Mercurial > hg > Aquinas
diff john/english/John1.html @ 31:25a799388159
originals from http://www.josephkenny.joyeurs.com/CDtexts/SSJohn.htm
| author | ht |
|---|---|
| date | Tue, 24 Nov 2009 20:16:17 +0000 |
| parents | |
| children | 178aed5d2c3c |
line wrap: on
line diff
--- /dev/null Thu Jan 01 00:00:00 1970 +0000 +++ b/john/english/John1.html Tue Nov 24 20:16:17 2009 +0000 @@ -0,0 +1,3713 @@ +<html> +<head> +</style> +</head> + +<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 +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 +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 +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 +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 +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). +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 +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 +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 +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 +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 +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 +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 +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 +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 +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 +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 +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 +[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> +</body> + +</html>