Bible Verses and Early Church Commentary | Historical Christian Faith

¹ In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. ² The same was in the beginning with God. ³ All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. ⁴ In him was life; and the life was the light of men. ⁵ And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not. ⁶ There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. ⁷ The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe. ⁸ He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light. ⁹ That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world. ¹⁰ He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. ¹¹ He came unto his own, and his own received him not. ¹² But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: ¹³ Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. ¹⁴ And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. ¹⁵ John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me. ¹⁶ And of his fulness have all we received, and grace for grace. ¹⁷ For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. ¹⁸ No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. ¹⁹ And this is the record of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, Who art thou? ²⁰ And he confessed, and denied not; but confessed, I am not the Christ. ²¹ And they asked him, What then? Art thou Elias? And he saith, I am not. Art thou that prophet? And he answered, No. ²² Then said they unto him, Who art thou? that we may give an answer to them that sent us. What sayest thou of thyself? ²³ He said, I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make straight the way of the Lord, as said the prophet Esaias. ²⁴ And they which were sent were of the Pharisees. ²⁵ And they asked him, and said unto him, Why baptizest thou then, if thou be not that Christ, nor Elias, neither that prophet? ²⁶ John answered them, saying, I baptize with water: but there standeth one among you, whom ye know not; ²⁷ He it is, who coming after me is preferred before me, whose shoe's latchet I am not worthy to unloose. ²⁸ These things were done in Bethabara beyond Jordan, where John was baptizing. ²⁹ The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world. ³⁰ This is he of whom I said, After me cometh a man which is preferred before me: for he was before me. ³¹ And I knew him not: but that he should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water. ³² And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him. ³³ And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost. ³⁴ And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God. ³⁵ Again the next day after John stood, and two of his disciples; ³⁶ And looking upon Jesus as he walked, he saith, Behold the Lamb of God! ³⁷ And the two disciples heard him speak, and they followed Jesus. ³⁸ Then Jesus turned, and saw them following, and saith unto them, What seek ye? They said unto him, Rabbi, (which is to say, being interpreted, Master,) where dwellest thou? ³⁹ He saith unto them, Come and see. They came and saw where he dwelt, and abode with him that day: for it was about the tenth hour. ⁴⁰ One of the two which heard John speak, and followed him, was Andrew, Simon Peter's brother. ⁴¹ He first findeth his own brother Simon, and saith unto him, We have found the Messias, which is, being interpreted, the Christ. ⁴² And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone. ⁴³ The day following Jesus would go forth into Galilee, and findeth Philip, and saith unto him, Follow me. ⁴⁴ Now Philip was of Bethsaida, the city of Andrew and Peter. ⁴⁵ Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith unto him, We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph. ⁴⁶ And Nathanael said unto him, Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth? Philip saith unto him, Come and see. ⁴⁷ Jesus saw Nathanael coming to him, and saith of him, Behold an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile! ⁴⁸ Nathanael saith unto him, Whence knowest thou me? Jesus answered and said unto him, Before that Philip called thee, when thou wast under the fig tree, I saw thee. ⁴⁹ Nathanael answered and saith unto him, Rabbi, thou art the Son of God; thou art the King of Israel. ⁵⁰ Jesus answered and said unto him, Because I said unto thee, I saw thee under the fig tree, believest thou? thou shalt see greater things than these. ⁵¹ And he saith unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Hereafter ye shall see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man.

[AD 202] Irenaeus on John 1:1

And he expresses himself thus: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God; the same was in the beginning with God.".
What was made was life in Him, and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness, and the darkness comprehended it not.".
For that according to John relates His original, effectual, and glorious generation from the Father, thus declaring, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.".
This was in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him, and without Him was nothing made."

Source: Against Heresies Book I

[AD 215] Clement of Alexandria on John 1:1

For both are one-that is, God. For He has said, "In the beginning the Word was in God, and the Word was God."

Source: Clement of Alexandria The Instructor Book I

[AD 215] Clement of Alexandria on John 1:1-5

Chap. i. 1. "That which was from the beginning; which we have seen with our eyes; which we have heard."

Following the Gospel according to John, and in accordance with it, this Epistle also contains the spiritual principle.

