sons of God, we have the fruit of -his coming. First, he mentions the grandeur of the fruit, for he gave them power. Secondly, he -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 -from blood, </span>and so forth.</p> -<p>149 The fruit of the coming of the Son of God is great, because by it men are made sons of -God. “God sent his Son made from a woman ... so that we might receive our adoption as -sons” (Gal 4:5). And it was fitting that we, who. are sons of God by the fact that we are made -like the Son, should be reformed through the Son.</p> -<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 -should remark that men become sons of God by being made like God. Hence men are sons of -God according to a threefold likeness to God. First, by the infusion of grace; hence anyone -having sanctifying grace is made a son of God. “You did not receive the spirit of slavery ... -but the spirit of adoption as sons,” as said in Romans (8:15). “Because you are sons of God, -God sent the Spirit of his Son into your hearts” (Gal 4:6).</p> -<p>Secondly, we are like God by the perfection of our actions, because one who acts justly is a -son: “Love your enemies ... so that you may be the children of your Father” (Mt 5:44).</p> -<p>Thirdly, we are made like God by the attainment of glory. The glory of the soul by the light of -glory, “When he appears we shall be like him” (1 Jn 3:2); and the glory of the body, “He will -reform our lowly body” (Phil 3:21). Of these two it is said in Romans (8:23), “We are waiting -for our adoption as sons of God.”</p> -<p>151 If we take the power to become the sons of God as referring to the perfection of our -actions and the attainment of glory, the statement offers no difficulty. For then when he says, -he gave them power, he is referring to the power of grace; and when a man possesses this, he -can perform works of perfection and attain glory, since “The grace of God is eternal life” -(Rom 6:23). According to this way we have, he gave them, to those who received him, power, -i.e., the infusion of grace, to become the sons of God, by acting well and acquiring glory.</p> -<p>152 But if this statement refers to the infusion of grace, then his saying, <span style="font-weight: bold">he gave them power, -</span>gives rise to a difficulty. And this is because it is not in our power to be made sons of God, -since it is not in our power to possess grace. We can understand, he gave them power, as a -power of nature; but this does not seem to be true since the infusion of grace is above our -nature. Or we can understand it as the power of grace, and then to have grace is to have power -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 -God, but to be sons of God.</p> -<p>153 The answer to this is that when grace is given to an adult, his justification requires an act -of consent by a movement of his free will. So, because it is in the power of men to consent -and not to consent, <span style="font-weight: bold">he gave them power. </span>However, he gives this power of accepting grace in -two ways: by preparing it, and by offering it to him. For just as one who writes a book and -offers it to a man to read is said to give the power to read it, so Christ, through whom grace -was produced (as will be said below), and who “accomplished salvation on the earth” (Ps -73:12), <span style="font-weight: bold">gave us power to become the sons of God </span>by offering grace.</p> -<p>154 Yet this is not sufficient since even free will, if it is to be moved to receive grace, needs -the help of divine grace, not indeed habitual grace, but movent grace. For this reason, -secondly, he gives power by moving the free will of man to consent to the reception of grace, -as in “Convert us to yourself, 0 Lord,” by moving our will to your love, “and we will be -converted” (Lam 5:21). And in this sense we speak of an interior call, of which it is said, -“Those whom he called,” by inwardly moving the will to consent to grace, “he justified,” by -infusing grace (Rom 8:3).</p> -<p>155 Since by this grace man has the power of maintaining himself in the divine sonship, one -may read these words in another way. He gave them, i.e., those who receive him, <span style="font-weight: bold">power to -become the sons of God, </span>i.e., the grace by which they are able to be maintained in the divine -sonship. “Everyone who is born from God does not sin, but the grace of God,” through which -we are reborn as children of God, “preserves him” (1 Jn 5:18).</p> -<p>156 Thus, <span style="font-weight: bold">he gave them power to become the sons of God, </span>through sanctifying grace, -through the perfection of their actions, and through the attainment of glory; and he did this by -preparing this grace, moving their wills, and preserving this grace.</p> -<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 -his coming is conferred. We can understand this in two ways: either as explaining what was -said before, or as qualifying it. We can regard it as explaining as the Evangelist had said, -whoever received him, and now to show what it is to receive him, he adds by way of -explanation, <span style="font-weight: bold">who believe in his name. </span>It is as though he were saying: To receive him is to -believe in him, because it is through faith that Christ dwells in your hearts, as in “that Christ -may dwell in your hearts through faith” (Eph 3:17). Therefore, they <span style="font-weight: bold">received him, who -believe in his name.</span></p> -<p>158 Origen regards this as a qualifying statement, in his homily, “The spiritual voice.” In this -sense, many receive Christ, declaring that they are Christians, but they are not sons of God, -because they do not truly believe in his name; for they propose false dogmas about Christ by -taking away something from his divinity or humanity, as in “Every spirit that denies Christ is -not from God” (1 Jn 4:3). And so the Evangelist says, as though contracting his meaning, <span style="font-weight: bold">he -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, -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 -not to lessen anything of the divinity or humanity of Christ.</p> -<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 -become the sons of God, who believe in his name, </span>i.e., those who do the works of salvation -through a faith formed by charity. For those who have only an unformed faith do not believe -in his name because they do not work unto salvation.</p> -<p>However, the first exposition, which is taken as explaining what preceded, is better.</p> -<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 -fruit is conferred on men. For since he had said that the fruit of the light’s coming is the -power given to men to become the sons of God, then to forestall the supposition that they are -born through a material generation he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">not from blood. </span>And although the word “blood” -(<i>sanguis</i>)<i> </i>has no plural in Latin, but does in Greek, the translator [from Greek into Latin] -ignored a rule of grammar in order to teach the truth more perfectly. So he does not say, -“from blood,” in the Latin manner, but “from bloods” (<i>ex sanguinibus</i>)<i>. </i>This indicates -whatever is generated from blood, serving as the matter in carnal generation. According to the -Philosopher [<i>On the Generation of Animals, 1, </i>c 18, 726a26-8], “semen is a residue derived -from useful nourishment in its final form.” So “blood” indicates either the seed of the male or -the menses of the female.</p> -<p>The cause moving to the carnal act is the will of those coming together, the man and the -woman. For although the act of the generative power as such is not subject to the will, the -preliminaries to it are subject to the will. So he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">nor from the desires of the flesh, -</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 -God. </span>It is as though he were saying: They became sons of God, not carnally, but spiritually.</p> -<p>According to Augustine, “flesh” is taken here for the woman, because as the flesh obeys the -spirit, so woman should obey man. Adam (Gn 2:23) said of the woman, “This, at last, is bone -of my bones.” And note, according to Augustine, that just as the possessions of a household -are wasted away if the woman rules and the man is subject, so a man is wasted away when the -flesh rules the spirit. For this reason the Apostle says, “We are not debtors to the flesh, so that -we should live according to the flesh” (Rom 8:12). Concerning the manner of this carnal -generation, we read, “In the womb of my mother I was molded into flesh” (Wis 7:1).</p> -<p>161 Or, we might say that the moving force to carnal generation is twofold: the intellectual -appetite on the one hand, that is, the will; and on the other hand, the sense appetite, which is -concupiscence. So, to indicate the material cause he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">not from blood. </span>To indicate the -efficient cause, in respect to concupiscence, he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">nor from the desires of the flesh</span> [<i>ex -voluntate carnis</i>, literally, “from the will of the flesh”], even though the concupiscence of the -flesh is improperly called a “will” in the sense of Galatians (5:17), “The flesh lusts against the -spirit.” Finally, to indicate the intellectual appetite he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">nor from man’s willing it. </span>So, -the generation of the sons of God is not carnal but spiritual, because they were born <span style="font-weight: bold">from -God. </span>“Every one who is born from God conquers the world” (1 Jn 5:4).</p> -<p>162 Note, however, that this preposition <i>de </i>(“of,” or “from”), always signifies a material -cause as well as an efficient and even a consubstantial cause. Thus we say a blacksmith -makes a knife <i>de ferro </i>(“from” iron), and a father generates his son <i>de seipso </i>(“from” -himself), because something of his concurs somehow in begetting. But the preposition <i>a -</i>(“by”) always signifies a moving cause. The preposition <i>ex </i>(“from,” or “by”)—[in the sense -of “out of” or “by reason of”]—is taken as something common, since it implies an efficient as -well as a material cause, although not a consubstantial cause.</p> -<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 -Father and indeed is one substance with the Father, while the saints, who are adopted sons, -are not of his substance, the Evangelist uses the preposition <i>ex, </i>saying of others that they are -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 -Patre</i>)<i>.</i></p> -<p>163 Note also that in the light of our last exposition of carnal generation, we can discern the -difference between carnal and spiritual generation. For since the former is from blood, it is -carnal; but the latter, because it is not from blood, is spiritual. “What is born from flesh is -itself flesh; and what is born from Spirit is itself spirit” (below 3:6). Again, because material -generation is from the desires of the flesh, i.e., from concupiscence, it is unclean and begets -children who are sinners: “We were by nature children of wrath” as it says in Ephesians (2:3). -Again, because the former is <span style="font-weight: bold">from man’s willing it, </span>that is, from man, it makes children of -men; but the latter, because it is from God, makes children of God.</p> -<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 -which we are reborn as sons of God, we can detect in his words the order of baptism: that is, -the first thing required is faith, as shown in the case of catechumens, who must first be -instructed about the faith so that they may believe in his name; then through baptism they are -reborn, not carnally froin blood, but spiritually from God.</p> -<p style="margin-bottom: 0.125in; margin-bottom: 0.125in"> </p> -<CENTER><p><span style="font-weight: bold">LECTURE 7</span></p> -<p>14a And the Word was made flesh, and made his dwelling among us.</CENTER> -<p>165 Having explained the necessity for the Word’s coming in the flesh as well as the benefits -this conferred, the Evangelist now shows the way he came (v 14a). He thus resumes the -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 -unto his own. But lest anyone suppose that he came by changing his location, he shows the -manner in which he came, that is, by an incarnation. For he came in the manner in which he -was sent by the Father, by whom he was sent, i.e., he was made flesh. “God sent his Son -made from a woman” (Gal 4:4). And Augustine says about this that “He was sent in the -manner in which he was made.”</p> -<p>According to Chrysostom, however, he is here continuing the earlier statement, <span style="font-weight: bold">he gave them -power to become the sons of God. </span>As if to say: If you wonder how he was able to give this -power to men, i.e., that they become sons of God, the Evangelist answers: because <span style="font-weight: bold">the Word -was made flesh, </span>he made it possible for us to be made sons of God. “God sent his Son ... so -that we might receive our adoption as sons” (Gal 4:5).</p> -<p>But according to Augustine, he is continuing the earlier statement, <span style="font-weight: bold">who are born from God. -</span>For since it seemed a hard saying that men be born from God, then, as though arguing in -support of this and to produce belief in the existence of the Word, the Evangelist adds -something which seems less seemly, namely, that <span style="font-weight: bold">the Word was made flesh. </span>As if to say: Do -not wonder if men are born from God, because <span style="font-weight: bold">the Word was made flesh, </span>i.e., God became -man.</p> -<p>166 It should be noted that this statement, <span style="font-weight: bold">the Word was made flesh, </span>has been -misinterpreted by some and made the occasion of error. For certain ones have presumed that -the Word became flesh in the sense that he or something of him was turned into flesh, as -when flour is made into bread, and air becomes fire. One of these was Eutyches, who -postulated a mixture of natures in Christ, saying that in him the nature of God and of man was -the same. We can clearly see that this is false because, as was said above, “the Word was -God.” Now God is immutable, as is said, “I am the Lord, and I do not change” (Mal 3:6). -Hence in no way can it be said that he was turned into another nature. Therefore, one must -say in opposition to <span style="font-weight: bold">Eutyches, the Word was made flesh, </span>i.e., the Word assumed flesh, but -not in the sense that the Word himself is that flesh. It is as if we were to say: “The man -became white,” not that he is that whiteness, but that he asstinled whiteness.</p> -<p>167 There were others who, although they believed that the Word was not changed into flesh -but assumed it, nevertheless said that he assumed flesh without a soul; for if he had assumed -flesh with a soul, the Evangelist would have said, “the Word was made flesh with a soul.” -This was the error of Arius, who said that there was no soul in Christ, but that the Word of -God was there in place of a soul.</p> -<p>The falsity of this opinion is obvious, both because it is in conflict with Sacred Scripture, -which often mentions the soul of Christ, as: “My soul is sad, even to the point of death” (Mt -26:38), and because certain affections of the soul are observed in Christ which can not -possibly exist in the Word of God or in flesh alone: “He began to be sorrowful and troubled” -(Mt 26:37). Also, God cannot be the form of a body. Nor can an angel be united to a body as -its form, since an angel, according to its very nature, is separated from body, whereas a soul is -united to a body as its form. Consequently, the Word of God cannot be the form of a body.</p> -<p>Furthermore, it is plain that flesh does not acquire the specific nature of flesh except through -its soul. This is shown by the fact that when the soul has withdrawn from the body of a man -or a cow, the flesh of the man or the cow is called flesh only in an equivocal sense. So if the -Word did not assume flesh with a soul, it is obvious that he did not assume flesh. <span style="font-weight: bold">But the -Word was made flesh; </span>therefore, he assumed flesh with a soul.</p> -<p>168 And there were others who, influenced by this, said that the Word did indeed assume -flesh with a soul, but this soul was only a sensitive soul, not an intellectual one; the Word -took the place of the intellectual soul in Christ’s body. This was the error of Apollinaris. He -followed Arius for a time, but later in the face of the [scriptural] authorities cited above, was -forced to admit a soul in Christ which could be the subject of these emotions. But he said this -soul lacked reason and intellect, and that in the man Christ their place was taken by the Word.</p> -<p>This too is obviously false, because it conflicts with the authority of Sacred Scripture in -which certain things are said of Christ that cannot be found in his divinity, nor in a sensitive -soul, nor in flesh alone; for example, that Christ marvelled, as in Matthew (8:10). For to -marvel or wonder is a state which arises in a rational and intellectual soul when a desire arises -to know the hidden cause of an observed effect. Therefore, just as sadness compels one to -place a sensitive element in the soul of Christ, against Arius, so marvelling or amazement -forces one to admit, against Apollinaris, an intellectual element in Christ.</p> -<p>The same conclusion can be reached by reason. For as there is no flesh without a soul, so -there is no human flesh without a human soul, which is an intellectual soul. So if the Word -assumed flesh which was animated with a merely sensitive soul to the exclusion of a rational -soul, he did not assume human flesh; consequently, one could not say: “God became man.”</p> -<p>Besides, the Word assumed human nature in order to repair it. Therefore, he repaired what he -assumed. But if he did not assume a rational soul, he would not have repaired it. -Consequently, no fruit would have accrued to us from the incarnation of the Word; and this is -false. <span style="font-weight: bold">Therefore, the Word was made flesh, </span>i.e., assumed flesh which was animated by a -rational soul.</p> -<p>169 But you may say: If the Word did assume flesh with such a soul, why did the Evangelist -not mention “rational soul,” instead of only “flesh,” saying, <span style="font-weight: bold">the Word was made flesh? </span>I +<p>146 However, there were not lacking those who did receive him. +Hence he adds, <span style="font-weight: bold">but whoever received +him.</span> The Evangelist uses this manner of speaking, saying, +but whoever, to indicate that the deliverance would be more +extensive than the promise, which had been made only to his own, +i.e., to the Jews. “The Lord is our law giver, the Lord is +our king; he will save us” (Is 33:22). But this deliverance +was not only for his own, but for <span style= +"font-weight: bold">whoever received him,</span> i.e., whoever +believe in him. “For I say that Christ was a minister to the +circumcised, for the sake of God’s truth, to confirm the +promises made to the fathers” (Rom 15:8). The Gentiles, +however, [are delivered] by his mercy, because they were received +through his mercy.</p> +<p>147 He says, whoever, to show that God’s grace is given +without distinction to all who receive Christ. “The grace of +the Holy Spirit has been poured out upon the Gentiles”(Acts +10:45). And not only to free men, but to slaves as well; not only +to men, but to women also. “In Christ Jesus there is neither +male nor female, Jew or Greek, the circumcised or +uncircumcised” (Gal 3:28).</p> +<p>148 Then when he says, he gave them power to become the sons of +God, we have the fruit of his coming. First, he mentions the +grandeur of the fruit, for he gave them power. Secondly, he 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 from blood,</span> and so +forth.</p> +<p>149 The fruit of the coming of the Son of God is great, because +by it men are made sons of God. “God sent his Son made from a +woman ... so that we might receive our adoption as sons” (Gal +4:5). And it was fitting that we, who. are sons of God by the fact +that we are made like the Son, should be reformed through the +Son.</p> +<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 +should remark that men become sons of God by being made like God. +Hence men are sons of God according to a threefold likeness to God. +First, by the infusion of grace; hence anyone having sanctifying +grace is made a son of God. “You did not receive the spirit +of slavery ... but the spirit of adoption as sons,” as said +in Romans (8:15). “Because you are sons of God, God sent the +Spirit of his Son into your hearts” (Gal 4:6).</p> +<p>Secondly, we are like God by the perfection of our actions, +because one who acts justly is a son: “Love your enemies ... +so that you may be the children of your Father” (Mt +5:44).</p> +<p>Thirdly, we are made like God by the attainment of glory. The +glory of the soul by the light of glory, “When he appears we +shall be like him” (1 Jn 3:2); and the glory of the body, +“He will reform our lowly body” (Phil 3:21). Of these +two it is said in Romans (8:23), “We are waiting for our +adoption as sons of God.”</p> +<p>151 If we take the power to become the sons of God as referring +to the perfection of our actions and the attainment of glory, the +statement offers no difficulty. For then when he says, he gave them +power, he is referring to the power of grace; and when a man +possesses this, he can perform works of perfection and attain +glory, since “The grace of God is eternal life” (Rom +6:23). According to this way we have, he gave them, to those who +received him, power, i.e., the infusion of grace, to become the +sons of God, by acting well and acquiring glory.</p> +<p>152 But if this statement refers to the infusion of grace, then +his saying, <span style="font-weight: bold">he gave them +power,</span> gives rise to a difficulty. And this is because it is +not in our power to be made sons of God, since it is not in our +power to possess grace. We can understand, he gave them power, as a +power of nature; but this does not seem to be true since the +infusion of grace is above our nature. Or we can understand it as +the power of grace, and then to have grace is to have power 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 God, but +to be sons of God.</p> +<p>153 The answer to this is that when grace is given to an adult, +his justification requires an act of consent by a movement of his +free will. So, because it is in the power of men to consent and not +to consent, <span style="font-weight: bold">he gave them +power.</span> However, he gives this power of accepting grace in +two ways: by preparing it, and by offering it to him. For just as +one who writes a book and offers it to a man to read is said to +give the power to read it, so Christ, through whom grace was +produced (as will be said below), and who “accomplished +salvation on the earth” (Ps 73:12), <span style= +"font-weight: bold">gave us power to become the sons of God</span> +by offering grace.</p> +<p>154 Yet this is not sufficient since even free will, if it is to +be moved to receive grace, needs the help of divine grace, not +indeed habitual grace, but movent grace. For this reason, secondly, +he gives power by moving the free will of man to consent to the +reception of grace, as in “Convert us to yourself, 0 +Lord,” by moving our will to your love, “and we will be +converted” (Lam 5:21). And in this sense we speak of an +interior call, of which it is said, “Those whom he +called,” by inwardly moving the will to consent to grace, +“he justified,” by infusing grace (Rom 8:3).</p> +<p>155 Since by this grace man has the power of maintaining himself +in the divine sonship, one may read these words in another way. He +gave them, i.e., those who receive him, <span style= +"font-weight: bold">power to become the sons of God,</span> i.e., +the grace by which they are able to be maintained in the divine +sonship. “Everyone who is born from God does not sin, but the +grace of God,” through which we are reborn as children of +God, “preserves him” (1 Jn 5:18).</p> +<p>156 Thus, <span style="font-weight: bold">he gave them power to +become the sons of God,</span> through sanctifying grace, through +the perfection of their actions, and through the attainment of +glory; and he did this by preparing this grace, moving their wills, +and preserving this grace.</p> +<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 +his coming is conferred. We can understand this in two ways: either +as explaining what was said before, or as qualifying it. We can +regard it as explaining as the Evangelist had said, whoever +received him, and now to show what it is to receive him, he adds by +way of explanation, <span style="font-weight: bold">who believe in +his name.</span> It is as though he were saying: To receive him is +to believe in him, because it is through faith that Christ dwells +in your hearts, as in “that Christ may dwell in your hearts +through faith” (Eph 3:17). Therefore, they <span style= +"font-weight: bold">received him, who believe in his +name.</span></p> +<p>158 Origen regards this as a qualifying statement, in his +homily, “The spiritual voice.” In this sense, many +receive Christ, declaring that they are Christians, but they are +not sons of God, because they do not truly believe in his name; for +they propose false dogmas about Christ by taking away something +from his divinity or humanity, as in “Every spirit that +denies Christ is not from God” (1 Jn 4:3). And so the +Evangelist says, as though contracting his meaning, <span style= +"font-weight: bold">he 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, 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 not to lessen anything +of the divinity or humanity of Christ.</p> +<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 +become the sons of God, who believe in his name,</span> i.e., those +who do the works of salvation through a faith formed by charity. +For those who have only an unformed faith do not believe in his +name because they do not work unto salvation.</p> +<p>However, the first exposition, which is taken as explaining what +preceded, is better.</p> +<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 +fruit is conferred on men. For since he had said that the fruit of +the light’s coming is the power given to men to become the +sons of God, then to forestall the supposition that they are born +through a material generation he says, <span style= +"font-weight: bold">not from blood.</span> And although the word +“blood” (<i>sanguis</i>) has no plural in Latin, but +does in Greek, the translator [from Greek into Latin] ignored a +rule of grammar in order to teach the truth more perfectly. So he +does not say, “from blood,” in the Latin manner, but +“from bloods” (<i>ex sanguinibus</i>)<i>.</i> This +indicates whatever is generated from blood, serving as the matter +in carnal generation. According to the Philosopher [<i>On the +Generation of Animals, 1,</i> c 18, 726a26-8], “semen is a +residue derived from useful nourishment in its final form.” +So “blood” indicates either the seed of the male or the +menses of the female.</p> +<p>The cause moving to the carnal act is the will of those coming +together, the man and the woman. For although the act of the +generative power as such is not subject to the will, the +preliminaries to it are subject to the will. So he says, +<span style="font-weight: bold">nor from the desires of the +flesh,</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 +God.</span> It is as though he were saying: They became sons of +God, not carnally, but spiritually.</p> +<p>According to Augustine, “flesh” is taken here for +the woman, because as the flesh obeys the spirit, so woman should +obey man. Adam (Gn 2:23) said of the woman, “This, at last, +is bone of my bones.” And note, according to Augustine, that +just as the possessions of a household are wasted away if the woman +rules and the man is subject, so a man is wasted away when the +flesh rules the spirit. For this reason the Apostle says, “We +are not debtors to the flesh, so that we should live according to +the flesh” (Rom 8:12). Concerning the manner of this carnal +generation, we read, “In the womb of my mother I was molded +into flesh” (Wis 7:1).</p> +<p>161 Or, we might say that the moving force to carnal generation +is twofold: the intellectual appetite on the one hand, that is, the +will; and on the other hand, the sense appetite, which is +concupiscence. So, to indicate the material cause he says, +<span style="font-weight: bold">not from blood.</span> To indicate +the efficient cause, in respect to concupiscence, he says, +<span style="font-weight: bold">nor from the desires of the +flesh</span> [<i>ex voluntate carnis</i>, literally, “from +the will of the flesh”], even though the concupiscence of the +flesh is improperly called a “will” in the sense of +Galatians (5:17), “The flesh lusts against the spirit.” +Finally, to indicate the intellectual appetite he says, +<span style="font-weight: bold">nor from man’s willing +it.</span> So, the generation of the sons of God is not carnal but +spiritual, because they were born <span style= +"font-weight: bold">from God.</span> “Every one who is born +from God conquers the world” (1 Jn 5:4).</p> +<p>162 Note, however, that this preposition <i>de</i> +(“of,” or “from”), always signifies a +material cause as well as an efficient and even a consubstantial +cause. Thus we say a blacksmith makes a knife <i>de ferro</i> +(“from” iron), and a father generates his son <i>de +seipso</i> (“from” himself), because something of his +concurs somehow in begetting. But the preposition <i>a</i> +(“by”) always signifies a moving cause. The preposition +<i>ex</i> (“from,” or “by”)—[in the +sense of “out of” or “by reason +of”]—is taken as something common, since it implies an +efficient as well as a material cause, although not a +consubstantial cause.</p> +<p>Consequently, since only the Son of God, who is the Word, is +“<i>of</i>” (<i>de</i>) the substance of the Father and +indeed is one substance with the Father, while the saints, who are +adopted sons, are not of his substance, the Evangelist uses the +preposition <i>ex,</i> saying of others that they are 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 Patre</i>)<i>.</i></p> +<p>163 Note also that in the light of our last exposition of carnal +generation, we can discern the difference between carnal and +spiritual generation. For since the former is from blood, it is +carnal; but the latter, because it is not from blood, is spiritual. +“What is born from flesh is itself flesh; and what is born +from Spirit is itself spirit” (below 3:6). Again, because +material generation is from the desires of the flesh, i.e., from +concupiscence, it is unclean and begets children who are sinners: +“We were by nature children of wrath” as it says in +Ephesians (2:3). Again, because the former is <span style= +"font-weight: bold">from man’s willing it,</span> that is, +from man, it makes children of men; but the latter, because it is +from God, makes children of God.</p> +<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 which we are reborn as sons of God, we can detect in his +words the order of baptism: that is, the first thing required is +faith, as shown in the case of catechumens, who must first be +instructed about the faith so that they may believe in his name; +then through baptism they are reborn, not carnally froin blood, but +spiritually from God.</p> +<p style="margin-bottom: 0.125in; margin-bottom: 0.125in"> + </p> +<center> +<p><span style="font-weight: bold">LECTURE 7</span></p> +<p>14a And the Word was made flesh, and made his dwelling among +us.</p> +</center> +<p>165 Having explained the necessity for the Word’s coming +in the flesh as well as the benefits this conferred, the Evangelist +now shows the way he came (v 14a). He thus resumes the 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 unto his own. +But lest anyone suppose that he came by changing his location, he +shows the manner in which he came, that is, by an incarnation. For +he came in the manner in which he was sent by the Father, by whom +he was sent, i.e., he was made flesh. “God sent his Son made +from a woman” (Gal 4:4). And Augustine says about this that +“He was sent in the manner in which he was made.”</p> +<p>According to Chrysostom, however, he is here continuing the +earlier statement, <span style="font-weight: bold">he gave them +power to become the sons of God.</span> As if to say: If you wonder +how he was able to give this power to men, i.e., that they become +sons of God, the Evangelist answers: because <span style= +"font-weight: bold">the Word was made flesh,</span> he made it +possible for us to be made sons of God. “God sent his Son ... +so that we might receive our adoption as sons” (Gal 4:5).</p> +<p>But according to Augustine, he is continuing the earlier +statement, <span style="font-weight: bold">who are born from +God.</span> For since it seemed a hard saying that men be born from +God, then, as though arguing in support of this and to produce +belief in the existence of the Word, the Evangelist adds something +which seems less seemly, namely, that <span style= +"font-weight: bold">the Word was made flesh.</span> As if to say: +Do not wonder if men are born from God, because <span style= +"font-weight: bold">the Word was made flesh,</span> i.e., God +became man.</p> +<p>166 It should be noted that this statement, <span style= +"font-weight: bold">the Word was made flesh,</span> has been +misinterpreted by some and made the occasion of error. For certain +ones have presumed that the Word became flesh in the sense that he +or something of him was turned into flesh, as when flour is made +into bread, and air becomes fire. One of these was Eutyches, who +postulated a mixture of natures in Christ, saying that in him the +nature of God and of man was the same. We can clearly see that this +is false because, as was said above, “the Word was +God.” Now God is immutable, as is said, “I am the Lord, +and I do not change” (Mal 3:6). Hence in no way can it be +said that he was turned into another nature. Therefore, one must +say in opposition to <span style="font-weight: bold">Eutyches, the +Word was made flesh,</span> i.e., the Word assumed flesh, but not +in the sense that the Word himself is that flesh. It is as if we +were to say: “The man became white,” not that he is +that whiteness, but that he asstinled whiteness.</p> +<p>167 There were others who, although they believed that the Word +was not changed into flesh but assumed it, nevertheless said that +he assumed flesh without a soul; for if he had assumed flesh with a +soul, the Evangelist would have said, “the Word was made +flesh with a soul.” This was the error of Arius, who said +that there was no soul in Christ, but that the Word of God was +there in place of a soul.</p> +<p>The falsity of this opinion is obvious, both because it is in +conflict with Sacred Scripture, which often mentions the soul of +Christ, as: “My soul is sad, even to the point of +death” (Mt 26:38), and because certain affections of the soul +are observed in Christ which can not possibly exist in the Word of +God or in flesh alone: “He began to be sorrowful and +troubled” (Mt 26:37). Also, God cannot be the form of a body. +Nor can an angel be united to a body as its form, since an angel, +according to its very nature, is separated from body, whereas a +soul is united to a body as its form. Consequently, the Word of God +cannot be the form of a body.</p> +<p>Furthermore, it is plain that flesh does not acquire the +specific nature of flesh except through its soul. This is shown by +the fact that when the soul has withdrawn from the body of a man or +a cow, the flesh of the man or the cow is called flesh only in an +equivocal sense. So if the Word did not assume flesh with a soul, +it is obvious that he did not assume flesh. <span style= +"font-weight: bold">But the Word was made flesh;</span> therefore, +he assumed flesh with a soul.</p> +<p>168 And there were others who, influenced by this, said that the +Word did indeed assume flesh with a soul, but this soul was only a +sensitive soul, not an intellectual one; the Word took the place of +the intellectual soul in Christ’s body. This was the error of +Apollinaris. He followed Arius for a time, but later in the face of +the [scriptural] authorities cited above, was forced to admit a +soul in Christ which could be the subject of these emotions. But he +said this soul lacked reason and intellect, and that in the man +Christ their place was taken by the Word.</p> +<p>This too is obviously false, because it conflicts with the +authority of Sacred Scripture in which certain things are said of +Christ that cannot be found in his divinity, nor in a sensitive +soul, nor in flesh alone; for example, that Christ marvelled, as in +Matthew (8:10). For to marvel or wonder is a state which arises in +a rational and intellectual soul when a desire arises to know the +hidden cause of an observed effect. Therefore, just as sadness +compels one to place a sensitive element in the soul of Christ, +against Arius, so marvelling or amazement forces one to admit, +against Apollinaris, an intellectual element in Christ.</p> +<p>The same conclusion can be reached by reason. For as there is no +flesh without a soul, so there is no human flesh without a human +soul, which is an intellectual soul. So if the Word assumed flesh +which was animated with a merely sensitive soul to the exclusion of +a rational soul, he did not assume human flesh; consequently, one +could not say: “God became man.”</p> +<p>Besides, the Word assumed human nature in order to repair it. +Therefore, he repaired what he assumed. But if he did not assume a +rational soul, he would not have repaired it. Consequently, no +fruit would have accrued to us from the incarnation of the Word; +and this is false. <span style="font-weight: bold">Therefore, the +Word was made flesh,</span> i.e., assumed flesh which was animated +by a rational soul.</p> +<p>169 But you may say: If the Word did assume flesh with such a +soul, why did the Evangelist not mention “rational +soul,” instead of only “flesh,” saying, +<span style="font-weight: bold">the Word was made flesh?</span> I answer that the Evangelist had four reasons for doing this.</p> -<p>First, to show the truth of the incarnation against the Manichaeans, who said that the Word -did not assume true flesh, but only imaginary flesh, since it would not have been becoming -for the Word of the good God to assume flesh, which they regarded as a creature of the devil. -And so to exclude this the Evangelist made special mention of the flesh, just as Christ -showed the truth of the resurrection to the disciples when they took him for a spirit, saying: -“A spirit does not have flesh and bones, as you see that I have” (Lk 24:39).</p> -<p>Secondly, to show the greatness of God’s kindness to us. For it is evident that the rational -soul has a greater conformity to God than does flesh, and that it would have been a great sign -of compassion if the Word had assumed a human soul, as being conformed to himself. But to -assume flesh too, which is something far removed from the simplicity of his nature, was a -sign of a much greater, indeed, of an incomprehensible compassion. As the Apostle says (1 -Tim 3:16): “Obviously great is the mystery of godliness which appeared in the flesh.” And so -to indicate this, the Evangelist mentioned only flesh.</p> -<p>Thirdly, to demonstrate the truth and uniqueness of the union in Christ. For God is indeed -united to other holy men, but only with respect to their soul; so it is said: “She [wisdom] -passes into holy souls, making them friends of God and prophets” (Wis 7:27). But that the -Word of God is united to flesh is unique to Christ, according to the Psalmist: “I am alone -until I pass” (Ps 140:10). “Gold cannot equal it” (Jb 28:17). So the Evangelist, wishing to -show the uniqueness of the union in Christ, mentioned only the flesh, saying, <span style="font-weight: bold">the Word was -made flesh.</span></p> -<p>Fourthly, to suggest its relevance to man’s restoration For man was weak because of the flesh. -And thus the Evangelist, wishing to suggest that the coming of’ the Word was suited to the -task of our restoration, made special mention of the flesh in order to show that the weak flesh -was repaired by the flesh of the Word. And this is what the Apostle says: “The law was -powerless because it was weakened by the flesh. God, sending his Son in the likeness of -sinful flesh and in reparation for sin, condemned sin in his flesh” (Rom 83).</p> -<p>170 A question arises as to why the Evangelist did not say that the Word assumed flesh, but -rather that <span style="font-weight: bold">the Word was made flesh. </span>I answer that he did this to exclude the error of -Nestorius. He said that in Christ there were two persons and two sons, [one being the Son of -God] the other being the son of the Virgin. Thus he did not admit that the Blessed Virgin was -the mother of God.</p> -<p>But if this were so, it would mean that God did not become man, for one particular -<i>suppositum </i>cannot be predicated of another. Accordingly, if the person or <i>suppositum </i>of the -Word is different than the person or <i>suppositum </i>of the man, in Christ, then what the -Evangelist says is not true, namely, <span style="font-weight: bold">the Word was made flesh. </span>For a thing is made or -becomes something in order to be it; if, then, the Word is not man, it could not be said that -the Word became man. And so the Evangelist expressly said was made, and not “assumed,” -to show that the union of the Word to flesh is not such as was the “lifting up” of the prophets, -who were not “taken up” into a unity of person, but for the prophetic act. This union is such -as would truly make God man and man God, i.e., that God would be man.</p> -<p>171 There were some, too, who, misunderstanding the manner of the incarnation, did indeed -admit that the aforesaid assumption was terminated at a oneness of person, acknowledging in -God one person of God and man. But they said that in him there were two hypostases, i.e., -two <i>supposita; </i>one of a human nature, created and non-eternal, ‘and the other of the divine -nature, non-created and eternal. This is the first opinion presented in the <i>Sentences </i>(III, d6).</p> -<p>According to this opinion the proposition, “God was made man and man was made God,” is -not true. Consequently, this opinion was condemned as heretical by the Fifth Council, where -it is said: “If anyone shall assert one person and two hypostases in the Lord Jesus Christ, let -him be anathema.” And so the Evangelist, to exclude any assumption not terminated at a -oneness of person, says, was made.</p> -<p>172 If you ask how the Word is man, it must be said that he is man in the way that anyone is, -man, namely, as having human nature. Not that the Word is human nature itself, but he is a -divine suppo<i>situm </i>united to a human nature. The statement, <span style="font-weight: bold">the Word was made flesh, </span>does -not indicate any change in the Word, but only in the nature newly assumed into the oneness of -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 -relation. And relations newly said of God with respect to creatures do not imply a change on -the side of God, but on the side of the creature relating in a new way to God.</p> -<p>173 Now follows, <span style="font-weight: bold">and made his dwelling among us. </span>This is distinguished in two ways from -what went before. The first consists in stating that above the Evangelist dealt with the -incarnation of the Word when he said, <span style="font-weight: bold">the Word was made flesh; </span>but now he touches on the -manner of the incarnation, saying, <span style="font-weight: bold">and made his dwelling among us. </span>For according to -Chrysostom and Hilary, by the Evangelist saying <span style="font-weight: bold">the Word was made flesh, </span>someone might -think that he was converted into flesh and that there are not two distinct natures in Christ, but -only one nature compounded from the human and divine natures. And so the Evangelist, -excluding this, added, <span style="font-weight: bold">and made his dwelling among us, </span>i.e., in our nature, yet so as to -remain distinct in his own. For what is converted into something does not remain distinct in -its nature from that into which it is converted.</p> -<p>Furthermore, something which is not distinct from another does not dwell in it, because to -dwell implies a distinction between the dweller and that in which it dwells. But the Word -dwelt in our nature; therefore, he is distinct in nature from it. And so, inasmuch as human -nature was distinct from the nature of the Word in Christ, the former is called the dwelling -place and temple of the divinity, according to John (2:21): “But he spoke of the temple of his -body.”</p> -<p>174 Now although what is said here by these holy men is orthodox, care must be taken to -avoid the reproach which some receive for this. For the early doctors and saints were so intent -upon refuting the emerging errors concerning the faith that they seemed meanwhile to fall -into the opposite ones. For example, Augustine, speaking against the Manichaeans, who -destroyed the freedom of the will, disputed in such terms that he seemed to have fallen into -the heresy of Pelagius. Along these lines, John the Evangelist added, <span style="font-weight: bold">and made his dwelling -among us, </span>so that we would not think there was a mingling or transformation of natures in -Christ because he had said, <span style="font-weight: bold">the Word was made flesh.</span></p> -<p>Nestorius misunderstood this phrase, <span style="font-weight: bold">and made his dwelling among us, </span>and said that the -Son of God was united to man in such a way that there was not one person of God and of -man. For he held that the Word was united to human nature only by an indwelling through -grace. From this, however, it follows that the Son of God is not man.</p> -<p>175 To clarify this we should know that we can consider two things in Christ: his nature and -person. In Christ there is a distinction in nature, but not in person, which is one and the same -in the two natures, since the human nature in Christ was assumed into a oneness of person. -Therefore, the indwelling which the saints speak of must be referred to the nature, so as to -say, he <span style="font-weight: bold">made his dwelling among us, </span>i.e., the nature of the Word inhabited our nature; not -according to the hypostasis or person, which is the same for both natures in Christ.</p> -<p>176 The blasphemy of Nestorius is further refuted by the authority of Sacred Scripture. For -the Apostle calls the union of God and man an emptying, saying of the Son of God: “He, -being in the form of God ... emptied himself, taking the form of a servant” (Phil 2:6). Clearly, -God is not said to empty himself insofar as he dwells in the rational creature by grace, -because then the Father and the Holy Spirit would be emptying themselves, since they too are -said to dwell in man through grace: for Christ, speaking of himself and of the Father says, -“We will come to him and make our home with him” (below 14:23); and of the Holy Spirit -the Apostle says: “The Spirit of God dwells in us” (1 Cor 3:16).</p> -<p>Furthermore, if Christ was not God as to his person, he would have been most presumptuous -to say: “I and the Father are one” (below 10:30), and “Before Abraham came to be, I am,” as -is said below (8:58). Now “I” refers to the person of the speaker. And the one who was -speaking was a man, who, as one with the Father, existed before Abraham.</p> -<p>177 However, another connection [besides that given in 173] with what went before is -possible, by saying that above he dealt with the incarnation of the Word, but that now he is -treating the manner of life of the incarnate Word, saying, he <span style="font-weight: bold">made his dwelling among us, -</span>i.e., he lived on familiar terms with us apostles. Peter alludes to this when he says, “During all -the time that the Lord Jesus came and went among us” (Acts 1:21). “Afterwards, he was seen -on earth” (Bar 3:38).