What therefore he says, "from the beginning," the Presbyter explained to this effect, that the beginning of generation is not separated from the beginning of the Creator. For when he says, "That which was from the beginning," he touches upon the generation without beginning of the Son, who is co-existent with the Father. There was; then, a Word importing an unbeginning eternity; as also the Word itself, that is, the Son of God, who being, by equality of substance, one with the Father, is eternal and uncreate. That He was always the Word, is signified by saying, "In the beginning was the Word." But by the expression, "we have seen with our eyes," he signifies the Lord's presence in the flesh, "and our hands have handled," he says, "of the Word of life." He means not only His flesh, but the virtues of the Son, like the sunbeam which penetrates to the lowest places — this sunbeam coming in the flesh became palpable to the disciples. It is accordingly related in traditions, that John, touching the outward body itself, sent his hand deep down into it, and that the solidity of the flesh offered no obstacle, but gave way to the hand of the disciple.

"And our hands have handled of the Word of life;" that is, He who came in the flesh became capable of being touched. As also,

Ver. 2. "The life was manifested." For in the Gospel he thus speaks: "And what was made, in Him was life, and the life was the light of men." [John 1:3-4]

"And we show unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto you."

He signifies by the appellation of Father, that the Son also existed always, without beginning.

Ver. 5. "For God," he says, "is light."

He does not express the divine essence, but wishing to declare the majesty of God, he has applied to the Divinity what is best and most excellent in the view of men. Thus also Paul, when he speaks of "light inaccessible." [1 Timothy 6:16] But John himself also in this same Epistle says, "God is love:" [1 John 4:16] pointing out the excellences of God, that He is kind and merciful; and because He is light, makes men righteous, according to the advancement of the soul, through charity. God, then, who is ineffable in respect of His substance, is light.

"And in Him is no darkness at all,"— that is, no passion, no keeping up of evil respecting any one, [He] destroys no one, but gives salvation to all. Light moreover signifies, either the precepts of the Law, or faith, or doctrine. Darkness is the opposite of these things. Not as if there were another way; since there is only one way according to the divine precepts. For the work of God is unity. Duality and all else that exists, except unity, arises from perversity of life.

Source: Fragments (Clement of Alexandria)

[AD 220] Tertullian on John 1:1

Certain people affirm that in Hebrew Genesis begins, “In the beginning God made for himself a son.” Against the ratification of this I am persuaded by other arguments from God’s ordinance in which he was before the foundation of the world until the generation of the Son. For before all things, God was alone, himself his own world and location and everything—alone however because there was nothing external beside him. Yet not even then was he alone; for he had with him that Reason that he had in himself—his own, of course. For God is rational, and reason is primarily in him, and thus from him are all things: and that Reason is his consciousness. This the Greeks call Logos, by which expression we also designate discourse, and consequently our people are already wont, through the artlessness of the translation, to say that “Discourse was in the beginning with God,” though it would be more appropriate to consider Reason of older standing, seeing that God is [not] discursive from the beginning but is rational even before the beginning, and because discourse itself, having its ground in reason, shows reason to be prior as being its substance.… And that you may understand this the more easily, observe first from yourself, as from the image and likeness of God, how you also have reason within yourself, who are a rational animal not only as having been made by a rational Creator but also as out of his substance having made a living soul. See how, when you by reason argue silently with yourself, this same action takes place within you, while reason accompanied by discourse meets you at every movement of your thought, at every impression of your consciousness.… So in a sort of way you have in you as a second [person] discourse by means of which you speak by thinking and by means of which you think by speaking: discourse itself is another [than you]. How much more completely therefore does this action take place in God, whose image and similitude you are authoritatively declared to be, that even while silent he has in himself reason and in [that] reason discourse. So I have been able without rashness to conclude that even then, before the establishment of the universe, God was not alone, seeing he continually had in himself Reason, and in Reason Discourse, which he made another beside himself by activity within himself.

Source: AGAINST PRAXEAS 5

[AD 220] Tertullian on John 1:1

Read the testimony of John: "That which we have seen, which we have heard, which we have looked upon with our eyes, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life." False, of course, and deceptive must have been that testimony, if the witness of our eyes, and ears, and hands be by nature a lie.

Source: A Treatise on the Soul

[AD 220] Tertullian on John 1:1

Did not certain of the disciples turn back from the Lord Himself, When they were offended? Yet the rest did not therefore think that they must turn away from following Him, but because they knew that He was the Word of Life, and was come from God, they continued in His company to the very last, after He had gently inquired of them whether they also would go away.

Source: The Prescription Against Heretics

[AD 220] Tertullian on John 1:1

Therefore on this ground Hermogenes puts Matter even before God, by putting it before the Son. Because the Son is the Word, and "the Word is God," and "I and my Father are one.

Source: Against Hermogenes

[AD 220] Tertullian on John 1:1

Now in this there is all the greater reason why there should be shown the material (if there were any) out of which God made all things, inasmuch as it is therein plainly revealed by whom He made all things. "In the beginning was the Word" -that is, the same beginning, of course, in which God made the heaven and the earth -"and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Source: Against Hermogenes

[AD 220] Tertullian on John 1:1

"In the beginning was the Word" -that is, the same beginning, of course, in which God made the heaven and the earth -"and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. All things were made by Him, and without Him nothing was made." Now, since we have here clearly told us who the Maker was, that is, God, and what He made, even all things, and through whom He made them, even His Word, would not the order of the narrative have required that the source out of which all things were made by God through the Word should likewise be declared, if they had been in fact made out of anything? What, therefore, did not exist, the Scripture was unable to mention; and by not mentioning it, it has given us a clear proof that there was no such thing: for if there had been, the Scripture would have mentioned it.

Source: Against Hermogenes

[AD 220] Tertullian on John 1:1

Is that Word of God, then, a void and empty thing, which is called the Son, who Himself is designated God? "The Word was with God, and the Word was God." It is written, "Thou shalt not take God's name in vain.

Source: Against Praxeas

[AD 220] Tertullian on John 1:1

The Word, therefore, is both always in the Father, as He says, "I am in the Father; " and is always with God, according to what is written, "And the Word was with God; " and never separate from the Father, or other than the Father, since "I and the Father are one.

Source: Against Praxeas

[AD 220] Tertullian on John 1:1

Now if He too is God, according to John, (who says.) "The Word was God," then you have two Beings-One that commands that the thing be made.

Source: Against Praxeas

[AD 220] Tertullian on John 1:1

That is a still grander statement which you will find expressly made in the Gospel: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." There was One "who was," and there was another "with whom" He was.

Source: Against Praxeas

[AD 220] Tertullian on John 1:1

But the very same apostles testify that they had both seen and "handled" Christ. Now, if Christ is Himself both the Father and the Son, how can He be both the Visible and the Invisible? In order, however, to reconcile this diversity between the Visible and the Invisible, will not some one on the other side argue that the two statements are quite correct: that He was visible indeed in the flesh, but was invisible before His appearance in the flesh; so that He who as the Father was invisible before the flesh, is the same as the Son who was visible in the flesh? If, however, He is the same who was invisible before the incarnation, how comes it that He was actually seen in ancient times before (coming in) the flesh? And by parity of reasoning, if He is the same who was visible after (coming in) the flesh, how happens it that He is now declared to be invisible by the apostles? How, I repeat, can all this be, unless it be that He is one, who anciently was visible only in mystery and enigma, and became more clearly visible by His incarnation, even the Word who was also made flesh; whilst He is another whom no man has seen at any time, being none else than the Father, even Him to whom the Word belongs? Let us, in short, examine who it is whom the apostles saw.

Source: Against Praxeas

[AD 220] Tertullian on John 1:1

"That," says John, "which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life." Now the Word of life became flesh, and was heard, and was seen, and was handled, because He was flesh who, before He came in the flesh, was the "Word in the beginning with God" the Father, and not the Father with the Word.

Source: Against Praxeas

[AD 220] Tertullian on John 1:1

Now the Word of life became flesh, and was heard, and was seen, and was handled, because He was flesh who, before He came in the flesh, was the "Word in the beginning with God" the Father, and not the Father with the Word.

Source: Against Praxeas

[AD 220] Tertullian on John 1:1

For "the Father who loveth the Son, and hath given all things into His hand," loves Him indeed from the beginning, and from the very first has handed all things over to Him. Whence it is written, "From the beginning the Word was with God, and the Word was God; " to whom "is given by the Father all power in heaven and on earth.

Source: Against Praxeas

[AD 220] Tertullian on John 1:1

The Word, no doubt, was before all things. "In the beginning was the Word; " and in that beginning He was sent forth by the Father.

Source: Against Praxeas

[AD 220] Tertullian on John 1:1

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God: all things were made by Him, and without Him was nothing made." Now, since these words may not be taken otherwise than as they are written, there is without doubt shown to be One who was from the beginning, and also One with whom He always was: one the Word of God, the other God although the Word is also God, but God regarded as the Son of God, not as the Father); One through whom were all things, Another by whom were all things.