</p> -<p>178 The Evangelist added this for two reasons. First, to show the marvelous likeness of the -Word to men, among whom he lived in such a way as to seem one of them. For he not only -willed to be like men in nature, but also in living with them on close terms without sin, in -order to draw to himself men won over by the charm of his way of life.</p> -<p>Secondly, to show the truthfulness of his [the Evangelist’s] statements. For the Evangelist had -already said many great things about the Word, and was yet to mention more wonderful -things about him; and so that his testimony would be more credible he took as a proof of his -truthfulness the fact that he had lived with Christ, saying, he <span style="font-weight: bold">made his dwelling among us. -</span>As if to say: I can well bear witness to him, because I lived on close terms with him. “We tell -you ... what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes” (1 Jn 1:1); “God raised him up -on the third day, and granted that he be seen, not by all the people, but by witnesses -preordained by God,” that is, “to us who ate and drank with him” (Acts 10:40).</p> -<p style="margin-bottom: 0.125in; margin-bottom: 0.125in"> </p> -<CENTER><p><span style="font-weight: bold">LECTURE 8</span></p> -<p>l4b And we have seen his glory,<BR> -the glory as of the Only Begotten of the Father,<BR> -full of grace and truth.</CENTER> -<p>179 Having set forth the incarnation of the Word, the Evangelist then begins to give the -evidence for the incarnate Word. He does two things about this. First, he shows the ways in -which the incarnate Word was made known. Secondly, he clarifies each way, below (1:16). -Now the incarnate Word was made known to the apostles in two ways: first of all, they -obtained knowledge of him by what they saw; secondly, by what they heard of the testimony -of John the Baptist. So first, he states what they saw about the Word; secondly, what they -heard from John (v 15).</p> -<p>He states three things about the Word. First, the manifestation of his glory; hence he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">we -have seen his glory. </span>Secondly, the uniqueness of his glory, when he adds, as <span style="font-weight: bold">of the Only -Begotten. </span>Thirdly, the precise nature of this glory, because <span style="font-weight: bold">full of grace and truth.</span></p> -<p>180 <span style="font-weight: bold">And we have seen his glory, </span>can be connected in three ways with what went before. -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 -say: I hold and know that the Word of God was incarnate because I and the other apostles -have seen his glory. “We know of what we speak, and we bear witness of what we see” -(below 3:11). “We tell you ... what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes” (1 Jn -1:1).</p> -<p>181 Secondly, according to Chrysostom, the connection is made by taking this statement as -expressing many benefits. As if to say: The incarnation of the Word not only conferred on us -the benefit of becoming sons of God, but also the good of seeing his glory. For dull and feeble -eyes cannot see the light of the sun; but they can see it when it shines in a cloud or on some -opaque body. Now before the incarnation of the Word, human minds were incapable of -seeing the divine light in itself, the light which enlightens every rational nature. And so, in -order that it might be more easily seen and contemplated by us, he covered it with the cloud -of our flesh: “They looked towards the desert, and saw the glory of the Lord in a cloud” (Ex -16:10), i.e., the Word of God in the flesh.</p> -<p>182 According to Augustine, however, the connection refers to the gift of grace. For the -failure of the spiritual eyes of men to contemplate the divine light is due not only to their -natural limitations but also to the defects incurred by sin: “Fire,” that is, of concupiscence, -“fell on them, and they did not see the sun,” of justice (Ps 57:9). Hence in order that the -divine light might be seen by us, he healed our eyes, making an eye salve of his flesh, so that -with the salve of his flesh the Word might heal our eyes, weakened by the concupiscence of -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 -his glory. </span>To indicate this the Lord made clay from his saliva and spread the clay upon the -eyes of the man born blind (below 9:6). For clay is from the earth, but saliva comes from the -head. Similarly, in the person of Christ, his human nature was assumed from the earth; but the -incarnate Word is from the head, i.e., from God the Father. So, when this clay was spread on -the eyes of men, <span style="font-weight: bold">we saw his glory.</span></p> -<p>183 This is the glory of the Word Moses longed to see, saying, “Show me your glory” (Ex -32:18). But he did not deserve to see it; indeed, he was answered by the Lord: “You shall see -my back” (Ex 33:23), i.e., shadows and figures. But the apostles saw his brightness: “All of -us, gazing on the Lord’s glory with unveiled faces, are being transformed from glory to glory -into his very image” (2 Cor 3:18). For Moses and the other prophets saw in an obscure -manner and in figures the glory of the Word that was to be manifested to the world at the end -of their times; hence the Apostle says: “Now we see through a mirror,,in an obscure manner, -but then face to face” in 1 Corinthians (13:12); and below (12:41), “Isaiah said this when he -saw his glory.” But the apostles saw the very brilliance of the Word through his bodily -presence: “All of us, gazing on the Lord’s glory,” and so forth (2 Cor 3:18); “Blessed are the -eyes which see what you see. For many kings and prophets desired to see what you see, and -did not see it” (Lk 10:23).</p> -<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 -glory. For since it is written of certain men that they were in glory, as of Moses it says that -“his face shone” (Ex 34:29), or was “horned,” according to another text, someone might say -that from the fact that they saw him [Jesus] in glory, it should not be said that the Word of -God was made flesh. But the Evangelist excludes this when he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">the glory as of the Only -Begotten of the Father. </span>As if to say: His glory is not like the glory of an angel, or of Moses, -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 -said, “He [Jesus] was counted worthy of more glory than Moses” (Heb 3:3); “Who among the -sons of God is like God?” (Ps 88:7).</p> -<p>185 The word as, according to Gregory, is used to express the fact. But according to -Chrysostom, it expresses the manner of the fact: as if someone were to see a king approaching -in great glory and being asked by another to describe the king he saw, he could, if he wanted -to be brief, express the grandeur of his glory in one word, and say that he approached “as” a -king, i.e., as became a king. So too, here, the Evangelist, as though asked by someone to -describe the glory of the Word which he had seen, and being unable to fully express it, said -that it was “as” of the Only Begotten of the Father, i.e., such as became the Only Begotten of +<p>First, to show the truth of the incarnation against the +Manichaeans, who said that the Word did not assume true flesh, but +only imaginary flesh, since it would not have been becoming for the +Word of the good God to assume flesh, which they regarded as a +creature of the devil. And so to exclude this the Evangelist made +special mention of the flesh, just as Christ showed the truth of +the resurrection to the disciples when they took him for a spirit, +saying: “A spirit does not have flesh and bones, as you see +that I have” (Lk 24:39).</p> +<p>Secondly, to show the greatness of God’s kindness to us. +For it is evident that the rational soul has a greater conformity +to God than does flesh, and that it would have been a great sign of +compassion if the Word had assumed a human soul, as being conformed +to himself. But to assume flesh too, which is something far removed +from the simplicity of his nature, was a sign of a much greater, +indeed, of an incomprehensible compassion. As the Apostle says (1 +Tim 3:16): “Obviously great is the mystery of godliness which +appeared in the flesh.” And so to indicate this, the +Evangelist mentioned only flesh.</p> +<p>Thirdly, to demonstrate the truth and uniqueness of the union in +Christ. For God is indeed united to other holy men, but only with +respect to their soul; so it is said: “She [wisdom] passes +into holy souls, making them friends of God and prophets” +(Wis 7:27). But that the Word of God is united to flesh is unique +to Christ, according to the Psalmist: “I am alone until I +pass” (Ps 140:10). “Gold cannot equal it” (Jb +28:17). So the Evangelist, wishing to show the uniqueness of the +union in Christ, mentioned only the flesh, saying, <span style= +"font-weight: bold">the Word was made flesh.</span></p> +<p>Fourthly, to suggest its relevance to man’s restoration +For man was weak because of the flesh. And thus the Evangelist, +wishing to suggest that the coming of’ the Word was suited to +the task of our restoration, made special mention of the flesh in +order to show that the weak flesh was repaired by the flesh of the +Word. And this is what the Apostle says: “The law was +powerless because it was weakened by the flesh. God, sending his +Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and in reparation for sin, +condemned sin in his flesh” (Rom 83).</p> +<p>170 A question arises as to why the Evangelist did not say that +the Word assumed flesh, but rather that <span style= +"font-weight: bold">the Word was made flesh.</span> I answer that +he did this to exclude the error of Nestorius. He said that in +Christ there were two persons and two sons, [one being the Son of +God] the other being the son of the Virgin. Thus he did not admit +that the Blessed Virgin was the mother of God.</p> +<p>But if this were so, it would mean that God did not become man, +for one particular <i>suppositum</i> cannot be predicated of +another. Accordingly, if the person or <i>suppositum</i> of the +Word is different than the person or <i>suppositum</i> of the man, +in Christ, then what the Evangelist says is not true, namely, +<span style="font-weight: bold">the Word was made flesh.</span> For +a thing is made or becomes something in order to be it; if, then, +the Word is not man, it could not be said that the Word became man. +And so the Evangelist expressly said was made, and not +“assumed,” to show that the union of the Word to flesh +is not such as was the “lifting up” of the prophets, +who were not “taken up” into a unity of person, but for +the prophetic act. This union is such as would truly make God man +and man God, i.e., that God would be man.</p> +<p>171 There were some, too, who, misunderstanding the manner of +the incarnation, did indeed admit that the aforesaid assumption was +terminated at a oneness of person, acknowledging in God one person +of God and man. But they said that in him there were two +hypostases, i.e., two <i>supposita;</i> one of a human nature, +created and non-eternal, ‘and the other of the divine nature, +non-created and eternal. This is the first opinion presented in the +<i>Sentences</i> (III, d6).</p> +<p>According to this opinion the proposition, “God was made +man and man was made God,” is not true. Consequently, this +opinion was condemned as heretical by the Fifth Council, where it +is said: “If anyone shall assert one person and two +hypostases in the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be anathema.” +And so the Evangelist, to exclude any assumption not terminated at +a oneness of person, says, was made.</p> +<p>172 If you ask how the Word is man, it must be said that he is +man in the way that anyone is, man, namely, as having human nature. +Not that the Word is human nature itself, but he is a divine +suppo<i>situm</i> united to a human nature. The statement, +<span style="font-weight: bold">the Word was made flesh,</span> +does not indicate any change in the Word, but only in the nature +newly assumed into the oneness of 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 relation. And relations newly said +of God with respect to creatures do not imply a change on the side +of God, but on the side of the creature relating in a new way to God.</p> -<p>186 The uniqueness of the glory of the Word is brought out in four ways. First, in the -testimony which the Father gave to the Son. For John was one of the three who had seen -Christ transfigured on the mountain and heard the , voice of the Father saying: “This is my -beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased” (Mt 17:5). Of this glory it is said, “He received -honor and glory from God the Father ... ‘This is my beloved Son’” (2 Pt 1:17)</p> -<p>Secondly, it is brought out by the service of the angels. For prior to the incarnation of Christ, -men were subject to the angels. But after it, angels ministered, as subjects, to Christ. “Angels -came and ministered to him” (Mt 4:11).</p> -<p>Thirdly, it is brought out by the submission of nature. For all nature obeyed Christ and heeded -his slightest command, as something established by him, because “All things were made -through him” (above 1:3). This is something granted neither to angels nor to any creature, but -to the incarnate Word alone. And this is what we read, “What kind of man is this, for the -winds and the sea obey him?” (Mt 8:27).</p> -<p>Fourthly, we see it in the way he taught and acted. For Moses and the other prophets gave -commands to men and taught them not on their own authority, but on the authority of God. -So they said: “The Lord says this”; and “The Lord spoke to Moses.” But Christ speaks as the -Lord, and as one having power, i.e., by reason of his own power. Hence he says, “I say to -you” (Mt 5:22). This is the reason why, at the end of the Sermon on the Mountain, it is said -that he taught as one “having authority” (Mt 7:29). Furthermore, other holy men worked -miracles, but not by their own power. But Christ worked them by his own power. In these -ways, then, the glory of the Word is unique.</p> -<p>187 Note that sometimes in Scripture we call Christ the Only Begotten, as here, and below (1 -:18): “it is the Only Begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, who has made him -known.” At other times we call him the First-born: “When he brings the Firstborn into the -world, he says, ‘Let all the angels of God adore him’ “ (Heb 1:6). The reason for this is that -just as it belongs to the whole Blessed Trinity to be God, so it belongs to the Word of God to -be God Begotten. Sometimes, too, he is called God according to what he is in himself; and in -this way he alone is uniquely God by his own essence. It is in this way that we say there is but -one God: “Hear, O Israel: the Lord your God is one” (Dt 6:4). At times, we even apply the -name of deity to others, insofar as a certain likeness of the divinity is given to men; in this -sense we speak of many gods: “Indeed, there are many gods and many lords” (1 Cor 8:5).</p> -<p>Along these lines, if we consider what is proper to the Son as Begotten, and consider the way -in which this sonship is attributed to him, that is, through nature, we say that he is the Only -Begotten of God: because, since he alone is naturally begotten by the Father, the Begotten of -the Father is one only. But if we consider the Son, insofar as sonship is conferred on others -through a likeness to him, then there are many sons of God through participation. And -because they are called sons of God by a likeness to him, he is called the First-born of all. -“Those whom he foreknew, he predestined to become conformed to the image of his Son, so -that he might be the First-born of many brothers” (Rom 8:29).</p> -<p>So, Christ is called the Only Begotten of God by nature; but he is called the First-born insofar -as from his natural sonship, by means of a certain likeness and participation, a sonship is -granted to many.</p> -<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 -to say: His glory is such that he is full of grace and divinity. Now these words can be applied -to Christ in three ways.</p> -<p>First, from the point of view of union. For grace is given to someone so that he might be -united to God through it. So he who is most perfectly united to God is full of grace. Now -some are joined to God by participating in a natural likeness: “Let us make man to our image -and likeness” (Gn 1:26). Some are joined by faith: “That Christ may dwell in your hearts -through faith” (Eph 3:17). And others are united by charity, because “He who abides in love -abides in God” (1 Jn 4:16). But all these ways are partial: because one is not perfectly united -to God by participating a natural likeness; nor is God seen as he is by faith; nor is he loved to -the extent that he is lovable by charity—for since he is the infinite Good, his lovableness is -infinite, and the love of no creature is able to love this infinitely. And so these unions are not -full.</p> -<p>But in Christ, in whom human nature is united to the divinity in the unity of a <i>suppositum</i>, we -find a full and perfect union with God. The reason for this is that this union was such that all -the acts not only of his divine but also of his human nature were acts of the <i>suppositum</i> [or -person]. So he was <span style="font-weight: bold">full of grace </span>insofar he did not receive any special gratuitous gift from -God, but that he should be God himself. “He gave him,” i.e., God the Father gave to the Son, -“a name which is above every name” (Phil 2:9). “He was foreordained to be the Son of God -in power” (Rom 1:4). He was also <span style="font-weight: bold">full of truth, </span>because the human nature in Christ attained -to the divine truth itself, that is, that this man should be the divine Truth itself. In other men -we find many participated truths, insofar as the First Truth gleams back into their minds -through many likenesses; but Christ is Truth itself. Thus it is said: “In whom all the treasures -of wisdom are hidden” (Col 2:3).</p> -<p>189 Secondly, these words can be applied in relation to the perfection of his soul. Then he is -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 -without measure: “God does not bestow the Spirit in fractions,” as we read below (3:34). Yet -it was given in fractions to all rational creatures, both angels and men. For according to -Augustine, just as there is one sense common to all the parts of the body, namely, the sense of -touch, while all the senses are found in the head, so in Christ, who is the head of every -rational creature (and in a special way of the saints who are united to him by faith and -charity), all virtues and graces and gifts are found superabundantly; but in others, i.e., the -saints, we find participations of the graces and gifts, although there is a gift common to all the -saints, and that is charity. We read about this fulness of Christ’s grace: “There shall come -forth a shoot out of the root of Jesse, and a flower shall spring up out of his root. And the -spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him: the spirit of wisdom and of understanding, the spirit of -counsel and of fortitude, the spirit of knowledge and of piety” (Is 11:1).</p> -<p>Further, Christ was also <span style="font-weight: bold">full of truth </span>because his precious and h1essed soul knew every truth, -human and divine, from the instant of his conception. And so Peter said to him, “You know -all things” (below 21:17). And the Psalm (88:25) says: “My truth,” i.e., the knowledge of -every truth, “and my mercy,” i.e., the fulness of all graces, “shall be with him.”</p> -<p>190 In a third way these words can be explained in relation to his dignity as head, i.e., -inasmuch as Christ is the head of the Church. In this way it is his prerogative to communicate -grace to others, both by producing virtue in the minds of men through the inpouring of grace -and by meriting, through his teaching and works and the sufferings of his death, -superabundant grace for an infinite number of worlds, if there were such. Therefore, he is <span style="font-weight: bold">full -of grace </span>insofar as he conferred perfect justice upon us. We could not acquire this perfect -justice through the law, which was infirm and could make no one just or bring anyone to -perfection. As we read: “The law was powerless because it was weakened by the flesh. God, -sending his Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and in reparation for sin, condemned sin in his -flesh” (Rom 8:3).</p> -<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 -made to the fathers. “Christ was a minister to the circumcised to confirm the promises made -to the fathers” (Rom 15:8); “All the promises of God are fulfilled in him” (2 Cor 1:20).</p> -<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 -gracious. “Grace is poured out upon your lips” (Ps 44:3). And so it is said, “All the people -came to him early in the morning,” i.e., in the morning they were eager to come (Lk 21:38). -He was <span style="font-weight: bold">full of truth, </span>because he did not teach in enigmas and figures, nor gloss over the -vices of men, but preached the truth to all, openly and without deception. As it says below: -“Now you are speaking plainly” (16:29).</p> -<p style="margin-bottom: 0.125in; margin-bottom: 0.125in"> </p> -<CENTER><p><span style="font-weight: bold">LECTURE 9</span></p> -<p>15 John bore witness to him, and he cried out saying:<BR> -“This is the one of whom I said:<BR> -‘He who comes after me, ranks ahead of me,<BR> -because he existed before me.’”</CENTER> -<p>191 Having given the evidence by which the Word was made known to the apostles by sight, -the Evangelist then presents the evidence by which the Word was made known to persons -other than the apostles by their hearing the testimony of John. He does three things about this. -First, the witness is presented. Secondly, his manner of testifying is indicated. Thirdly, his -testimony is given.</p> -<p>192 So he says: We indeed have seen his glory, the glory as of the Only Begotten of the -Father. But we are not believed, perhaps because we are held in suspicion. So let his witness -come forth, that is, John the Baptist, who bears witness to Christ. He is a faithful witness who -will not lie: “A faithful witness will not lie” (Prv 14:5), “You sent [messengers] to John, and -he bore witness to the truth” (below 5:33). John gives his testimony here and fulfills his office -with perseverance because he came as a witness. As Proverbs (12:19) says, “Truthful lips -endure forever.”</p> -<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 -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. -“Cry out in a loud voice.... Say to the cities of Judah: Here is your God” (Is 40:9). He cried -out ardently and with great fervor, because it is said, “His word burned like a torch” (Si 48:1); -“Seraphim cried one to another” (Is 6:3), which is expressive of a more interior eagerness of -spirit. The use of a cry shows that the statements of the witness are not made to a few in -figurative language or secretly, but that a truth is being declared openly and publicly, and told -not to a few but to many. “Cry out, and do not stop” (Is 58:1).</p> -<p>194 Then he adds his testimony. And he does two things. First, he shows that his testimony -was continuous. Secondly, he describes the person to whom he bore witness.</p> -<p>195 The testimony of the Baptist was continuous because he bore witness to him not only -once but many times, and even before Christ had come to him. And so he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">This is the -one of whom I </span>said, i.e., before I saw him in the flesh I bore witness to him. “And you, child, -shall be called the prophet of the Most High” (Lk 1:76). He pointed him out both as present -and when about to come. And his testimony is certain because he not only predicted that he -would come, but pointed him out when he was present, saying, <span style="font-weight: bold">Look! There is the Lamb of -God. </span>This implies that Christ was physically present to John; for he had often come to John -before being baptized.</p> -<p>196 Then he describes the one to whom he bore witness, saying, <span style="font-weight: bold">He who comes after me, -ranks ahead of me. </span>Here we should note that John does not at once preach to his disciples -that Christ is the Son of God, but he draws them little by little to higher things: first, by -preferring Christ to himself, even though John had such a great reputation and authority as to -be considered the Christ or one of the great prophets. Now he compares Christ to himself: -first, with regard to the order of their preaching; secondly, as to the order of dignity; and -thirdly, as to the time of their existence.</p> -<p>197 With respect to the order of their preaching, John preceded Christ as a servant precedes -his master, and as a soldier his king, or as the morning star the sun: “See, I am sending my -messenger, and he will prepare the way before me” (Mal 3:1 ). So, He comes after me, in -being known to men, through my preaching. Observe that <span style="font-weight: bold">comes</span> is in the present tense, -became in Greek the present participle is used.</p> -<p>Now John preceded Christ for two reasons. First, according to Chrysostom, because John was -a blood relation of Christ according to the flesh: “your relative, Elizabeth” (Lk 1.36). -Therefore, had he borne witness to Christ after knowing him, his testimony might have been -open to question; accordingly, John came preaching before he was acquainted with Christ, in -order that his testimony might have more force. Hence he says, “And I did not know him! -And yet it was to reveal him to Israel that I came baptizing with water” (below 1:31).</p> -<p>Secondly, John preceded Christ because in things that pass into act from potency, the -imperfect is naturally prior to the perfect; hence it is said in 1 Corinthians (15:46): “The -spiritual is not first, but the animal.” Accordingly, the perfect doctrine of Christ should have -been preceded by the less perfect teaching of John, which was in a certain manner midway -between the doctrine of the law and the prophets (which announced the coming of Christ -from afar), and the doctrine of Christ, which was clear and plainly made Christ known.</p> -<p>198 He [John] compares him to himself with respect to dignity when he says, he <span style="font-weight: bold">ranks ahead -of me </span>[<i>ante me factus est, </i>literally, he “was made before me”]. It should be noted that it is -from this text that the Arians took occasion for their error. For they said that “He who comes -after me,” is to be understood of Christ as to the flesh he assumed, but what follows, “was -made before me,” can only be understood of the Word of God, who existed before the flesh; -and for this reason Christ as the Word was made, and was not coeternal with the Father.</p> -<p>According to Chrysostom, however, this exposition is stupid, because if it were true, the -Baptist would not have said, he “was made before me, because he existed before me,” since -no one is unaware that if he was before him, he was made before him. He rather would have -said the opposite: “He was before me, because he was made before me.” And so, according to -Chrysostom, these words should be taken as referring to his [Christ’s] dignity, that is, he was -preferred to me and placed ahead of me. It is as though he said: Although Jesus came to -preach after me, he was made more worthy than I both in eminence of authority and in the -repute of men: “Gold will not be equal to it” (Jb 28:17). Or alternatively: he is preferred -<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 -say: Before my eyes, i.e., in my sight, because he came into my view and was recognized.</p> -<p>199 He compares him to himself with respect to their duration, saying, <span style="font-weight: bold">because he existed -before me. </span>As if to say: He was God from all eternity, I am a frail man of time. And -therefore, even though I came to preach ahead of him, yet it was fitting that he rank before me -in the reputation and opinion of men, because he preceded all things by his eternity: “Jesus -Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever” (Heb 13:8). “Before Abraham came to be, I -am,” as we read below (8:58).</p> -<p>If we understand this passage as saying that he “was made before me,” it can be explained as -referring to the order of time according to the flesh. For in the instant of his conception Christ -was perfect God and perfect man, having a rational soul perfected by the virtues, and a body -possessed of all its distinctive features, except that it lacked perfect size: “A woman shall -enclose a man,” i.e., a perfect man (Jer 31:22). Now it is evident that Christ was conceived as -a perfect man before John was born; consequently he says that he “was made before me,” -because he was a perfect man before I came forth from the womb.</p> -<p style="margin-bottom: 0.125in; margin-bottom: 0.125in"> </p> -<CENTER><p><span style="font-weight: bold">LECTURE10</span></p> -<p>16 Of his fullness we have all received—indeed, grace upon grace;<BR> -17 because, while the law was given through Moses,<BR> -grace and truth have come through Jesus Christ.</CENTER> -<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 -19), “This is the testimony of John,” are taken in two ways. According to Origen, these are -the words of John the Baptist and are added by him to support what he had said previously. It -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, -not only I but all, including the prophets and patriarchs, <span style="font-weight: bold">have received, </span>because all had the -grace they possessed by faith in the incarnate Word. According to this explanation, John the -Baptist began weaving the story of the incarnation at, “John bore witness to him” (v 15).</p> -<p>But according to Augustine and Chrysostom, the words from “John bore witness to him” (v -15), are those of John the Evangelist. And they are connected with the previous words, “full -of grace and truth,” as though he were saying: Above, the Evangelist gave the evidence for -the Word which was learned through sight and by hearing, but here he explains each. First, -how he was made known to the apostles through sight, which was tantamount to receiving the -evidence from Christ. Secondly, how John bore witness to him, at “This is the testimony of -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 -fountain, of every spiritual grace. Secondly, he shows that grace is dispensed to us through -him and from him.</p> -<p>201 He says first of all: We know from our own experience that we have seen him full of -grace and truth, because <span style="font-weight: bold">of his fullness we have all received. </span>Now one fullness is that of -sufficiency, by which one is able to perform acts that are meritorious and excellent, as in the -case of Stephen. Again, there is a fullness of superabundance, by which the Blessed Virgin -excels all the saints because of the eminence and abundance of her merits. Further, there is a -fullness of efficiency and overflow, which belongs only to the man Christ as the author of -grace. For although the Blessed Virgin superabounds her grace into us, it is never as authoress -of grace. But grace flowed over from her soul into her body: for through the grace of the Holy -Spirit, not only was the mind of the Virgin perfectly united to God by love, but her womb was -supernaturally impregnated by the Holy Spirit. And so after Gabriel said, “Hail, full of grace,” -he refers at once to the fullness of her womb, adding, “the Lord is with you” (Lk 1:28). And -so the Evangelist, in order to show this unique fullness of efficiency and overflow in Christ, -said, <span style="font-weight: bold">Of his fullness we have all received, </span>i.e., all the apostles and patriarchs and prophets -and just men who have existed, do now exist, and will exist, and even all the angels.</p> -<p>202 Note that the preposition <i>de </i>[of, from] sometimes signifies efficiency, i.e., an originative -cause, as when it is said that a ray is or proceeds “from” the sun. In this way it signifies the -efficiency of grace in Christ, i.e., authorship, because the fullness of grace in Christ is the -cause of all graces that are in intellectual creatures. “Come to me, all you who desire me, and -be filled with my fruits,” that is to say, share in the fullness of those fruits which come from -me (Si 24:26).</p> -<p>But sometimes this preposition <i>de </i>signifies consubstantiality, as when it is said that the Son is -“of” the Father [<i>de Patre</i>]<i>. </i>In this usage, the fullness of Christ is the Holy Spirit, who -proceeds from him, consubstantial with him in nature, in power and in majesty. For although -the habitual gifts in the soul of Christ are other than those in us, nevertheless it is one and the -same Holy Spirit who is in him and who fills all those to be sanctified. “One and the same -Spirit produces all these” (1 Cor 12:11); “I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh” (JI 2:28); -“If anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to him” (Rom 8:9). For the -unity of the Holy Spirit produces unity in the Church: “The Spirit of the Lord filled the whole -world” (Wis 1:7).</p> -<p>In a third way, the preposition de [of, from] can signify it portion, as when we say “take -‘from’ this bread or wine [<i>de hoc pane, vel vino</i>],” i.e., take a portion and not the whole. -Taken in this way it signifies that those who take a part derive it from the fullness. For he -[Christ] received all the gifts of the Holy Spirit without measure, according to a perfect -fullness; but we participate through him some portion of his fullness; and this is according to -the measure which God grants to each. “Grace has been given to each of us according to the -degree to which Christ gives it” (Eph 4:7).</p> -<p>203 Then when he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">grace upon grace, </span>he shows the distribution of graces into us -through Christ. Here he does two things. First, he shows that we receive grace from Christ, as -its author. Secondly, that we receive wisdom from him (1:18). As to the first he does two -things. First, he shows that we have received of his fullness. Secondly, our need to receive it.</p> -<p>204 First, he says that we have received of the fullness of Christ what is described as <span style="font-weight: bold">grace -upon grace. </span>In the light of what is said, we are forced to understand that of his fullness we -have received grace, and that upon that grace we have received another. Accordingly, we -must see what that first grace is upon which we have received a second one, and also what -that second grace is.</p> -<p>According to Chrysostom, the first grace, which was received by the whole human race, was -the grace of the Old Testament received in the law. And this was indeed a great grace: “I will -give you a good gift” (Prv 4:2). For it was a great benefit for idolatrous men to receive -precepts from God, and a true knowledge of the one true God. “What is the advantage of -being a Jew, or the benefit of circumcision? It is great in every way. First indeed, because the -words of God were entrusted to them” (Rom 3:1). Upon that grace, then, which was first, we -have received a second far better. “He will follow grace with grace” (Zec 4:7).</p> -<p>But was not the first grace sufficient? I answer that it was not, because the law gives only a -knowledge of sin, but does not take it away. “The law brought nothing to perfection” (Heb -7:19). Hence it was necessary that another grace come that would take away sin and reconcile -one with God.</p> -<p>205 And so he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">because, while the law was given through Moses, grace and truth -have come through Jesus Christ. </span>Here the Evangelist ranks Christ above Moses the -lawgiver, whom the Baptist ranked above himself. Now Moses was regarded as the greatest -of the prophets: “There did not arise again in Israel a prophet like Moses” (Dt 34:10). But he -ranks Christ above Moses in excellence Mid in dignity of’ works, <span style="font-weight: bold">because the law was given -through Moses; </span>and between these two, the One excels the other as the reality excels the -symbol and the truth the shadow: “The law had a shadow of the good things to come” (Heb -10:1). Further, Christ excels him in the way he works, because the law was given by Moses as -by one proclaiming it, but not originating it; for “The Lord alone is our lawgiver” (Is 33:22). -But <span style="font-weight: bold">grace and truth have come through Jesus Christ, </span>as through the Lord and Author of -truth and grace, as was explained above.</p> -<p>206 According to Augustine, however, the first grace is justifying and prevenient grace, -which is not given to us because of our works: “If it is by grace, it is not now by works” (Rom -11:6). Upon that grace, then, which is imperfect, we have received another grace which is -perfect, i.e., the grace of eternal life. And although eternal life is in some way acquired by -merits, nevertheless, because the principle of meriting in everyone is prevenient grace, eternal -life is called a grace: “The grace of God is eternal life” (Rom 6:23). To be brief, whatever -grace is added to prevenient grace, the whole is called <span style="font-weight: bold">grace upon grace.</span></p> -<p>The need for this second grace arises from the insufficiency of the law, which showed what -was to be done and what avoided; but it gave no help to fulfill what was commanded. Indeed, -what seemed to have been directed to life was the occasion for producing death. Hence the -Apostle says that the law was a minister of death: “If the ministry that condemned had glory, -the ministry that justifies has much more glory” (2 Cor 3:9). Also, it promised the help of -grace but did not fulfill, because “The law brought nothing to perfection” (Heb 7:19). Again, -it prefigured the truth of the new grace by its sacrifices and ceremonies; indeed, its very rites -proclaimed that it was a figure. Hence is was necessary that Christ come, who by his own -death would destroy other deaths and grant the help of new grace, in order that we might both -fulfill his precepts with ease and joy, and die to our sins and our old way of life: “Our old self -was crucified with him” (Rom 6:6), and in order that the truth of the figures contained in the -law might be revealed and the promises made to the fathers be fulfilled.</p> -<p>This can be explained in another way: <span style="font-weight: bold">truth has come through Jesus Christ, </span>as to the -wisdom and truth which was hidden for centuries, and which he openly taught when he came -into the world: “I came into the world for this, to testify to the truth,” as we read below -(18:37).</p> -<p>207 But if Christ is the Truth, as it says below (14:6), how did truth come [i.e., come to be, be -made] through him, because nothing can make itself? I answer that by his essence he is the -uncreated Truth, which is eternal and not made, but is begotten of the Father; but all created -truths were made through him, and these are certain participations and reflections of the first -Truth, which shines out in those souls who are holy.</p> -<p style="margin-bottom: 0.125in; margin-bottom: 0.125in"> </p> -<CENTER><p><span style="font-weight: bold">LECTURE 11</span></p> -<p>18 No one has ever seen God;<BR> -it is the Only Begotten Son,<BR> -who is in the bosom of the Father,<BR> -who has made him known.</CENTER> -<p>208 Above, the Evangelist showed how the apostles received grace from Christ as its author; -here he shows how they received it from him as a teacher. About this he does three things. -First, he shows the need for this teaching. Secondly, the competency of the teacher. Thirdly, -the teaching itself.</p> -<p>209 The need for this teaching arose from the lack of wisdom among men, which the -Evangelist implies by alluding to the ignorance concerning God which prevailed among men, -saying: <span style="font-weight: bold">No one has ever seen God. </span>And he does this fittingly, for wisdom consists properly -in the knowledge of God and of divine things. Hence Augustine says that wisdom is the -knowledge of divine things, as science is the knowledge of human things.</p> -<p>2 10 But this statement of the Evangelist, <span style="font-weight: bold">No one has ever seen God, </span>seems to contradict -many passages of divine Scripture. For it is said in Isaiah (6:1): “I saw the Lord seated on a -high and lofty throne.” And about the same is found in 2 Samuel (6:2). Again in Matthew -(5:8), the Lord says: “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.”If someone were -to answer this last statement by saying that it is true that in the past no one has seen God, but -will see him in the future, as the Lord promises, the Apostle would exclude this, saying, “He -dwells in unapproachable light, whom no man has seen or can see” (1 Tim 6:16).</p> -<p>Because the Apostle says, “no man has seen,” someone might say that if he cannot be seen by -men, then at least he can be seen by angels; especially since God says, “Their angels in -heaven always see the face of my Father” (Mt 18:10). But it cannot be taken in this way -either, because it is said, “The sons of the resurrection will be like the angels of God in -heaven” (Mt 22:30). If, therefore, the angels see God in heaven, then it is plain that the sons -of the resurrection also see him: “When he appears we shall be like him, and we shall see him -as he is” (1 Jn 3:2).</p> -<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 -understand it we must know that God is said to be seen in three ways. First, through a created -substitute presented to the bodily sight; as Abraham is believed to have seen God when he -saw three [men] and adored one (Gn 18). He adored one because he recognized the mystery -of the Trinity in the three, whom he first thought to be men, and later believed to be angels. In -a second way, through a representation in the imagination; and in this way Isaiah saw the -Lord seated on a high and lofty throne. Many visions of this sort are recorded in the -Scriptures. In a third way, he is seen through an intelligible species abstracted from material -things; and in this way he is seen by those who, considering the greatness of creatures, see -with their intellect the greatness of the Creator, as it is said: “From the greatness and beauty -of creatures, their Creator can be seen accordingly” (Wis 13:5); “The invisible things of God -are clearly seen, being understood through the things that are made,” as found in Romans -(1:20). In another way, God is seen through a certain spiritual light infused by God into -spiritual minds during contemplation; and this is the way Jacob saw God face to face, as it -says in Genesis (32:30). According to Gregory, this vision came about through his lofty +<p>173 Now follows, <span style="font-weight: bold">and made his +dwelling among us.</span> This is distinguished in two ways from +what went before. The first consists in stating that above the +Evangelist dealt with the incarnation of the Word when he said, +<span style="font-weight: bold">the Word was made flesh;</span> but +now he touches on the manner of the incarnation, saying, +<span style="font-weight: bold">and made his dwelling among +us.</span> For according to Chrysostom and Hilary, by the +Evangelist saying <span style="font-weight: bold">the Word was made +flesh,</span> someone might think that he was converted into flesh +and that there are not two distinct natures in Christ, but only one +nature compounded from the human and divine natures. And so the +Evangelist, excluding this, added, <span style= +"font-weight: bold">and made his dwelling among us,</span> i.e., in +our nature, yet so as to remain distinct in his own. For what is +converted into something does not remain distinct in its nature +from that into which it is converted.</p> +<p>Furthermore, something which is not distinct from another does +not dwell in it, because to dwell implies a distinction between the +dweller and that in which it dwells. But the Word dwelt in our +nature; therefore, he is distinct in nature from it. And so, +inasmuch as human nature was distinct from the nature of the Word +in Christ, the former is called the dwelling place and temple of +the divinity, according to John (2:21): “But he spoke of the +temple of his body.”</p> +<p>174 Now although what is said here by these holy men is +orthodox, care must be taken to avoid the reproach which some +receive for this. For the early doctors and saints were so intent +upon refuting the emerging errors concerning the faith that they +seemed meanwhile to fall into the opposite ones. For example, +Augustine, speaking against the Manichaeans, who destroyed the +freedom of the will, disputed in such terms that he seemed to have +fallen into the heresy of Pelagius. Along these lines, John the +Evangelist added, <span style="font-weight: bold">and made his +dwelling among us,</span> so that we would not think there was a +mingling or transformation of natures in Christ because he had +said, <span style="font-weight: bold">the Word was made +flesh.</span></p> +<p>Nestorius misunderstood this phrase, <span style= +"font-weight: bold">and made his dwelling among us,</span> and said +that the Son of God was united to man in such a way that there was +not one person of God and of man. For he held that the Word was +united to human nature only by an indwelling through grace. From +this, however, it follows that the Son of God is not man.</p> +<p>175 To clarify this we should know that we can consider two +things in Christ: his nature and person. In Christ there is a +distinction in nature, but not in person, which is one and the same +in the two natures, since the human nature in Christ was assumed +into a oneness of person. Therefore, the indwelling which the +saints speak of must be referred to the nature, so as to say, he +<span style="font-weight: bold">made his dwelling among us,</span> +i.e., the nature of the Word inhabited our nature; not according to +the hypostasis or person, which is the same for both natures in +Christ.</p> +<p>176 The blasphemy of Nestorius is further refuted by the +authority of Sacred Scripture. For the Apostle calls the union of +God and man an emptying, saying of the Son of God: “He, being +in the form of God ... emptied himself, taking the form of a +servant” (Phil 2:6). Clearly, God is not said to empty +himself insofar as he dwells in the rational creature by grace, +because then the Father and the Holy Spirit would be emptying +themselves, since they too are said to dwell in man through grace: +for Christ, speaking of himself and of the Father says, “We +will come to him and make our home with him” (below 14:23); +and of the Holy Spirit the Apostle says: “The Spirit of God +dwells in us” (1 Cor 3:16).</p> +<p>Furthermore, if Christ was not God as to his person, he would +have been most presumptuous to say: “I and the Father are +one” (below 10:30), and “Before Abraham came to be, I +am,” as is said below (8:58). Now “I” refers to +the person of the speaker. And the one who was speaking was a man, +who, as one with the Father, existed before Abraham.</p> +<p>177 However, another connection [besides that given in 173] with +what went before is possible, by saying that above he dealt with +the incarnation of the Word, but that now he is treating the manner +of life of the incarnate Word, saying, he <span style= +"font-weight: bold">made his dwelling among us,</span> i.e., he +lived on familiar terms with us apostles. Peter alludes to this +when he says, “During all the time that the Lord Jesus came +and went among us” (Acts 1:21). “Afterwards, he was +seen on earth” (Bar 3:38).</p> +<p>178 The Evangelist added this for two reasons. First, to show +the marvelous likeness of the Word to men, among whom he lived in +such a way as to seem one of them. For he not only willed to be +like men in nature, but also in living with them on close terms +without sin, in order to draw to himself men won over by the charm +of his way of life.</p> +<p>Secondly, to show the truthfulness of his [the +Evangelist’s] statements. For the Evangelist had already said +many great things about the Word, and was yet to mention more +wonderful things about him; and so that his testimony would be more +credible he took as a proof of his truthfulness the fact that he +had lived with Christ, saying, he <span style= +"font-weight: bold">made his dwelling among us.</span> As if to +say: I can well bear witness to him, because I lived on close terms +with him. “We tell you ... what we have heard, what we have +seen with our eyes” (1 Jn 1:1); “God raised him up on +the third day, and granted that he be seen, not by all the people, +but by witnesses preordained by God,” that is, “to us +who ate and drank with him” (Acts 10:40).</p> +<p style="margin-bottom: 0.125in; margin-bottom: 0.125in"> + </p> +<center> +<p><span style="font-weight: bold">LECTURE 8</span></p> +<p>l4b And we have seen his glory,<br /> +the glory as of the Only Begotten of the Father,<br /> +full of grace and truth.</p> +</center> +<p>179 Having set forth the incarnation of the Word, the Evangelist +then begins to give the evidence for the incarnate Word. He does +two things about this. First, he shows the ways in which the +incarnate Word was made known. Secondly, he clarifies each way, +below (1:16). Now the incarnate Word was made known to the apostles +in two ways: first of all, they obtained knowledge of him by what +they saw; secondly, by what they heard of the testimony of John the +Baptist. So first, he states what they saw about the Word; +secondly, what they heard from John (v 15).</p> +<p>He states three things about the Word. First, the manifestation +of his glory; hence he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">we +have seen his glory.</span> Secondly, the uniqueness of his glory, +when he adds, as <span style="font-weight: bold">of the Only +Begotten.</span> Thirdly, the precise nature of this glory, because +<span style="font-weight: bold">full of grace and truth.</span></p> +<p>180 <span style="font-weight: bold">And we have seen his +glory,</span> can be connected in three ways with what went before. +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 say: I hold and know that the Word of God was incarnate +because I and the other apostles have seen his glory. “We +know of what we speak, and we bear witness of what we see” +(below 3:11). “We tell you ... what we have heard, what we +have seen with our eyes” (1 Jn 1:1).</p> +<p>181 Secondly, according to Chrysostom, the connection is made by +taking this statement as expressing many benefits. As if to say: +The incarnation of the Word not only conferred on us the benefit of +becoming sons of God, but also the good of seeing his glory. For +dull and feeble eyes cannot see the light of the sun; but they can +see it when it shines in a cloud or on some opaque body. Now before +the incarnation of the Word, human minds were incapable of seeing +the divine light in itself, the light which enlightens every +rational nature. And so, in order that it might be more easily seen +and contemplated by us, he covered it with the cloud of our flesh: +“They looked towards the desert, and saw the glory of the +Lord in a cloud” (Ex 16:10), i.e., the Word of God in the +flesh.</p> +<p>182 According to Augustine, however, the connection refers to +the gift of grace. For the failure of the spiritual eyes of men to +contemplate the divine light is due not only to their natural +limitations but also to the defects incurred by sin: +“Fire,” that is, of concupiscence, “fell on them, +and they did not see the sun,” of justice (Ps 57:9). Hence in +order that the divine light might be seen by us, he healed our +eyes, making an eye salve of his flesh, so that with the salve of +his flesh the Word might heal our eyes, weakened by the +concupiscence of 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 his +glory.</span> To indicate this the Lord made clay from his saliva +and spread the clay upon the eyes of the man born blind (below +9:6). For clay is from the earth, but saliva comes from the head. +Similarly, in the person of Christ, his human nature was assumed +from the earth; but the incarnate Word is from the head, i.e., from +God the Father. So, when this clay was spread on the eyes of men, +<span style="font-weight: bold">we saw his glory.</span></p> +<p>183 This is the glory of the Word Moses longed to see, saying, +“Show me your glory” (Ex 32:18). But he did not deserve +to see it; indeed, he was answered by the Lord: “You shall +see my back” (Ex 33:23), i.e., shadows and figures. But the +apostles saw his brightness: “All of us, gazing on the +Lord’s glory with unveiled faces, are being transformed from +glory to glory into his very image” (2 Cor 3:18). For Moses +and the other prophets saw in an obscure manner and in figures the +glory of the Word that was to be manifested to the world at the end +of their times; hence the Apostle says: “Now we see through a +mirror,,in an obscure manner, but then face to face” in 1 +Corinthians (13:12); and below (12:41), “Isaiah said this +when he saw his glory.” But the apostles saw the very +brilliance of the Word through his bodily presence: “All of +us, gazing on the Lord’s glory,” and so forth (2 Cor +3:18); “Blessed are the eyes which see what you see. For many +kings and prophets desired to see what you see, and did not see +it” (Lk 10:23).</p> +<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 +glory. For since it is written of certain men that they were in +glory, as of Moses it says that “his face shone” (Ex +34:29), or was “horned,” according to another text, +someone might say that from the fact that they saw him [Jesus] in +glory, it should not be said that the Word of God was made flesh. +But the Evangelist excludes this when he says, <span style= +"font-weight: bold">the glory as of the Only Begotten of the +Father.</span> As if to say: His glory is not like the glory of an +angel, or of Moses, 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 said, “He [Jesus] was counted +worthy of more glory than Moses” (Heb 3:3); “Who among +the sons of God is like God?” (Ps 88:7).</p> +<p>185 The word as, according to Gregory, is used to express the +fact. But according to Chrysostom, it expresses the manner of the +fact: as if someone were to see a king approaching in great glory +and being asked by another to describe the king he saw, he could, +if he wanted to be brief, express the grandeur of his glory in one +word, and say that he approached “as” a king, i.e., as +became a king. So too, here, the Evangelist, as though asked by +someone to describe the glory of the Word which he had seen, and +being unable to fully express it, said that it was “as” +of the Only Begotten of the Father, i.e., such as became the Only +Begotten of God.</p> +<p>186 The uniqueness of the glory of the Word is brought out in +four ways. First, in the testimony which the Father gave to the +Son. For John was one of the three who had seen Christ transfigured +on the mountain and heard the , voice of the Father saying: +“This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased” +(Mt 17:5). Of this glory it is said, “He received honor and +glory from God the Father ... ‘This is my beloved +Son’” (2 Pt 1:17)</p> +<p>Secondly, it is brought out by the service of the angels. For +prior to the incarnation of Christ, men were subject to the angels. +But after it, angels ministered, as subjects, to Christ. +“Angels came and ministered to him” (Mt 4:11).</p> +<p>Thirdly, it is brought out by the submission of nature. For all +nature obeyed Christ and heeded his slightest command, as something +established by him, because “All things were made through +him” (above 1:3). This is something granted neither to angels +nor to any creature, but to the incarnate Word alone. And this is +what we read, “What kind of man is this, for the winds and +the sea obey him?” (Mt 8:27).</p> +<p>Fourthly, we see it in the way he taught and acted. For Moses +and the other prophets gave commands to men and taught them not on +their own authority, but on the authority of God. So they said: +“The Lord says this”; and “The Lord spoke to +Moses.” But Christ speaks as the Lord, and as one having +power, i.e., by reason of his own power. Hence he says, “I +say to you” (Mt 5:22). This is the reason why, at the end of +the Sermon on the Mountain, it is said that he taught as one +“having authority” (Mt 7:29). Furthermore, other holy +men worked miracles, but not by their own power. But Christ worked +them by his own power. In these ways, then, the glory of the Word +is unique.</p> +<p>187 Note that sometimes in Scripture we call Christ the Only +Begotten, as here, and below (1 :18): “it is the Only +Begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, who has made him +known.” At other times we call him the First-born: +“When he brings the Firstborn into the world, he says, +‘Let all the angels of God adore him’ “ (Heb +1:6). The reason for this is that just as it belongs to the whole +Blessed Trinity to be God, so it belongs to the Word of God to be +God Begotten. Sometimes, too, he is called God according to what he +is in himself; and in this way he alone is uniquely God by his own +essence. It is in this way that we say there is but one God: +“Hear, O Israel: the Lord your God is one” (Dt 6:4). At +times, we even apply the name of deity to others, insofar as a +certain likeness of the divinity is given to men; in this sense we +speak of many gods: “Indeed, there are many gods and many +lords” (1 Cor 8:5).</p> +<p>Along these lines, if we consider what is proper to the Son as +Begotten, and consider the way in which this sonship is attributed +to him, that is, through nature, we say that he is the Only +Begotten of God: because, since he alone is naturally begotten by +the Father, the Begotten of the Father is one only. But if we +consider the Son, insofar as sonship is conferred on others through +a likeness to him, then there are many sons of God through +participation. And because they are called sons of God by a +likeness to him, he is called the First-born of all. “Those +whom he foreknew, he predestined to become conformed to the image +of his Son, so that he might be the First-born of many +brothers” (Rom 8:29).</p> +<p>So, Christ is called the Only Begotten of God by nature; but he +is called the First-born insofar as from his natural sonship, by +means of a certain likeness and participation, a sonship is granted +to many.</p> +<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 +to say: His glory is such that he is full of grace and divinity. +Now these words can be applied to Christ in three ways.</p> +<p>First, from the point of view of union. For grace is given to +someone so that he might be united to God through it. So he who is +most perfectly united to God is full of grace. Now some are joined +to God by participating in a natural likeness: “Let us make +man to our image and likeness” (Gn 1:26). Some are joined by +faith: “That Christ may dwell in your hearts through +faith” (Eph 3:17). And others are united by charity, because +“He who abides in love abides in God” (1 Jn 4:16). But +all these ways are partial: because one is not perfectly united to +God by participating a natural likeness; nor is God seen as he is +by faith; nor is he loved to the extent that he is lovable by +charity—for since he is the infinite Good, his lovableness is +infinite, and the love of no creature is able to love this +infinitely. And so these unions are not full.</p> +<p>But in Christ, in whom human nature is united to the divinity in +the unity of a <i>suppositum</i>, we find a full and perfect union +with God. The reason for this is that this union was such that all +the acts not only of his divine but also of his human nature were +acts of the <i>suppositum</i> [or person]. So he was <span style= +"font-weight: bold">full of grace</span> insofar he did not receive +any special gratuitous gift from God, but that he should be God +himself. “He gave him,” i.e., God the Father gave to +the Son, “a name which is above every name” (Phil 2:9). +“He was foreordained to be the Son of God in power” +(Rom 1:4). He was also <span style="font-weight: bold">full of +truth,</span> because the human nature in Christ attained to the +divine truth itself, that is, that this man should be the divine +Truth itself. In other men we find many participated truths, +insofar as the First Truth gleams back into their minds through +many likenesses; but Christ is Truth itself. Thus it is said: +“In whom all the treasures of wisdom are hidden” (Col +2:3).</p> +<p>189 Secondly, these words can be applied in relation to the +perfection of his soul. Then he is 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 without measure: +“God does not bestow the Spirit in fractions,” as we +read below (3:34). Yet it was given in fractions to all rational +creatures, both angels and men. For according to Augustine, just as +there is one sense common to all the parts of the body, namely, the +sense of touch, while all the senses are found in the head, so in +Christ, who is the head of every rational creature (and in a +special way of the saints who are united to him by faith and +charity), all virtues and graces and gifts are found +superabundantly; but in others, i.e., the saints, we find +participations of the graces and gifts, although there is a gift +common to all the saints, and that is charity. We read about this +fulness of Christ’s grace: “There shall come forth a +shoot out of the root of Jesse, and a flower shall spring up out of +his root. And the spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him: the +spirit of wisdom and of understanding, the spirit of counsel and of +fortitude, the spirit of knowledge and of piety” (Is +11:1).</p> +<p>Further, Christ was also <span style="font-weight: bold">full of +truth</span> because his precious and h1essed soul knew every +truth, human and divine, from the instant of his conception. And so +Peter said to him, “You know all things” (below 21:17). +And the Psalm (88:25) says: “My truth,” i.e., the +knowledge of every truth, “and my mercy,” i.e., the +fulness of all graces, “shall be with him.”</p> +<p>190 In a third way these words can be explained in relation to +his dignity as head, i.e., inasmuch as Christ is the head of the +Church. In this way it is his prerogative to communicate grace to +others, both by producing virtue in the minds of men through the +inpouring of grace and by meriting, through his teaching and works +and the sufferings of his death, superabundant grace for an +infinite number of worlds, if there were such. Therefore, he is +<span style="font-weight: bold">full of grace</span> insofar as he +conferred perfect justice upon us. We could not acquire this +perfect justice through the law, which was infirm and could make no +one just or bring anyone to perfection. As we read: “The law +was powerless because it was weakened by the flesh. God, sending +his Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and in reparation for sin, +condemned sin in his flesh” (Rom 8:3).</p> +<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 made to the fathers. “Christ was a minister to +the circumcised to confirm the promises made to the fathers” +(Rom 15:8); “All the promises of God are fulfilled in +him” (2 Cor 1:20).</p> +<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 +gracious. “Grace is poured out upon your lips” (Ps +44:3). And so it is said, “All the people came to him early +in the morning,” i.e., in the morning they were eager to come +(Lk 21:38). He was <span style="font-weight: bold">full of +truth,</span> because he did not teach in enigmas and figures, nor +gloss over the vices of men, but preached the truth to all, openly +and without deception. As it says below: “Now you are +speaking plainly” (16:29).</p> +<p style="margin-bottom: 0.125in; margin-bottom: 0.125in"> + </p> +<center> +<p><span style="font-weight: bold">LECTURE 9</span></p> +<p>15 John bore witness to him, and he cried out saying:<br /> +“This is the one of whom I said:<br /> +‘He who comes after me, ranks ahead of me,<br /> +because he existed before me.’”</p> +</center> +<p>191 Having given the evidence by which the Word was made known +to the apostles by sight, the Evangelist then presents the evidence +by which the Word was made known to persons other than the apostles +by their hearing the testimony of John. He does three things about +this. First, the witness is presented. Secondly, his manner of +testifying is indicated. Thirdly, his testimony is given.</p> +<p>192 So he says: We indeed have seen his glory, the glory as of +the Only Begotten of the Father. But we are not believed, perhaps +because we are held in suspicion. So let his witness come forth, +that is, John the Baptist, who bears witness to Christ. He is a +faithful witness who will not lie: “A faithful witness will +not lie” (Prv 14:5), “You sent [messengers] to John, +and he bore witness to the truth” (below 5:33). John gives +his testimony here and fulfills his office with perseverance +because he came as a witness. As Proverbs (12:19) says, +“Truthful lips endure forever.”</p> +<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 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. +“Cry out in a loud voice.... Say to the cities of Judah: Here +is your God” (Is 40:9). He cried out ardently and with great +fervor, because it is said, “His word burned like a +torch” (Si 48:1); “Seraphim cried one to another” +(Is 6:3), which is expressive of a more interior eagerness of +spirit. The use of a cry shows that the statements of the witness +are not made to a few in figurative language or secretly, but that +a truth is being declared openly and publicly, and told not to a +few but to many. “Cry out, and do not stop” (Is +58:1).</p> +<p>194 Then he adds his testimony. And he does two things. First, +he shows that his testimony was continuous. Secondly, he describes +the person to whom he bore witness.</p> +<p>195 The testimony of the Baptist was continuous because he bore +witness to him not only once but many times, and even before Christ +had come to him. And so he says, <span style= +"font-weight: bold">This is the one of whom I</span> said, i.e., +before I saw him in the flesh I bore witness to him. “And +you, child, shall be called the prophet of the Most High” (Lk +1:76). He pointed him out both as present and when about to come. +And his testimony is certain because he not only predicted that he +would come, but pointed him out when he was present, saying, +<span style="font-weight: bold">Look! There is the Lamb of +God.</span> This implies that Christ was physically present to +John; for he had often come to John before being baptized.</p> +<p>196 Then he describes the one to whom he bore witness, saying, +<span style="font-weight: bold">He who comes after me, ranks ahead +of me.</span> Here we should note that John does not at once preach +to his disciples that Christ is the Son of God, but he draws them +little by little to higher things: first, by preferring Christ to +himself, even though John had such a great reputation and authority +as to be considered the Christ or one of the great prophets. Now he +compares Christ to himself: first, with regard to the order of +their preaching; secondly, as to the order of dignity; and thirdly, +as to the time of their existence.</p> +<p>197 With respect to the order of their preaching, John preceded +Christ as a servant precedes his master, and as a soldier his king, +or as the morning star the sun: “See, I am sending my +messenger, and he will prepare the way before me” (Mal 3:1 ). +So, He comes after me, in being known to men, through my preaching. +Observe that <span style="font-weight: bold">comes</span> is in the +present tense, became in Greek the present participle is used.</p> +<p>Now John preceded Christ for two reasons. First, according to +Chrysostom, because John was a blood relation of Christ according +to the flesh: “your relative, Elizabeth” (Lk 1.36). +Therefore, had he borne witness to Christ after knowing him, his +testimony might have been open to question; accordingly, John came +preaching before he was acquainted with Christ, in order that his +testimony might have more force. Hence he says, “And I did +not know him! And yet it was to reveal him to Israel that I came +baptizing with water” (below 1:31).</p> +<p>Secondly, John preceded Christ because in things that pass into +act from potency, the imperfect is naturally prior to the perfect; +hence it is said in 1 Corinthians (15:46): “The spiritual is +not first, but the animal.” Accordingly, the perfect doctrine +of Christ should have been preceded by the less perfect teaching of +John, which was in a certain manner midway between the doctrine of +the law and the prophets (which announced the coming of Christ from +afar), and the doctrine of Christ, which was clear and plainly made +Christ known.</p> +<p>198 He [John] compares him to himself with respect to dignity +when he says, he <span style="font-weight: bold">ranks ahead of +me</span> [<i>ante me factus est,</i> literally, he “was made +before me”]. It should be noted that it is from this text +that the Arians took occasion for their error. For they said that +“He who comes after me,” is to be understood of Christ +as to the flesh he assumed, but what follows, “was made +before me,” can only be understood of the Word of God, who +existed before the flesh; and for this reason Christ as the Word +was made, and was not coeternal with the Father.</p> +<p>According to Chrysostom, however, this exposition is stupid, +because if it were true, the Baptist would not have said, he +“was made before me, because he existed before me,” +since no one is unaware that if he was before him, he was made +before him. He rather would have said the opposite: “He was +before me, because he was made before me.” And so, according +to Chrysostom, these words should be taken as referring to his +[Christ’s] dignity, that is, he was preferred to me and +placed ahead of me. It is as though he said: Although Jesus came to +preach after me, he was made more worthy than I both in eminence of +authority and in the repute of men: “Gold will not be equal +to it” (Jb 28:17). Or alternatively: he is preferred +<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 +say: Before my eyes, i.e., in my sight, because he came into my +view and was recognized.</p> +<p>199 He compares him to himself with respect to their duration, +saying, <span style="font-weight: bold">because he existed before +me.</span> As if to say: He was God from all eternity, I am a frail +man of time. And therefore, even though I came to preach ahead of +him, yet it was fitting that he rank before me in the reputation +and opinion of men, because he preceded all things by his eternity: +“Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and +forever” (Heb 13:8). “Before Abraham came to be, I +am,” as we read below (8:58).</p> +<p>If we understand this passage as saying that he “was made +before me,” it can be explained as referring to the order of +time according to the flesh. For in the instant of his conception +Christ was perfect God and perfect man, having a rational soul +perfected by the virtues, and a body possessed of all its +distinctive features, except that it lacked perfect size: “A +woman shall enclose a man,” i.e., a perfect man (Jer 31:22). +Now it is evident that Christ was conceived as a perfect man before +John was born; consequently he says that he “was made before +me,” because he was a perfect man before I came forth from +the womb.</p> +<p style="margin-bottom: 0.125in; margin-bottom: 0.125in"> + </p> +<center> +<p><span style="font-weight: bold">LECTURE10</span></p> +<p>16 Of his fullness we have all received—indeed, grace upon +grace;<br /> +17 because, while the law was given through Moses,<br /> +grace and truth have come through Jesus Christ.</p> +</center> +<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 19), “This is the testimony of John,” are taken in +two ways. According to Origen, these are the words of John the +Baptist and are added by him to support what he had said +previously. It 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, not only I but all, including the prophets and +patriarchs, <span style="font-weight: bold">have received,</span> +because all had the grace they possessed by faith in the incarnate +Word. According to this explanation, John the Baptist began weaving +the story of the incarnation at, “John bore witness to +him” (v 15).</p> +<p>But according to Augustine and Chrysostom, the words from +“John bore witness to him” (v 15), are those of John +the Evangelist. And they are connected with the previous words, +“full of grace and truth,” as though he were saying: +Above, the Evangelist gave the evidence for the Word which was +learned through sight and by hearing, but here he explains each. +First, how he was made known to the apostles through sight, which +was tantamount to receiving the evidence from Christ. Secondly, how +John bore witness to him, at “This is the testimony of +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 fountain, of every spiritual grace. Secondly, he +shows that grace is dispensed to us through him and from him.</p> +<p>201 He says first of all: We know from our own experience that +we have seen him full of grace and truth, because <span style= +"font-weight: bold">of his fullness we have all received.</span> +Now one fullness is that of sufficiency, by which one is able to +perform acts that are meritorious and excellent, as in the case of +Stephen. Again, there is a fullness of superabundance, by which the +Blessed Virgin excels all the saints because of the eminence and +abundance of her merits. Further, there is a fullness of efficiency +and overflow, which belongs only to the man Christ as the author of +grace. For although the Blessed Virgin superabounds her grace into +us, it is never as authoress of grace. But grace flowed over from +her soul into her body: for through the grace of the Holy Spirit, +not only was the mind of the Virgin perfectly united to God by +love, but her womb was supernaturally impregnated by the Holy +Spirit. And so after Gabriel said, “Hail, full of +grace,” he refers at once to the fullness of her womb, +adding, “the Lord is with you” (Lk 1:28). And so the +Evangelist, in order to show this unique fullness of efficiency and +overflow in Christ, said, <span style="font-weight: bold">Of his +fullness we have all received,</span> i.e., all the apostles and +patriarchs and prophets and just men who have existed, do now +exist, and will exist, and even all the angels.</p> +<p>202 Note that the preposition <i>de</i> [of, from] sometimes +signifies efficiency, i.e., an originative cause, as when it is +said that a ray is or proceeds “from” the sun. In this +way it signifies the efficiency of grace in Christ, i.e., +authorship, because the fullness of grace in Christ is the cause of +all graces that are in intellectual creatures. “Come to me, +all you who desire me, and be filled with my fruits,” that is +to say, share in the fullness of those fruits which come from me +(Si 24:26).</p> +<p>But sometimes this preposition <i>de</i> signifies +consubstantiality, as when it is said that the Son is +“of” the Father [<i>de Patre</i>]<i>.</i> In this +usage, the fullness of Christ is the Holy Spirit, who proceeds from +him, consubstantial with him in nature, in power and in majesty. +For although the habitual gifts in the soul of Christ are other +than those in us, nevertheless it is one and the same Holy Spirit +who is in him and who fills all those to be sanctified. “One +and the same Spirit produces all these” (1 Cor 12:11); +“I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh” (JI 2:28); +“If anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not +belong to him” (Rom 8:9). For the unity of the Holy Spirit +produces unity in the Church: “The Spirit of the Lord filled +the whole world” (Wis 1:7).</p> +<p>In a third way, the preposition de [of, from] can signify it +portion, as when we say “take ‘from’ this bread +or wine [<i>de hoc pane, vel vino</i>],” i.e., take a portion +and not the whole. Taken in this way it signifies that those who +take a part derive it from the fullness. For he [Christ] received +all the gifts of the Holy Spirit without measure, according to a +perfect fullness; but we participate through him some portion of +his fullness; and this is according to the measure which God grants +to each. “Grace has been given to each of us according to the +degree to which Christ gives it” (Eph 4:7).</p> +<p>203 Then when he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">grace +upon grace,</span> he shows the distribution of graces into us +through Christ. Here he does two things. First, he shows that we +receive grace from Christ, as its author. Secondly, that we receive +wisdom from him (1:18). As to the first he does two things. First, +he shows that we have received of his fullness. Secondly, our need +to receive it.</p> +<p>204 First, he says that we have received of the fullness of +Christ what is described as <span style="font-weight: bold">grace +upon grace.</span> In the light of what is said, we are forced to +understand that of his fullness we have received grace, and that +upon that grace we have received another. Accordingly, we must see +what that first grace is upon which we have received a second one, +and also what that second grace is.</p> +<p>According to Chrysostom, the first grace, which was received by +the whole human race, was the grace of the Old Testament received +in the law. And this was indeed a great grace: “I will give +you a good gift” (Prv 4:2). For it was a great benefit for +idolatrous men to receive precepts from God, and a true knowledge +of the one true God. “What is the advantage of being a Jew, +or the benefit of circumcision? It is great in every way. First +indeed, because the words of God were entrusted to them” (Rom +3:1). Upon that grace, then, which was first, we have received a +second far better. “He will follow grace with grace” +(Zec 4:7).</p> +<p>But was not the first grace sufficient? I answer that it was +not, because the law gives only a knowledge of sin, but does not +take it away. “The law brought nothing to perfection” +(Heb 7:19). Hence it was necessary that another grace come that +would take away sin and reconcile one with God.</p> +<p>205 And so he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">because, +while the law was given through Moses, grace and truth have come +through Jesus Christ.</span> Here the Evangelist ranks Christ above +Moses the lawgiver, whom the Baptist ranked above himself. Now +Moses was regarded as the greatest of the prophets: “There +did not arise again in Israel a prophet like Moses” (Dt +34:10). But he ranks Christ above Moses in excellence Mid in +dignity of’ works, <span style="font-weight: bold">because +the law was given through Moses;</span> and between these two, the +One excels the other as the reality excels the symbol and the truth +the shadow: “The law had a shadow of the good things to +come” (Heb 10:1). Further, Christ excels him in the way he +works, because the law was given by Moses as by one proclaiming it, +but not originating it; for “The Lord alone is our +lawgiver” (Is 33:22). But <span style= +"font-weight: bold">grace and truth have come through Jesus +Christ,</span> as through the Lord and Author of truth and grace, +as was explained above.</p> +<p>206 According to Augustine, however, the first grace is +justifying and prevenient grace, which is not given to us because +of our works: “If it is by grace, it is not now by +works” (Rom 11:6). Upon that grace, then, which is imperfect, +we have received another grace which is perfect, i.e., the grace of +eternal life. And although eternal life is in some way acquired by +merits, nevertheless, because the principle of meriting in everyone +is prevenient grace, eternal life is called a grace: “The +grace of God is eternal life” (Rom 6:23). To be brief, +whatever grace is added to prevenient grace, the whole is called +<span style="font-weight: bold">grace upon grace.</span></p> +<p>The need for this second grace arises from the insufficiency of +the law, which showed what was to be done and what avoided; but it +gave no help to fulfill what was commanded. Indeed, what seemed to +have been directed to life was the occasion for producing death. +Hence the Apostle says that the law was a minister of death: +“If the ministry that condemned had glory, the ministry that +justifies has much more glory” (2 Cor 3:9). Also, it promised +the help of grace but did not fulfill, because “The law +brought nothing to perfection” (Heb 7:19). Again, it +prefigured the truth of the new grace by its sacrifices and +ceremonies; indeed, its very rites proclaimed that it was a figure. +Hence is was necessary that Christ come, who by his own death would +destroy other deaths and grant the help of new grace, in order that +we might both fulfill his precepts with ease and joy, and die to +our sins and our old way of life: “Our old self was crucified +with him” (Rom 6:6), and in order that the truth of the +figures contained in the law might be revealed and the promises +made to the fathers be fulfilled.</p> +<p>This can be explained in another way: <span style= +"font-weight: bold">truth has come through Jesus Christ,</span> as +to the wisdom and truth which was hidden for centuries, and which +he openly taught when he came into the world: “I came into +the world for this, to testify to the truth,” as we read +below (18:37).</p> +<p>207 But if Christ is the Truth, as it says below (14:6), how did +truth come [i.e., come to be, be made] through him, because nothing +can make itself? I answer that by his essence he is the uncreated +Truth, which is eternal and not made, but is begotten of the +Father; but all created truths were made through him, and these are +certain participations and reflections of the first Truth, which +shines out in those souls who are holy.</p> +<p style="margin-bottom: 0.125in; margin-bottom: 0.125in"> + </p> +<center> +<p><span style="font-weight: bold">LECTURE 11</span></p> +<p>18 No one has ever seen God;<br /> +it is the Only Begotten Son,<br /> +who is in the bosom of the Father,<br /> +who has made him known.</p> +</center> +<p>208 Above, the Evangelist showed how the apostles received grace +from Christ as its author; here he shows how they received it from +him as a teacher. About this he does three things. First, he shows +the need for this teaching. Secondly, the competency of the +teacher. Thirdly, the teaching itself.</p> +<p>209 The need for this teaching arose from the lack of wisdom +among men, which the Evangelist implies by alluding to the +ignorance concerning God which prevailed among men, saying: +<span style="font-weight: bold">No one has ever seen God.</span> +And he does this fittingly, for wisdom consists properly in the +knowledge of God and of divine things. Hence Augustine says that +wisdom is the knowledge of divine things, as science is the +knowledge of human things.</p> +<p>2 10 But this statement of the Evangelist, <span style= +"font-weight: bold">No one has ever seen God,</span> seems to +contradict many passages of divine Scripture. For it is said in +Isaiah (6:1): “I saw the Lord seated on a high and lofty +throne.” And about the same is found in 2 Samuel (6:2). Again +in Matthew (5:8), the Lord says: “Blessed are the pure in +heart, for they shall see God.”If someone were to answer this +last statement by saying that it is true that in the past no one +has seen God, but will see him in the future, as the Lord promises, +the Apostle would exclude this, saying, “He dwells in +unapproachable light, whom no man has seen or can see” (1 Tim +6:16).</p> +<p>Because the Apostle says, “no man has seen,” someone +might say that if he cannot be seen by men, then at least he can be +seen by angels; especially since God says, “Their angels in +heaven always see the face of my Father” (Mt 18:10). But it +cannot be taken in this way either, because it is said, “The +sons of the resurrection will be like the angels of God in +heaven” (Mt 22:30). If, therefore, the angels see God in +heaven, then it is plain that the sons of the resurrection also see +him: “When he appears we shall be like him, and we shall see +him as he is” (1 Jn 3:2).</p> +<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 +understand it we must know that God is said to be seen in three +ways. First, through a created substitute presented to the bodily +sight; as Abraham is believed to have seen God when he saw three +[men] and adored one (Gn 18). He adored one because he recognized +the mystery of the Trinity in the three, whom he first thought to +be men, and later believed to be angels. In a second way, through a +representation in the imagination; and in this way Isaiah saw the +Lord seated on a high and lofty throne. Many visions of this sort +are recorded in the Scriptures. In a third way, he is seen through +an intelligible species abstracted from material things; and in +this way he is seen by those who, considering the greatness of +creatures, see with their intellect the greatness of the Creator, +as it is said: “From the greatness and beauty of creatures, +their Creator can be seen accordingly” (Wis 13:5); “The +invisible things of God are clearly seen, being understood through +the things that are made,” as found in Romans (1:20). In +another way, God is seen through a certain spiritual light infused +by God into spiritual minds during contemplation; and this is the +way Jacob saw God face to face, as it says in Genesis (32:30). +According to Gregory, this vision came about through his lofty contemplation.</p> -<p>But the vision of the divine essence is not attained by any of the above visions: for no created -species, whether it be that by which an external sense is informed, or by which the -imagination is informed, or by which the intellect is informed, is representative of the divine -essence as it is. Now man knows as to its essence only what the species he has in his intellect -represents as it is. Therefore, the vision of the divine essence is not attained through any -species.</p> -<p>The reason why no created species can represent the divine essence is plain: for nothing finite -can represent the infinite as it is; but every created species is finite; therefore [it cannot -represent the infinite as it is]. Further, God is his own <i>esse; </i>and therefore his wisdom and -greatness and anything else are the same. But all those cannot be represented through one -created thing. Therefore, the knowledge by which God is seen through creatures is not a -knowledge of his essence, but a knowledge that is dark and mirrored, and from afar. -“Everyone sees him,” in one of the above ways, “from afar” (Jb 36:25), because we do not -know what God is by all these acts of knowing, but what he is not, or that he is. Hence Denis -says, in his <i>Mystical Theology, </i>that the perfect way in which God is known in this present life -is by taking away all creatures and every thing understood by us.</p> -<p>212 There have been some who said that the divine essence will never by seen by any created -intellect, and that it is seen neither by the angels nor by the blessed. But this statement is -shown to be false and heretical in three ways, First, because it is contrary to the authority of -divine Scripture: “We shall see him as he is” (1 Jn 3:2); “This is eternal life, that they know -you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent” (below 17:3). Secondly, -because the brightness of God is the same as his substance; for he does not give forth light by -participating in light, but through himself. And thirdly, because it is impossible for anyone to -attain perfect happiness except in the vision of the divine essence. This is because the natural -desire of the intellect is to understand and know the causes of all the effects that it knows; but -this desire cannot be fulfilled unless it understands and knows the first universal cause of all -things, which is a cause that is not composed of cause and effect, as second causes are. -Therefore, to take away the possibility of the vision of the divine essence by man is to fake -away happiness itself. Therefore, in order for the created intellect to be happy, it is necessary -that the divine essence be seen. “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God” (Mt -5:8).</p> -<p>213 Three things should be noted about the vision of the divine essence. First, it will never be -seen with a bodily eye, either by sense or imagination, since only sensate bodily things are -perceived by the senses, and God is not bodily: “God is spirit” (below 4:24). Secondly, that as -long as the human intellect is in the body it cannot see God, because it is weighed down by -the body so that it cannot attain the summit of contemplation. So it is that the more a soul is -free of passions and is purged from affections for earthly things, the higher it rises in the -contemplation of truth and tastes how sweet the Lord is. Now the highest degree of -contemplation is to see God through his essence; and so as long as a man lives in a body -which is necessarily subject to many passions, he cannot see God through his essence. “Man -will not see me and live” (Ex 33:20). Therefore, if the human intellect is to see the divine -essence it must wholly depart from the body: either by death, as the Apostle says, “We would -prefer to be absent from the body and present with the Lord” (2 Cor 5:8); or by being wholly -abstracted by rapture from the senses of the body, as is mentioned of Paul in 2 Corinthians -(12:3).</p> -<p>Thirdly, no created intellect (however abstracted, either by death, or separated from the body) -which does see the divine essence, can comprehend it in any way. And so it is commonly said -that although the whole divine essence is seen by the blessed, since it is most simple and has -no parts, yet it is not wholly seen, because this would be to comprehend it. For “wholly” -implies a certain mode. But any mode of God is the divine essence. Hence one who does not -see him wholly does not comprehend him. For one is properly said to comprehend a thing -through knowledge when he knows that thing to the extent that it is knowable in itself; -otherwise, although he may know it, he does not comprehend it. For example, one who -knows this proposition, “A triangle has three angles equal to two right angles,” by a -dialectical syllogism, does not know it as well as it is knowable in itself; thus he does not -know it wholly. But one who knows this by a demonstrative syllogism does know it wholly. -For each thing is knowable to the extent that it has being and truth; while one is a knower -according to his amount of cognitive power. Now a created intellectual substance is finite; -hence it knows in a finite way. And since God is infinite in power and being, and as a -consequence is infinitely knowable, he cannot be known by any created intellect to the degree -that he is knowable. And thus he remains incomprehensible to every created intellect. -“Behold, God is great, exceeding our knowledge” (Jb 36:26). He alone contemplates himself -comprehensively, because his power to know is as great as his entity in being. “O most -mighty, great, powerful, your name is Lord of hosts, great in counsel, incomprehensible in -thought” (Jer 32:18).</p> -<p>214 Using the above explanations, we can understand, <span style="font-weight: bold">No one has ever seen God. </span>First, No -one, i.e, no man, has seen God, that is, the divine essence, with the eye of the body of or the -imagination. Secondly, No one, living in this mortal life, has seen the divine essence in itself. -Thirdly, No one, man or angel, has seen God by a vision of comprehension. So when it is said -that certain ones have seen God with their eyes or while living in the body, he is not seen -through his essence, but through a creature acting as a substitute, as was said. And thus it was -necessary for us to receive wisdom, because No one has ever seen God.</p> -<p>215 The Evangelist mentions the competent teacher of this wisdom when he adds, <span style="font-weight: bold">it is the -Only Begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father. </span>He shows the competence of this -teacher in three ways: by a natural likeness, by a singular excellence, and by a most perfect +<p>But the vision of the divine essence is not attained by any of +the above visions: for no created species, whether it be that by +which an external sense is informed, or by which the imagination is +informed, or by which the intellect is informed, is representative +of the divine essence as it is. Now man knows as to its essence +only what the species he has in his intellect represents as it is. +Therefore, the vision of the divine essence is not attained through +any species.</p> +<p>The reason why no created species can represent the divine +essence is plain: for nothing finite can represent the infinite as +it is; but every created species is finite; therefore [it cannot +represent the infinite as it is]. Further, God is his own +<i>esse;</i> and therefore his wisdom and greatness and anything +else are the same. But all those cannot be represented through one +created thing. Therefore, the knowledge by which God is seen +through creatures is not a knowledge of his essence, but a +knowledge that is dark and mirrored, and from afar. “Everyone +sees him,” in one of the above ways, “from afar” +(Jb 36:25), because we do not know what God is by all these acts of +knowing, but what he is not, or that he is. Hence Denis says, in +his <i>Mystical Theology,</i> that the perfect way in which God is +known in this present life is by taking away all creatures and +every thing understood by us.</p> +<p>212 There have been some who said that the divine essence will +never by seen by any created intellect, and that it is seen neither +by the angels nor by the blessed. But this statement is shown to be +false and heretical in three ways, First, because it is contrary to +the authority of divine Scripture: “We shall see him as he +is” (1 Jn 3:2); “This is eternal life, that they know +you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent” +(below 17:3). Secondly, because the brightness of God is the same +as his substance; for he does not give forth light by participating +in light, but through himself. And thirdly, because it is +impossible for anyone to attain perfect happiness except in the +vision of the divine essence. This is because the natural desire of +the intellect is to understand and know the causes of all the +effects that it knows; but this desire cannot be fulfilled unless +it understands and knows the first universal cause of all things, +which is a cause that is not composed of cause and effect, as +second causes are. Therefore, to take away the possibility of the +vision of the divine essence by man is to fake away happiness +itself. Therefore, in order for the created intellect to be happy, +it is necessary that the divine essence be seen. “Blessed are +the pure in heart, for they shall see God” (Mt 5:8).</p> +<p>213 Three things should be noted about the vision of the divine +essence. First, it will never be seen with a bodily eye, either by +sense or imagination, since only sensate bodily things are +perceived by the senses, and God is not bodily: “God is +spirit” (below 4:24). Secondly, that as long as the human +intellect is in the body it cannot see God, because it is weighed +down by the body so that it cannot attain the summit of +contemplation. So it is that the more a soul is free of passions +and is purged from affections for earthly things, the higher it +rises in the contemplation of truth and tastes how sweet the Lord +is. Now the highest degree of contemplation is to see God through +his essence; and so as long as a man lives in a body which is +necessarily subject to many passions, he cannot see God through his +essence. “Man will not see me and live” (Ex 33:20). +Therefore, if the human intellect is to see the divine essence it +must wholly depart from the body: either by death, as the Apostle +says, “We would prefer to be absent from the body and present +with the Lord” (2 Cor 5:8); or by being wholly abstracted by +rapture from the senses of the body, as is mentioned of Paul in 2 +Corinthians (12:3).