Source: Against Praxeas

[AD 220] Tertullian on John 1:1

And this species of the divine patience indeed being, as it were, at a distance, may perhaps be esteemed as among "things too high for us; " but what is that which, in a certain way, has been grasped by hand among men openly on the earth? God suffers Himself to be conceived in a mother's womb, and awaits the time for birth; and, when born, bears the delay of growing up; and, when grown up, is not eager to be recognised, but is furthermore contumelious to Himself, and is baptized by His own servant; and repels with words alone the assaults of the tempter; while from being" Lord" He becomes" Master," teaching man to escape death, having been trained to the exercise of the absolute forbearance of offended patience.

Source: Of Patience

[AD 220] Tertullian on John 1:1

To God their beauty, to God their youth (is dedicated). With Him they live; with Him they converse; Him they "handle" by day and by night; to the Lord they assign their prayers as dowries; from Him, as oft as they desire it, they receive His approbation as dotal gifts.

Source: To His Wife Book I

[AD 220] Tertullian on John 1:1

So, too, the two letters of Greece, the first and the last, the Lord assumes to Himself, as figures of the beginning and end! which concur in Himself: so that, just as Alpha rolls on till it reaches Omega, and again Omega rolls back till it reaches Alpha, in the same way He might show that in Himself is both the downward course of the beginning on to the end, and the backward course of the end up to the beginning; so that every economy, ending in Him through whom it began,-through the Word of God, that is, who was made flesh, -may have an end correspondent to its beginning.

Source: On Monogamy

[AD 235] Hippolytus of Rome on John 1:1

This, he says, is the great beginning respecting which Scripture has spoken. Concerning this, he says it has been declared: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. This was in the beginning with God, all things were made by Him, and without Him was not one thing that was made. And what was formed in Him is life." And in Him, he says, has been formed Eve; (now) Eve is life. This, however, he says, is Eve, mother of all living, -a common nature, that is, of gods, angels, immortals, mortals, irrational creatures, (and) rational ones. For, he says, the expression "all" he uttered of all (existences). And if the eyes of any, he says, are blessed, this one, looking upward on the firmament, will behold at the mighty summit of heaven the beauteous image of the serpent, turning itself, and becoming an originating principle of every (species of) motion to all things that are being produced. He will (thereby) know that without him nothing consists, either of things in heaven, or things on earth. or things under the earth. Not night, not moon, not fruits, not generation, not wealth, not sustenance, not anything at all of existent things, is without his guidance. In regard of this, he says, is the great wonder which is beheld in the firmament by those who are able to observe it. For, he says, at this top of his head, a fact which is more incredible than all things to those who are ignorant, "are setting and rising mingled one with other." This it is in regard of which ignorance is in the habit of affirming: in heaven

Source: Hippolytus Refutation of All Heresies Book V

[AD 235] Hippolytus of Rome on John 1:1

Acting then in these (prophets), the Word spoke of Himself. For already He became His own herald, and showed that the Word would be manifested among men. And for this reason He cried thus: "I am made manifest to them that sought me not; I am found of them that asked not for me." And who is He that is made manifest but the Word of the Father?-whom the Father sent, and in whom He showed to men the power proceeding from Him. Thus, then, was the Word made manifest, even as the blessed John says. For he sums up the things that were said by the prophets, and shows that this is the Word, by whom all things were made. For he speaks to this effect: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. All things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made." And beneath He says, "The world was made by Him, and the world knew Him not; He came unto His own, and His own received Him not." If, then, said he, the world was made by Him, according to the word of the prophet, "By the Word of the Lord were the heavens made," then this is the Word that was also made manifest. We accordingly see the Word incarnate, and we know the Father by Him, and we believe in the Son, (and) we worship the Holy Spirit. Let us then look at the testimony of Scripture. with respect to the announcement of the future manifestation of the Word.

Source: Fragments - Dogmatic and Historical

[AD 253] Origen of Alexandria on John 1:1

(tom. i. in Joan. c. 16. et sq.) There are many significations of this word beginning. For there is a beginning of a journey, and beginning of a length, according to Proverbs, The beginning of the right path is to do justice. (Prov. 16. Vulg. Job. 40:19) There is a beginning too of a creation, according to Job, He is the beginning1 of the ways of God. Nor would it be incorrect to say, that God is the Beginning of all things. The preexistent material again, where supposed to be original, out of which any thing is produced, is considered as the beginning. There is a beginning also in respect of form: as where Christ is the beginning of those who are made according to the image of God. And there is a beginning of doctrine, according to Hebrews; When for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God. (Heb. 5:12) For there are two kinds of beginning of doctrine: one in itself, the other relative to us; as if we should say that Christ, in that He is the Wisdom and Word of God, was in Himself the beginning of wisdom, but to us, in that He was the Word incarnate. (c. 22). There being so many significations then of the word, we may take it as the Beginning through Whom, i. e. the Maker; for Christ is Creator as The Beginning, in that He is Wisdom; so that the Word is in the beginning, i. e. in Wisdom; the Saviour being all these excellences at once. As life then is in the Word, so the Word is in the Beginning, that is to say, in Wisdom. Consider then if it be possible according to this signification to understand the Beginning, as meaning that all things are made according to Wisdom, and the patterns contained therein; or, inasmuch as the Beginning of the Son is the Father, the Beginning of all creatures and existencies, to understand by the text, In the beginning was the Word, that the Son, the Word, was in the Beginning, that is, in the Father.

(Hom. ii. divers. loc.) The verb to be, has a double signification, sometimes expressing the motions which take place in time, as other verbs do; sometimes the substance of that one thing of which it is predicated, without reference to time. Hence it is also called a substantive verb.

(Hom. ii. in Joan. c. 1) It is worth while noting, that, whereas the Word is said to come1 [be made] to some, as to Hosea, Isaiah, Jeremiah, with God it is not made, as though it were not with Him before. But, the Word having been always with Him, it is said, and the Word was with God: for from the beginning it was not separate from the Father.

(tom. ii. in Joan. in princ.) We must add too, that the Word illuminates the Prophets with Divine wisdom, in that He cometh to them; but that with God He ever is, because He is Goda. For which reason he placed and the Word was with God, before and the Word was God.

Source: Catena Aurea by Aquinas

[AD 253] Origen of Alexandria on John 1:1

One will discover many different meanings of the expression [“beginning”] even in the Word of God. One meaning involves change that has to do with a way or a length, as revealed in Scripture, “The beginning of the right path is to do justice.” … There is also a “beginning” of creation … in the statement “In the beginning God made heaven and earth.” But I think what is meant is more clearly stated in Job, “This is the beginning of the Lord’s creation.” … We can also understand what is meant by the beginning of creation in Proverbs: “For God,” [Wisdom] says, “created me the beginning of his ways for his works.” …But someone will say with good reason that the God of all things is clearly a beginning too, proposing that the Father is the beginning of the Son, and the Creator is the beginning of the things created and, in general, God is the beginning of the things that exist.… And third, that from which something comes, as the underlying matter is thought to be a “beginning” by those who understand matter to be uncreated.… In addition to these definitions, that “according to which” something is made, as according to its form, is also a “beginning.” … Christ, for instance, is the beginning of those made according to the image of God.…
There is also a beginning that pertains to doctrine … where the apostle says, “Although, because of the time, you should be teachers, you need for someone to teach you again the rudiments of the beginning of the oracles of God.” Now there are two kinds of beginning pertaining to doctrine. One involves its nature, and the other its relation to us.… We say that in nature Christ is the beginning of doctrine insofar as he is “the wisdom” and “power of God.” But in his relation to us the beginning of doctrine is “the Word became flesh,” that he might dwell among us who are able to receive him only in this way at first.

Source: COMMENTARY ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 1.90-91, 95, 101-4, 106-7

[AD 253] Origen of Alexandria on John 1:1

Although so many meanings of “beginning” have occurred to us at the present time, we are investigating how we ought to take the statement “In the beginning was the Word.” It is clear that we are not to understand it in its meaning related to change or a way and length. And we should certainly not take it in its meaning related to creation.But it is possible that he is the “by which,” which is effective, since “God commanded and they were created.” For Christ is perhaps the creator to whom the Father says, “Let there be light” and “Let there be a firmament.”

But it is as the beginning that Christ is Creator, according to which he is wisdom. Therefore as wisdom he is called the beginning. For wisdom says in Solomon, “God created me in the beginning of his ways for his works,” that “the Word might be in the beginning,” in wisdom. It is wisdom that is understood, on the one hand, taken in relation to the structure of contemplation and the thoughts of all things, but it is the Word that is received, taken in relation to the communication of the things that have been contemplated to spiritual beings...

Since, then, our purpose is to perceive clearly the statement, “In the beginning was the Word,” and wisdom, with the aid of testimonies from the Proverbs, has been explained to be called “beginning,” and wisdom has been conceived as preceding the Word that announces it, we must understand that the Word is always in the beginning, that is, in wisdom. Being in wisdom, however, which is called “beginning,” does not prevent the Word from being “with God,” and himself being God and not merely being “with God,” but since he is “in the beginning,” that is in wisdom, that Word is “with God.”