</p> +<p>Thirdly, no created intellect (however abstracted, either by +death, or separated from the body) which does see the divine +essence, can comprehend it in any way. And so it is commonly said +that although the whole divine essence is seen by the blessed, +since it is most simple and has no parts, yet it is not wholly +seen, because this would be to comprehend it. For +“wholly” implies a certain mode. But any mode of God is +the divine essence. Hence one who does not see him wholly does not +comprehend him. For one is properly said to comprehend a thing +through knowledge when he knows that thing to the extent that it is +knowable in itself; otherwise, although he may know it, he does not +comprehend it. For example, one who knows this proposition, +“A triangle has three angles equal to two right +angles,” by a dialectical syllogism, does not know it as well +as it is knowable in itself; thus he does not know it wholly. But +one who knows this by a demonstrative syllogism does know it +wholly. For each thing is knowable to the extent that it has being +and truth; while one is a knower according to his amount of +cognitive power. Now a created intellectual substance is finite; +hence it knows in a finite way. And since God is infinite in power +and being, and as a consequence is infinitely knowable, he cannot +be known by any created intellect to the degree that he is +knowable. And thus he remains incomprehensible to every created +intellect. “Behold, God is great, exceeding our +knowledge” (Jb 36:26). He alone contemplates himself +comprehensively, because his power to know is as great as his +entity in being. “O most mighty, great, powerful, your name +is Lord of hosts, great in counsel, incomprehensible in +thought” (Jer 32:18).</p> +<p>214 Using the above explanations, we can understand, +<span style="font-weight: bold">No one has ever seen God.</span> +First, No one, i.e, no man, has seen God, that is, the divine +essence, with the eye of the body of or the imagination. Secondly, +No one, living in this mortal life, has seen the divine essence in +itself. Thirdly, No one, man or angel, has seen God by a vision of +comprehension. So when it is said that certain ones have seen God +with their eyes or while living in the body, he is not seen through +his essence, but through a creature acting as a substitute, as was +said. And thus it was necessary for us to receive wisdom, because +No one has ever seen God.</p> +<p>215 The Evangelist mentions the competent teacher of this wisdom +when he adds, <span style="font-weight: bold">it is the Only +Begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father.</span> He shows +the competence of this teacher in three ways: by a natural +likeness, by a singular excellence, and by a most perfect consubstantiality.</p> -<p>216 By natural likeness, because a son is naturally like his father. Wherefore it also follows -that one is called a son of God insofar as he shares in the likeness of his natural son; and one -knows him insofar he has a likeness to him, since knowledge is attained through assimilation -[or “likeness to”]. Hence 1 John (3:2) says, “Now we are sons of God,” and he immediately -adds, “when he comes, we will be like him, and we will see him as he is.” Therefore, when -the Evangelist says Son, he implies a likeness as well as all aptitude for knowing God.</p> -<p>217 Because this teacher knows God in a more special way than other sons do, the Evangelist -suggests this by his singular excellence, saying, <span style="font-weight: bold">the Only Begotten. </span>As if to say: He knows -God more than other sons do. Hence, because he is the natural Son, having the same nature -and knowledge as the Father, he is <span style="font-weight: bold">called the Only Begotten. </span>“The Lord said to me: ‘You are -my Son’” (Ps 2:7).</p> -<p>218 Although he may know in a unique way, he would be lacking the ability to teach if he -were not to know wholly. Hence he adds a third point, namely, his consubstantiality to the -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 -referring to men in their garments, but it indicates the secret things of the Father. For what we -carry in our bosom we do in secret. The secret things of the Father refer to his unsurpassed -power and knowledge, since the divine essence is infinite. Therefore, in that bosom, i.e., in -the most secret things of the paternal nature and essence, which transcends all the power of -the creature, is <span style="font-weight: bold">the Only Begotten Son; </span>and so he is consubstantial with the Father.</p> -<p>What the Evangelist signifies by “bosom,” David expressed by “womb,” saying: “From the -womb, before the daystar,” i.e., from the inmost secret things of my essence, -incomprehensible to every created intellect, “I begot you” (Ps 109:3), consubstantial with me, -and of the same nature and power, and virtue and knowledge. “What man knows the things of -a man except the spirit of the man that is in him? So also, no one knows the things of God -except the Spirit of God” (1 Cor 2:11). Therefore, he comprehends the divine essence, which -is his own.</p> -<p>219 But the soul of Christ, which knows God, does not comprehend him, because this is -attributed only to the Only Begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father. So the Lord also -says: “No one knows the Father except the Son, and any to whom the Son wishes to reveal -him”(Mt 11:27); we should understand this as referring to the knowledge of comprehension, -about which the Evangelist seems to be speaking here. For no one comprehends the divine -essence except the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. And so we have shown the -competence of the teacher.</p> -<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 -those who say that the Father is invisible, but the Son is visible, though he was not seen in the -Old Testament. For from the fact that he is among the hidden things of the Father, it is plain -that he is naturally invisible, as is the Father. So it is said of him: “Truly, you are a hidden -God” (Is 45:15). And so Scripture mentions the incomprehensibility of the Son: “No one -knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son” (Mt 11:27), -“What is the name of his son, if you know?” as we read in Proverbs (30:4)</p> -<p>221 Then the Evangelist indicates the way in which this teaching is handed down, saying that -it is the Only Begotten Son <span style="font-weight: bold">who has made him known. </span>For in the past, the Only Begotten -Son revealed knowledge of God through the prophets, who made him known to the extent -that they shared in the eternal Word. Hence they said things like, “The Word of the Lord -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 -who spoke; here I am” (Is 52:6); “God, who in many and varied ways, spoke to the fathers in -past times through the prophets, has spoken to us in these days in his Son” (Heb 1:1).</p> -<p>And this teaching surpasses all other teachings in dignity, authority and usefulness, because it -was handed on immediately by the Only Begotten Son, who is the first Wisdom. “It was first -announced by the Lord, and confirmed to us by those who heard him” (Heb 2:3).</p> -<p>222 But what did he make known except the one God? And even Moses did this: “Hear, O -Israel: the Lord your God is one” (Dt 6:4). What did this add to Moses? It added the mystery -of the Trinity, and many other things that neither Moses nor any of the prophets made known.</p> -<p style="margin-bottom: 0.125in; margin-bottom: 0.125in"> </p> -<p style="text-align: center; margin-bottom: 0.125in"><span style="font-weight: bold">LECTURE12</span></p> -<BLOCKQUOTE><p>19 This is the testimony of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jeru’salem to -him, to ask him: “Who are you?” 20 He declared openly, and did not deny, and stated clearly, -“I am not the Messiah.” 21 And they questioned him, “Who then? Are you Elijah?” And he -said, “I am not.” “Are you the Prophet?” And he responded, “No.” 22 They therefore said to -him, “Who are you? We must take back an answer to those who sent us. What have you to -say about yourself9" 23 He said, quoting the prophet Isaiah, “I am 6 a voice that cries in the -wilderness: Make a straight way for the Lord’” [Is 40:3].</p></BLOCKQUOTE> -<p>223 Above, the Evangelist showed how Christ was made known to the apostles through the -testimony of John; here he develops this testimony more fully. First, he presents John’s -testimony to the people. Secondly, the testimony he gave of Christ to his own disciples -(below 1:35). If we carefully consider what was said, we discover a twofold testimony of -John to Christ: one which he gave to Christ in his presence, the other in his absence. For he -would not have said, “It is he” (below 1:30), unless he had given testimony in Christ’s -presence; and he would not have said, “of whom I said,” unless he gave testimony to him in -his absence. So first, the Evangelist develops the testimony John gave to Christ in his -absence; secondly, that he gave in his presence (v 29).</p> -<p>Now these two testimonies differ, because the first was given when he was questioned; the -other was spontaneous. So in the first instance, we are given not only his testimony, but also -the questions. First, he was asked about himself; secondly, about his office (v 24). First we -are shown how John stated that he was not what he really was not; secondly, that he did not -deny what he was.</p> -<p>224 As to the first, there are three questions and three answers, as is plain from the text. In the -first question there is great respect for John shown by the Jews. They had sent certain ones to -him to ask about his testimony. The greatness of their respect is gathered from four facts. -First, from the dignity of those who sent the questioners; for they were not sent by Galileans, -but by those who were first in rank among the people of Israel, namely, Judeans, of the tribe -of Juda, who lived about Jerusalem. It was from Juda that God chose the princes of the -people.</p> -<p>Secondly, from the preeminence of the place, that is, from Jerusalem, which is the city of the -priesthood, the city dedicated to divine worship: “You people claim that Jerusalem is the -place where men must worship God” (below 4:20); “They will worship him with sacrifices -and offerings” (Is 19:21). Thirdly, from the authority of the messengers, who were religious -and from among the holier of the people, namely, priests and Levites; “You will be called the -priests of the Lord” (Is 61:6).</p> -<p>Fourthly, from the fact that they sent them so that John might bear witness to himself, -indicating that they put such trust in his words as to believe John even when giving testimony -about himself. Hence he says they were sent to ask him, Who are you? They did not do this to -Christ; in fact they said to him: “You are bearing witness to yourself; your testimony is not -true” (below 8:13).</p> -<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 -Evangelist twice mentioned that John spoke forth to show his humility; for although he was -held in such high esteem among the Jews that they believed he might be the Messiah, he, on -his part, usurped no honor what was not due him; <span style="font-weight: bold">indeed, he stated clearly, I am not the -Messiah.</span></p> -<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 -deny, because he said that he was not the Messiah. It must be answered that he did not deny -the truth, for he said he was not the Messiah; otherwise he would have denied the truth. “A -very great iniquity, and a denial of the most high God” (Jb 31:28). Thus he did not deny the -truth, because however great he might have been considered, he did not become proud, -usurping for himself the honor of another. He stated clearly, <span style="font-weight: bold">I am not the Messiah; </span>because -in truth he was not. “He was not the light,” as was said above (1:8).</p> -<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 -if he was the Messiah, but who he himself was? I answer that John directed his answer more -to the mind of the questioners than to their question. And we can understand this in two ways. -According to Origen, the priests and Levites came to John with a good intention. For they -knew from the Scriptures, and particularly from the prophecy of Daniel, that the time for the -coming of the Messiah had arrived. So, seeing John’s holiness, they suspected that he might -be the Messiah. So they sent to John, wishing to learn by their question, <span style="font-weight: bold">Who are you? -</span>whether John would admit that he was the Messiah. And so he directs his answer to their -thoughts: <span style="font-weight: bold">I am not the Messiah.</span></p> -<p>Chrysostom, however, says that they questioned him as a stratagem. For John was related to -priests, being the son of a chief priest, and he was holy. Yet, he bore witness to Christ, whose -family seemed lowly; for that reason they even said, “Is not this the son of the carpenter?”; -and they did not know him. So, preferring to have John as their master, not Christ, they sent -to him, intending to entice him by flattery and persuade him to take this honor for himself, -and to state that he was the Messiah. But John, seeing their evil intent, said, <span style="font-weight: bold">I am not the -Messiah.</span></p> -<p>228 The second question is stated when they ask him, <span style="font-weight: bold">Who then? Are you Elijah? </span>Here we -should note that just as the Jews awaited the Lord who was to come, so to they waited for -Elijah, who would precede the Messiah: “I will send you Elijah, the prophet” (Mal 4:5). And -so those who were sent, seeing that John did not say that he was the Messiah, pressed him -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> -<p>229 There are certain heretics who say that souls migrate from one body to another. And this -belief was current among the Jews of that time. For this reason they believed that the soul of -Elijah was in John’s body, because of the similarity of John’s actions to those of Elijah. And -they say that these messengers asked John whether he was Elijah, i.e., whether the soul of -Elijah was in John. They support this with Christ’s statement, “He is Elijah who is to come,” -as is found in Matthew (11:14). But John’s answer conflicts with their opinion, as he says, I -am not. i.e., Elijah.</p> -<p>They counter this by saying that John answered in ignorance, not knowing whether his soul -was the soul of Elijah. But Origen says in answer to this that it seems most unreasonable that -John, a prophet enlightened by the Spirit, and telling such things about the Only Begotten Son -of God, should be ignorant of himself, and not know whether his soul had been in Elijah.</p> -<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 -took it from Scripture (2 Kings 2:11) that Elijah did not die, but had been carried alive by a -whirlwind into heaven. Accordingly, they believed that he had suddenly appeared among -them.</p> -<p>But against this opinion is the fact that John was born from parents who were known, and his -birth had been known to everyone. So it says in Luke (1:66) that all said, “What do you think -this child will be?” One might say to this that it is not incredible that they should regard John -in the manner described. For a similar situation in found in Matthew (14:1): for Herod -thought that Christ was John, whom he had beheaded, even though Christ had been preaching -and was known for some time before John had been beheaded. And so from a similar -stupidity and madness the Jews asked John whether he was Elijah.</p> -<p>231 Why does John say, I am not Elijah, while Christ said, “He is Elijah” (Mt 11:14). The -angel gives us the answer: “He will go before him in the spirit and power of Elijah” (Lk -1:17), i.e., in his works. Thus he was not Elijah in person, but in spirit and power, i.e., -because he showed a similarity to Elijah in his works.</p> -<p>232 This likeness can be found in three matters. First, in their office: because as Elijah will -precede the second coming of Christ, so John preceded the first. Thus the angel said, “He will -go before him.” Secondly, in their manner of living. For Elijah lived in desert places, ate little -food and wore coarse clothing, as recorded in 1 and 2 Kings. John, also, lived in the desert, -his food was locusts and wild honey, and he wore clothing of camel’s hair. Thirdly, in their -zeal. For Elijah was filled with zeal; thus it was said, “I have been very zealous for the Lord” -(1 Kgs 19:10). So, also, John died because of his zeal for the truth, as is clear from Matthew -(14:6)</p> -<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 -difficulty, for since it is said in Luke (1:76), “And you, child, shall be called the prophet of -the Most High,” why does John, when asked if he is a prophet, answer that he is not a -prophet?</p> -<p>There are three ways of answering this. One is that John is not just a prophet, but more than a -prophet. For the other prophets only predicted future things from afar: “if there is a delay, -wait for it” (Hb 2:2).. But John proclaimed that the Messiah was present, pointing him out -with his finger: “Look, there is the Lamb of God,” as it says below (1:36). And so the Lord -says that he is more than a prophet (Mt 11:9).</p> -<p>Again, in another way, according to Origen, because through a misunderstanding the Jews -associated three great personages with the coming of Christ: Christ himself, Elijah, and some -other person, the greatest of the prophets, about whom Deuteronomy (18:15) says: “The Lord -your God will raise up a prophet for you.” And although this greatest of the prophets is in fact -none other than Christ, according to the Jews he is someone other than Christ. And so they do -not ask simply whether he is a prophet, but whether he is that “greatest of the prophets.” And -this is clear from the order of their questions. For they first ask whether he is the Messiah; -secondly, whether he is Elijah; thirdly, whether he is that prophet. Accordingly, in Greek, the -article is used here as signifying <i>the </i>prophet, as it were, antonomastically.</p> -<p>In a third way, because the Pharisees were indignant at John for assuming the office of -baptizing outside the order of the law and their tradition. For the Old Testament mentions -three persons to whom this office could belong. First, to the Messiah, since “I will pour clean -water upon you, and you will be cleansed” (Ez 36:25), are words considered as spoken by the -person of the Messiah. Secondly, to Elijah, of whom it says in 2 Kings that he divided the -water of the Jordan, and crossing over, was taken up. Finally, to Elisha, who made Naaman -the Syrian wash seven times in the Jordan so as to be cured of leprosy, as mentioned in 2 -Kings (c 5). And so when the Jews saw that John was baptizing, they believed that he was -one of those three: the Messiah, or Elijah, or Elisha. Accordingly, when they ask here, <span style="font-weight: bold">Are -you the Prophet? </span>they are asking whether he is Elisha, who is called “prophet” in a special -way because of the many miracles he had performed; hence he himself says, “Let him come -to me, so that he may know that there is a prophet in Israel” (2 Kgs 5:8). And to this John -answers, No, I am not Elisha.</p> -<p>234 Then he shows how he declared who he was. First, the question of the messengers is -given; secondly, his answer (v 23).</p> -<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 -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> -<p>Notice John’s devotion. He has already fulfilled what the Apostle says, “It is not I who now -live, but Christ lives in me” (Gal 2:20). And so he does not answer, “I am the son of -Zachary,” or this or that, but only the way in which he followed Christ.</p> -<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 -because from the point of view of origin, a voice comes after the [mental, interior] word, but -before the knowledge it causes. For we know a [mental, interior] word conceived in the heart -by means of the voice which speaks it, since it is its sign. But God the Father sent the -precursor John, who came to be in time, in order to make known his Word, which was -conceived from eternity. And so he fittingly says, <span style="font-weight: bold">I am a voice.</span></p> -<p>237 The addition, <span style="font-weight: bold">that cries, </span>can be understood in two ways: as referring to John, crying and -preaching in the wilderness; or to Christ crying in him, according to, “Do you want proof that -Christ is speaking in me” (2 Cor 13:3).</p> -<p>Now he cries for four reasons. First of all, a cry implies a showing; and so he cries in order to -show that Christ is clearly speaking in John and in himself: “Now on the last, the great day of -the feast, Jesus stood and cried out, saying, ‘If any one thirsts, let him come to me and drink’” -(below 7:37). But he did not cry out in the prophets because prophecies were given in -enigmas and figures; so it is said that he was “wrapped in dark rain-clouds” (Ps 17:12). -Secondly, because a cry is made to those who are at a distance; and the Jews were far from -God. Thus it was necessary that he cry: “You have taken my friends and neighbors away from -me” (Ps 88:19). He cries, in the third place, because they were deaf: “Who is deaf, but my -servant?” (Is 42:19). He cries, fourthly, because he speaks with indignation, for they deserved -God’s wrath: “He will speak to them in his anger” (Ps 2:5).</p> -<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 -son of Zechariah, in the desert,” as we read in Luke (3:2). There can be both a literal and a -mystical reason for this. The literal reason is that by living in the desert he would be immune -from all sin, and so be more worthy to bear witness to Christ, and his testimony would be -more credible to men because of his life.</p> -<p>The mystical reason is twofold. For the wilderness or desert designates paganism, according -to Isaiah (54:1); “She who is deserted has more children than she who has a husband.” -Accordingly, in order to show that God’s teaching would from now on not be in Jerusalem -alone, but also among the pagans, he cried <span style="font-weight: bold">in the wilderness. </span>“The kingdom of God will be -taken away from you, and given to a people that will produce its fruits” (Mt 21:43). Again, -the desert can indicate Judea, which was already deserted: “Your house will be left to You, -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 -indicate that the people to whom he was preaching had already been deserted by God: “in a -desert land, where there is no way or water, so I have come to your sanctuary” (Ps 62:3).</p> -<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 -he was sent. “And you, child, will be called the prophet of the Most High, for you will go -before the face of the Lord to prepare his way” (Lk 1:76). The way, prepared and straight, for -receiving the Lord is the way of justice, according to Isaiah (26:7): “The way of the just is -straight.” For the way of the just is straight when the whole man is subject to God, i.e., the -intellect through faith, the will through love, and actions through obedience, are all subject to +<p>216 By natural likeness, because a son is naturally like his +father. Wherefore it also follows that one is called a son of God +insofar as he shares in the likeness of his natural son; and one +knows him insofar he has a likeness to him, since knowledge is +attained through assimilation [or “likeness to”]. Hence +1 John (3:2) says, “Now we are sons of God,” and he +immediately adds, “when he comes, we will be like him, and we +will see him as he is.” Therefore, when the Evangelist says +Son, he implies a likeness as well as all aptitude for knowing God.</p> -<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 -whom these things are fulfilled.</p> -<p style="margin-bottom: 0.125in; margin-bottom: 0.125in"> </p> -<p style="text-align: center; margin-bottom: 0.125in"><span style="font-weight: bold">LECTURE13</span></p> -<BLOCKQUOTE><p>24 Now these men had been sent from the Pharisees, 25 and they put this further question to -him: “Why then do you baptize, if you are not the Messiah, nor Elijah, nor the Prophet?” 26 -John replied, “I baptize with water. But there is one standing in your midst whom you do not -recognize—27 the one who is to come after me, who ranks ahead of me—the strap of whose -sandal I am not worthy to unfasten.” 28 This happened at Bethany, on the far side of the -Jordan, where John was baptizing.</p></BLOCKQUOTE> -<p>240 Above, we saw John bear witness to Christ as he was being questioned on matters -concerning himself; here, on matters concerning his office. Four things are set forth: first, -those who question him; secondly, their questions; thirdly, his answer, in which he bore -witness; and fourthly, the place where all this happened.</p> -<p>241 His interrogators were Pharisees. Hence he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">Now these men had been sent from -the Pharisees. </span>According to Origen, what is being said from this point on describes a -different testimony given by John; and further, those who were sent from the Pharisees are -not the same as those priests and Levites sent by the generality of the Jews, but others who -were specifically sent by the Pharisees. And according to this it says: <span style="font-weight: bold">Now these men had -been sent, </span>not by the Jews, as the priests and Levites had been, but were others, <span style="font-weight: bold">from the -Pharisees. </span>So he says about this that because the priests and Levites were educated and -respectful, they ask John humbly and respectfully whether he is the Messiah, or Elijah, or the -Prophet. But these others, who were from the Pharisees, according to their name “separated” -and importunate, used disdainful language. Thus they asked him, <span style="font-weight: bold">Why then do you baptize, -if you are not the Messiah, nor Elijah, nor the Prophet?</span></p> -<p>But according to others, such as Gregory, Chrysostom, and Augustine, these Pharisees are the -same priests and Levites who had been sent by the Jews. For there was among the Jews a -certain sect which was separated from the others by reason of its external cult; and for this -reason its members were called Pharisees, i.e., “divided.” In this sect there were some priests -and Levites, and some of the people. And so, in order that the delegates [to John] might -possess a greater authority, they sent priests and Levites, who were Pharisees, thus furnishing -them with the dignity of a priestly caste and with religious authority.</p> -<p>242 The Evangelist adds, <span style="font-weight: bold">these men had been sent from the Pharisees, </span>to disclose, first, the -reason why they asked about John’s baptizing, which was not why they were sent. It is as -though he were saying: They were sent to ask John who he was. But they asked, <span style="font-weight: bold">Why do you -baptize? </span>because they were from the Pharisees, whose religion was being challenged. -Secondly, as Gregory says, in order to show with what intention they asked John, “Who are -you?” (1:19). For the Pharisees, more than all the others, showed themselves crafty and -insulting to Christ. Thus they said of him: “He casts out devils by Beelzebub, the prince of -devils” (Mt 12:24). Further, they consulted with the Herodians on how to trap Jesus in his -speech (Mt 22:15). And so in saying that <span style="font-weight: bold">these men had been sent from the Pharisees, </span>he -shows that they were disrespectful and were questioning him out of envy.</p> -<p>243 Their questions concerned his office of baptizing. Hence he says that they asked him, -<span style="font-weight: bold">Why then do you baptize? </span>Here we should note that they are asking not to learn, but to -obstruct. For since they saw many people coming to John because of the new rite of baptism, -foreign both to the rite of the Pharisees and of the law, they became envious of John and tried -all they could to hinder his baptism. But being unable to contain themselves any longer, they -reveal their envy and say, <span style="font-weight: bold">Why then do you baptize if you are not the Messiah, nor Elijah, -nor the Prophet? </span>As if to say: You should not baptize, since you deny that you are any of -those three persons in whom baptism was prefigured, as was said above. In other words, <span style="font-weight: bold">if -you are not the Messiah, </span>who will possess the fountain by which sins are washed away, <span style="font-weight: bold">nor -Elijah, nor the Prophet, </span>i.e., Elisha, who made a dry passageway through the Jordan (2 Kgs -2:8), how do you dare baptize’? They are like envious persons who hinder the progress of -souls, “who say to the seers, ‘See no visions’” (Is 30:10).</p> -<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: -You should not be disturbed, if I, who am not the Messiah, nor Elijah, nor the Prophet, -baptize; because my baptism is not completive but imperfect. For the perfection of baptism -requires the washing of the body and of the soul; and the body, by its nature, is indeed washed -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 -body with something bodily; but another will come who will baptize perfectly, namely, with -water and with the Holy Spirit; God and man, who will wash the body with water and the -spirit with the Spirit, in such a way that the sanctification of the spirit will be distributed -throughout the body. “For John indeed baptized with water but you will be baptized with the -Holy Spirit not many days from now” (Acts 1:5).</p> -<p>245 Then he bears witness to Christ. First, in relation to the Jews. Secondly, in relation to -himself (v 27).</p> -<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 -to say: I have done an incomplete work, but there is another who will complete my work, and -he is <span style="font-weight: bold">standing in your midst.</span></p> -<p>This is explained in a number of ways. First, according to Gregory, Chrysostom and -Augustine, it refers to the ordinary way Christ lived among men, because according to his -human nature he appeared to be like other men: “He, being in the form of God ... emptied -himself, taking the form of a servant” (Phil 2:6). And according to this he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">there is one -standing in your midst, </span>i.e., in many ways he lived as one of you: “I am in your midst” (Lk -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. -Likewise, you do not recognize how great he is according to the divine nature which is -concealed in him: “God is great, and exceeds our knowledge” (Jb 36:26). And so, as -Augustine says, “The lantern was lighted,” namely, John, “so that Christ might be found.” “I -have prepared a lamp for my anointed” (Ps 131:17).</p> -<p>It is explained differently by Origen; and in two ways. First, as referring to the divinity of -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 -the midst of all things; because he, as Word, has filled all from the beginning of creation: “I -fill heaven and earth” (Jer 23:24). <span style="font-weight: bold">Whom you do not recognize, </span>because, as was said above -(1:10), “He was in the world ... and the world did not know him.”</p> -<p>It is explained another way as referring to his causality of human wisdom. <span style="font-weight: bold">But there is one -standing in your midst, </span>i.e., he shines in everyone’s understanding; because whatever light -and whatever wisdom exists in men has come to them from participating in the Word. And he -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 -certain wisdom and understanding; hence, although the intellect has no bodily organ, yet -because the heart is our chief organ, it is the custom to take it for the intellect. So he is said to -stand among men because of this likeness, insofar as he “enlightens every man coming into -this world” (1:9). <span style="font-weight: bold">Whom you do not recognize, </span>because, as was said above (1:5), “The light -shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not overcome it.”</p> -<p>In a fourth way, it is explained as referring to the prophetic foretelling of the Messiah. In this -sense the answer is directed chiefly to the Pharisees, who continually searched the writings of -the Old Testament in which the Messiah was foretold; and yet they did not recognize him. -And according to this it says, <span style="font-weight: bold">there is one standing in your midst, </span>i.e., in the Sacred -Scriptures which you are always considering: “Search the Scriptures” (below 5:39); <span style="font-weight: bold">whom -you do not recognize, </span>because your heart is hardened by unbelief, and your eyes blinded, so -that you do not recognize as present the person you believe is to come.</p> -<p>247 Then John compares Christ to himself. First, he states the superiority of Christ as -compared to himself. Secondly, he shows the greatness of this superiority.</p> -<p>248 He shows the superiority of Christ in comparison to himself both in preaching and in -dignity. Now, as to the order of preaching, John was the first to become known. Thus he says, -the one who is to come after me, to preach, to baptize and to die; because as was said in Luke -(1:76): “You will go before the face of the Lord to prepare his way.” John preceded Christ as -the imperfect the perfect, and as the disposition the form; for as is said, “The spiritual is not -first, but the animal” (1 Cor 15:46). For the entire life of John was a preparation for Christ; so -he said above, that he was “a voice that cries in the wilderness.”</p> -<p>But Christ preceded John and all of us as the perfect precedes the imperfect and the exemplar -precedes the copy: “If any one wishes to come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his -cross, and follow me” (Mt 16:24); “Christ suffered for us, leaving you an example” (1 Pt -2:21).</p> -<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 -has been placed above me and is above me in dignity, because as he says (below 3:30), “he -must increase, and I must decrease.”</p> -<p>249 He touches on the greatness of his superiority when he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">the strap of whose sandal I -am not worthy to unfasten</span>. As if to say: You must not suppose that he ranks ahead of me in -dignity in the way that one man is placed ahead of another, rather he is ranked so far above -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 -strap of whose sandal I am not worthy to unfasten, </span>which is the least service that can be -done for men. It is clear from this that John had made great progress in the knowledge of -God, so far that from the consideration of God’s infinite greatness, he completely lowered -himself and said that he himself was nothing. So did Abraham, when he recognized God, and -said (Gn 18:27), “1 will speak to my Lord, although I am but dust and ashes.” And so also did -Job, saying, “Now I see you, and so I reprove myself, and do penance in dust and ashes” (Jb -42:5). Isaiah also said, after he had seen the glory of God, “Before him all the nations are as if -they are not” (Is 40:17). And this is the literal explanation.</p> -<p>250 This is also explained mystically. Gregory explains it so that the sandal, made from the -hides of dead animals, indicates our mortal human nature, which Christ assumed: “I will -stretch out my sandal to Edom” (Ps 59:10). The strap of Christ’s sandal is the union of his -divinity and humanity, which neither John nor anyone can unfasten or fully investigate, since -it is this which made God man and made man God. And so he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">the strap of whose -sandal I am not worthy to unfasten, </span>i.e., to explain the mystery of the incarnation perfectly -and fully. For John and other preachers unfasten the strap of Christ’s sandal in some way, -although imperfectly.</p> -<p>It is explained in another way by recalling that it was ordered in the Old Law that when a man -died without children, his brother was obligated to marry the wife of the dead man and raise -up children from her as his brother’s. And if he refused to marry her, then a close relative of -the dead man, if willing to marry her, was to remove the sandals of the dead man as a sign of -this willingness and marry her; and his home was then to be called the home of the man -whose sandals were removed (Dt 25:5). And so according to this he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">the strap of whose -sandal I am not worthy to unfasten, </span>i.e., I am not worthy to have the bride, that is, the -Church, to which Christ has a right. As if to say: I am not worthy to be called the bridegroom -of the Church, which is consecrated to Christ in the baptism of the Spirit; but I baptize only in -water. As it says below (3:29): “It is the groom who has the bride.”</p> -<p>251 The place where these events happened is mentioned when he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">This happened at -Bethany, on the far side of the Jordan. </span>A question arises on this: Since Bethany is on the -Mount of Olives, which is near Jerusalem, as is said in John (11:1 ) and also in Matthew -(26:6), how can he say that these things happened beyond the Jordan, which is quite far from -Jerusalem? Origen and Chrysostom answer that it should be called Bethabora, not Bethany, -which is a village on the far side of the Jordan; and that the reading “Bethany” is due to a -copyist’s error. However, since both the Greek and Latin versions have Bethany, one should -rather say that there are two places called Bethany: one is near Jerusalem on the side of the -Mount of Olives, and the other is on the far side of the Jordan where John was baptizing.</p> -<p>252 The fact that he mentions the place has both a literal and a mystical reason. The literal -reason, according to Chrysostom, is that John wrote this Gospel for certain ones, perhaps still -alive, who would recall the time and who saw the place where these things happened. And so, -to lead us to a greater certitude, he makes them witnesses of the things they had seen.</p> -<p>The mystical reason is that these places are appropriate for baptism. For in saying “Bethany,” -which is interpreted as “house of obedience,” he indicates that one must come to be baptized -through obedience to the faith. “To bring all the nations to have obedience to the faith” (Rom -1:5). But if the name of the place is “Bethabora,” which is interpreted as “house of -preparation,” it signifies that a man is prepared for eternal life through baptism.</p> -<p>There is also a mystery in the fact that this happened on the far side of the Jordan. For -“Jordan” is interpreted as “the descent of them”; and according to Origen it signifies Christ, -who descended from heaven, as he himself says that he descended from heaven to do the will -of his Father (below 6:38).</p> -<p>Further, the river Jordan aptly signifies baptism. For it is the border line between those who -received their inheritance from Moses on one side of the Jordan, and those who received it -from Josue on the other side. Thus baptism is a kind of border between Jews and Gentiles, -who journey to this place to wash themselves by coming to Christ so that they might put off -the debasement of sin. Forjust as the Jews had to cross the Jordan to enter the promised land, -so one must pass through baptism to enter into the heavenly land. And he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">on the far -side of the Jordan, </span>to show that John preached the baptism of repentance even to those who -trangressed the law and sinners; and so the Lord also says, “I did not come to call the -righteous, but sinners” (Mt 9:13).</p> -<p style="margin-bottom: 0.125in; margin-bottom: 0.125in"> </p> -<p style="text-align: center; margin-bottom: 0.125in"><span style="font-weight: bold">LECTURE14</span></p> -<BLOCKQUOTE><p>29 The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and he said, “Look! There is the Lamb of -God who takes away the sins of the world. 30 It is he of whom I said:</p> -<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> -31 And I did not know him! And yet it was to reveal him to Israel that I came baptizing with -water.” -<P>32 John gave this testimony also:</p> -<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. -33 And I did not know him, but he who sent me to baptize with water had said to me: -‘The man on whom you see the Spirit come down and rest is the one who is to baptize -with the Holy Spirit.’ 34 Now I have seen for myself and have given testimony that he -is the Son of God.”</p></BLOCKQUOTE> -<p>253 Above, John had given testimony to Christ when he was questioned. Here, he gives -testimony to him on his own initiative. First, he gives the testimony; secondly, he confirms it -(v 32). As to the first: first, the circumstances of the testimony are given; and secondly, the -testimony itself is given (v 29); thirdly, suspicion is removed from the witness (v 3 1).</p> -<p>254 The circumstances are first described as to the time. Hence he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">The next day. </span>This -gives credit to John for his steadfastness, because he bore witness to Christ not for just one -day or once, but on many days and frequently: “Every day I will bless you” (Ps 144:2). His -progress, too, is cited, because one day should not be just like the day before, but the -succeeding day should be different, i.e., better: “They will go from strength to strength” (Ps -83:8).</p> -<p>Another circumstance mentioned is his manner of testifying, because <span style="font-weight: bold">John saw Jesus. </span>This -shows his certitude, for testimony based on sight is most certain. The last circumstance he -mentions is about the one to whom he bore witness. Hence he says that he saw <span style="font-weight: bold">Jesus coming -toward him, </span>i.e., from Galilee, as it says, “Jesus came from Galilee” (Mt 3:13). We should -not understand this as referring to the time when he came to be baptized, of which Matthew is -here speaking, but of another time, i.e., a time when he came to John after he had already -been baptized and was staying near the Jordan. Otherwise, he Would not have said, “‘The -man on whom yoti see the Spirit come down and rest is the one who is to baptize with the I -loly Spirit.’ Now I have seen” (v 33). Therefore, he had already seen him and the Spirit come -down as a dove upon him.</p> -<p>255 One reason why Christ now came to John was to confirm the testimony of John. For John -had spoken of Christ as “the one who is to come after me” (v 27). But since Christ was now -present, some might not understand who it was that was to come. So Christ came to John to -be pointed out by him, with John saying, <span style="font-weight: bold">Look! There is the Lamb of God. </span>Another reason -Christ came was to correct an error. For some might believe that the first time Christ came, -i.e., to be baptized, he came to John to be cleansed from his sins. So, in order to preclude this, -Christ came to him even after his baptism. Accordingly, John clearly says, <span style="font-weight: bold">There is the -Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. </span>He committed no sin, but came to take -away sin. He also came to give us an example of humility, because as it is said, “The greater -you are the more humble you should be in all matters” (Sir 3:20).</p> -<p>Note that after the conception of Christ, when his mother, the Virgin, went in haste to the -mountainous country to visit John’s mother, Elizabeth, that John, still in his mother’s womb -and unable to speak, leaped in her womb as though performing a religious dance out of -reverence for Christ. And as then, so even now; for when Christ comes to John out of -humility, John offers his testimony and reverence and breaks out saying, <span style="font-weight: bold">Look! There is the -Lamb of God.</span></p> -<p>256 With these words John gives his testimony showing the power of Christ. Then Christ’s -dignity is shown (v 30). He shows the power of Christ in two ways: first, by means of a -symbol; secondly, by explaining it (v 29).</p> -<p>257 As to the first, we should note, as Origen says, that it was customary in the Old Law for -five animals to be offered in the temple: three land animals, namely, the heifer, goat and -sheep (although the sheep might be a ram, a sheep or a lamb) and two birds, namely, the -turtle-dove and the dove. All of these prefigured the true sacrifice, which is Christ, who “gave -himself for us as an offering to God,” as is said in Ephesians (5:2).</p> -<p>Why then did the Baptist, when giving witness to Christ, specifically call him a Lamb? The -reason for this is that, as stated in Numbers (28:3), although there were other sacrifices in the -temple at other times, yet each day there was a time in which a lamb was offered every -morning, and another was offered in the evening. This never varied, but was regarded as the -principal offering, and the other offerings were in the form of additions. And so the lamb, -which was the principal sacrifice, signified Christ, who is the principal sacrifice. For although -all the saints who suffered for the faith of Christ contribute something to the salvation of the -faithful, they do this only inasmuch its they are immolated upon the oblation of the Lamb, -they being, as it were, in oblation added to the principal sacrifice. The lamb is offered in the -morning and in the evening because it is through Christ that the way is opened to the -contemplation and enjoyment of the intelligible things of God, and this pertains to “morning -knowledge”; and we are instructed how to use earthly things without staining ourselves, and -this pertains to “evening knowledge.” And so he says, Look! <span style="font-weight: bold">There is the Lamb of God, </span>i.e., -the one signified by the lamb.</p> -<p>He says, of God, because there are two natures in Christ, a human nature and a divine nature. -And it is due to the power of the divinity that this sacrifice has the power to cleanse and -sanctify us from our sins, inasmuch as “God was, in Christ, reconciling the world to himself” -(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 -himself, who is God; just as we call what a man offers the offering of the man. Or, he is -called <span style="font-weight: bold">the Lamb of God, </span>that is, of the Father, because the Father provided man with an -oblation to offer that satisfied for sins, which man could not have through himself. So when -Isaac asked Abraham, “Where is the victim for the holocaust?” he answered, “God himself -will provide a victim for the holocaust” (Gn 22:7); “God did not spare his own Son, but -delivered him up for all of us” (Rom 8:32).</p> -<p>258 Christ is called a Lamb, first, because of his purity: “Your lamb will be without blemish” -(Ex 12:5); “You were not redeemed by perishable gold or silver” (1 Pt 1:18). Secondly, -because of his gentleness: “Like a lamb before the shearer, he will not open his mouth” (Is -53:7). Thirdly, because of his fruit; both with respect to what we put on: “Lambs will be your -clothing” (Prv 27:26), “Put on the Lord Jesus Christ” (Rom 13:14); and with respect to food: -“My flesh is for the life of the world” (below 6:52). And so Isaiah said (16:1 ): “Send forth, O -Lord, the lamb, the ruler of the earth.”</p> -<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 -used. In the law, sin could not be taken away either by a lamb or by any other sacrifice, -because as is said in Hebrews (10:4), “It is impossible that sins be taken away by the blood of -bulls and goats.” This blood takes away, i.e., removes, <span style="font-weight: bold">the sins of the world. </span>“Take away all -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, -</span>as is said, “He bore our sins in his own body” (1 Pt 2:24); “It was our infirmities that he bore, -our sufferings that he endured,” as we read in Isaiah (53:4).