Source: COMMENTARY ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 1.109-11, 289

[AD 253] Origen of Alexandria on John 1:1

The same verb, “was,” is predicated of the Word when he “was in the beginning” and when he “was with God.” He is neither separated from the beginning, nor does he depart from the Father. And again, he does not “come to be” “in the beginning” from not being “in the beginning,” nor does he pass from not being “with God” to coming to be “with God,” for before all time and eternity “the Word was in the beginning,” and “the Word was with God.” … Perhaps John, seeing some such order in the argument, did not place “the Word was God” before “the Word was with God,” so that we might not be hindered in seeing the individual meaning of each proposition in the affirmation of the series.

Source: COMMENTARY ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 2.9, 11

[AD 258] Cyprian on John 1:1

That the same Christ is the Word of God. In the forty-fourth Psalm: "My heart hath breathed out a good Word. I tell my works to the King." Also in the thirty-second Psalm: "By the Word of God were the heavens made fast; and all their strength by the breath of His mouth." Also in Isaiah: "A Word completing and shortening in righteousness, because a shortened word will God make in the whole earth." Also in the cvith Psalm: "He sent His Word, and healed them." Moreover, in the Gospel according to John: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and God was the Word. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him, and without Him was nothing made that was made. In Him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not." Also in the Apocalypse: "And I saw the heaven opened, and lo, a white horse; and he who sate upon him was called Faithful and True, judging rightly and justly; and He made war. And He was covered with a garment sprinkled with blood; and His name is called the Word of God."

Source: Treatise XII. Three Books of Testimonies Against the Jews.

[AD 258] Cyprian on John 1:1

That Christ is God. In Genesis: "And God said unto Jacob, Arise, and go up to the place of Bethel, and dwell there; and make there an altar to that God who appeared unto thee when thou reddest from the face of thy brother Esau." Also in Isaiah: "Thus saith the Lord, the God of Sabaoth, Egypt is wearied; and the merchandise of the Ethiopians, and the tall men of the Sabeans, shall pass over unto Thee, and shall be Thy servants; and shall walk after Thee bound with chains; and shall worship Thee, and shall pray to Thee, because God is in Thee, and there is no other God beside Thee. For Thou art God, and we knew it not, O God of Israel, our Saviour. They shall all be confounded and fear who oppose Thee, and shall fall into confusion." Likewise in the same: "The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make straight the paths of our God. Every channel shall be filled up, and every mountain and bill shall be made low, and all crooked places shall be made straight, and rough places plain; and the glory of the Lord shall be seen, and all flesh shall see the salvation of God, because the Lord hath spoken it." Moreover, in Jeremiah: This is our God, and no other shall be esteemed beside Him, who hath found all the way of knowledge, and hath given it to Jacob His son, and to Israel His beloved. After this He was seen upon earth, and He conversed with men." Also in Zechariah God says: "And they shall cross over through the narrow sea, and they shall smite the waves in the sea, and they shall dry up all the depths of the rivers; and all the haughtiness of the Assyrians shall be confounded, and the sceptre of Egypt shall be taken away. And I will strengthen them in the Lord their God, and in His name shall they glory, saith the Lord." Moreover, in Hosea the Lord saith: "I will not do according to the anger of mine indignation, I will not allow Ephraim to be destroyed: for I am God, and there is not a holy man in thee: and I will not enter into the city; I will go after God." Also in the forty-fourth Psalm: "Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: the sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of Thy kingdom. Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity: wherefore God, Thy God, hath anointed Thee with the oil of gladness above Thy fellows." So, too, in the forty-fifth Psalm: "Be still, and know that I am God. I will be exalted among the nations, and I will be exalted in the earth." Also in the eighty-first Psalm: "They have not known, neither have they understood: they will walk on in darkness." Also in the sixty-seventh Psalm: "Sing unto God, sing praises unto His name: make a way for Him who goeth up into the west: God is His name." Also in the Gospel according to John: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and God was the Word." Also in the same: "The Lord said to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands: and be not faithless, but believing. Thomas answered and said unto Him, My Lord and my God. Jesus saith unto him, Because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they who have not seen, and yet have believed." Also Paul to the Romans: "I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren and my kindred according to the flesh: who are Israel-ires: whose are the adoption, and the glory, and the covenant, and the appointment of the law, and the service (of God), and the promises; whose are the fathers, of whom, according to the flesh, Christ came, who is God over all, blessed for evermore." Also in the Apocalypse: "I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end I will give to him that is athirst, of the fountain of living water freely. He that overcometh shall possess these things, and their inheritance; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son." Also in the eighty-first Psalm: "God stood in the congregation of gods, and judging gods in the midst." And again in the same place: "I have said, Ye are gods; and ye are all the children of the Highest: but ye shall die like men." But if they who have been righteous, and have obeyed the divine precepts, may be called gods, how much more is Christ, the Son of God, God! Thus He Himself says in the Gospel according to John: "Is it not written in the law, that I said, Ye are gods? If He called them gods to whom the word of God was given, and the Scripture cannot be relaxed, do ye say to Him whom the Father hath sanctified and sent into the world, that thou blasphemest, because I said, I am the Son of God? But if I do not the works of my Father, believe me not; but if I do, and ye will not believe me, believe the works, and know that the Father is in me, and I in Him." Also in the Gospel according to Matthew: "And ye shall call His name Emmanuel, which is, being interpreted, God with us."