</p> -<p>However, according to a Gloss, he says sin, and not “sins,” in order to show in a universal -way that he has taken away every kind of sin: “He is the offering for our sins” (1 Jn 2:2); or -because he died for one sin, that is, original sin: “Sin entered into this world through one -man” (Rom 5:12).</p> -<p>260 Above, the Baptist bore witness to the power of Christ; now he bears witness to his -dignity, comparing Christ to himself in three respects. First, with respect to their office and -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, -</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 -after me.</p> -<p>Christ is called a man by reason of his perfect age, because when he began to teach, after his -baptism, he had already reached a perfect age: “Jesus was now about thirty years of age” (Lk -3:23). He is also called a man because of the perfection of all the virtues that were in him: -“Seven women,” i.e., the virtues, “will take hold of one man,” the perfect Christ (Is 4:1); -“Look, a man! His name is the Orient,” because he is the origin of all the virtues found in -others (Zec 6:12). He is also called a man because of his espousal, since he is the spouse of -the Church: “You will call me ‘my husband’” (Hos 2:16); “I espoused you to one husband” (2 -Cor 11:2).</p> -<p>261 Secondly, he compares himself to Christ with respect to dignity when he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">who -ranks ahead of me. </span>As if to say: Although he comes to preach after me, yet he ranks before -me in dignity. “See, he comes, leaping upon the mountains, skipping over the hills” (Sg 2:8). -One such hill was John the Baptist, who was passed over by Christ, because as is said below -(3:30), “He must increase, and I must decrease.”</p> -<p>262 Thirdly, he compares himself to Christ with respect to duration, saying, because he -existed before me. As if to say: It is not strange if he ranks ahead of me in dignity; because -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> -<p>This statement refutes a twofold error. First, that of Arius, for John does not say that “he was -made before me,” as though he were a creature, but he existed before me, from eternity, -before every creature: “The Lord brought me forth before all the hills,” as is said in Proverbs -(8:25). The second error refuted is that of Paul of Samosata: for John said, he existed before -me, in order to show that he did not take his beginning from Mary. For if he had taken the -beginning of his existence from the Virgin, he would not have existed before the precursor, -who, in the order of human generation, preceded Christ by six months.</p> -<p>263 Next (v 31), he precludes an erroneous conjecture from his testimony. For someone -might say that John bore witness to Christ because of his affection for him, coming from a -special friendship. And so, excluding this, John says, <span style="font-weight: bold">And I did not know him!; </span>for John had -lived in the desert from boyhood. And although many miracles happened during the birth of -Christ, such as the Magi and the star and so on, they were not known to John: both because he -was an infant at the time, and because, after withdrawing to the desert, he had no association -with Christ. In the interim between his birth and baptism, Christ did not perform any -miracles, but led a life similar to any other person, and his power remained unknown to all.</p> -<p>264 It is clear that he worked no miracles in the interim until he was thirty years old from -what is said below (2:11): “This beginning of signs Jesus worked in Cana of Galilee.” This -shows the error of the book, <i>The Infancy of the Savior. </i>The reason he performed no miracles -during this period was that if his life had not been like that of other infants, the mystery of the -circumcision and incarnation might have been regarded as pure fancy. Accordingly, he -postponed showing his knowledge and power to another time, corresponding to the age when -other men reach the fulness of their knowledge and power. About this we read, “And Jesus -increased in grace and wisdom” (Lk 2:52); not that he acquired a power and wisdom that he -previously lacked, for in this respect he was perfect from the instant of his conception, but -because his power and wisdom were becoming known to men: “Indeed, you are a hidden -God” (Is 45:15).</p> -<p>265 The reason why John did not know him was that he had so far seen no signs, and no one -else had known Christ through signs. Hence he adds: <span style="font-weight: bold">It was to reveal him to Israel that I -came baptizing with water. </span>As if to say: My entire ministry is to reveal: “He was not the -light, but he came in order to bear witness to the light,” as was said above (1:8).</p> -<p>266 He says, <span style="font-weight: bold">I came baptizing with water, </span>to distinguish his baptism from that of Christ. -For Christ baptized not just in water, but in the Spirit, conferring grace; and so the baptism of -John was merely a sign, and not causative.</p> -<p>John’s baptism made Christ known in three ways. First, by the preaching of John. For -although John could have prepared the way for the Lord and led the people to Christ without -baptizing, yet because of the novelty of the service many more came to him than would have -come if his preaching were done without baptism. Secondly, John’s baptism was useful -because of Christ’s humility, which he showed by willing to be baptized by John: “Christ -came to John, to be baptized by him” (Mt 3:13). This example of humility he gives us here is -that no one, however great, should disdain to receive the sacraments from any person -ordained for this purpose. Thirdly, because it was during Christ’s baptisin by John that the -power of the Father was present in the voice, and the Holy Spirit was present in the dove, by -which the powerand dignity of’Christ were all the more shown: “And the voice of the Father -was heard: ‘This is my beloved Son’” (Lk 3:22).</p> -<p>267 Then when he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">John gave this testimony also, </span>he confirms by the authority of God -the great things he testified to about Christ, that Christ alone would take away the sins of the -whole world. As to this he does three things. First, he presents a vision. Secondly, he tells us -the meaning of the vision (v 33). Thirdly, he shows what he learned from this vision (v 34).</p> -<p>268 He presents the vision when he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">I saw the Spirit coming down on him from -heaven. </span>When this actually happened John the Evangelist does not tell us, but Matthew and -Luke say that it took place when Christ was being baptized by John. And it was indeed fitting -for the Holy Spirit to be present at this baptism and to the person being baptized. It was -appropriate for the one baptized, for as the Son, existing by the Father, manifests the Father, -“Father, I have manifested your name” (below 17:6), so the Holy Spirit, existing by the Son, -manifests the Son, “He will glorify me, because he will receive from me” (below 16:14). It -was appropriate for this baptism because the baptism of Christ begins and consecrates our -baptism. Now our baptism is consecrated by invoking the whole Trinity: “Baptizing them in -the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” (Mt 28:19). Thus, the ones we -invoke in our baptism were present at the baptism of Christ: the Father in the voice, the Holy -Spirit in the dove, and the Son in his human nature.</p> -<p>269 He says, <span style="font-weight: bold">coming down, </span>because descent, since it has two termini, the start, which is from -above, and the end, which is below, suits baptism in both respects. For there is a twofold -spirit: one of the world and the other of God. The spirit of the world is the love of the world, -which is not from above; rather, it comes up to man from below and makes him descend. But -the spirit of God, i.e., the love of God, comes down to man from above and makes him -ascend: “We have not received the spirit of this world, but the spirit of God,” as is said in 1 -Corinthians (2:12). And so, because that spirit is from above, he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">coming down.</span></p> -<p>Similarly, because it is impossible for the creature to receive God’s goodness in the fulness in -which it is present in God, the communication of this goodness to us is in a way a certain -coming down: “Every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights” (Jas -1:17).</p> -<p>270 The Evangelist, in describing the manner of the vision and of the coming down, says that -the Holy Spirit did not appear in the spirit, i.e., in his nature, but in the form of a dove, saying, -that he came like a ove. The reason for this is that the Holy Spirit cannot be seen in his nature, -as is said, “The Spirit blows where it wills, and you hear its sound, but you do not know -where it comes from or where it goes” (below 3:8), and because a spirit does not come down -but goes up, “The spirit lifted me up” (Ez 8:3).</p> -<p>It was appropriate that the Son of God, who was made visible through flesh, should be made -known by the Holy Spirit in the visible form of a dove. However, the Holy Spirit did not -assume the dove into a unity of person, as the Son of God assumed human nature. The reason -for this is that the Son did not appear as a manifester but as a Savior. And so, according to -Pope Leo, it was appropriate that he be God and man: God, in order to provide a remedy; and -man, in order to offer an example. But the Holy Spirit appeared only to make known, and for -this it was sufficient merely to assume a visible form which was suitable for this purpose.</p> -<p>271 As to whether this dove was a real animal and whether it existed prior to its appearance, -it seems reasonable to say that it was a real dove. For the Holy Spirit came to manifest Christ, -who, being the Truth, ought to have been manifested only by the truth. As to the other part of -the question, it would seem that the dove did not exist prior to its appearance, but was formed -at the time by the divine power, without any parental union, as the body of Christ was -conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit, and not from a man’s seed. Yet it was a real dove, -for as Augustine says in his work, <i>The Christian Combat: </i>“It was not difficult for the -omnipotent God, who produced the entire universe of creatures from nothing, to form a real -body for the dove without the aid of other doves, just as it was not difficult to form the true -body of Christ in the womb of the Blessed Virgin without natural semen.”</p> -<p>Cyprian, in his <i>The Unity of the Church, </i>says: “It is said that the Holy Spirit appeared in the -form of a dove because the dove is a simple harmless animal, not bitter with gall, not savage -with its bites, not fierce with rending talons; it loves the dwellings of men, is able to live -together in one nest, together it raises its young, they remain together when they fly, spend -their life in mutual association, signify the concord of peace with the kiss of their bill, and -fulfill the law of harmony in all things.”</p> -<p>272 Many reasons are given why the Holy Spirit appeared as a dove rather than in some other -form. First, because of its simplicity, for the dove is simple: “Be wise as serpents, and simple -as doves” (Mt 10:16). And the Holy Spirit, because he inclines souls to gaze on one thing, -that is, God, makes them simple; and so he appeared in the form of a dove. Further, according -to Augustine, the Holy Spirit also appeared in the form of fire over the heads of the -assembled apostles. This was done because some are simple, but lukewarm; while others are -fervent but guileful. And so in order that those sanctified by the Spirit may have no guile, the -Spirit is shown in the form of a dove; and in order that their simplicity may not grow tepid, -the Spirit is shown in fire.</p> -<p>A dove was used, secondly, because of the unity of charity; for the dove is much aglow with -love: “One is my dove” (Sg 6:9). So, in order to show the unity of the Church, the Holy Spirit -appears in the form of a dove. Nor should it disturb you that when the Holy Spirit rested on -each of the disciples, there appeared separate tongues of fire; for although the Spirit appears -to be different according to the different functions of his gifts, he nevertheless unites us -through charity. And so, because of the first he appeared in separate tongues of fire, as is said, -“There are different kinds of gifts” (1 Cor 12:4); but he appears in the form of a dove because -of the second.</p> -<p>A dove was used, thirdly,because of its groaning, for the dove has a groaning chant; so also -the Holy Spirit “pleads for us with indescribable groanings” (Rom 8:26); “Her maidens, -groaning like doves” (Na 2:7). Fourthly, because of the doves fertility, for the dove is a very -prolific animal. And so in order to signify the fecundity of spiritual grace in the Church, the -Holy Spirit appeared in the form of a dove. This is why the Lord commanded an offering of -two doves (Lv 5:7).</p> -<p>A dove was used, fifthly, because of its cautiousness. For it rests upon watery brooks, and -gazing into them can see the hawk flying overhead and so save itself: “His eyes are like doves -beside brooks of water” (Sg 5:12). And so, because our refuge and defense is found in -baptism, the Holy Spirit appropriately appeared in the form of a dove.</p> -<p>The dove also corresponds to a figure in the Old Testament. For as the dove bearing the green -olive branch was a sign of God’s mercy to those who survived the waters of the deluge, so too -in baptism, the Holy Spirit, coming in the form of a dove, is a sign of the divine mercy which -takes away the sins of those baptized and confers grace.</p> -<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 -someone, it is due to two causes. One is sin. For all men except Christ are either suffering -from the wound of mortal sin, which banishes the Holy Spirit, or are darkened with the stain -of venial sin, which hinders some of the works of the Holy Spirit. But in Christ there was -neither mortal nor venial sin; so, the Holy Spirit in him was never disquieted, but was <span style="font-weight: bold">resting -on him.</span></p> -<p>The other reason concerns charismatic graces, for the other saints do not always possess their -power. For example, the power to work miracles is not always present in the saints, nor is the -spirit of prophecy always in the prophets. But Christ always possessed the power to -accomplish any work of the virtues and the graces. So to indicate this, he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">resting on -him. </span>Hence this was the characteristic sign for recognizing Christ, as the Gloss says. “The -Spirit of the Lord will rest on him” (Is 11:2), which we should understand of Christ as man, -according to which he is less than the Father and the Holy Spirit.</p> -<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 -understood. For certain heretics, as the Ebionites, said that Christ was neither the Christ nor -the Son of God from the time he was born, but only began to be the Son of God and the -Christ when he was anointed with the oil of the Holy Spirit at his baptism. But this is false, -because at the very hour of his birth the angel said to the shepherds: “This day a Savior has -been born for you in the city of David, Christ the Lord” (Lk 2:11). Therefore, so that we do -not believe that the Holy Spirit descended upon Christ in his baptism as though Christ needed -to receive the Spirit anew for his sanctification, the Baptist gives the reason for the Spirit’s -coming down. He says that the Spirit descended not for the benefit of Christ, but for our -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 -did not know him! And yet it was to reveal him to Israel that I came baptizing with +<p>217 Because this teacher knows God in a more special way than +other sons do, the Evangelist suggests this by his singular +excellence, saying, <span style="font-weight: bold">the Only +Begotten.</span> As if to say: He knows God more than other sons +do. Hence, because he is the natural Son, having the same nature +and knowledge as the Father, he is <span style= +"font-weight: bold">called the Only Begotten.</span> “The +Lord said to me: ‘You are my Son’” (Ps 2:7).</p> +<p>218 Although he may know in a unique way, he would be lacking +the ability to teach if he were not to know wholly. Hence he adds a +third point, namely, his consubstantiality to the 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 +referring to men in their garments, but it indicates the secret +things of the Father. For what we carry in our bosom we do in +secret. The secret things of the Father refer to his unsurpassed +power and knowledge, since the divine essence is infinite. +Therefore, in that bosom, i.e., in the most secret things of the +paternal nature and essence, which transcends all the power of the +creature, is <span style="font-weight: bold">the Only Begotten +Son;</span> and so he is consubstantial with the Father.</p> +<p>What the Evangelist signifies by “bosom,” David +expressed by “womb,” saying: “From the womb, +before the daystar,” i.e., from the inmost secret things of +my essence, incomprehensible to every created intellect, “I +begot you” (Ps 109:3), consubstantial with me, and of the +same nature and power, and virtue and knowledge. “What man +knows the things of a man except the spirit of the man that is in +him? So also, no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of +God” (1 Cor 2:11). Therefore, he comprehends the divine +essence, which is his own.</p> +<p>219 But the soul of Christ, which knows God, does not comprehend +him, because this is attributed only to the Only Begotten Son who +is in the bosom of the Father. So the Lord also says: “No one +knows the Father except the Son, and any to whom the Son wishes to +reveal him”(Mt 11:27); we should understand this as referring +to the knowledge of comprehension, about which the Evangelist seems +to be speaking here. For no one comprehends the divine essence +except the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. And so we have +shown the competence of the teacher.</p> +<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 those who say that the Father is invisible, +but the Son is visible, though he was not seen in the Old +Testament. For from the fact that he is among the hidden things of +the Father, it is plain that he is naturally invisible, as is the +Father. So it is said of him: “Truly, you are a hidden +God” (Is 45:15). And so Scripture mentions the +incomprehensibility of the Son: “No one knows the Son except +the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son” (Mt +11:27), “What is the name of his son, if you know?” as +we read in Proverbs (30:4)</p> +<p>221 Then the Evangelist indicates the way in which this teaching +is handed down, saying that it is the Only Begotten Son +<span style="font-weight: bold">who has made him known.</span> For +in the past, the Only Begotten Son revealed knowledge of God +through the prophets, who made him known to the extent that they +shared in the eternal Word. Hence they said things like, “The +Word of the Lord 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 who spoke; here I am” (Is 52:6); +“God, who in many and varied ways, spoke to the fathers in +past times through the prophets, has spoken to us in these days in +his Son” (Heb 1:1).</p> +<p>And this teaching surpasses all other teachings in dignity, +authority and usefulness, because it was handed on immediately by +the Only Begotten Son, who is the first Wisdom. “It was first +announced by the Lord, and confirmed to us by those who heard +him” (Heb 2:3).</p> +<p>222 But what did he make known except the one God? And even +Moses did this: “Hear, O Israel: the Lord your God is +one” (Dt 6:4). What did this add to Moses? It added the +mystery of the Trinity, and many other things that neither Moses +nor any of the prophets made known.</p> +<p style="margin-bottom: 0.125in; margin-bottom: 0.125in"> + </p> +<p style="text-align: center; margin-bottom: 0.125in"><span style= +"font-weight: bold">LECTURE12</span></p> +<blockquote> +<p>19 This is the testimony of John, when the Jews sent priests and +Levites from Jeru’salem to him, to ask him: “Who are +you?” 20 He declared openly, and did not deny, and stated +clearly, “I am not the Messiah.” 21 And they questioned +him, “Who then? Are you Elijah?” And he said, “I +am not.” “Are you the Prophet?” And he responded, +“No.” 22 They therefore said to him, “Who are +you? We must take back an answer to those who sent us. What have +you to say about yourself9" 23 He said, quoting the prophet Isaiah, +“I am 6 a voice that cries in the wilderness: Make a straight +way for the Lord’” [Is 40:3].</p> +</blockquote> +<p>223 Above, the Evangelist showed how Christ was made known to +the apostles through the testimony of John; here he develops this +testimony more fully. First, he presents John’s testimony to +the people. Secondly, the testimony he gave of Christ to his own +disciples (below 1:35). If we carefully consider what was said, we +discover a twofold testimony of John to Christ: one which he gave +to Christ in his presence, the other in his absence. For he would +not have said, “It is he” (below 1:30), unless he had +given testimony in Christ’s presence; and he would not have +said, “of whom I said,” unless he gave testimony to him +in his absence. So first, the Evangelist develops the testimony +John gave to Christ in his absence; secondly, that he gave in his +presence (v 29).</p> +<p>Now these two testimonies differ, because the first was given +when he was questioned; the other was spontaneous. So in the first +instance, we are given not only his testimony, but also the +questions. First, he was asked about himself; secondly, about his +office (v 24). First we are shown how John stated that he was not +what he really was not; secondly, that he did not deny what he +was.</p> +<p>224 As to the first, there are three questions and three +answers, as is plain from the text. In the first question there is +great respect for John shown by the Jews. They had sent certain +ones to him to ask about his testimony. The greatness of their +respect is gathered from four facts. First, from the dignity of +those who sent the questioners; for they were not sent by +Galileans, but by those who were first in rank among the people of +Israel, namely, Judeans, of the tribe of Juda, who lived about +Jerusalem. It was from Juda that God chose the princes of the +people.</p> +<p>Secondly, from the preeminence of the place, that is, from +Jerusalem, which is the city of the priesthood, the city dedicated +to divine worship: “You people claim that Jerusalem is the +place where men must worship God” (below 4:20); “They +will worship him with sacrifices and offerings” (Is 19:21). +Thirdly, from the authority of the messengers, who were religious +and from among the holier of the people, namely, priests and +Levites; “You will be called the priests of the Lord” +(Is 61:6).</p> +<p>Fourthly, from the fact that they sent them so that John might +bear witness to himself, indicating that they put such trust in his +words as to believe John even when giving testimony about himself. +Hence he says they were sent to ask him, Who are you? They did not +do this to Christ; in fact they said to him: “You are bearing +witness to yourself; your testimony is not true” (below +8:13).</p> +<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 Evangelist twice mentioned that John spoke forth to show +his humility; for although he was held in such high esteem among +the Jews that they believed he might be the Messiah, he, on his +part, usurped no honor what was not due him; <span style= +"font-weight: bold">indeed, he stated clearly, I am not the +Messiah.</span></p> +<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 deny, because he said that he was not the +Messiah. It must be answered that he did not deny the truth, for he +said he was not the Messiah; otherwise he would have denied the +truth. “A very great iniquity, and a denial of the most high +God” (Jb 31:28). Thus he did not deny the truth, because +however great he might have been considered, he did not become +proud, usurping for himself the honor of another. He stated +clearly, <span style="font-weight: bold">I am not the +Messiah;</span> because in truth he was not. “He was not the +light,” as was said above (1:8).</p> +<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 +if he was the Messiah, but who he himself was? I answer that John +directed his answer more to the mind of the questioners than to +their question. And we can understand this in two ways. According +to Origen, the priests and Levites came to John with a good +intention. For they knew from the Scriptures, and particularly from +the prophecy of Daniel, that the time for the coming of the Messiah +had arrived. So, seeing John’s holiness, they suspected that +he might be the Messiah. So they sent to John, wishing to learn by +their question, <span style="font-weight: bold">Who are you?</span> +whether John would admit that he was the Messiah. And so he directs +his answer to their thoughts: <span style="font-weight: bold">I am +not the Messiah.</span></p> +<p>Chrysostom, however, says that they questioned him as a +stratagem. For John was related to priests, being the son of a +chief priest, and he was holy. Yet, he bore witness to Christ, +whose family seemed lowly; for that reason they even said, +“Is not this the son of the carpenter?”; and they did +not know him. So, preferring to have John as their master, not +Christ, they sent to him, intending to entice him by flattery and +persuade him to take this honor for himself, and to state that he +was the Messiah. But John, seeing their evil intent, said, +<span style="font-weight: bold">I am not the Messiah.</span></p> +<p>228 The second question is stated when they ask him, +<span style="font-weight: bold">Who then? Are you Elijah?</span> +Here we should note that just as the Jews awaited the Lord who was +to come, so to they waited for Elijah, who would precede the +Messiah: “I will send you Elijah, the prophet” (Mal +4:5). And so those who were sent, seeing that John did not say that +he was the Messiah, pressed him 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> +<p>229 There are certain heretics who say that souls migrate from +one body to another. And this belief was current among the Jews of +that time. For this reason they believed that the soul of Elijah +was in John’s body, because of the similarity of John’s +actions to those of Elijah. And they say that these messengers +asked John whether he was Elijah, i.e., whether the soul of Elijah +was in John. They support this with Christ’s statement, +“He is Elijah who is to come,” as is found in Matthew +(11:14). But John’s answer conflicts with their opinion, as +he says, I am not. i.e., Elijah.</p> +<p>They counter this by saying that John answered in ignorance, not +knowing whether his soul was the soul of Elijah. But Origen says in +answer to this that it seems most unreasonable that John, a prophet +enlightened by the Spirit, and telling such things about the Only +Begotten Son of God, should be ignorant of himself, and not know +whether his soul had been in Elijah.</p> +<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 took it from Scripture (2 Kings 2:11) that Elijah did not die, +but had been carried alive by a whirlwind into heaven. Accordingly, +they believed that he had suddenly appeared among them.</p> +<p>But against this opinion is the fact that John was born from +parents who were known, and his birth had been known to everyone. +So it says in Luke (1:66) that all said, “What do you think +this child will be?” One might say to this that it is not +incredible that they should regard John in the manner described. +For a similar situation in found in Matthew (14:1): for Herod +thought that Christ was John, whom he had beheaded, even though +Christ had been preaching and was known for some time before John +had been beheaded. And so from a similar stupidity and madness the +Jews asked John whether he was Elijah.</p> +<p>231 Why does John say, I am not Elijah, while Christ said, +“He is Elijah” (Mt 11:14). The angel gives us the +answer: “He will go before him in the spirit and power of +Elijah” (Lk 1:17), i.e., in his works. Thus he was not Elijah +in person, but in spirit and power, i.e., because he showed a +similarity to Elijah in his works.</p> +<p>232 This likeness can be found in three matters. First, in their +office: because as Elijah will precede the second coming of Christ, +so John preceded the first. Thus the angel said, “He will go +before him.” Secondly, in their manner of living. For Elijah +lived in desert places, ate little food and wore coarse clothing, +as recorded in 1 and 2 Kings. John, also, lived in the desert, his +food was locusts and wild honey, and he wore clothing of +camel’s hair. Thirdly, in their zeal. For Elijah was filled +with zeal; thus it was said, “I have been very zealous for +the Lord” (1 Kgs 19:10). So, also, John died because of his +zeal for the truth, as is clear from Matthew (14:6)</p> +<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 difficulty, for since it is said in Luke (1:76), “And you, +child, shall be called the prophet of the Most High,” why +does John, when asked if he is a prophet, answer that he is not a +prophet?</p> +<p>There are three ways of answering this. One is that John is not +just a prophet, but more than a prophet. For the other prophets +only predicted future things from afar: “if there is a delay, +wait for it” (Hb 2:2).. But John proclaimed that the Messiah +was present, pointing him out with his finger: “Look, there +is the Lamb of God,” as it says below (1:36). And so the Lord +says that he is more than a prophet (Mt 11:9).</p> +<p>Again, in another way, according to Origen, because through a +misunderstanding the Jews associated three great personages with +the coming of Christ: Christ himself, Elijah, and some other +person, the greatest of the prophets, about whom Deuteronomy +(18:15) says: “The Lord your God will raise up a prophet for +you.” And although this greatest of the prophets is in fact +none other than Christ, according to the Jews he is someone other +than Christ. And so they do not ask simply whether he is a prophet, +but whether he is that “greatest of the prophets.” And +this is clear from the order of their questions. For they first ask +whether he is the Messiah; secondly, whether he is Elijah; thirdly, +whether he is that prophet. Accordingly, in Greek, the article is +used here as signifying <i>the</i> prophet, as it were, +antonomastically.</p> +<p>In a third way, because the Pharisees were indignant at John for +assuming the office of baptizing outside the order of the law and +their tradition. For the Old Testament mentions three persons to +whom this office could belong. First, to the Messiah, since +“I will pour clean water upon you, and you will be +cleansed” (Ez 36:25), are words considered as spoken by the +person of the Messiah. Secondly, to Elijah, of whom it says in 2 +Kings that he divided the water of the Jordan, and crossing over, +was taken up. Finally, to Elisha, who made Naaman the Syrian wash +seven times in the Jordan so as to be cured of leprosy, as +mentioned in 2 Kings (c 5). And so when the Jews saw that John was +baptizing, they believed that he was one of those three: the +Messiah, or Elijah, or Elisha. Accordingly, when they ask here, +<span style="font-weight: bold">Are you the Prophet?</span> they +are asking whether he is Elisha, who is called +“prophet” in a special way because of the many miracles +he had performed; hence he himself says, “Let him come to me, +so that he may know that there is a prophet in Israel” (2 Kgs +5:8). And to this John answers, No, I am not Elisha.</p> +<p>234 Then he shows how he declared who he was. First, the +question of the messengers is given; secondly, his answer (v +23).</p> +<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 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> +<p>Notice John’s devotion. He has already fulfilled what the +Apostle says, “It is not I who now live, but Christ lives in +me” (Gal 2:20). And so he does not answer, “I am the +son of Zachary,” or this or that, but only the way in which +he followed Christ.</p> +<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 +because from the point of view of origin, a voice comes after the +[mental, interior] word, but before the knowledge it causes. For we +know a [mental, interior] word conceived in the heart by means of +the voice which speaks it, since it is its sign. But God the Father +sent the precursor John, who came to be in time, in order to make +known his Word, which was conceived from eternity. And so he +fittingly says, <span style="font-weight: bold">I am a +voice.</span></p> +<p>237 The addition, <span style="font-weight: bold">that +cries,</span> can be understood in two ways: as referring to John, +crying and preaching in the wilderness; or to Christ crying in him, +according to, “Do you want proof that Christ is speaking in +me” (2 Cor 13:3).</p> +<p>Now he cries for four reasons. First of all, a cry implies a +showing; and so he cries in order to show that Christ is clearly +speaking in John and in himself: “Now on the last, the great +day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried out, saying, ‘If any +one thirsts, let him come to me and drink’” (below +7:37). But he did not cry out in the prophets because prophecies +were given in enigmas and figures; so it is said that he was +“wrapped in dark rain-clouds” (Ps 17:12). Secondly, +because a cry is made to those who are at a distance; and the Jews +were far from God. Thus it was necessary that he cry: “You +have taken my friends and neighbors away from me” (Ps 88:19). +He cries, in the third place, because they were deaf: “Who is +deaf, but my servant?” (Is 42:19). He cries, fourthly, +because he speaks with indignation, for they deserved God’s +wrath: “He will speak to them in his anger” (Ps +2:5).</p> +<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 son of Zechariah, in the desert,” as we read in +Luke (3:2). There can be both a literal and a mystical reason for +this. The literal reason is that by living in the desert he would +be immune from all sin, and so be more worthy to bear witness to +Christ, and his testimony would be more credible to men because of +his life.</p> +<p>The mystical reason is twofold. For the wilderness or desert +designates paganism, according to Isaiah (54:1); “She who is +deserted has more children than she who has a husband.” +Accordingly, in order to show that God’s teaching would from +now on not be in Jerusalem alone, but also among the pagans, he +cried <span style="font-weight: bold">in the wilderness.</span> +“The kingdom of God will be taken away from you, and given to +a people that will produce its fruits” (Mt 21:43). Again, the +desert can indicate Judea, which was already deserted: “Your +house will be left to You, 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 indicate that the people to +whom he was preaching had already been deserted by God: “in a +desert land, where there is no way or water, so I have come to your +sanctuary” (Ps 62:3).</p> +<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 he was sent. “And you, child, will be called the +prophet of the Most High, for you will go before the face of the +Lord to prepare his way” (Lk 1:76). The way, prepared and +straight, for receiving the Lord is the way of justice, according +to Isaiah (26:7): “The way of the just is straight.” +For the way of the just is straight when the whole man is subject +to God, i.e., the intellect through faith, the will through love, +and actions through obedience, are all subject to God.</p> +<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 whom these things are fulfilled.</p> +<p style="margin-bottom: 0.125in; margin-bottom: 0.125in"> + </p> +<p style="text-align: center; margin-bottom: 0.125in"><span style= +"font-weight: bold">LECTURE13</span></p> +<blockquote> +<p>24 Now these men had been sent from the Pharisees, 25 and they +put this further question to him: “Why then do you baptize, +if you are not the Messiah, nor Elijah, nor the Prophet?” 26 +John replied, “I baptize with water. But there is one +standing in your midst whom you do not recognize—27 the one +who is to come after me, who ranks ahead of me—the strap of +whose sandal I am not worthy to unfasten.” 28 This happened +at Bethany, on the far side of the Jordan, where John was +baptizing.</p> +</blockquote> +<p>240 Above, we saw John bear witness to Christ as he was being +questioned on matters concerning himself; here, on matters +concerning his office. Four things are set forth: first, those who +question him; secondly, their questions; thirdly, his answer, in +which he bore witness; and fourthly, the place where all this +happened.</p> +<p>241 His interrogators were Pharisees. Hence he says, +<span style="font-weight: bold">Now these men had been sent from +the Pharisees.</span> According to Origen, what is being said from +this point on describes a different testimony given by John; and +further, those who were sent from the Pharisees are not the same as +those priests and Levites sent by the generality of the Jews, but +others who were specifically sent by the Pharisees. And according +to this it says: <span style="font-weight: bold">Now these men had +been sent,</span> not by the Jews, as the priests and Levites had +been, but were others, <span style="font-weight: bold">from the +Pharisees.</span> So he says about this that because the priests +and Levites were educated and respectful, they ask John humbly and +respectfully whether he is the Messiah, or Elijah, or the Prophet. +But these others, who were from the Pharisees, according to their +name “separated” and importunate, used disdainful +language. Thus they asked him, <span style="font-weight: bold">Why +then do you baptize, if you are not the Messiah, nor Elijah, nor +the Prophet?</span></p> +<p>But according to others, such as Gregory, Chrysostom, and +Augustine, these Pharisees are the same priests and Levites who had +been sent by the Jews. For there was among the Jews a certain sect +which was separated from the others by reason of its external cult; +and for this reason its members were called Pharisees, i.e., +“divided.” In this sect there were some priests and +Levites, and some of the people. And so, in order that the +delegates [to John] might possess a greater authority, they sent +priests and Levites, who were Pharisees, thus furnishing them with +the dignity of a priestly caste and with religious authority.</p> +<p>242 The Evangelist adds, <span style="font-weight: bold">these +men had been sent from the Pharisees,</span> to disclose, first, +the reason why they asked about John’s baptizing, which was +not why they were sent. It is as though he were saying: They were +sent to ask John who he was. But they asked, <span style= +"font-weight: bold">Why do you baptize?</span> because they were +from the Pharisees, whose religion was being challenged. Secondly, +as Gregory says, in order to show with what intention they asked +John, “Who are you?” (1:19). For the Pharisees, more +than all the others, showed themselves crafty and insulting to +Christ. Thus they said of him: “He casts out devils by +Beelzebub, the prince of devils” (Mt 12:24). Further, they +consulted with the Herodians on how to trap Jesus in his speech (Mt +22:15). And so in saying that <span style="font-weight: bold">these +men had been sent from the Pharisees,</span> he shows that they +were disrespectful and were questioning him out of envy.</p> +<p>243 Their questions concerned his office of baptizing. Hence he +says that they asked him, <span style="font-weight: bold">Why then +do you baptize?</span> Here we should note that they are asking not +to learn, but to obstruct. For since they saw many people coming to +John because of the new rite of baptism, foreign both to the rite +of the Pharisees and of the law, they became envious of John and +tried all they could to hinder his baptism. But being unable to +contain themselves any longer, they reveal their envy and say, +<span style="font-weight: bold">Why then do you baptize if you are +not the Messiah, nor Elijah, nor the Prophet?</span> As if to say: +You should not baptize, since you deny that you are any of those +three persons in whom baptism was prefigured, as was said above. In +other words, <span style="font-weight: bold">if you are not the +Messiah,</span> who will possess the fountain by which sins are +washed away, <span style="font-weight: bold">nor Elijah, nor the +Prophet,</span> i.e., Elisha, who made a dry passageway through the +Jordan (2 Kgs 2:8), how do you dare baptize’? They are like +envious persons who hinder the progress of souls, “who say to +the seers, ‘See no visions’” (Is 30:10).</p> +<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: You should not be disturbed, if I, who am not the Messiah, +nor Elijah, nor the Prophet, baptize; because my baptism is not +completive but imperfect. For the perfection of baptism requires +the washing of the body and of the soul; and the body, by its +nature, is indeed washed 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 body with something bodily; but +another will come who will baptize perfectly, namely, with water +and with the Holy Spirit; God and man, who will wash the body with +water and the spirit with the Spirit, in such a way that the +sanctification of the spirit will be distributed throughout the +body. “For John indeed baptized with water but you will be +baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now” (Acts +1:5).</p> +<p>245 Then he bears witness to Christ. First, in relation to the +Jews. Secondly, in relation to himself (v 27).</p> +<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 to say: I have done an incomplete work, but there is another +who will complete my work, and he is <span style= +"font-weight: bold">standing in your midst.</span></p> +<p>This is explained in a number of ways. First, according to +Gregory, Chrysostom and Augustine, it refers to the ordinary way +Christ lived among men, because according to his human nature he +appeared to be like other men: “He, being in the form of God +... emptied himself, taking the form of a servant” (Phil +2:6). And according to this he says, <span style= +"font-weight: bold">there is one standing in your midst,</span> +i.e., in many ways he lived as one of you: “I am in your +midst” (Lk 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. Likewise, you do not recognize how great he is +according to the divine nature which is concealed in him: +“God is great, and exceeds our knowledge” (Jb 36:26). +And so, as Augustine says, “The lantern was lighted,” +namely, John, “so that Christ might be found.” “I +have prepared a lamp for my anointed” (Ps 131:17).</p> +<p>It is explained differently by Origen; and in two ways. First, +as referring to the divinity of 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 the midst of all things; because he, as +Word, has filled all from the beginning of creation: “I fill +heaven and earth” (Jer 23:24). <span style= +"font-weight: bold">Whom you do not recognize,</span> because, as +was said above (1:10), “He was in the world ... and the world +did not know him.”</p> +<p>It is explained another way as referring to his causality of +human wisdom. <span style="font-weight: bold">But there is one +standing in your midst,</span> i.e., he shines in everyone’s +understanding; because whatever light and whatever wisdom exists in +men has come to them from participating in the Word. And he 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 certain wisdom and understanding; hence, although the +intellect has no bodily organ, yet because the heart is our chief +organ, it is the custom to take it for the intellect. So he is said +to stand among men because of this likeness, insofar as he +“enlightens every man coming into this world” (1:9). +<span style="font-weight: bold">Whom you do not recognize,</span> +because, as was said above (1:5), “The light shines in the +darkness, and the darkness did not overcome it.”</p> +<p>In a fourth way, it is explained as referring to the prophetic +foretelling of the Messiah. In this sense the answer is directed +chiefly to the Pharisees, who continually searched the writings of +the Old Testament in which the Messiah was foretold; and yet they +did not recognize him. And according to this it says, <span style= +"font-weight: bold">there is one standing in your midst,</span> +i.e., in the Sacred Scriptures which you are always considering: +“Search the Scriptures” (below 5:39); <span style= +"font-weight: bold">whom you do not recognize,</span> because your +heart is hardened by unbelief, and your eyes blinded, so that you +do not recognize as present the person you believe is to come.</p> +<p>247 Then John compares Christ to himself. First, he states the +superiority of Christ as compared to himself. Secondly, he shows +the greatness of this superiority.</p> +<p>248 He shows the superiority of Christ in comparison to himself +both in preaching and in dignity. Now, as to the order of +preaching, John was the first to become known. Thus he says, the +one who is to come after me, to preach, to baptize and to die; +because as was said in Luke (1:76): “You will go before the +face of the Lord to prepare his way.” John preceded Christ as +the imperfect the perfect, and as the disposition the form; for as +is said, “The spiritual is not first, but the animal” +(1 Cor 15:46). For the entire life of John was a preparation for +Christ; so he said above, that he was “a voice that cries in +the wilderness.”</p> +<p>But Christ preceded John and all of us as the perfect precedes +the imperfect and the exemplar precedes the copy: “If any one +wishes to come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his +cross, and follow me” (Mt 16:24); “Christ suffered for +us, leaving you an example” (1 Pt 2:21).</p> +<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 has been placed above me and is above me in dignity, because as +he says (below 3:30), “he must increase, and I must +decrease.”</p> +<p>249 He touches on the greatness of his superiority when he says, +<span style="font-weight: bold">the strap of whose sandal I am not +worthy to unfasten</span>. As if to say: You must not suppose that +he ranks ahead of me in dignity in the way that one man is placed +ahead of another, rather he is ranked so far above 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 strap of whose sandal +I am not worthy to unfasten,</span> which is the least service that +can be done for men. It is clear from this that John had made great +progress in the knowledge of God, so far that from the +consideration of God’s infinite greatness, he completely +lowered himself and said that he himself was nothing. So did +Abraham, when he recognized God, and said (Gn 18:27), “1 will +speak to my Lord, although I am but dust and ashes.” And so +also did Job, saying, “Now I see you, and so I reprove +myself, and do penance in dust and ashes” (Jb 42:5). Isaiah +also said, after he had seen the glory of God, “Before him +all the nations are as if they are not” (Is 40:17). And this +is the literal explanation.</p> +<p>250 This is also explained mystically. Gregory explains it so +that the sandal, made from the hides of dead animals, indicates our +mortal human nature, which Christ assumed: “I will stretch +out my sandal to Edom” (Ps 59:10). The strap of +Christ’s sandal is the union of his divinity and humanity, +which neither John nor anyone can unfasten or fully investigate, +since it is this which made God man and made man God. And so he +says, <span style="font-weight: bold">the strap of whose sandal I +am not worthy to unfasten,</span> i.e., to explain the mystery of +the incarnation perfectly and fully. For John and other preachers +unfasten the strap of Christ’s sandal in some way, although +imperfectly.</p> +<p>It is explained in another way by recalling that it was ordered +in the Old Law that when a man died without children, his brother +was obligated to marry the wife of the dead man and raise up +children from her as his brother’s. And if he refused to +marry her, then a close relative of the dead man, if willing to +marry her, was to remove the sandals of the dead man as a sign of +this willingness and marry her; and his home was then to be called +the home of the man whose sandals were removed (Dt 25:5). And so +according to this he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">the +strap of whose sandal I am not worthy to unfasten,</span> i.e., I +am not worthy to have the bride, that is, the Church, to which +Christ has a right. As if to say: I am not worthy to be called the +bridegroom of the Church, which is consecrated to Christ in the +baptism of the Spirit; but I baptize only in water. As it says +below (3:29): “It is the groom who has the bride.”</p> +<p>251 The place where these events happened is mentioned when he +says, <span style="font-weight: bold">This happened at Bethany, on +the far side of the Jordan.</span> A question arises on this: Since +Bethany is on the Mount of Olives, which is near Jerusalem, as is +said in John (11:1 ) and also in Matthew (26:6), how can he say +that these things happened beyond the Jordan, which is quite far +from Jerusalem? Origen and Chrysostom answer that it should be +called Bethabora, not Bethany, which is a village on the far side +of the Jordan; and that the reading “Bethany” is due to +a copyist’s error. However, since both the Greek and Latin +versions have Bethany, one should rather say that there are two +places called Bethany: one is near Jerusalem on the side of the +Mount of Olives, and the other is on the far side of the Jordan +where John was baptizing.</p> +<p>252 The fact that he mentions the place has both a literal and a +mystical reason. The literal reason, according to Chrysostom, is +that John wrote this Gospel for certain ones, perhaps still alive, +who would recall the time and who saw the place where these things +happened. And so, to lead us to a greater certitude, he makes them +witnesses of the things they had seen.</p> +<p>The mystical reason is that these places are appropriate for +baptism. For in saying “Bethany,” which is interpreted +as “house of obedience,” he indicates that one must +come to be baptized through obedience to the faith. “To bring +all the nations to have obedience to the faith” (Rom 1:5). +But if the name of the place is “Bethabora,” which is +interpreted as “house of preparation,” it signifies +that a man is prepared for eternal life through baptism.</p> +<p>There is also a mystery in the fact that this happened on the +far side of the Jordan. For “Jordan” is interpreted as +“the descent of them”; and according to Origen it +signifies Christ, who descended from heaven, as he himself says +that he descended from heaven to do the will of his Father (below +6:38).</p> +<p>Further, the river Jordan aptly signifies baptism. For it is the +border line between those who received their inheritance from Moses +on one side of the Jordan, and those who received it from Josue on +the other side. Thus baptism is a kind of border between Jews and +Gentiles, who journey to this place to wash themselves by coming to +Christ so that they might put off the debasement of sin. Forjust as +the Jews had to cross the Jordan to enter the promised land, so one +must pass through baptism to enter into the heavenly land. And he +says, <span style="font-weight: bold">on the far side of the +Jordan,</span> to show that John preached the baptism of repentance +even to those who trangressed the law and sinners; and so the Lord +also says, “I did not come to call the righteous, but +sinners” (Mt 9:13).</p> +<p style="margin-bottom: 0.125in; margin-bottom: 0.125in"> + </p> +<p style="text-align: center; margin-bottom: 0.125in"><span style= +"font-weight: bold">LECTURE14</span></p> +<blockquote> +<p>29 The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and he said, +“Look! There is the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of +the world. 30 It is he of whom I said:</p> +<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 /> +31 And I did not know him! And yet it was to reveal him to Israel +that I came baptizing with water.”</p> +<p>32 John gave this testimony also:</p> +<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. 33 And I did not know him, but he who sent me +to baptize with water had said to me: ‘The man on whom you +see the Spirit come down and rest is the one who is to baptize with +the Holy Spirit.’ 34 Now I have seen for myself and have +given testimony that he is the Son of God.”</p> +</blockquote> +<p>253 Above, John had given testimony to Christ when he was +questioned. Here, he gives testimony to him on his own initiative. +First, he gives the testimony; secondly, he confirms it (v 32). As +to the first: first, the circumstances of the testimony are given; +and secondly, the testimony itself is given (v 29); thirdly, +suspicion is removed from the witness (v 3 1).</p> +<p>254 The circumstances are first described as to the time. Hence +he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">The next day.</span> This +gives credit to John for his steadfastness, because he bore witness +to Christ not for just one day or once, but on many days and +frequently: “Every day I will bless you” (Ps 144:2). +His progress, too, is cited, because one day should not be just +like the day before, but the succeeding day should be different, +i.e., better: “They will go from strength to strength” +(Ps 83:8).</p> +<p>Another circumstance mentioned is his manner of testifying, +because <span style="font-weight: bold">John saw Jesus.</span> This +shows his certitude, for testimony based on sight is most certain. +The last circumstance he mentions is about the one to whom he bore +witness. Hence he says that he saw <span style= +"font-weight: bold">Jesus coming toward him,</span> i.e., from +Galilee, as it says, “Jesus came from Galilee” (Mt +3:13). We should not understand this as referring to the time when +he came to be baptized, of which Matthew is here speaking, but of +another time, i.e., a time when he came to John after he had +already been baptized and was staying near the Jordan. Otherwise, +he Would not have said, “‘The man on whom yoti see the +Spirit come down and rest is the one who is to baptize with the I +loly Spirit.’ Now I have seen” (v 33). Therefore, he +had already seen him and the Spirit come down as a dove upon +him.</p> +<p>255 One reason why Christ now came to John was to confirm the +testimony of John. For John had spoken of Christ as “the one +who is to come after me” (v 27). But since Christ was now +present, some might not understand who it was that was to come. So +Christ came to John to be pointed out by him, with John saying, +<span style="font-weight: bold">Look! There is the Lamb of +God.</span> Another reason Christ came was to correct an error. For +some might believe that the first time Christ came, i.e., to be +baptized, he came to John to be cleansed from his sins. So, in +order to preclude this, Christ came to him even after his baptism. +Accordingly, John clearly says, <span style= +"font-weight: bold">There is the Lamb of God who takes away the +sins of the world.</span> He committed no sin, but came to take +away sin. He also came to give us an example of humility, because +as it is said, “The greater you are the more humble you +should be in all matters” (Sir 3:20).</p> +<p>Note that after the conception of Christ, when his mother, the +Virgin, went in haste to the mountainous country to visit +John’s mother, Elizabeth, that John, still in his +mother’s womb and unable to speak, leaped in her womb as +though performing a religious dance out of reverence for Christ. +And as then, so even now; for when Christ comes to John out of +humility, John offers his testimony and reverence and breaks out +saying, <span style="font-weight: bold">Look! There is the Lamb of +God.</span></p> +<p>256 With these words John gives his testimony showing the power +of Christ. Then Christ’s dignity is shown (v 30). He shows +the power of Christ in two ways: first, by means of a symbol; +secondly, by explaining it (v 29).</p> +<p>257 As to the first, we should note, as Origen says, that it was +customary in the Old Law for five animals to be offered in the +temple: three land animals, namely, the heifer, goat and sheep +(although the sheep might be a ram, a sheep or a lamb) and two +birds, namely, the turtle-dove and the dove. All of these +prefigured the true sacrifice, which is Christ, who “gave +himself for us as an offering to God,” as is said in +Ephesians (5:2).</p> +<p>Why then did the Baptist, when giving witness to Christ, +specifically call him a Lamb? The reason for this is that, as +stated in Numbers (28:3), although there were other sacrifices in +the temple at other times, yet each day there was a time in which a +lamb was offered every morning, and another was offered in the +evening. This never varied, but was regarded as the principal +offering, and the other offerings were in the form of additions. +And so the lamb, which was the principal sacrifice, signified +Christ, who is the principal sacrifice. For although all the saints +who suffered for the faith of Christ contribute something to the +salvation of the faithful, they do this only inasmuch its they are +immolated upon the oblation of the Lamb, they being, as it were, in +oblation added to the principal sacrifice. The lamb is offered in +the morning and in the evening because it is through Christ that +the way is opened to the contemplation and enjoyment of the +intelligible things of God, and this pertains to “morning +knowledge”; and we are instructed how to use earthly things +without staining ourselves, and this pertains to “evening +knowledge.” And so he says, Look! <span style= +"font-weight: bold">There is the Lamb of God,</span> i.e., the one +signified by the lamb.</p> +<p>He says, of God, because there are two natures in Christ, a +human nature and a divine nature. And it is due to the power of the +divinity that this sacrifice has the power to cleanse and sanctify +us from our sins, inasmuch as “God was, in Christ, +reconciling the world to himself” (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 himself, who is God; just +as we call what a man offers the offering of the man. Or, he is +called <span style="font-weight: bold">the Lamb of God,</span> that +is, of the Father, because the Father provided man with an oblation +to offer that satisfied for sins, which man could not have through +himself. So when Isaac asked Abraham, “Where is the victim +for the holocaust?” he answered, “God himself will +provide a victim for the holocaust” (Gn 22:7); “God did +not spare his own Son, but delivered him up for all of us” +(Rom 8:32).</p> +<p>258 Christ is called a Lamb, first, because of his purity: +“Your lamb will be without blemish” (Ex 12:5); +“You were not redeemed by perishable gold or silver” (1 +Pt 1:18). Secondly, because of his gentleness: “Like a lamb +before the shearer, he will not open his mouth” (Is 53:7). +Thirdly, because of his fruit; both with respect to what we put on: +“Lambs will be your clothing” (Prv 27:26), “Put +on the Lord Jesus Christ” (Rom 13:14); and with respect to +food: “My flesh is for the life of the world” (below +6:52). And so Isaiah said (16:1 ): “Send forth, O Lord, the +lamb, the ruler of the earth.”</p> +<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 used. +In the law, sin could not be taken away either by a lamb or by any +other sacrifice, because as is said in Hebrews (10:4), “It is +impossible that sins be taken away by the blood of bulls and +goats.” This blood takes away, i.e., removes, <span style= +"font-weight: bold">the sins of the world.</span> “Take away +all 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,</span> +as is said, “He bore our sins in his own body” (1 Pt +2:24); “It was our infirmities that he bore, our sufferings +that he endured,” as we read in Isaiah (53:4).</p> +<p>However, according to a Gloss, he says sin, and not +“sins,” in order to show in a universal way that he has +taken away every kind of sin: “He is the offering for our +sins” (1 Jn 2:2); or because he died for one sin, that is, +original sin: “Sin entered into this world through one +man” (Rom 5:12).</p> +<p>260 Above, the Baptist bore witness to the power of Christ; now +he bears witness to his dignity, comparing Christ to himself in +three respects. First, with respect to their office and 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,</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 after +me.</p> +<p>Christ is called a man by reason of his perfect age, because +when he began to teach, after his baptism, he had already reached a +perfect age: “Jesus was now about thirty years of age” +(Lk 3:23). He is also called a man because of the perfection of all +the virtues that were in him: “Seven women,” i.e., the +virtues, “will take hold of one man,” the perfect +Christ (Is 4:1); “Look, a man! His name is the Orient,” +because he is the origin of all the virtues found in others (Zec +6:12). He is also called a man because of his espousal, since he is +the spouse of the Church: “You will call me ‘my +husband’” (Hos 2:16); “I espoused you to one +husband” (2 Cor 11:2).</p> +<p>261 Secondly, he compares himself to Christ with respect to +dignity when he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">who ranks +ahead of me.</span> As if to say: Although he comes to preach after +me, yet he ranks before me in dignity. “See, he comes, +leaping upon the mountains, skipping over the hills” (Sg +2:8). One such hill was John the Baptist, who was passed over by +Christ, because as is said below (3:30), “He must increase, +and I must decrease.”</p> +<p>262 Thirdly, he compares himself to Christ with respect to +duration, saying, because he existed before me. As if to say: It is +not strange if he ranks ahead of me in dignity; because 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> +<p>This statement refutes a twofold error. First, that of Arius, +for John does not say that “he was made before me,” as +though he were a creature, but he existed before me, from eternity, +before every creature: “The Lord brought me forth before all +the hills,” as is said in Proverbs (8:25). The second error +refuted is that of Paul of Samosata: for John said, he existed +before me, in order to show that he did not take his beginning from +Mary. For if he had taken the beginning of his existence from the +Virgin, he would not have existed before the precursor, who, in the +order of human generation, preceded Christ by six months.</p> +<p>263 Next (v 31), he precludes an erroneous conjecture from his +testimony. For someone might say that John bore witness to Christ +because of his affection for him, coming from a special friendship. +And so, excluding this, John says, <span style= +"font-weight: bold">And I did not know him!;</span> for John had +lived in the desert from boyhood. And although many miracles +happened during the birth of Christ, such as the Magi and the star +and so on, they were not known to John: both because he was an +infant at the time, and because, after withdrawing to the desert, +he had no association with Christ. In the interim between his birth +and baptism, Christ did not perform any miracles, but led a life +similar to any other person, and his power remained unknown to +all.</p> +<p>264 It is clear that he worked no miracles in the interim until +he was thirty years old from what is said below (2:11): “This +beginning of signs Jesus worked in Cana of Galilee.” This +shows the error of the book, <i>The Infancy of the Savior.</i> The +reason he performed no miracles during this period was that if his +life had not been like that of other infants, the mystery of the +circumcision and incarnation might have been regarded as pure +fancy. Accordingly, he postponed showing his knowledge and power to +another time, corresponding to the age when other men reach the +fulness of their knowledge and power. About this we read, +“And Jesus increased in grace and wisdom” (Lk 2:52); +not that he acquired a power and wisdom that he previously lacked, +for in this respect he was perfect from the instant of his +conception, but because his power and wisdom were becoming known to +men: “Indeed, you are a hidden God” (Is 45:15).</p> +<p>265 The reason why John did not know him was that he had so far +seen no signs, and no one else had known Christ through signs. +Hence he adds: <span style="font-weight: bold">It was to reveal him +to Israel that I came baptizing with water.</span> As if to say: My +entire ministry is to reveal: “He was not the light, but he +came in order to bear witness to the light,” as was said +above (1:8).</p> +<p>266 He says, <span style="font-weight: bold">I came baptizing +with water,</span> to distinguish his baptism from that of Christ. +For Christ baptized not just in water, but in the Spirit, +conferring grace; and so the baptism of John was merely a sign, and +not causative.</p> +<p>John’s baptism made Christ known in three ways. First, by +the preaching of John. For although John could have prepared the +way for the Lord and led the people to Christ without baptizing, +yet because of the novelty of the service many more came to him +than would have come if his preaching were done without baptism. +Secondly, John’s baptism was useful because of Christ’s +humility, which he showed by willing to be baptized by John: +“Christ came to John, to be baptized by him” (Mt 3:13). +This example of humility he gives us here is that no one, however +great, should disdain to receive the sacraments from any person +ordained for this purpose. Thirdly, because it was during +Christ’s baptisin by John that the power of the Father was +present in the voice, and the Holy Spirit was present in the dove, +by which the powerand dignity of’Christ were all the more +shown: “And the voice of the Father was heard: ‘This is +my beloved Son’” (Lk 3:22).</p> +<p>267 Then when he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">John gave +this testimony also,</span> he confirms by the authority of God the +great things he testified to about Christ, that Christ alone would +take away the sins of the whole world. As to this he does three +things. First, he presents a vision. Secondly, he tells us the +meaning of the vision (v 33). Thirdly, he shows what he learned +from this vision (v 34).</p> +<p>268 He presents the vision when he says, <span style= +"font-weight: bold">I saw the Spirit coming down on him from +heaven.</span> When this actually happened John the Evangelist does +not tell us, but Matthew and Luke say that it took place when +Christ was being baptized by John. And it was indeed fitting for +the Holy Spirit to be present at this baptism and to the person +being baptized. It was appropriate for the one baptized, for as the +Son, existing by the Father, manifests the Father, “Father, I +have manifested your name” (below 17:6), so the Holy Spirit, +existing by the Son, manifests the Son, “He will glorify me, +because he will receive from me” (below 16:14). It was +appropriate for this baptism because the baptism of Christ begins +and consecrates our baptism. Now our baptism is consecrated by +invoking the whole Trinity: “Baptizing them in the name of +the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” (Mt +28:19). Thus, the ones we invoke in our baptism were present at the +baptism of Christ: the Father in the voice, the Holy Spirit in the +dove, and the Son in his human nature.</p> +<p>269 He says, <span style="font-weight: bold">coming down,</span> +because descent, since it has two termini, the start, which is from +above, and the end, which is below, suits baptism in both respects. +For there is a twofold spirit: one of the world and the other of +God. The spirit of the world is the love of the world, which is not +from above; rather, it comes up to man from below and makes him +descend. But the spirit of God, i.e., the love of God, comes down +to man from above and makes him ascend: “We have not received +the spirit of this world, but the spirit of God,” as is said +in 1 Corinthians (2:12). And so, because that spirit is from above, +he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">coming down.</span></p> +<p>Similarly, because it is impossible for the creature to receive +God’s goodness in the fulness in which it is present in God, +the communication of this goodness to us is in a way a certain +coming down: “Every perfect gift is from above, coming down +from the Father of lights” (Jas 1:17).</p> +<p>270 The Evangelist, in describing the manner of the vision and +of the coming down, says that the Holy Spirit did not appear in the +spirit, i.e., in his nature, but in the form of a dove, saying, +that he came like a ove. The reason for this is that the Holy +Spirit cannot be seen in his nature, as is said, “The Spirit +blows where it wills, and you hear its sound, but you do not know +where it comes from or where it goes” (below 3:8), and +because a spirit does not come down but goes up, “The spirit +lifted me up” (Ez 8:3).</p> +<p>It was appropriate that the Son of God, who was made visible +through flesh, should be made known by the Holy Spirit in the +visible form of a dove. However, the Holy Spirit did not assume the +dove into a unity of person, as the Son of God assumed human +nature. The reason for this is that the Son did not appear as a +manifester but as a Savior. And so, according to Pope Leo, it was +appropriate that he be God and man: God, in order to provide a +remedy; and man, in order to offer an example. But the Holy Spirit +appeared only to make known, and for this it was sufficient merely +to assume a visible form which was suitable for this purpose.</p> +<p>271 As to whether this dove was a real animal and whether it +existed prior to its appearance, it seems reasonable to say that it +was a real dove. For the Holy Spirit came to manifest Christ, who, +being the Truth, ought to have been manifested only by the truth. +As to the other part of the question, it would seem that the dove +did not exist prior to its appearance, but was formed at the time +by the divine power, without any parental union, as the body of +Christ was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit, and not from +a man’s seed. Yet it was a real dove, for as Augustine says +in his work, <i>The Christian Combat:</i> “It was not +difficult for the omnipotent God, who produced the entire universe +of creatures from nothing, to form a real body for the dove without +the aid of other doves, just as it was not difficult to form the +true body of Christ in the womb of the Blessed Virgin without +natural semen.”</p> +<p>Cyprian, in his <i>The Unity of the Church,</i> says: “It +is said that the Holy Spirit appeared in the form of a dove because +the dove is a simple harmless animal, not bitter with gall, not +savage with its bites, not fierce with rending talons; it loves the +dwellings of men, is able to live together in one nest, together it +raises its young, they remain together when they fly, spend their +life in mutual association, signify the concord of peace with the +kiss of their bill, and fulfill the law of harmony in all +things.”</p> +<p>272 Many reasons are given why the Holy Spirit appeared as a +dove rather than in some other form. First, because of its +simplicity, for the dove is simple: “Be wise as serpents, and +simple as doves” (Mt 10:16). And the Holy Spirit, because he +inclines souls to gaze on one thing, that is, God, makes them +simple; and so he appeared in the form of a dove. Further, +according to Augustine, the Holy Spirit also appeared in the form +of fire over the heads of the assembled apostles. This was done +because some are simple, but lukewarm; while others are fervent but +guileful. And so in order that those sanctified by the Spirit may +have no guile, the Spirit is shown in the form of a dove; and in +order that their simplicity may not grow tepid, the Spirit is shown +in fire.</p> +<p>A dove was used, secondly, because of the unity of charity; for +the dove is much aglow with love: “One is my dove” (Sg +6:9). So, in order to show the unity of the Church, the Holy Spirit +appears in the form of a dove. Nor should it disturb you that when +the Holy Spirit rested on each of the disciples, there appeared +separate tongues of fire; for although the Spirit appears to be +different according to the different functions of his gifts, he +nevertheless unites us through charity. And so, because of the +first he appeared in separate tongues of fire, as is said, +“There are different kinds of gifts” (1 Cor 12:4); but +he appears in the form of a dove because of the second.</p> +<p>A dove was used, thirdly,because of its groaning, for the dove +has a groaning chant; so also the Holy Spirit “pleads for us +with indescribable groanings” (Rom 8:26); “Her maidens, +groaning like doves” (Na 2:7). Fourthly, because of the doves +fertility, for the dove is a very prolific animal. And so in order +to signify the fecundity of spiritual grace in the Church, the Holy +Spirit appeared in the form of a dove. This is why the Lord +commanded an offering of two doves (Lv 5:7).</p> +<p>A dove was used, fifthly, because of its cautiousness. For it +rests upon watery brooks, and gazing into them can see the hawk +flying overhead and so save itself: “His eyes are like doves +beside brooks of water” (Sg 5:12). And so, because our refuge +and defense is found in baptism, the Holy Spirit appropriately +appeared in the form of a dove.</p> +<p>The dove also corresponds to a figure in the Old Testament. For +as the dove bearing the green olive branch was a sign of +God’s mercy to those who survived the waters of the deluge, +so too in baptism, the Holy Spirit, coming in the form of a dove, +is a sign of the divine mercy which takes away the sins of those +baptized and confers grace.</p> +<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 someone, it is due to two causes. One is sin. For all +men except Christ are either suffering from the wound of mortal +sin, which banishes the Holy Spirit, or are darkened with the stain +of venial sin, which hinders some of the works of the Holy Spirit. +But in Christ there was neither mortal nor venial sin; so, the Holy +Spirit in him was never disquieted, but was <span style= +"font-weight: bold">resting on him.</span></p> +<p>The other reason concerns charismatic graces, for the other +saints do not always possess their power. For example, the power to +work miracles is not always present in the saints, nor is the +spirit of prophecy always in the prophets. But Christ always +possessed the power to accomplish any work of the virtues and the +graces. So to indicate this, he says, <span style= +"font-weight: bold">resting on him.</span> Hence this was the +characteristic sign for recognizing Christ, as the Gloss says. +“The Spirit of the Lord will rest on him” (Is 11:2), +which we should understand of Christ as man, according to which he +is less than the Father and the Holy Spirit.</p> +<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 +understood. For certain heretics, as the Ebionites, said that +Christ was neither the Christ nor the Son of God from the time he +was born, but only began to be the Son of God and the Christ when +he was anointed with the oil of the Holy Spirit at his baptism. But +this is false, because at the very hour of his birth the angel said +to the shepherds: “This day a Savior has been born for you in +the city of David, Christ the Lord” (Lk 2:11). Therefore, so +that we do not believe that the Holy Spirit descended upon Christ +in his baptism as though Christ needed to receive the Spirit anew +for his sanctification, the Baptist gives the reason for the +Spirit’s coming down. He says that the Spirit descended not +for the benefit of Christ, but for our 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 did not know him! And yet it +was to reveal him to Israel that I came baptizing with water.</span></p> -<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 -Father sent him, it is true. Also, if he is saying that the Son sent him, it is even more clear, -since it is said that both the Father and the Son sent him, because John is not one of those -referred to in Jeremiah (23:21), “1 did not send the prophets, yet they ran.” But if the Son did -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 -Christ according to his divinity, yet he did not know him according to his humanity until after -he saw the Spirit coming down upon him, one might counter that the Holy Spirit descended -upon Christ when he was being baptized, and John had already known Christ before he was -baptized, otherwise he would not have said: “I ought to be baptized by you, and you come to -me?” (Mt 3:14).</p> -<p>So we must say that this problem can be resolved in three ways. In one way, according to -Chrysostom, so that the meaning is to know familiarly; the sense being that <span style="font-weight: bold">I did not know -him, </span>i.e., in a familiar way. And if the objection is raised that John says, “I ought to be -baptized by you,” it can be answered that two different times are being discussed: so that <span style="font-weight: bold">I -did not know him, </span>refers to a time long before baptism, when he was not yet familiar with -Christ: but when he says, “I ought to be baptized by you,” he is referring to the time when -Christ was being baptized, when he was now familiar with Christ because of his frequent -visits. In another way, according to Jerome, it could be said that Christ was the Son of God -and the Savior of the world, and that John did in fact know this; but it was not through the -baptism that he knew that he was the Savior of the world. And so to remedy this ignorance he -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 -Augustine that John knew certain things and was ignorant of others. Explaining what he did -not know, he adds that the power of baptizing, which Christ could have shared with his -faithful followers, would be reserved for himself alone. And this is what he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">he who sent -me to baptize with water ... is the one, </span>exclusively and solely, <span style="font-weight: bold">who is to baptize with the -Holy Spirit, </span>i.e., he and no one else, because this power he reserved for himself alone.</p> -<p>276 We should note that a threefold power of Christ is found in baptism. One is the power of -efficiency, by which he interiorly cleanses the soul from the stain of sin. Christ has this power -as God, but not as man, and it cannot be communicated to any other. Another is the power of -ministry, which he does share with the faithful: “Baptizing them in the name of the Father, -and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” (Mt 28:19). Therefore priests have the power to -haptize as ministers. Christ too, as man, is called a minister, as the Apostle says. But he is -also the head of all the ministers of the Church.</p> -<p>Because of this he alone has the power of excellence in the sacraments. And this excellence -shows itself in four things. First, in the institution of the sacraments, because no mere man or -even the entire Church could institute sacraments, or change the sacninients, or dispense with -the sacraments. For by their institution the sacraments give invisible grace, which only God -can give. Therefore, only one who is true God can institute sacraments. The second lies in the -efficacy of Christ’s merits, for the sacraments have their power from the merit of Christ’s -passion: “All of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus, have been baptized into his -death” (Rom 6:3). The third is that Christ can confer the effect of baptism withmit the -sacrament; and this is peculiar to Christ. Fourthly, because at one time baptism was conferred -in the name of Christ, although this is no longer done.</p> -<p>Now he did not communicate these four things to anyone; although he could have -communicated some of them, for example, that baptism be conferred in the name of Peter or -of someone else, and perhaps one of the remaining three. But this was not done lest schisins -arise in the Church by men putting their trust in those in whose name they were baptized.</p> -<p>And so John, in stating that the Holy Spirit came down upon Christ, teaches that it is Christ -alone who baptizes interiorly by his own power.</p> -<p>277 One might also say that when John said, “I ought to be baptized by you,” he recognized -Christ. through an interior revelation, but that when he saw the Holy Spirit coming down -upon him, he knew him through an exterior sign. And so he mentions both of these ways of -knowing. The first when he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">he who sent me to baptize with water had said to me, -</span>i.e., revealed something in an interior way. The second when he adds, <span style="font-weight: bold">The man on whom -you see the Spirit come down and rest is the one who is to baptize with the Holy Spirit.</span></p> -<p>278 Then he shows what the Baptist understood from this vision, that is, that Christ is the Son -of God. And this is what he says, Now I have seen for myself, that is, the Spirit coming down -on him, and have given testimony that he, that is, Christ, is the Son of God, that is, the true -and natural Son. For there were adopted sons of the Father who had a likeness to the natural -Son of God: “Conformed to the image of his Son” (Rom 8:29). So he who baptizes in the -Holy Spirit, through whom we are adopted as sons, ought to fashion sons of God. “You did -not receive the spirit of slavery ... but the spirit of adoption” (Rom 8:15). Therefore, because -Christ is the one who baptizes in the Holy Spirit, the Baptist correctly concludes that he is the -true and pure Son of God: “that we may be in his true Son” (1 Jn 5:20).</p> -<p>279 But if there were others who saw the Holy,Spirit coming down upon Christ, why did they -not also believe? I answer that they had not been so disposed for this. Or perhaps, this vision -was seen only by the Baptist.</p> -<p style="margin-bottom: 0.125in; margin-bottom: 0.125in"> </p> -<p style="text-align: center; margin-bottom: 0.125in"><span style="font-weight: bold">LECTURE15</span></p> -<BLOCKQUOTE><p>35 On the following day John was standing there again with two of his disciples. 36 And -seeing Jesus walking by, he said, “Look! There is the Lamb of God.” 37 Hearing this, the two -disciples followed Jesus. 38 Jesus turned around, and seeing them following him said, “What -are you looking for?” They replied, “Rabbi (which means Teacher), where do you live?” 39 -“Come and see,” he replied. They went and saw where he lived, and they stayed with him the -rest of that day. It was about the tenth hour.</p></BLOCKQUOTE> -<p>40 One of the two who had followed him after hearing John was Simon Peter’s brother, -Andrew. 41 The first thing fie did was to look for his brother Simon, and say to him, “We -have found the Messiah” (which means the Christ), 42 and he brought him to Jesus. Looking -at hini intently Jesus said, “You are Simon, son of John; you are to be called Cephas” (which -is translated Peter).</p> -<p>280 Above, the Evangelist presented the Baptist’s testimony to the people; here he presents -his testimony to John’s disciples. First, his testimony is given; secondly, the fruit of this -testimony (v 37). As to the first he does three things: first, the one giving the testimony is -described; secondly, his way of testifying is given (v 36); and thirdly, his testimony itself, -Look! <span style="font-weight: bold">There is the Lamb of God.</span></p> -<p>281 The witness is described when he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">On the following day John was standing there -again with two of his disciples. </span>In saying standing, three things are noted about John. First, -his manner of teaching, which was different from that of Christ and his disciples. For Christ -went about teaching; hence it is said: “Jesus traveled over all Galilee” (Mt 4:23). The apostles -also traveled the world teaching: “Go to the whole world, and preach the good news to every -creature” (Mkl6:15). But John taught in one place; hence he says, standing, that is, in one -place, on the far side of the Jordan. And John spoke of Christ to all who came to him.</p> -<p>The reason why Christ and his disciples taught going about is that the preaching of Christ was -made credible by miracles, and so they went to various places in order that the miracles and -powers of Christ might be made known. But the preaching of John was not confirmed by -miracles, so that is is written, “John performed no sign” (below 10:41), but by the merit and -sanctity of his life. And so he was <span style="font-weight: bold">standing</span> in one place so that various people might stream -to him and be led to Christ by his holiness. Furthermore, if John had gone from place to place -to announce Christ without performing any miracles, his testimony would have been quite -unbelievable, since it would seem to be inopportune and he would seem to be forcing himself -upon the people.</p> -<p>Secondly, John’s perseverence in the truth is noted, because John was not a reed shaken by -the wind, but was firm in the faith; “Let him who thinks that he stands, take heed so he will -not fall” (1 Cor 10:12); “1 will stand my watch” (Hb 2:1).</p> -<p>Thirdly, and allegorically, it is noted that to stand is, in an allegorical sense, the same as to -fail or cease: “The oil stood,” i.e., failed (2 Kgs 4:6). So when Christ came John was -standing, because when the truth comes the figure ceases. John stands because the law passes -away.</p> -<p>282 The manner of his testifying is presented as being certain, hecause based on sight. So he -says, <span style="font-weight: bold">seeing Jesus walking by. </span>Here it should be remarked that the prophets bore witness to -Christ: “All the prophets bear witness to him” (Acts 10:43). So did the apostles as they -traveled the world: “You will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all of’ Judea and Samaria, -and to the remotest parts of the world” (Acts 1:8). However, their testimony was not about a -person then visible or present, but on one who was absent. In the case of the prophets about -one who was to come; in the case of the apostles, about one who was now gone. But John -bore witness when Christ was present and seen by him; and so he says, seeing Jesus, with the -eyes of his body and of his mind: “Look on the face of your Christ” (Ps 83:10); “They will -see eye to eye” (Is 5 2:8).</p> -<p>He says, <span style="font-weight: bold">walking, </span>to point out the mystery of the incarnation, in which the Word of God -assumed a changeable nature: “I came forth from the Father, and have come into the world,” -as it says below (16:2 8).</p> -<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 -this not just to point out the power of Christ, but also in admiration of it: “His name will be -called Wonderful” (Is 9:6). And this Lamb did possess truly wonderful power, because being -slain, it killed the lion—that lion, I say, of which it says: “Your enemy, the devil, goes about -like a roaring lion, seeking whom he can devour” (1 Pt 5:8). And so this Lamb, victorius and -glorious, deserved to be called a lion: “Look! The Lion of the tribe of Judah has conquered” -(Rv 5:5).</p> -<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 -the disciples before whom he testified had already been sufficiently instructed about Christ -from the things they had heard from John, and also because this is sufficient for John’s -intention, whose only aim was to lead them to Christ. Yet he does not say, “Go to him,” so -that the disciples would not seem to be doing Christ a favor by following him. But he does -praise the grace of Christ so that they would regard it as of benefit to themselves if they -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 -whom is found the grace and the power which cleanses from sin; for the lamb was offered for +<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 Father sent him, it is true. Also, if he is saying +that the Son sent him, it is even more clear, since it is said that +both the Father and the Son sent him, because John is not one of +those referred to in Jeremiah (23:21), “1 did not send the +prophets, yet they ran.” But if the Son did 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 Christ according to +his divinity, yet he did not know him according to his humanity +until after he saw the Spirit coming down upon him, one might +counter that the Holy Spirit descended upon Christ when he was +being baptized, and John had already known Christ before he was +baptized, otherwise he would not have said: “I ought to be +baptized by you, and you come to me?” (Mt 3:14).</p> +<p>So we must say that this problem can be resolved in three ways. +In one way, according to Chrysostom, so that the meaning is to know +familiarly; the sense being that <span style="font-weight: bold">I +did not know him,</span> i.e., in a familiar way. And if the +objection is raised that John says, “I ought to be baptized +by you,” it can be answered that two different times are +being discussed: so that <span style="font-weight: bold">I did not +know him,</span> refers to a time long before baptism, when he was +not yet familiar with Christ: but when he says, “I ought to +be baptized by you,” he is referring to the time when Christ +was being baptized, when he was now familiar with Christ because of +his frequent visits. In another way, according to Jerome, it could +be said that Christ was the Son of God and the Savior of the world, +and that John did in fact know this; but it was not through the +baptism that he knew that he was the Savior of the world. And so to +remedy this ignorance he 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 Augustine that John +knew certain things and was ignorant of others. Explaining what he +did not know, he adds that the power of baptizing, which Christ +could have shared with his faithful followers, would be reserved +for himself alone. And this is what he says, <span style= +"font-weight: bold">he who sent me to baptize with water ... is the +one,</span> exclusively and solely, <span style= +"font-weight: bold">who is to baptize with the Holy Spirit,</span> +i.e., he and no one else, because this power he reserved for +himself alone.</p> +<p>276 We should note that a threefold power of Christ is found in +baptism. One is the power of efficiency, by which he interiorly +cleanses the soul from the stain of sin. Christ has this power as +God, but not as man, and it cannot be communicated to any other. +Another is the power of ministry, which he does share with the +faithful: “Baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of +the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” (Mt 28:19). Therefore +priests have the power to haptize as ministers. Christ too, as man, +is called a minister, as the Apostle says. But he is also the head +of all the ministers of the Church.</p> +<p>Because of this he alone has the power of excellence in the +sacraments. And this excellence shows itself in four things. First, +in the institution of the sacraments, because no mere man or even +the entire Church could institute sacraments, or change the +sacninients, or dispense with the sacraments. For by their +institution the sacraments give invisible grace, which only God can +give. Therefore, only one who is true God can institute sacraments. +The second lies in the efficacy of Christ’s merits, for the +sacraments have their power from the merit of Christ’s +passion: “All of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus, +have been baptized into his death” (Rom 6:3). The third is +that Christ can confer the effect of baptism withmit the sacrament; +and this is peculiar to Christ. Fourthly, because at one time +baptism was conferred in the name of Christ, although this is no +longer done.</p> +<p>Now he did not communicate these four things to anyone; although +he could have communicated some of them, for example, that baptism +be conferred in the name of Peter or of someone else, and perhaps +one of the remaining three. But this was not done lest schisins +arise in the Church by men putting their trust in those in whose +name they were baptized.</p> +<p>And so John, in stating that the Holy Spirit came down upon +Christ, teaches that it is Christ alone who baptizes interiorly by +his own power.</p> +<p>277 One might also say that when John said, “I ought to be +baptized by you,” he recognized Christ. through an interior +revelation, but that when he saw the Holy Spirit coming down upon +him, he knew him through an exterior sign. And so he mentions both +of these ways of knowing. The first when he says, <span style= +"font-weight: bold">he who sent me to baptize with water had said +to me,</span> i.e., revealed something in an interior way. The +second when he adds, <span style="font-weight: bold">The man on +whom you see the Spirit come down and rest is the one who is to +baptize with the Holy Spirit.</span></p> +<p>278 Then he shows what the Baptist understood from this vision, +that is, that Christ is the Son of God. And this is what he says, +Now I have seen for myself, that is, the Spirit coming down on him, +and have given testimony that he, that is, Christ, is the Son of +God, that is, the true and natural Son. For there were adopted sons +of the Father who had a likeness to the natural Son of God: +“Conformed to the image of his Son” (Rom 8:29). So he +who baptizes in the Holy Spirit, through whom we are adopted as +sons, ought to fashion sons of God. “You did not receive the +spirit of slavery ... but the spirit of adoption” (Rom 8:15). +Therefore, because Christ is the one who baptizes in the Holy +Spirit, the Baptist correctly concludes that he is the true and +pure Son of God: “that we may be in his true Son” (1 Jn +5:20).</p> +<p>279 But if there were others who saw the Holy,Spirit coming down +upon Christ, why did they not also believe? I answer that they had +not been so disposed for this. Or perhaps, this vision was seen +only by the Baptist.</p> +<p style="margin-bottom: 0.125in; margin-bottom: 0.125in"> + </p> +<p style="text-align: center; margin-bottom: 0.125in"><span style= +"font-weight: bold">LECTURE15</span></p> +<blockquote> +<p>35 On the following day John was standing there again with two +of his disciples. 36 And seeing Jesus walking by, he said, +“Look! There is the Lamb of God.” 37 Hearing this, the +two disciples followed Jesus. 38 Jesus turned around, and seeing +them following him said, “What are you looking for?” +They replied, “Rabbi (which means Teacher), where do you +live?” 39 “Come and see,” he replied. They went +and saw where he lived, and they stayed with him the rest of that +day. It was about the tenth hour.</p> +</blockquote> +<p>40 One of the two who had followed him after hearing John was +Simon Peter’s brother, Andrew. 41 The first thing fie did was +to look for his brother Simon, and say to him, “We have found +the Messiah” (which means the Christ), 42 and he brought him +to Jesus. Looking at hini intently Jesus said, “You are +Simon, son of John; you are to be called Cephas” (which is +translated Peter).</p> +<p>280 Above, the Evangelist presented the Baptist’s +testimony to the people; here he presents his testimony to +John’s disciples. First, his testimony is given; secondly, +the fruit of this testimony (v 37). As to the first he does three +things: first, the one giving the testimony is described; secondly, +his way of testifying is given (v 36); and thirdly, his testimony +itself, Look! <span style="font-weight: bold">There is the Lamb of +God.</span></p> +<p>281 The witness is described when he says, <span style= +"font-weight: bold">On the following day John was standing there +again with two of his disciples.</span> In saying standing, three +things are noted about John. First, his manner of teaching, which +was different from that of Christ and his disciples. For Christ +went about teaching; hence it is said: “Jesus traveled over +all Galilee” (Mt 4:23). The apostles also traveled the world +teaching: “Go to the whole world, and preach the good news to +every creature” (Mkl6:15). But John taught in one place; +hence he says, standing, that is, in one place, on the far side of +the Jordan. And John spoke of Christ to all who came to him.