Source: Treatise XII. Three Books of Testimonies Against the Jews.

[AD 304] Victorinus of Pettau on John 1:1

"The first living creature was like to a lion, and the second was like to a calf, and the third had a face like to a man, and the fourth was like to a flying eagle; and they had six wings, and round about and within they were full of eyes; and they had no rest, saying, Holy, holy, holy, Lord Omnipotent. And the four and twenty elders, failing down before the throne, adored God." The four and twenty elders arethe twenty-four books of the prophets and of the law, which give testimonies of the judgment. Moreover, also, they are the twenty-four fathers-twelve apostles and twelve patriarchs.And in that the living creatures are different in appearance, this is the reason: the living creature like to a lion designates Mark, in whom is heard the voice of the lion roaring in the desert. And in the figure of a man, Matthew strives to declareto us the genealogy of Mary, from whom Christ took flesh. Therefore, in enumerating from Abraham to David, and thence to Joseph, he spoke of Him as if of a man: therefore his announcement sets forth the image of a man. Luke, in narrating the priesthood of Zacharias as he offers a sacrifice for the people, and the angel that appears to him with respect of the priesthood, and the victim in the same description bore the likeness of a calf. John the evangelist, like to an eagle hastening on uplifted wings to greater heights, argues about the Word of God. Mark, therefore, as an evangelist thus beginning, "The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, as it is written in Isaiah the prophet; " The voice of one crying in the wilderness," -has the effigy of a lion. And Matthew, "The hook of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham: " this is the form of a man. But Luke said, "There was a priest, by name Zachariah, of the course of Abia, and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron: " this is the likeness of a calf. But John, when he begins, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God," sets forth the likeness of a flying eagle. Moreover, not only do the evangelists express their four similitudes in their respective openings of the Gospels, but also the Word itself of God the Father Omnipotent, which is His Son our Lord Jesus Christ, bears the same likeness in the time of His advent. When He preaches to us, He is, as it were, a lion and a lion's whelp. And when for man's salvation He was made man to overcome death, and to set all men free, and that He offered Himself a victim to the Father on our behalf, He was called a calf. And that He overcame death and ascended into the heavens, extending His wings and protecting His people, He was named a flying eagle. Therefore these announcements, although they are four, yet are one, because it proceeded from one mouth. Even as the river in paradise, although it is one, was divided into four heads. Moreover, that for the announcement of the New Testament those bring creatures had eyes within and without, shows the spiritual providence which both looks into the secrets of the heart, and beholds the things which are coming after that are within and without.

Source: Commentary on the Apocalypse of the Blessed John

[AD 311] Methodius of Olympus on John 1:1

Now, since He truly was and is, being in the beginning with God, and being God.
Now consider whether the saying: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God; "

[AD 311] Methodius of Olympus on John 1:1

He [Methodius] says, concerning the words “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth,” that one will not err who says that the “Beginning” is Wisdom. For Wisdom is said by one of the divine band to speak in this manner concerning herself: “The Lord created me the beginning of his ways for his works: of old he laid my formulation.” It was fitting and more seemly that all things that came into existence should be more recent than Wisdom, since they existed through her. Now consider whether the saying “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God”—whether these statements are not in agreement with those. For we must say that the Beginning, out of which the most upright Word came forth, is the Father and Maker of all things, in whom it was. And the words “The same was in the beginning with God” seem to indicate the position of authority of the Word, which he had with the Father before the world came into existence; “beginning” signifying his power. And so, after the peculiar unbeginning beginning, who is the Father, he is the beginning of other things, by whom all things are made.