</p> +<p>The reason why Christ and his disciples taught going about is +that the preaching of Christ was made credible by miracles, and so +they went to various places in order that the miracles and powers +of Christ might be made known. But the preaching of John was not +confirmed by miracles, so that is is written, “John performed +no sign” (below 10:41), but by the merit and sanctity of his +life. And so he was <span style="font-weight: bold">standing</span> +in one place so that various people might stream to him and be led +to Christ by his holiness. Furthermore, if John had gone from place +to place to announce Christ without performing any miracles, his +testimony would have been quite unbelievable, since it would seem +to be inopportune and he would seem to be forcing himself upon the +people.</p> +<p>Secondly, John’s perseverence in the truth is noted, +because John was not a reed shaken by the wind, but was firm in the +faith; “Let him who thinks that he stands, take heed so he +will not fall” (1 Cor 10:12); “1 will stand my +watch” (Hb 2:1).</p> +<p>Thirdly, and allegorically, it is noted that to stand is, in an +allegorical sense, the same as to fail or cease: “The oil +stood,” i.e., failed (2 Kgs 4:6). So when Christ came John +was standing, because when the truth comes the figure ceases. John +stands because the law passes away.</p> +<p>282 The manner of his testifying is presented as being certain, +hecause based on sight. So he says, <span style= +"font-weight: bold">seeing Jesus walking by.</span> Here it should +be remarked that the prophets bore witness to Christ: “All +the prophets bear witness to him” (Acts 10:43). So did the +apostles as they traveled the world: “You will be my +witnesses in Jerusalem and in all of’ Judea and Samaria, and +to the remotest parts of the world” (Acts 1:8). However, +their testimony was not about a person then visible or present, but +on one who was absent. In the case of the prophets about one who +was to come; in the case of the apostles, about one who was now +gone. But John bore witness when Christ was present and seen by +him; and so he says, seeing Jesus, with the eyes of his body and of +his mind: “Look on the face of your Christ” (Ps 83:10); +“They will see eye to eye” (Is 5 2:8).</p> +<p>He says, <span style="font-weight: bold">walking,</span> to +point out the mystery of the incarnation, in which the Word of God +assumed a changeable nature: “I came forth from the Father, +and have come into the world,” as it says below (16:2 8).</p> +<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 +this not just to point out the power of Christ, but also in +admiration of it: “His name will be called Wonderful” +(Is 9:6). And this Lamb did possess truly wonderful power, because +being slain, it killed the lion—that lion, I say, of which it +says: “Your enemy, the devil, goes about like a roaring lion, +seeking whom he can devour” (1 Pt 5:8). And so this Lamb, +victorius and glorious, deserved to be called a lion: “Look! +The Lion of the tribe of Judah has conquered” (Rv 5:5).</p> +<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 the disciples before whom he testified had +already been sufficiently instructed about Christ from the things +they had heard from John, and also because this is sufficient for +John’s intention, whose only aim was to lead them to Christ. +Yet he does not say, “Go to him,” so that the disciples +would not seem to be doing Christ a favor by following him. But he +does praise the grace of Christ so that they would regard it as of +benefit to themselves if they 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 whom is found the grace and +the power which cleanses from sin; for the lamb was offered for sins, as we have said.</p> -<p>284 The fruit of his testimony is given when he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">Hearing this, the two disciples -followed Jesus. </span>First, the fruit resulting from the testimony of John and his disciples is given. -Secondly, the fruit resulting from the preaching of Christ (v 43). In relation to the first: first, -the fruit arising from John’s testimony is given; secondly, the fruit coming from the preaching -of one of his disciples (v 40). With respect to the first he does two things. First, he shows the -very beginning of the fruit coming from John’s testimony. Secondly, its consummation as -accomplished by Christ (v 38).</p> -<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 -disciples, </span>who were with him, <span style="font-weight: bold">followed Jesus, </span>literally. going with him, First, the fact that it -is John who speaks while Christ is silent, and that disciples gather to Christ through the -words of John, all this points out a mystery. For Christ is the groom of the Church, and John, -the friend and groomsman of the groom. Now the function of the groomsman is to present the -bride to the groom, and verbally make known the agreements; the role of the groom is to be -silent, from modesty, and to make arrangements for his new bride as he wills. Thus, the -disciples are presented by John to Christ and espoused in faith. John speaks, Christ is silent; -yet after Christ accepts them, he carefully instructs them.</p> -<p>We can note, secondly, that no one was converted when John praised the dignity of Christ, -saying, he “ranks ahead of me,” and “I am not worthy to unfasten the strap of his sandal.” But -the disciples followed Christ when John revealed Christ’s humility and about the mystery of -the incarnation; and this is because we are more moved by Christ’s humility and the -sufferings he endured for us. So it is said: “Your name is like oil poured out,” i.e., mercy, by -which you have obtained salvation for all; and the text immediately follows with, “young -maidens have greatly loved you” (Sg 1:2).</p> -<p>We can note, thirdly, that the words of a preacher are like seed falling on different kinds of -ground: on one they bear fruit, and on another they do not. So too, John, when he preaches, -does not convert all his disciples to Christ, but only two, those who were well disposed. The -others are envious of Christ, and they even question him, as mentioned in Matthew (9:14).</p> -<p>Fourthly, we may note that John’s disciples, after hearing his witness to Christ, did not at -once thrust themselves forward to speak with him hastily; rather, seriously and with a certain -modesty, they tried to speak to Christ alone and in a private place: “There is a time and fitness -for everything” (Ecc 8:6).</p> -<p>286 The consummation of this fruit is now set forth (v 38), for what John began is completed -by Christ, since “the law brought nothing to perfection” (Heb 7:19). And Christ does two -things. First, he questions the disciples who were following him. Secondly, he teaches them -(v 39). As to the first we have: first, the question of Christ is given; secondly, the answer of -the disciples.</p> -<p>287 He says, <span style="font-weight: bold">Jesus turned around, and seeing them following him said. </span>According to the -literal sense we should understand that Christ was walking in front of them, and these two -disciples, following him, did not see his face at all; and so Christ turns to them to holster their -confidence. This lets us know that Christ gives confidence and hope to all who begin to -follow hini with a pure heart: “She goes to meet those who desire her” (Wis 6:14). Now Jesus -turns to us in order that we may see him; this will happen in that blessed vision when he will -show us his face, as is said: “Show us your face, and we will be saved” (Ps 79:4). For as long -as we are in this world we see his back, because it is through his effects that we acquire a -knowledge of him; so it is said, “You will see my back” (Ex 33:23). Again, he turns to give -us the riches of his mercy. This is requested in Psalm 89 (13): “Turn to us, 0 Lord.” For as -long as Christ withholds the help of his mercy he seems to be turned away from us. And so -Jesus turned to the disciples of John who were following him in order to show them his face -and to pour his grace upon them.</p> -<p>288 Christ examines them specifically about their intention. For all who follow Christ do not -have the same intention: some follow him for the sake of temporal goods, and others for -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 -in order to learn their intention, but so that, after they showed a proper intention, he might -make them more intimate friends and show that they are worthy to hear him.</p> -<p>289 It may be remarked that these are the first words which Christ speaks in this Gospel. And -this is appropriate, because the first thing that God asks of a man is a proper intention. And, -according to Origen, after the six words that John had spoken, Christ spoke the seventh. The -first words spoken by John were when, bearing witness to Christ, he cried out, saying, “This -is the one of whom I said.” The second is when he said, “I am not worthy to unfasten the strap -of his sandal.” The third is, “I baptize with water. But there is one standing in your midst -whom you do not recognize.” The fourth is, “Look! There is the Lamb of God.” The fifth, “I -saw the Spirit coming down on him from heaven like a dove.” The sixth, when he says here, -“Look! There is the Lamb of God.” But it is Christ who speaks the seventh words so that we -may understand, in a mystical sense, that rest, which is signified by the seventh day, will -come to us through Christ, and that in him is found the fulness of the seven gifts of the Holy -Spirit.</p> -<p>290 The disciples answer; and although there was one question, they gave two answers. First, -why they are following Christ, namely, to learn; thus they call him Teacher, <span style="font-weight: bold">Rabbi (which -means Teacher). </span>As if to say: We ask you to teach us. For they already knew what is stated -in Matthew (23:10): “You have one Teacher, the Christ.” The second answer is what they -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 -they were looking for the home of Christ. For because of the great and wonderful things they -had heard about him from John, they were not satisfied with questioning him only once and in -a superficial way, but wanted to do so frequently and seriously. And so they wanted to know -where his home was so that they might visit him often, according to the advice of the wise -man: “If you see a man of understanding, go to him early” (Sir 6:36), and “Happy is the man -who hears me, who watches daily at my gates” (Prv 8:34).</p> -<p>In the allegorical sense, God’s home is in heaven, according to the Psalm (122:1 ): “I have -lifted up my eyes to you, who live in heaven.” So they asked where Christ was living because -our purpose in following him should be that Christ leads us to heaven, i.e., to heavenly glory.</p> -<p>Finally, in the moral sense, they ask, <span style="font-weight: bold">Where do you live? </span>as though desiring to learn what -qualities men should possess in order to be worthy to have Christ dwell in them. Concerning -this dwelling Ephesians (2:22) says: “You are being built into a dwelling place for God.” And -the Song (1:6) says: “Show me, you whom my soul loves, where you graze your flock, where -you rest at midday.”</p> -<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 -have the instruction of the disciples by Christ; secondly, their obedience is cited; and thirdly, -the time is given.</p> -<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 -Lord says, “The Son of Man does not have any place to lay his head” (Mt 8:20), why does he -tell them to <span style="font-weight: bold">Come and see </span>where he lives? I answer, according to Chrysostom, that when the -Lord says, “The Son of Man does not have any place to lay his head,” he showed that he had -no home of his own, but not that he did not remain in someone else’s home. And such was -the home he invited them to see, saying, <span style="font-weight: bold">Come and see.</span></p> -<p>In the mystical sense, he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">Come and see, </span>because the dwelling of God, whether of glory -or grace, cannot be known except by experience: for it cannot be explained in words: “I will -give him a white stone upon which is written a new name, which no one knows but he who -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 -see, </span>by experiencing and understanding.</p> -<p>293 It should be noted that we can attain to this knowledge in four ways. First, by doing good -works; so he says, Come: “When shall I come and appear before the face of God” (Ps 41:3). -Secondly, by the rest or stillness of the mind: “Be still and see” (Ps 45:10). Thirdly, by tasting -the divine sweetness: “Taste and see that the I.ord is sweet” O’s 33:9). Fourthly, by acts of -devotion: “Let us lift up our hearts and hands in prayer” (Lam 3:41). And so the Lord says: “it -is I myself. Feel and see” (Lk 24:39).</p> -<p>294 Next the obedience of the disciples is mentioned; for immediately <span style="font-weight: bold">they went and saw, -</span>because by coming they saw him, and seeing they did not leave him. Thus it says, <span style="font-weight: bold">and they -stayed with him the rest of that day, </span>for as stated below (6:45): “Every one who hears the -Father, and has learned, comes to me.” For those who leave Christ have not yet seen him as -they should. But those who have seen him by perfectly believing <span style="font-weight: bold">stayed with him the rest of -that day; </span>hearing and seeing that blessed day, they spent a blessed night: “Happy are your -men, and happy are your servants, who always stand before you” (1 Kgs 8:10). And as -Augustine says: “Let us also build a dwelling in our heart and fashion a home where he may -come and teach us.”</p> -<p>And he says, that day, because there can be no night where the light of Christ is present, -where there is the Sun of justice.</p> -<p>295 The time is given when he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">It was about the tenth hour. </span>The Evangelist mentions -this in order that, considering the literal sense, he might give credit to Christ and the disciples. -For the tenth hour is near the end of the day. And this praises Christ who was so eager to -teach that not even the lateness of the hour induced him to postpone teaching them; but he -taught them at the tenth hour. “In the morning sow your seed, and in the evening do not let -your hands be idle” (Ecc 11:6).</p> -<p>296 The moderation of the disciples is also praised, because even at the tenth hour, when men -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 -this is not unexpected, for they had been disciples of John, whose drink was water and whose -food was the locust and wild honey.</p> -<p>297 According to Augustine, however, the tenth hour signifies the law, which was given in -ten precepts. And so the disciples came to Christ at the tenth hour and remained with him to -be taught so that the law might be fulfilled by Christ, since it could not be fulfilled by the -Jews. And so at that hour he is called Rabbi, that is, Teacher.</p> -<p>298 Then (v 40), he sets forth the fruit produced by the disciple of John who was converted to -Christ. First, the disciple is described; secondly, the fruit begun by him (v 41); thirdly, the +<p>284 The fruit of his testimony is given when he says, +<span style="font-weight: bold">Hearing this, the two disciples +followed Jesus.</span> First, the fruit resulting from the +testimony of John and his disciples is given. Secondly, the fruit +resulting from the preaching of Christ (v 43). In relation to the +first: first, the fruit arising from John’s testimony is +given; secondly, the fruit coming from the preaching of one of his +disciples (v 40). With respect to the first he does two things. +First, he shows the very beginning of the fruit coming from +John’s testimony. Secondly, its consummation as accomplished +by Christ (v 38).</p> +<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 +disciples,</span> who were with him, <span style= +"font-weight: bold">followed Jesus,</span> literally. going with +him, First, the fact that it is John who speaks while Christ is +silent, and that disciples gather to Christ through the words of +John, all this points out a mystery. For Christ is the groom of the +Church, and John, the friend and groomsman of the groom. Now the +function of the groomsman is to present the bride to the groom, and +verbally make known the agreements; the role of the groom is to be +silent, from modesty, and to make arrangements for his new bride as +he wills. Thus, the disciples are presented by John to Christ and +espoused in faith. John speaks, Christ is silent; yet after Christ +accepts them, he carefully instructs them.</p> +<p>We can note, secondly, that no one was converted when John +praised the dignity of Christ, saying, he “ranks ahead of +me,” and “I am not worthy to unfasten the strap of his +sandal.” But the disciples followed Christ when John revealed +Christ’s humility and about the mystery of the incarnation; +and this is because we are more moved by Christ’s humility +and the sufferings he endured for us. So it is said: “Your +name is like oil poured out,” i.e., mercy, by which you have +obtained salvation for all; and the text immediately follows with, +“young maidens have greatly loved you” (Sg 1:2).</p> +<p>We can note, thirdly, that the words of a preacher are like seed +falling on different kinds of ground: on one they bear fruit, and +on another they do not. So too, John, when he preaches, does not +convert all his disciples to Christ, but only two, those who were +well disposed. The others are envious of Christ, and they even +question him, as mentioned in Matthew (9:14).</p> +<p>Fourthly, we may note that John’s disciples, after hearing +his witness to Christ, did not at once thrust themselves forward to +speak with him hastily; rather, seriously and with a certain +modesty, they tried to speak to Christ alone and in a private +place: “There is a time and fitness for everything” +(Ecc 8:6).</p> +<p>286 The consummation of this fruit is now set forth (v 38), for +what John began is completed by Christ, since “the law +brought nothing to perfection” (Heb 7:19). And Christ does +two things. First, he questions the disciples who were following +him. Secondly, he teaches them (v 39). As to the first we have: +first, the question of Christ is given; secondly, the answer of the +disciples.</p> +<p>287 He says, <span style="font-weight: bold">Jesus turned +around, and seeing them following him said.</span> According to the +literal sense we should understand that Christ was walking in front +of them, and these two disciples, following him, did not see his +face at all; and so Christ turns to them to holster their +confidence. This lets us know that Christ gives confidence and hope +to all who begin to follow hini with a pure heart: “She goes +to meet those who desire her” (Wis 6:14). Now Jesus turns to +us in order that we may see him; this will happen in that blessed +vision when he will show us his face, as is said: “Show us +your face, and we will be saved” (Ps 79:4). For as long as we +are in this world we see his back, because it is through his +effects that we acquire a knowledge of him; so it is said, +“You will see my back” (Ex 33:23). Again, he turns to +give us the riches of his mercy. This is requested in Psalm 89 +(13): “Turn to us, 0 Lord.” For as long as Christ +withholds the help of his mercy he seems to be turned away from us. +And so Jesus turned to the disciples of John who were following him +in order to show them his face and to pour his grace upon them.</p> +<p>288 Christ examines them specifically about their intention. For +all who follow Christ do not have the same intention: some follow +him for the sake of temporal goods, and others for spiritual goods. +And so the Lord asks their intention, saying, <span style= +"font-weight: bold">What are you looking for?</span>; not in order +to learn their intention, but so that, after they showed a proper +intention, he might make them more intimate friends and show that +they are worthy to hear him.</p> +<p>289 It may be remarked that these are the first words which +Christ speaks in this Gospel. And this is appropriate, because the +first thing that God asks of a man is a proper intention. And, +according to Origen, after the six words that John had spoken, +Christ spoke the seventh. The first words spoken by John were when, +bearing witness to Christ, he cried out, saying, “This is the +one of whom I said.” The second is when he said, “I am +not worthy to unfasten the strap of his sandal.” The third +is, “I baptize with water. But there is one standing in your +midst whom you do not recognize.” The fourth is, “Look! +There is the Lamb of God.” The fifth, “I saw the Spirit +coming down on him from heaven like a dove.” The sixth, when +he says here, “Look! There is the Lamb of God.” But it +is Christ who speaks the seventh words so that we may understand, +in a mystical sense, that rest, which is signified by the seventh +day, will come to us through Christ, and that in him is found the +fulness of the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit.</p> +<p>290 The disciples answer; and although there was one question, +they gave two answers. First, why they are following Christ, +namely, to learn; thus they call him Teacher, <span style= +"font-weight: bold">Rabbi (which means Teacher).</span> As if to +say: We ask you to teach us. For they already knew what is stated +in Matthew (23:10): “You have one Teacher, the Christ.” +The second answer is what they 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 they were looking for the +home of Christ. For because of the great and wonderful things they +had heard about him from John, they were not satisfied with +questioning him only once and in a superficial way, but wanted to +do so frequently and seriously. And so they wanted to know where +his home was so that they might visit him often, according to the +advice of the wise man: “If you see a man of understanding, +go to him early” (Sir 6:36), and “Happy is the man who +hears me, who watches daily at my gates” (Prv 8:34).</p> +<p>In the allegorical sense, God’s home is in heaven, +according to the Psalm (122:1 ): “I have lifted up my eyes to +you, who live in heaven.” So they asked where Christ was +living because our purpose in following him should be that Christ +leads us to heaven, i.e., to heavenly glory.</p> +<p>Finally, in the moral sense, they ask, <span style= +"font-weight: bold">Where do you live?</span> as though desiring to +learn what qualities men should possess in order to be worthy to +have Christ dwell in them. Concerning this dwelling Ephesians +(2:22) says: “You are being built into a dwelling place for +God.” And the Song (1:6) says: “Show me, you whom my +soul loves, where you graze your flock, where you rest at +midday.”</p> +<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 have the instruction of the disciples by Christ; +secondly, their obedience is cited; and thirdly, the time is +given.</p> +<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 Lord says, “The Son of Man does not have any place +to lay his head” (Mt 8:20), why does he tell them to +<span style="font-weight: bold">Come and see</span> where he lives? +I answer, according to Chrysostom, that when the Lord says, +“The Son of Man does not have any place to lay his +head,” he showed that he had no home of his own, but not that +he did not remain in someone else’s home. And such was the +home he invited them to see, saying, <span style= +"font-weight: bold">Come and see.</span></p> +<p>In the mystical sense, he says, <span style= +"font-weight: bold">Come and see,</span> because the dwelling of +God, whether of glory or grace, cannot be known except by +experience: for it cannot be explained in words: “I will give +him a white stone upon which is written a new name, which no one +knows but he who 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 +see,</span> by experiencing and understanding.</p> +<p>293 It should be noted that we can attain to this knowledge in +four ways. First, by doing good works; so he says, Come: +“When shall I come and appear before the face of God” +(Ps 41:3). Secondly, by the rest or stillness of the mind: +“Be still and see” (Ps 45:10). Thirdly, by tasting the +divine sweetness: “Taste and see that the I.ord is +sweet” O’s 33:9). Fourthly, by acts of devotion: +“Let us lift up our hearts and hands in prayer” (Lam +3:41). And so the Lord says: “it is I myself. Feel and +see” (Lk 24:39).</p> +<p>294 Next the obedience of the disciples is mentioned; for +immediately <span style="font-weight: bold">they went and +saw,</span> because by coming they saw him, and seeing they did not +leave him. Thus it says, <span style="font-weight: bold">and they +stayed with him the rest of that day,</span> for as stated below +(6:45): “Every one who hears the Father, and has learned, +comes to me.” For those who leave Christ have not yet seen +him as they should. But those who have seen him by perfectly +believing <span style="font-weight: bold">stayed with him the rest +of that day;</span> hearing and seeing that blessed day, they spent +a blessed night: “Happy are your men, and happy are your +servants, who always stand before you” (1 Kgs 8:10). And as +Augustine says: “Let us also build a dwelling in our heart +and fashion a home where he may come and teach us.”</p> +<p>And he says, that day, because there can be no night where the +light of Christ is present, where there is the Sun of justice.</p> +<p>295 The time is given when he says, <span style= +"font-weight: bold">It was about the tenth hour.</span> The +Evangelist mentions this in order that, considering the literal +sense, he might give credit to Christ and the disciples. For the +tenth hour is near the end of the day. And this praises Christ who +was so eager to teach that not even the lateness of the hour +induced him to postpone teaching them; but he taught them at the +tenth hour. “In the morning sow your seed, and in the evening +do not let your hands be idle” (Ecc 11:6).</p> +<p>296 The moderation of the disciples is also praised, because +even at the tenth hour, when men 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 this is not unexpected, for they had been disciples of +John, whose drink was water and whose food was the locust and wild +honey.</p> +<p>297 According to Augustine, however, the tenth hour signifies +the law, which was given in ten precepts. And so the disciples came +to Christ at the tenth hour and remained with him to be taught so +that the law might be fulfilled by Christ, since it could not be +fulfilled by the Jews. And so at that hour he is called Rabbi, that +is, Teacher.</p> +<p>298 Then (v 40), he sets forth the fruit produced by the +disciple of John who was converted to Christ. First, the disciple +is described; secondly, the fruit begun by him (v 41); thirdly, the consummation of this fruit by Christ (v 42).</p> -<p>299 The disciple is described by name when he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">Andrew, </span>i.e., “manly”. “Act manfully, -and let Your heart be strong,” as it says in Psalm 30 (v 25). he mentions his name in order to -show his privilege: he was not only the first to be perfectly converted to Christ, but he also -preached Christ. So, as Stephen was the first martyr after Christ, so Andrew was the first -Christian.</p> -<p>He is described, secondly, by his relationship, that is, as <span style="font-weight: bold">Simon Peter’s brother, </span>for he was -the younger. And this is mentioned to commend him, for although younger in age, he became -first in faith.</p> -<p>He is described, thirdly, by his discipleship, because he was <span style="font-weight: bold">one of the two who had -followed him. </span>His name is mentioned in order to show that Andrew’s privilege was -remarkable. For the name of the other disciple is not mentioned: either because it was John -the Evangelist himself, who through humility followed the practice in his Gospel of not -mentioning his own name when he was involved in some event; or, according to Chrysostom, -because the other one was not a notable person, nor had he done anything great, and so there -was no need to mention his name. Luke does the same in his Gospel (10:1), where he does -not mention the names of the seventy-two disciples sent out by the Lord, because they were -not the outstanding and important persons that the apostles were. Or, according to Alcuin, this -other disciple was Philip: for the Evangelist, after discussing Andrew, begins at once with -Philip, saying: “On the following day Jesus wanted to go to Galilee, and coming upon Philip” -(below 1:43).</p> -<p>He is commended, fourthly, for the zeal of his devotion; hence he says that Andrew followed -him, i.e., Jesus: “My foot has followed in his steps” (Jb 23:11).</p> -<p>300 The fruit begun by Andrew is mentioned when he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">The first thing he did was to -look for his brother Simon. </span>He first mentions the one for whom he bore fruit, that is, his -brother, in order to mark the perfection of his conversion. For as Peter says, in the <i>Itinerary of -Clement, </i>the evident sign of a perfect conversion of anyone is that, once converted, the closer -one is to him the more he tries to convert him to Christ. And so Andrew, being now perfectly -converted, does not keep the treasure he found to himself, but hurries and quickly runs to his -brother to share with him the good things he has received. And so he says the <span style="font-weight: bold">first thing he, -</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 -make him related in faith: “A brother that is helped by his brother is like a strong city” (Prv -18:19); “Let him who hears say, ‘Come’ “ (Rv 22:17).</p> -<p>301 Secondly, he mentions the words spoken by Andrew, <span style="font-weight: bold">We have found the Messiah -(which means the Christ). </span>Here, according to Chrysostom, he is tacitly answering a certain -question: namely, that if someone were to ask what they had been instructed about by Christ, -they would have the ready answer that through the testimony of the Scriptures he instructed -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 -Messiah. </span>He implies by this that he had previously sought him by desire for a long time: -“Happy is the man who finds wisdom” (Prv 3:13).</p> -<p>“Messiah,” which is Hebrew, is translated as “Christos” in Greek, and in Latin as “Unctus” -(anointed), because he was anointed in a special way with invisible oil, the oil of the Holy -Spirit. So Andrew explicitly designates him by this title: “Your God has anointed you with -the oil of gladness above your fellows,” i.e., above all the saints. For all the saints are -anointed with that oil, but Christ was singularly anointed and is singularly holy. So, as -Chrysostom says, he does not simply call him “Messiah,” but <span style="font-weight: bold">the Messiah.</span></p> -<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 -Jesus. </span>This gives recognition to Peter’s obedience, for he came at once, without delay. And -consider the devotion of Andrew: for he brought him to Jesus and not to himself (for he knew -that he himself was weak); and so he leads him to Christ to be instructed by him. This shows -us that the efforts and the aim of preachers should not be to win for themselves the fruits of -their preaching, i.e., to turn them to their own private benefit and honor, but to bring them to -Jesus, i.e., to refer them to his glory and honor: “What we preach is not ourselves, but Jesus -Christ,” as is said in 2 Corinthians (4:5).</p> -<p>303 The consummation of this fruit is given when he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">Looking at him intently Jesus -said. </span>Here Christ, wishing to raise him up to faith in His divinity, begins to perform works of -divinity, making know things that are hidden. First of all, things which are hidden in the -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 -his divinity and called him by name, saying, <span style="font-weight: bold">You are Simon. </span>This is not surprising, for as it -is said: “Man sees the appearances, but the Lord sees the heart” (I Sm 16:7). This name is -appropriate for the mystery. For “Simon” means “obedient,” to indicate that obedience is -necessary for one who has been converted to Christ through faith: “He gives the Holy Spirit -to all who obey him” (Acts 5:32).</p> -<p>304 Secondly, he reveals things hidden in the past. Hence he says, son of John, because that -was the name of Simon’s father; or he says, “son of Jonah,” as we find in Matthew (16:17), -“Simon Bar-Jonah.” And each name is appropriate to this mystery. For “John” means -“grace,” to indicate that it is through grace that men come to the faith of Christ: “You are -saved by his grace” (Eph 2:5). And “Jonah” means “dove,” to indicate that it is by the Holy -Spirit, who has been given to us, that we are made strong in our love for God: “The love of -God is poured out into our hearts by the Holy Spirit” (Rom 5:5).</p> -<p>305 Thirdly, he reveals things hidden in the future. So he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">you are to be called Cephas -(which is translated Peter), </span>and in Greek, “head.” And this is appropriate to this mystery, -which is that he who was to be the head of the others and the vicar of Christ should remain -firm. As Matthew (16:18) says: “You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church.”</p> -<p>306 There is a question here about the literal meaning. First, why did Christ give Simon a -name at the beginning of his conversion, rather than will that he have this name from the time -of his birth? Two different answers have been given for this. The first, according to -Chrysostom, is that divinely given names indicate a certain eminence in spiritual grace. Now -when God confers a special grace upon anyone, the name indicating that grace is given at -one’s birth: as in the case of John the Baptist, who was named before he was born, because he -had been sanctified in his mother’s womb. But sometimes a special grace is given during the -course of one’s life: then such names are divinely given at that time and not at birth: as in the -case of Abraham and Sarah, whose names were changed when they received the promise that -their posterity would multiply. Likewise, Peter is named in a divine way when he is called to -the faith of Christ and to the grace of apostleship, and particularly because he was appointed -Prince of the apostles of the entire Church—which was not done with the other apostles.</p> -<p>But, according to Augustine, if he had been called Cephas from birth, this mystery would not -have been apparent. And so the Lord willed that he should have one name at birth, so that by -changing his name the mystery of the Church, which was built on his confession of faith, -would be apparent. Now “Peter” (<i>Petrus</i>) is derived from “rock” (<i>petra</i>). But the rock. was -Christ. Thus, the name “Peter” signifies the Church, which was built upon that solid and -immovable rock which is Christ.</p> -<p>307 The second question is whether this name was given to Peter at this time, or at the time -mentioned by Matthew (16:18). Augustine answers that this name was given to Simon at this -time; and at the event reported by Matthew the Lord is not giving this name but reminding -him of the name that was given, so that Christ is using this name as already given. But others -think that this name was given when the Lord said, “You are Peter, and upon this rock I will -build my church” (Mt 16:18); and in this passage in the Gospel of John, Christ is not giving -this name, but foretelling what will be given later.</p> -<p>308 The third question is about the calling of Peter and Andrew: for here it says that they -were called near the Jordan, because they were John’s disciples; but in Matthew (4:18) it says -that Christ called them by the Sea of Galilee. The answer to this is that there was a triple -calling of the apostles. The first was a call to knowledge or friendship and faith; and this is -the one recorded here. The second consisted in the prediction of their office: “From now on -you will be catching men” (Lk 5:10). The third call was to their apostleship, which is -mentioned by Matthew (4:18). This was the perfect call because after this they were not to -return to their own pursuits.</p> -<p style="margin-bottom: 0.125in; margin-bottom: 0.125in"> </p> -<p style="text-align: center; margin-bottom: 0.125in"><span style="font-weight: bold">LECTURE16</span></p> -<BLOCKQUOTE><p>43 On the following day Jesus wanted to go to Galilee, and coming upon Philip, he said, -“Follow me.” 44 Now Philip came from Bethsaida, the same town as Andrew and Peter. 45 -Philip sought out Nathanael, and said to him, “We have found the one Moses spoke of in the -law - the prophets too - Jesus, son of Joseph, from Nazareth.” 46 “From Nazareth!” Nathanael -replied, “What good can come from th1t place?” Philip said, “Come and see.” 47 When Jesus -saw Nathanael coming toward him, he said of him: “Here is a true Israelite, in whom there is -no guile.” 48 Nathanael asked him, “How do you know me?” Jesus replied and said, “Before -Philip called you, I saw you when you were sitting under the fig tree.” 49 “Rabbi,” said -Nathanael, “you are the Son of God; you are the King of Israel.” 50 Jesus responded and said, -“You believed just because I said to you that I saw you sitting under the fig tree! You will see -greater things than this.” 51 He went on to say, “Amen, amen, I say to you, you will see the -heavens opened and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man.”</p></BLOCKQUOTE> -<p>309 After having shown the fruit produced by John’s preaching and that of his disciples, the -Evangelist now shows the fruit obtained from the preaching of Christ. First, he deals with the -conversion of one disciple as the result of Christ’s preaching. Secondly, the conversion of -others due to the preaching of the disciple just converted to Christ (v 45). As to the first he -does three things: first, the occasion when the disciple is called is given; secondly, his calling -is described; thirdly, his situation.</p> -<p>310 The occasion of his calling was the departure of Jesus from Judea. So he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">On the -following day Jesus wanted to go to Galilee, and coming upon Philip. </span>There are three -reasons why Jesus left for Galilee, two of which are literal. One of these is that after being -baptized by John and desiring to shed honor on the Baptist, he left Judea for Galilee so that -his presence would not obscure and lessen John’s teaching authority (while he still retained -that state); and this teaches us to show honor to one another, as is said in Romans (12:10).</p> -<p>The second reason is that there are no distinguished persons in Galilee: “No prophet is to rise -from Galilee” (below 7:52). And so, to show the greatness of his power, Christ wished to go -there and choose there the princes of the earth, who are greater than the prophets: “He has -turned the desert into pools of water,” as we read in Psalm 106 (v 35).</p> -<p>The third reason is mystical: for “Galilee” means “passage.” So Christ desired to go from -Judea into Galilee in order to indicate that on “on the following day,” i.e., on the day of grace, -that is, the day of the Good News, he would pass from Judea into Galilee, i.e., to save the -Gentiles: “Is he going to go to those who are dispersed among the Gentiles, and teach the -Gentiles?” (below 7:35).</p> -<p>311 A disciple’s vocation is to follow: hence he says that after Christ found Philip he said, -<span style="font-weight: bold">Follow me. </span>Note that sometimes man finds God, but without knowing it, as it were: “He who -finds me will find life, and will have salvation from the Lord” (Prv 8:35). And at other times -God finds the man, in order to bestow honor and greatness upon him: “I have found David, -my servant” (Ps 88:2 1 ). Christ found Philip in this way, that is, to call him to the faith and to -grace. And so he says at once, <span style="font-weight: bold">Follow me.</span></p> -<p>312 There is a question here: Why did not Jesus call his disciples at the very beginning? -Chrysostorn answers that he did not wish to call anyone before someone clung to him -spontaneoulsy because of John’s preaching, for men are drawn by example more than by -words.</p> -<p>313 One might also ask why Philip followed Christ immediately after only a word, while -Andrew followed Christ after hearing about him from John, and Peter after hearing from -Andrew.</p> -<p>Three answers can be given. One is that Philip had already been instructed by John: for -according to one of the explanations given above, Philip was that other disciple who followed -Christ along with Andrew. Another is that Christ’s voice had power not only to act on one’s -hearing from without, but also on the heart from within: “My words are like fire” (Jer 23:29). -For the voice of Christ was spoken not only to the exterior, but it enkindled the interior of the -faithful to love him. The third answer is that Philip. had perhaps already been instructed about -Christ by Andrew and Peter, since they were from the same town. In fact, this is what the -Evangelist seems to imply by adding, <span style="font-weight: bold">Now Philip came from Bethsaida, the same town as -Andrew and Peter.</span></p> -<p>314 This gives us the situation of the disciples he called: for they were from Bethsaida. And -this is appropriate to this mystery. For “Bethsaida” means “house of hunters,” to show the -attitude of Philip, Peter and Andrew at that time, and because it was fitting to call, from the -house of hunters, hunters who were to capture souls for life: “I will send my hunters” (Jer -16:16).</p> -<p>315 Now the fruit produced by the disciple who was converted to Christ is given. First, the -beginning of the fruit, coming from this disciple. Secondly, its consummation by Christ (v -47). As to the first, he does three things: first, the statement of Philip is given; secondly, -Nathanael’s response; and thirdly, Philip’s ensuing advice.</p> -<p>316 As to the first, note that just as Andrew, after having been perfectly converted, was eager -to lead his brother to Christ, so too Philip with regard to his brother, Nathanael. And so he -says that Philip found Nathanael, whom he probably looked for as Andrew did for Peter; and -this was a sign of a perfect conversion. The word “Nathanael” means “gift of God”; and it is -God’s gift if anyone is converted to Christ.</p> -<p>He tells him that all the prophecies and the law have been fulfilled, and that the desires of -their holy forefathers are not in vain, but have been guaranteed, and that what God has -promised was now accomplished. <span style="font-weight: bold">We have found the one Moses spoke of in the law—the -prophets too—Jesus. </span>We understand by this that Nathanael was fairly learned in the law, -and that Philip, now having learned about Christ, wished to lead Nathanael to Christ through -the things he himself knew, that is, from the law and the prophets. So he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">the one Moses -spoke of in the law. </span>For Moses wrote of Christ: “If you believed Moses, you would perhaps -believe me, for he wrote of me” (below 5:46). <span style="font-weight: bold">The prophets too </span>wrote of Christ: “All the -prophets bear witness to him” (Acts 10:43).</p> -<p>317 Note that Philip says three things about Christ that are in agreement with the law and the -prophets. First, the name: for he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">We have found Jesus. </span>And this agrees with the -prophets: “I will send them a Savior” (Is 19:20); “1 will rejoice in God, my Jesus” (Hb 3:18).</p> -<p>Secondly, the family from which Christ took his human origin, when he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">son of Joseph, -</span>i.e., who was of the house and family of David. And although Jesus did not derive his origin -from him, yet he did derive it from the Virgin, who was of the same line as Joseph. He calls -him the son of Joseph, because Jesus was considered to be the son of the one to whom his -mother was married. So it is said: “the son of Joseph (as was supposed)” (Lk 3:23). Nor is it -strange that Philip called him the son of Joseph, since his own mother, who was aware of his -divine incarnation, called him his son: “Your father and I have been looking for you in -sorrow” (Lk 2:48). Indeed, if one is called the son of another because he is supported by him, -this is more reason why Joseph should be called the father of Jesus, even though he was not -so according to the flesh: for he not only supported him, but was the husband of his virgin -mother. However, Philip calls him the son of Joseph (not as though he was born from the -union of Joseph and the Virgin) because he knew that Christ would be born from the line of -David; and this was the house and family of Joseph, to whom Mary was married. And this -also is in agreement with the prophets: “I will raise up a just branch for David” (Jer 23:5).</p> -<p>Thirdly, he mentions his native land, saying, <span style="font-weight: bold">from Nazareth; </span>not because he had been born -there, but because he was brought up there; but he had been born in Bethlehem. Philip omits -to mention Bethlehem but not Nazareth because, while the birth of Christ was not known to -many, the place where he was brought up was. And this also agrees with the prophets: “A -shoot will arise from the root of Jesse, and a flower (or Nazarene, according to another -version) will rise up from his roots” (Is I I: I).</p> -<p>318 Then when he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">Nathanael replied, </span>the answer of Nathanael is given. His answer -can be interpreted as an assertion or as a question; and in either way it is suitable to Philip’s -affirmation. If it is taken as an assertion, as Augustine does, the meaning is: “Some good can -come from Nazareth.” In other words, from a city with that name it is possible that there -come forth to us some very excellent grace or some outstanding teacher to preach to us about -the flower of the virtues and the purity of sanctity; for “Nazareth” means “flower.” We can -understand from this that Nathanael, being quite learned in the law and a student of the -Scriptures, knew that the Savior was expected to come from Nazareth—something that was -not so clear even to the Scribes and Pharisees. And so when Philip said, <span style="font-weight: bold">We have found -Jesus from Nazareth, </span>his hopes were lifted and he answered: “Indeed, some good can come -from Nazareth.”</p> -<p>But if we take his answer as a question, as Chrysostom does, then the sense is: <span style="font-weight: bold">From -Nazareth! What good can come from that place? </span>As if to say: Everything else you say -seems credible, because his name and his lineage are consistent with the prophecies, but your -statement that he is <span style="font-weight: bold">from Nazareth </span>does not seem possible. For Nathanael understood from -the Scriptures that the Christ was to come from Bethlehem, according to: “And you, -Bethlehem, land of Judah, are not the least among the princes of Judah: for out of you a ruler -will come forth, who will rule my people Israel,” as we read in Matthew (2:6). And so, not -finding Philip’s statement in agreement with the prophecy, he prudently and moderately -inquires about its truth, <span style="font-weight: bold">What good can come from that place?</span></p> -<p>319 Then Philip’s advice is given, <span style="font-weight: bold">Come and see. </span>And this advice suits either interpretation -of Nathanael’s answer. To the assertive interpretation it is as though he says: You say that -something good can come from Nazareth, but I say that the good I state to you is of such a -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 -interpretation that makes it a question, it as as though he says: You wonder and say: <span style="font-weight: bold">What -good can come from that place?, </span>thinking that this is impossible according to the Scriptures. -But if you are willing to experience what I experienced, you will understand that what I say is -true, so <span style="font-weight: bold">Come and see.</span></p> -<p>Then, not discouraged by his questions, Philip brings Nathanael to Christ. He knew that he -would no longer argue with him if he tasted the words and teaching of Christ. And in this, -Philip was imitating Christ who earlier answered those who had asked about the place where -he lived: “Come and see ... “Come to him, and be enlightened” (Ps 33:6).</p> -<p>320 Then when he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">When Jesus saw Nathanael, </span>the consummation of this fruit by -Christ is described. We should note that there are two ways in which men are converted to -Christ: some by miracles they have seen and things experienced in themselves or in others; -others are converted through internal insights, through prophecy and the foreknowledge of -what is hidden in the future. The second way is more efficacious than the first: for devils and -certain men who receive their help can simulate marvels; but to predict the future can only be -done by divine power. “Tell us what is to come, and we will say that you are gods” (Is 41:23); -“Prophecies are for those who believe.” And so our Lord draws Nathanael to the faith not by -miracles but by making known things which are hidden. And so he says of him, <span style="font-weight: bold">Here is a -true Israelite, in whom there is no guile.</span></p> -<p>321 Christ mentions three hidden matters: things hidden in the present, in the heart; past -facts; and future heavenly matters. To know these three things is not a human but a divine +<p>299 The disciple is described by name when he says, <span style= +"font-weight: bold">Andrew,</span> i.e., “manly”. +“Act manfully, and let Your heart be strong,” as it +says in Psalm 30 (v 25). he mentions his name in order to show his +privilege: he was not only the first to be perfectly converted to +Christ, but he also preached Christ. So, as Stephen was the first +martyr after Christ, so Andrew was the first Christian.</p> +<p>He is described, secondly, by his relationship, that is, as +<span style="font-weight: bold">Simon Peter’s brother,</span> +for he was the younger. And this is mentioned to commend him, for +although younger in age, he became first in faith.</p> +<p>He is described, thirdly, by his discipleship, because he was +<span style="font-weight: bold">one of the two who had followed +him.</span> His name is mentioned in order to show that +Andrew’s privilege was remarkable. For the name of the other +disciple is not mentioned: either because it was John the +Evangelist himself, who through humility followed the practice in +his Gospel of not mentioning his own name when he was involved in +some event; or, according to Chrysostom, because the other one was +not a notable person, nor had he done anything great, and so there +was no need to mention his name. Luke does the same in his Gospel +(10:1), where he does not mention the names of the seventy-two +disciples sent out by the Lord, because they were not the +outstanding and important persons that the apostles were. Or, +according to Alcuin, this other disciple was Philip: for the +Evangelist, after discussing Andrew, begins at once with Philip, +saying: “On the following day Jesus wanted to go to Galilee, +and coming upon Philip” (below 1:43).</p> +<p>He is commended, fourthly, for the zeal of his devotion; hence +he says that Andrew followed him, i.e., Jesus: “My foot has +followed in his steps” (Jb 23:11).</p> +<p>300 The fruit begun by Andrew is mentioned when he says, +<span style="font-weight: bold">The first thing he did was to look +for his brother Simon.</span> He first mentions the one for whom he +bore fruit, that is, his brother, in order to mark the perfection +of his conversion. For as Peter says, in the <i>Itinerary of +Clement,</i> the evident sign of a perfect conversion of anyone is +that, once converted, the closer one is to him the more he tries to +convert him to Christ. And so Andrew, being now perfectly +converted, does not keep the treasure he found to himself, but +hurries and quickly runs to his brother to share with him the good +things he has received. And so he says the <span style= +"font-weight: bold">first thing he,</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 make him related in +faith: “A brother that is helped by his brother is like a +strong city” (Prv 18:19); “Let him who hears say, +‘Come’ “ (Rv 22:17).</p> +<p>301 Secondly, he mentions the words spoken by Andrew, +<span style="font-weight: bold">We have found the Messiah (which +means the Christ).</span> Here, according to Chrysostom, he is +tacitly answering a certain question: namely, that if someone were +to ask what they had been instructed about by Christ, they would +have the ready answer that through the testimony of the Scriptures +he instructed 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 +Messiah.</span> He implies by this that he had previously sought +him by desire for a long time: “Happy is the man who finds +wisdom” (Prv 3:13).</p> +<p>“Messiah,” which is Hebrew, is translated as +“Christos” in Greek, and in Latin as +“Unctus” (anointed), because he was anointed in a +special way with invisible oil, the oil of the Holy Spirit. So +Andrew explicitly designates him by this title: “Your God has +anointed you with the oil of gladness above your fellows,” +i.e., above all the saints. For all the saints are anointed with +that oil, but Christ was singularly anointed and is singularly +holy. So, as Chrysostom says, he does not simply call him +“Messiah,” but <span style="font-weight: bold">the +Messiah.</span></p> +<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 Jesus.</span> This gives +recognition to Peter’s obedience, for he came at once, +without delay. And consider the devotion of Andrew: for he brought +him to Jesus and not to himself (for he knew that he himself was +weak); and so he leads him to Christ to be instructed by him. This +shows us that the efforts and the aim of preachers should not be to +win for themselves the fruits of their preaching, i.e., to turn +them to their own private benefit and honor, but to bring them to +Jesus, i.e., to refer them to his glory and honor: “What we +preach is not ourselves, but Jesus Christ,” as is said in 2 +Corinthians (4:5).</p> +<p>303 The consummation of this fruit is given when he says, +<span style="font-weight: bold">Looking at him intently Jesus +said.</span> Here Christ, wishing to raise him up to faith in His +divinity, begins to perform works of divinity, making know things +that are hidden. First of all, things which are hidden in the +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 +his divinity and called him by name, saying, <span style= +"font-weight: bold">You are Simon.</span> This is not surprising, +for as it is said: “Man sees the appearances, but the Lord +sees the heart” (I Sm 16:7). This name is appropriate for the +mystery. For “Simon” means “obedient,” to +indicate that obedience is necessary for one who has been converted +to Christ through faith: “He gives the Holy Spirit to all who +obey him” (Acts 5:32).</p> +<p>304 Secondly, he reveals things hidden in the past. Hence he +says, son of John, because that was the name of Simon’s +father; or he says, “son of Jonah,” as we find in +Matthew (16:17), “Simon Bar-Jonah.” And each name is +appropriate to this mystery. For “John” means +“grace,” to indicate that it is through grace that men +come to the faith of Christ: “You are saved by his +grace” (Eph 2:5). And “Jonah” means +“dove,” to indicate that it is by the Holy Spirit, who +has been given to us, that we are made strong in our love for God: +“The love of God is poured out into our hearts by the Holy +Spirit” (Rom 5:5).</p> +<p>305 Thirdly, he reveals things hidden in the future. So he says, +<span style="font-weight: bold">you are to be called Cephas (which +is translated Peter),</span> and in Greek, “head.” And +this is appropriate to this mystery, which is that he who was to be +the head of the others and the vicar of Christ should remain firm. +As Matthew (16:18) says: “You are Peter, and upon this rock I +will build my church.”</p> +<p>306 There is a question here about the literal meaning. First, +why did Christ give Simon a name at the beginning of his +conversion, rather than will that he have this name from the time +of his birth? Two different answers have been given for this. The +first, according to Chrysostom, is that divinely given names +indicate a certain eminence in spiritual grace. Now when God +confers a special grace upon anyone, the name indicating that grace +is given at one’s birth: as in the case of John the Baptist, +who was named before he was born, because he had been sanctified in +his mother’s womb. But sometimes a special grace is given +during the course of one’s life: then such names are divinely +given at that time and not at birth: as in the case of Abraham and +Sarah, whose names were changed when they received the promise that +their posterity would multiply. Likewise, Peter is named in a +divine way when he is called to the faith of Christ and to the +grace of apostleship, and particularly because he was appointed +Prince of the apostles of the entire Church—which was not +done with the other apostles.</p> +<p>But, according to Augustine, if he had been called Cephas from +birth, this mystery would not have been apparent. And so the Lord +willed that he should have one name at birth, so that by changing +his name the mystery of the Church, which was built on his +confession of faith, would be apparent. Now “Peter” +(<i>Petrus</i>) is derived from “rock” (<i>petra</i>). +But the rock. was Christ. Thus, the name “Peter” +signifies the Church, which was built upon that solid and immovable +rock which is Christ.</p> +<p>307 The second question is whether this name was given to Peter +at this time, or at the time mentioned by Matthew (16:18). +Augustine answers that this name was given to Simon at this time; +and at the event reported by Matthew the Lord is not giving this +name but reminding him of the name that was given, so that Christ +is using this name as already given. But others think that this +name was given when the Lord said, “You are Peter, and upon +this rock I will build my church” (Mt 16:18); and in this +passage in the Gospel of John, Christ is not giving this name, but +foretelling what will be given later.</p> +<p>308 The third question is about the calling of Peter and Andrew: +for here it says that they were called near the Jordan, because +they were John’s disciples; but in Matthew (4:18) it says +that Christ called them by the Sea of Galilee. The answer to this +is that there was a triple calling of the apostles. The first was a +call to knowledge or friendship and faith; and this is the one +recorded here. The second consisted in the prediction of their +office: “From now on you will be catching men” (Lk +5:10). The third call was to their apostleship, which is mentioned +by Matthew (4:18). This was the perfect call because after this +they were not to return to their own pursuits.</p> +<p style="margin-bottom: 0.125in; margin-bottom: 0.125in"> + </p> +<p style="text-align: center; margin-bottom: 0.125in"><span style= +"font-weight: bold">LECTURE16</span></p> +<blockquote> +<p>43 On the following day Jesus wanted to go to Galilee, and +coming upon Philip, he said, “Follow me.” 44 Now Philip +came from Bethsaida, the same town as Andrew and Peter. 45 Philip +sought out Nathanael, and said to him, “We have found the one +Moses spoke of in the law - the prophets too - Jesus, son of +Joseph, from Nazareth.” 46 “From Nazareth!” +Nathanael replied, “What good can come from th1t +place?” Philip said, “Come and see.” 47 When +Jesus saw Nathanael coming toward him, he said of him: “Here +is a true Israelite, in whom there is no guile.” 48 Nathanael +asked him, “How do you know me?” Jesus replied and +said, “Before Philip called you, I saw you when you were +sitting under the fig tree.” 49 “Rabbi,” said +Nathanael, “you are the Son of God; you are the King of +Israel.” 50 Jesus responded and said, “You believed +just because I said to you that I saw you sitting under the fig +tree! You will see greater things than this.” 51 He went on +to say, “Amen, amen, I say to you, you will see the heavens +opened and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of +Man.”</p> +</blockquote> +<p>309 After having shown the fruit produced by John’s +preaching and that of his disciples, the Evangelist now shows the +fruit obtained from the preaching of Christ. First, he deals with +the conversion of one disciple as the result of Christ’s +preaching. Secondly, the conversion of others due to the preaching +of the disciple just converted to Christ (v 45). As to the first he +does three things: first, the occasion when the disciple is called +is given; secondly, his calling is described; thirdly, his +situation.</p> +<p>310 The occasion of his calling was the departure of Jesus from +Judea. So he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">On the following +day Jesus wanted to go to Galilee, and coming upon Philip.</span> +There are three reasons why Jesus left for Galilee, two of which +are literal. One of these is that after being baptized by John and +desiring to shed honor on the Baptist, he left Judea for Galilee so +that his presence would not obscure and lessen John’s +teaching authority (while he still retained that state); and this +teaches us to show honor to one another, as is said in Romans +(12:10).</p> +<p>The second reason is that there are no distinguished persons in +Galilee: “No prophet is to rise from Galilee” (below +7:52). And so, to show the greatness of his power, Christ wished to +go there and choose there the princes of the earth, who are greater +than the prophets: “He has turned the desert into pools of +water,” as we read in Psalm 106 (v 35).</p> +<p>The third reason is mystical: for “Galilee” means +“passage.” So Christ desired to go from Judea into +Galilee in order to indicate that on “on the following +day,” i.e., on the day of grace, that is, the day of the Good +News, he would pass from Judea into Galilee, i.e., to save the +Gentiles: “Is he going to go to those who are dispersed among +the Gentiles, and teach the Gentiles?” (below 7:35).</p> +<p>311 A disciple’s vocation is to follow: hence he says that +after Christ found Philip he said, <span style= +"font-weight: bold">Follow me.</span> Note that sometimes man finds +God, but without knowing it, as it were: “He who finds me +will find life, and will have salvation from the Lord” (Prv +8:35). And at other times God finds the man, in order to bestow +honor and greatness upon him: “I have found David, my +servant” (Ps 88:2 1 ). Christ found Philip in this way, that +is, to call him to the faith and to grace. And so he says at once, +<span style="font-weight: bold">Follow me.</span></p> +<p>312 There is a question here: Why did not Jesus call his +disciples at the very beginning? Chrysostorn answers that he did +not wish to call anyone before someone clung to him spontaneoulsy +because of John’s preaching, for men are drawn by example +more than by words.</p> +<p>313 One might also ask why Philip followed Christ immediately +after only a word, while Andrew followed Christ after hearing about +him from John, and Peter after hearing from Andrew.</p> +<p>Three answers can be given. One is that Philip had already been +instructed by John: for according to one of the explanations given +above, Philip was that other disciple who followed Christ along +with Andrew. Another is that Christ’s voice had power not +only to act on one’s hearing from without, but also on the +heart from within: “My words are like fire” (Jer +23:29). For the voice of Christ was spoken not only to the +exterior, but it enkindled the interior of the faithful to love +him. The third answer is that Philip. had perhaps already been +instructed about Christ by Andrew and Peter, since they were from +the same town. In fact, this is what the Evangelist seems to imply +by adding, <span style="font-weight: bold">Now Philip came from +Bethsaida, the same town as Andrew and Peter.</span></p> +<p>314 This gives us the situation of the disciples he called: for +they were from Bethsaida. And this is appropriate to this mystery. +For “Bethsaida” means “house of hunters,” +to show the attitude of Philip, Peter and Andrew at that time, and +because it was fitting to call, from the house of hunters, hunters +who were to capture souls for life: “I will send my +hunters” (Jer 16:16).</p> +<p>315 Now the fruit produced by the disciple who was converted to +Christ is given. First, the beginning of the fruit, coming from +this disciple. Secondly, its consummation by Christ (v 47). As to +the first, he does three things: first, the statement of Philip is +given; secondly, Nathanael’s response; and thirdly, +Philip’s ensuing advice.</p> +<p>316 As to the first, note that just as Andrew, after having been +perfectly converted, was eager to lead his brother to Christ, so +too Philip with regard to his brother, Nathanael. And so he says +that Philip found Nathanael, whom he probably looked for as Andrew +did for Peter; and this was a sign of a perfect conversion. The +word “Nathanael” means “gift of God”; and +it is God’s gift if anyone is converted to Christ.</p> +<p>He tells him that all the prophecies and the law have been +fulfilled, and that the desires of their holy forefathers are not +in vain, but have been guaranteed, and that what God has promised +was now accomplished. <span style="font-weight: bold">We have found +the one Moses spoke of in the law—the prophets +too—Jesus.</span> We understand by this that Nathanael was +fairly learned in the law, and that Philip, now having learned +about Christ, wished to lead Nathanael to Christ through the things +he himself knew, that is, from the law and the prophets. So he +says, <span style="font-weight: bold">the one Moses spoke of in the +law.</span> For Moses wrote of Christ: “If you believed +Moses, you would perhaps believe me, for he wrote of me” +(below 5:46). <span style="font-weight: bold">The prophets +too</span> wrote of Christ: “All the prophets bear witness to +him” (Acts 10:43).</p> +<p>317 Note that Philip says three things about Christ that are in +agreement with the law and the prophets. First, the name: for he +says, <span style="font-weight: bold">We have found Jesus.</span> +And this agrees with the prophets: “I will send them a +Savior” (Is 19:20); “1 will rejoice in God, my +Jesus” (Hb 3:18).</p> +<p>Secondly, the family from which Christ took his human origin, +when he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">son of Joseph,</span> +i.e., who was of the house and family of David. And although Jesus +did not derive his origin from him, yet he did derive it from the +Virgin, who was of the same line as Joseph. He calls him the son of +Joseph, because Jesus was considered to be the son of the one to +whom his mother was married. So it is said: “the son of +Joseph (as was supposed)” (Lk 3:23). Nor is it strange that +Philip called him the son of Joseph, since his own mother, who was +aware of his divine incarnation, called him his son: “Your +father and I have been looking for you in sorrow” (Lk 2:48). +Indeed, if one is called the son of another because he is supported +by him, this is more reason why Joseph should be called the father +of Jesus, even though he was not so according to the flesh: for he +not only supported him, but was the husband of his virgin mother. +However, Philip calls him the son of Joseph (not as though he was +born from the union of Joseph and the Virgin) because he knew that +Christ would be born from the line of David; and this was the house +and family of Joseph, to whom Mary was married. And this also is in +agreement with the prophets: “I will raise up a just branch +for David” (Jer 23:5).</p> +<p>Thirdly, he mentions his native land, saying, <span style= +"font-weight: bold">from Nazareth;</span> not because he had been +born there, but because he was brought up there; but he had been +born in Bethlehem. Philip omits to mention Bethlehem but not +Nazareth because, while the birth of Christ was not known to many, +the place where he was brought up was. And this also agrees with +the prophets: “A shoot will arise from the root of Jesse, and +a flower (or Nazarene, according to another version) will rise up +from his roots” (Is I I: I).</p> +<p>318 Then when he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">Nathanael +replied,</span> the answer of Nathanael is given. His answer can be +interpreted as an assertion or as a question; and in either way it +is suitable to Philip’s affirmation. If it is taken as an +assertion, as Augustine does, the meaning is: “Some good can +come from Nazareth.” In other words, from a city with that +name it is possible that there come forth to us some very excellent +grace or some outstanding teacher to preach to us about the flower +of the virtues and the purity of sanctity; for +“Nazareth” means “flower.” We can +understand from this that Nathanael, being quite learned in the law +and a student of the Scriptures, knew that the Savior was expected +to come from Nazareth—something that was not so clear even to +the Scribes and Pharisees. And so when Philip said, <span style= +"font-weight: bold">We have found Jesus from Nazareth,</span> his +hopes were lifted and he answered: “Indeed, some good can +come from Nazareth.”</p> +<p>But if we take his answer as a question, as Chrysostom does, +then the sense is: <span style="font-weight: bold">From Nazareth! +What good can come from that place?</span> As if to say: Everything +else you say seems credible, because his name and his lineage are +consistent with the prophecies, but your statement that he is +<span style="font-weight: bold">from Nazareth</span> does not seem +possible. For Nathanael understood from the Scriptures that the +Christ was to come from Bethlehem, according to: “And you, +Bethlehem, land of Judah, are not the least among the princes of +Judah: for out of you a ruler will come forth, who will rule my +people Israel,” as we read in Matthew (2:6). And so, not +finding Philip’s statement in agreement with the prophecy, he +prudently and moderately inquires about its truth, <span style= +"font-weight: bold">What good can come from that place?</span></p> +<p>319 Then Philip’s advice is given, <span style= +"font-weight: bold">Come and see.</span> And this advice suits +either interpretation of Nathanael’s answer. To the assertive +interpretation it is as though he says: You say that something good +can come from Nazareth, but I say that the good I state to you is +of such a 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 interpretation that makes it a question, it as as though he +says: You wonder and say: <span style="font-weight: bold">What good +can come from that place?,</span> thinking that this is impossible +according to the Scriptures. But if you are willing to experience +what I experienced, you will understand that what I say is true, so +<span style="font-weight: bold">Come and see.</span></p> +<p>Then, not discouraged by his questions, Philip brings Nathanael +to Christ. He knew that he would no longer argue with him if he +tasted the words and teaching of Christ. And in this, Philip was +imitating Christ who earlier answered those who had asked about the +place where he lived: “Come and see ... “Come to him, +and be enlightened” (Ps 33:6).</p> +<p>320 Then when he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">When +Jesus saw Nathanael,</span> the consummation of this fruit by +Christ is described. We should note that there are two ways in +which men are converted to Christ: some by miracles they have seen +and things experienced in themselves or in others; others are +converted through internal insights, through prophecy and the +foreknowledge of what is hidden in the future. The second way is +more efficacious than the first: for devils and certain men who +receive their help can simulate marvels; but to predict the future +can only be done by divine power. “Tell us what is to come, +and we will say that you are gods” (Is 41:23); +“Prophecies are for those who believe.” And so our Lord +draws Nathanael to the faith not by miracles but by making known +things which are hidden. And so he says of him, <span style= +"font-weight: bold">Here is a true Israelite, in whom there is no +guile.</span></p> +<p>321 Christ mentions three hidden matters: things hidden in the +present, in the heart; past facts; and future heavenly matters. To +know these three things is not a human but a divine achievement.</p> -<p>He mentions things hidden in the present when he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">Here is a true Israelite, in whom -there is no guile. </span>Here we have, first, the prior revelation of Christ; secondly, Nathanael’s -question, <span style="font-weight: bold">How do you know me?</span></p> -<p>322 First he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">When Jesus saw Nathanael coming toward him. </span>As if to say: Before -Nathanael reached him, Jesus said, <span style="font-weight: bold">Here is a true Israelite. </span>He said this about him before he -came to him, because had he said it after he came, Nathanael might have believed that Jesus -had heard it from Philip.</p> -<p>Christ said, <span style="font-weight: bold">Here is a true Israelite, in whom there is no guile. </span>Now “Israel” has two -meanings. One of these, as the Gloss says, is “most righteous”.—“Do not fear, my most -righteous servant, whom I have chosen” (Is 44:2). Its second meaning is “the man who sees -God.” And according to each meaning Nathanael is a true Israelite. For since one in whom -there is no guile is called righteous, Nathanael is said to be a <span style="font-weight: bold">true Israelite, in whom there is -no guile. </span>As if to say: You truly represent your race because you are righteous and without -guile. Further, because man sees God through cleanness of heart and simplicity, Christ said, <span style="font-weight: bold">a -true Israelite, </span>i.e., you are a man who truly sees God because you are simple and without +<p>He mentions things hidden in the present when he says, +<span style="font-weight: bold">Here is a true Israelite, in whom +there is no guile.</span> Here we have, first, the prior revelation +of Christ; secondly, Nathanael’s question, <span style= +"font-weight: bold">How do you know me?</span></p> +<p>322 First he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">When Jesus +saw Nathanael coming toward him.</span> As if to say: Before +Nathanael reached him, Jesus said, <span style= +"font-weight: bold">Here is a true Israelite.</span> He said this +about him before he came to him, because had he said it after he +came, Nathanael might have believed that Jesus had heard it from +Philip.</p> +<p>Christ said, <span style="font-weight: bold">Here is a true +Israelite, in whom there is no guile.</span> Now +“Israel” has two meanings. One of these, as the Gloss +says, is “most righteous”.—“Do not fear, my +most righteous servant, whom I have chosen” (Is 44:2). Its +second meaning is “the man who sees God.” And according +to each meaning Nathanael is a true Israelite. For since one in +whom there is no guile is called righteous, Nathanael is said to be +a <span style="font-weight: bold">true Israelite, in whom there is +no guile.</span> As if to say: You truly represent your race +because you are righteous and without guile. Further, because man +sees God through cleanness of heart and simplicity, Christ said, +<span style="font-weight: bold">a true Israelite,</span> i.e., you +are a man who truly sees God because you are simple and without guile.</p> -<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 -that Nathanael asked: <span style="font-weight: bold">What good can come from that place?</span></p> -<p>323 Augustine has a different explanation of this passage. It is clear that all are born under -sin. Now those who have sin in their hearts but outwardly pretend to be just are called -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 -true Israelite, in whom there is no guile, </span>not because Nathanael was without sin, or because -he had no need of a physician, for no one is born in such a way as not to need a physician; but -he was praised by Christ because he admitted his sins.</p> -<p>324 Then when he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">How do you know me?, </span>we have Nathanael’s question. For -Nathanael, in wonder at the divine power in this revelation of what is hidden, because this can -only be from God—“The heart is depraved and inscrutable, and who is able to know it? I the -Lord search the heart and probe the loins” (Jer 17:9); “Man sees the appearances, but the Lord -sees the heart” (I Sin 16:7)—asks, <span style="font-weight: bold">How do you know me? </span>Here we can recognize -Nathanael’s humility, because, although he had been praised, he did not become elated, but -held this praise of himself suspect. “My people, who call you blessed, they are deceiving you” -(Is 3:12).</p> -<p>325 Then he touches on matters in the past, saying, <span style="font-weight: bold">Before Philip called you, I saw you -when you were sitting under the fig tree. </span>First we have the statement of Christ; secondly, -the confession of Nathanael.</p> -<p>326 As to the first, we should note that Nathanael might have had two misgivings about -Christ. One, that Christ said this in order to win his friendship by flattery; the other, that -Christ had learned what he knew from others. So, to remove Nathanael’s suspicions and raise -him to higher things, Christ reveals certain hidden matters that no one could know except in a -divine way, that is, things that related only to Nathanael. He refers to these when he says, -<span style="font-weight: bold">Before Philip called you, I saw you when you were sitting under the fig tree. </span>In the literal -sense, this means that Nathanael was under a fig tree when he was called by Philip—which -Christ knew by divine power, for “The eyes of the Lord are far brighter than the sun” (Sir -23:28).</p> -<p>In the mystical sense, the fig tree signifies sin: both because we find a fig tree, bearing only -leaves but no fruit, being cursed, as a symbol of sin (Mt 11:19); and because Adam and Eve, -after they had sinned, made clothes from fig leaves. So he says here, when you were sitting -under the fig tree, i.e., under the shadow of sin, before you were called to grace, I saw you, -with the eye of mercy; for God’s predestination looks upon the predestined, who are living -under sin, with an eye of pity, for as Ephesians (1:4) says, “ He chose us before the -foundation of the world.” And he speaks of this eye here: I saw you, by predestining you from +<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 +that Nathanael asked: <span style="font-weight: bold">What good can +come from that place?</span></p> +<p>323 Augustine has a different explanation of this passage. It is +clear that all are born under sin. Now those who have sin in their +hearts but outwardly pretend to be just are called 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 true Israelite, in +whom there is no guile,</span> not because Nathanael was without +sin, or because he had no need of a physician, for no one is born +in such a way as not to need a physician; but he was praised by +Christ because he admitted his sins.</p> +<p>324 Then when he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">How do +you know me?,</span> we have Nathanael’s question. For +Nathanael, in wonder at the divine power in this revelation of what +is hidden, because this can only be from God—“The heart +is depraved and inscrutable, and who is able to know it? I the Lord +search the heart and probe the loins” (Jer 17:9); “Man +sees the appearances, but the Lord sees the heart” (I Sin +16:7)—asks, <span style="font-weight: bold">How do you know +me?</span> Here we can recognize Nathanael’s humility, +because, although he had been praised, he did not become elated, +but held this praise of himself suspect. “My people, who call +you blessed, they are deceiving you” (Is 3:12).</p> +<p>325 Then he touches on matters in the past, saying, <span style= +"font-weight: bold">Before Philip called you, I saw you when you +were sitting under the fig tree.</span> First we have the statement +of Christ; secondly, the confession of Nathanael.</p> +<p>326 As to the first, we should note that Nathanael might have +had two misgivings about Christ. One, that Christ said this in +order to win his friendship by flattery; the other, that Christ had +learned what he knew from others. So, to remove Nathanael’s +suspicions and raise him to higher things, Christ reveals certain +hidden matters that no one could know except in a divine way, that +is, things that related only to Nathanael. He refers to these when +he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">Before Philip called you, +I saw you when you were sitting under the fig tree.</span> In the +literal sense, this means that Nathanael was under a fig tree when +he was called by Philip—which Christ knew by divine power, +for “The eyes of the Lord are far brighter than the +sun” (Sir 23:28).</p> +<p>In the mystical sense, the fig tree signifies sin: both because +we find a fig tree, bearing only leaves but no fruit, being cursed, +as a symbol of sin (Mt 11:19); and because Adam and Eve, after they +had sinned, made clothes from fig leaves. So he says here, when you +were sitting under the fig tree, i.e., under the shadow of sin, +before you were called to grace, I saw you, with the eye of mercy; +for God’s predestination looks upon the predestined, who are +living under sin, with an eye of pity, for as Ephesians (1:4) says, +“ He chose us before the foundation of the world.” And +he speaks of this eye here: I saw you, by predestining you from eternity.</p> -<p>Or, the meaning is, according to Gregory: I saw you when <span style="font-weight: bold">you were sitting under the fig -tree</span>, i.e., under the shadow of the law. “The law has only a shadow of the good things to -come” (Heb 10:1).</p> -<p>327 Hearing this, Nathanael is immediately converted, and, seeing the power of the divinity -in Christ, breaks out in words of conversion and praise, saying, <span style="font-weight: bold">Rabbi, you are the Son of -God</span>. Here he considers three things about Christ. First, the fullness of his knowledge, when -he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">Rabbi, </span>which is translated as Teacher. As if to say: You are perfect in knowledge. -For he had already realized what is said in Matthew (23:10): “You have one Teacher, the -Christ.” Secondly, the excellence of his singular grace, when he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">you are the Son of -God</span>. For it is due to grace alone that one becomes a son of God by adoption. And it is also -through grace that one is a son of God through union; and this is exclusive to the man Christ, -because that man is the Son of God not due to any preceding merit, but through the grace of -union. Thirdly, he considers the greatness of his power when he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">you are the King of -Israel</span>, i.e., awaited by Israel as its king and defender: “His power is everlasting” (Dn 7:14).</p> -<p>328 A question comes up at this point, according to Chrysostom. For since Peter, who after -many miracles and much teaching, confessed what Nathanael confesses here about Christ, -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 -Bar-Jona” (Mt 16:17), why not the same for Nathanael, who said the same thing before seeing -any miracles or receiving any teaching? Chrysostom answers that the reason for this is that -even though Nathanael and Peter spoke the same words, the meaning of the two was not the -same. For Peter acknowledged that Christ was the true Son of God by nature, i.e., he was -man, and yet truly God; but Nathanael acknowledged that Christ was the Son of God by -means of adoption, in the sense of, “I said: You are gods, and all of you the sons of the Most -High”(Ps 81:6). This is clear from what Nathanael said next: for if he had understood that -Christ was the Son of God by nature, he would not have said, you are the King of Israel, but -“of the whole world.” It is also clear from the fact that Christ added nothing to the faith of -Peter, since it was perfect, but stated that he would build the Church on that profession. But -he raises Nathanael to greater things, since the greater part of his profession was deficient; to -greater things, i.e., to a knowledge of his divinity.</p> -<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 -to the future. As if to say: Because I have revealed the past to you, you believe that I am the -Son of God only by adoption, and the King of Israel; but I will bring you to greater -knowledge, so that you may believe that I am the natural Son of God, and the King of all -ages. And accordingly he says, Amen, amen, I say to <span style="font-weight: bold">you, you will see the heavens opened -and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man. </span>By this, according to -Chrysostom, the Lord wishes to prove that he is the true Son of God, and God. For the -peculiar task of angels is to minister and be subject: “Bless the Lord, all of you, his angels, his -ministers, who do his will” (Ps 102:20). So when you see angels minister to me, you will be -certain that I am the true Son of God. “When he leads his First-Begotten into the world, he -says: ‘Let all the angels of God adore him’” (Heb 1:6).</p> -<p>330 When did the apostles see this? They saw it, I say, during the passion, when an angel -stood by to comfort Christ (Lk 22:13); again, at the resurrection, when the apostles found two -angels who were standing over the tomb. Again, at the ascension, when the angels said to the -apostles: “Men of Galilee, why are you standing here looking up to heaven? This Jesus, who -has been taken from you into heaven, will come in the same way as you have seen him going -into heaven” (Acts 1:11 ).</p> -<p>331 Because Christ spoke the truth about the past, it was easier for Nathanael to believe what -he foretells about the future, saying, <span style="font-weight: bold">you will see</span>. For one who has revealed the truth about -things hidden in the past, has an evident argument that what he is saying about the future is -true. He says, <span style="font-weight: bold">the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man, </span>because, in -his mortal flesh, he was a little less than the angels; and from this point of view, angels -ascend and descend upon him. But insofar as he is the Son of God, he is above the angels, as -was said.</p> -<p>332 According to Augustine, Christ is here revealing his divinity in a beautiful way. For it is -recorded that Jacob dreamed of a ladder, standing on the ground, with “the angels of God -ascending and descending on it” (Gn 28:16). Then Jacob arose and poured oil on a stone and -said, “Truly, the Lord is in this place” (Gn 28:16). Now that stone is Christ, whom the -builders rejected; and the invisible oil of the Holy Spirit was poured on him. He is set up as a -pillar, because he was to be the foundation of the Church: “No one can lay another foundation -except that which has been laid” (1 Cor 3:11). The angels are ascending and descending -inasmuch as they are ministering and serving before him. So he said, <span style="font-weight: bold">Amen, amen, I say to -you, you will see the heavens opened, </span>and so forth, as if to say: Because you are truly an -Israelite, give heed to what Israel saw, so that you many believe that I am the one signified by -the stone anointed by Jacob, for you also will see angels ascending and descending upon him +<p>Or, the meaning is, according to Gregory: I saw you when +<span style="font-weight: bold">you were sitting under the fig +tree</span>, i.e., under the shadow of the law. “The law has +only a shadow of the good things to come” (Heb 10:1).</p> +<p>327 Hearing this, Nathanael is immediately converted, and, +seeing the power of the divinity in Christ, breaks out in words of +conversion and praise, saying, <span style= +"font-weight: bold">Rabbi, you are the Son of God</span>. Here he +considers three things about Christ. First, the fullness of his +knowledge, when he says, <span style= +"font-weight: bold">Rabbi,</span> which is translated as Teacher. +As if to say: You are perfect in knowledge. For he had already +realized what is said in Matthew (23:10): “You have one +Teacher, the Christ.” Secondly, the excellence of his +singular grace, when he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">you +are the Son of God</span>. For it is due to grace alone that one +becomes a son of God by adoption. And it is also through grace that +one is a son of God through union; and this is exclusive to the man +Christ, because that man is the Son of God not due to any preceding +merit, but through the grace of union. Thirdly, he considers the +greatness of his power when he says, <span style= +"font-weight: bold">you are the King of Israel</span>, i.e., +awaited by Israel as its king and defender: “His power is +everlasting” (Dn 7:14).</p> +<p>328 A question comes up at this point, according to Chrysostom. +For since Peter, who after many miracles and much teaching, +confessed what Nathanael confesses here about Christ, 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 +Bar-Jona” (Mt 16:17), why not the same for Nathanael, who +said the same thing before seeing any miracles or receiving any +teaching? Chrysostom answers that the reason for this is that even +though Nathanael and Peter spoke the same words, the meaning of the +two was not the same. For Peter acknowledged that Christ was the +true Son of God by nature, i.e., he was man, and yet truly God; but +Nathanael acknowledged that Christ was the Son of God by means of +adoption, in the sense of, “I said: You are gods, and all of +you the sons of the Most High”(Ps 81:6). This is clear from +what Nathanael said next: for if he had understood that Christ was +the Son of God by nature, he would not have said, you are the King +of Israel, but “of the whole world.” It is also clear +from the fact that Christ added nothing to the faith of Peter, +since it was perfect, but stated that he would build the Church on +that profession. But he raises Nathanael to greater things, since +the greater part of his profession was deficient; to greater +things, i.e., to a knowledge of his divinity.</p> +<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 to the future. As +if to say: Because I have revealed the past to you, you believe +that I am the Son of God only by adoption, and the King of Israel; +but I will bring you to greater knowledge, so that you may believe +that I am the natural Son of God, and the King of all ages. And +accordingly he says, Amen, amen, I say to <span style= +"font-weight: bold">you, you will see the heavens opened and the +angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man.</span> By +this, according to Chrysostom, the Lord wishes to prove that he is +the true Son of God, and God. For the peculiar task of angels is to +minister and be subject: “Bless the Lord, all of you, his +angels, his ministers, who do his will” (Ps 102:20). So when +you see angels minister to me, you will be certain that I am the +true Son of God. “When he leads his First-Begotten into the +world, he says: ‘Let all the angels of God adore +him’” (Heb 1:6).</p> +<p>330 When did the apostles see this? They saw it, I say, during +the passion, when an angel stood by to comfort Christ (Lk 22:13); +again, at the resurrection, when the apostles found two angels who +were standing over the tomb. Again, at the ascension, when the +angels said to the apostles: “Men of Galilee, why are you +standing here looking up to heaven? This Jesus, who has been taken +from you into heaven, will come in the same way as you have seen +him going into heaven” (Acts 1:11 ).</p> +<p>331 Because Christ spoke the truth about the past, it was easier +for Nathanael to believe what he foretells about the future, +saying, <span style="font-weight: bold">you will see</span>. For +one who has revealed the truth about things hidden in the past, has +an evident argument that what he is saying about the future is +true. He says, <span style="font-weight: bold">the angels of God +ascending and descending on the Son of Man,</span> because, in his +mortal flesh, he was a little less than the angels; and from this +point of view, angels ascend and descend upon him. But insofar as +he is the Son of God, he is above the angels, as was said.</p> +<p>332 According to Augustine, Christ is here revealing his +divinity in a beautiful way. For it is recorded that Jacob dreamed +of a ladder, standing on the ground, with “the angels of God +ascending and descending on it” (Gn 28:16). Then Jacob arose +and poured oil on a stone and said, “Truly, the Lord is in +this place” (Gn 28:16). Now that stone is Christ, whom the +builders rejected; and the invisible oil of the Holy Spirit was +poured on him. He is set up as a pillar, because he was to be the +foundation of the Church: “No one can lay another foundation +except that which has been laid” (1 Cor 3:11). The angels are +ascending and descending inasmuch as they are ministering and +serving before him. So he said, <span style= +"font-weight: bold">Amen, amen, I say to you, you will see the +heavens opened,</span> and so forth, as if to say: Because you are +truly an Israelite, give heed to what Israel saw, so that you many +believe that I am the one signified by the stone anointed by Jacob, +for you also will see angels ascending and descending upon him [viz. Jesus].</p> -<p>333 Or, the angels are, according to Augustine, the preachers of Christ: “Go, swift angels, to a -nation rent and torn to pieces,” as it says in Isaiah (18:2). They ascend through contemplation, -just as Paul had ascended even to the third heaven (2 Cor 12:2); and they descend by -instructing their neighbor. <span style="font-weight: bold">On the Son of Man, </span>i.e., for the honor of Christ, because “what -we preach is not ourselves, but Jesus Christ” (2 Cor 4:5). In order that they might ascend and -descend, the heavens were opened, because heavenly graces must be given to preachers if -they are to ascend and descend. “The heavens broke at the presence of God” (Ps 67:9); “1 saw -the heavens open” (Rv 4:1 ).</p> -<p>334 Now the reason why Nathanael was not chosen to be an apostle after such a profession of -faith is that Christ did not want the conversion of the world to the faith to be attributed to -human wisdom, but solely to the power of God. And so he did not choose Nathanael as an -apostle, since he was very learned in the law; he rather chose simple and uneducated men. -“Not many of you are learned,” and “God chose the simple of the world” (1 Cor 1:26).</p> +<p>333 Or, the angels are, according to Augustine, the preachers of +Christ: “Go, swift angels, to a nation rent and torn to +pieces,” as it says in Isaiah (18:2). They ascend through +contemplation, just as Paul had ascended even to the third heaven +(2 Cor 12:2); and they descend by instructing their neighbor. +<span style="font-weight: bold">On the Son of Man,</span> i.e., for +the honor of Christ, because “what we preach is not +ourselves, but Jesus Christ” (2 Cor 4:5). In order that they +might ascend and descend, the heavens were opened, because heavenly +graces must be given to preachers if they are to ascend and +descend. “The heavens broke at the presence of God” (Ps +67:9); “1 saw the heavens open” (Rv 4:1 ).</p> +<p>334 Now the reason why Nathanael was not chosen to be an apostle +after such a profession of faith is that Christ did not want the +conversion of the world to the faith to be attributed to human +wisdom, but solely to the power of God. And so he did not choose +Nathanael as an apostle, since he was very learned in the law; he +rather chose simple and uneducated men. “Not many of you are +learned,” and “God chose the simple of the world” +(1 Cor 1:26).</p> +</blockquote> </body> - </html>