Source: EXTRACTS FROM THE WORK ON THINGS CREATED 8

[AD 325] Lucius Caecilius Firmianus Lactantius on John 1:1

The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made."

[AD 328] Alexander of Alexandria on John 1:1

"For he set forth His proper personality, saying, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. All things were made by Him; and with out Him was not anything made that was made.".
For who ever heard such things? or who, now hearing them, is not astonished, and does not stop his ears that the pollution of these words should not touch them? Who that hears John saying, "In the beginning was the Word"

[AD 339] Eusebius of Caesarea on John 1:1

Who beside the Father could clearly understand the Light that was before the world, the intellectual and essential Wisdom that existed before the ages, the living Word that was in the beginning with the Father and that was God, the first and only begotten of God that was before every creature and creation visible and invisible, the commander-in-chief of the rational and immortal host of heaven, the messenger of the great counsel, the executor of the Father’s unspoken will, the creator, with the Father, of all things, the second cause of the universe after the Father, the true and only begotten Son of God, the Lord and God and King of all created things, the one who has received dominion and power, with divinity itself, and with might and honor from the Father.

Source: ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY 1.2.2-3

[AD 367] Hilary of Poitiers on John 1:1

(ii. de Trin. c. 13) Years, centuries, ages, are passed over, place what beginning thou wilt in thy imagining, thou graspest it not in time, for He, from Whom it is derived, still was.

(ii. de Trin. c. xiii) Consider then the world, understand what is written of it. In the beginning God made the heaven and the earth. Whatever therefore is created is made in the beginning, and thou wouldest contain in time, what, as being to be made, is contained in the beginning. But, lo, for me, an illiterate unlearned fisherman (meus piscator [Hil.]) is independent of time, unconfined by ages, advanceth beyond all beginnings. For the Word was, what it is, and is not bounded by any time, nor commenced therein, seeing It was not made in the beginning, but was.

(ii. de Trin) From the beginning He is with God: and though independent of time, is not independent of an Author.

(ii. de Trin. c. 15) Thou wilt say, that a word is the sound of the voice, the enunciation of a thing, the expression of a thought: this Word was in the beginning with God, because the utterance of thought is eternal, when He who thinketh is eternal. But how was that in the beginning, which exists no time either before, or after, I doubt even whether in time at all? For speech is neither in existence before one speaks, nor after; in the very act of speaking it vanishes; for by the time a speech is ended, that from which it began does not exist. But even if the first sentence, in the beginning was the Word, was through thy inattention lost upon thee, why disputest thou about the next; and the Word was with God? Didst thou hear it said, "In God," so that thou shouldest understand this Word to be only the expression of hidden thoughts? Or did John say with by mistake, and was not aware of the distinction between being in, and being with, when he said, that what was in the beginning, was not in God, but with God? Hear then the nature and name of the Word; and the Word was God. No more then of the sound of the voice, of the expression of the thought. The Word here is a Substance, not a sound; a Nature, not an expression; God, not a nonentity.

(vii. de Trin. c. 9, 10, 11.) But the title is absolute, and free from the offence of an extraneous subject. To Moses it is said, I have given1 thee for a god to Pharaoh: (Exod. 7:1) but is not the reason for the name added, when it is said, to Pharaoh? Moses is given for a god to Pharaoh, when he is feared, when he is entreated, when he punishes, when he heals. And it is one thing to be given for a God, another thing to be God. I remember too another application of the name in the Psalms, I have said, ye are gods. (Ps. 82) But there too it is implied that the title was but bestowed; and the introduction of, I said, makes it rather the phrase of the Speaker, than the name of the thing. But when I hear the Word was God, I not only hear the Word said to be, but perceive It proved to be, God.

Source: Catena Aurea by Aquinas

[AD 367] Hilary of Poitiers on John 1:1

Years, centuries, ages, are passed over, place what beginning you will in your imagining, you grasp it not in time, for He, from Whom it is derived, still was.
Consider then the world, understand what is written of it. In the beginning God made the heaven en and the earth. Whatever therefore is created is made in the beginning, and you would contain in time, what, as being to be made, is contained in the beginning. But, lo, for me, an illiterate unlearned fisherman is independent of time, unconfined by ages, advances beyond all beginnings. For the Word was, what it is, and is not bounded by any time, nor commenced therein, seeing It was not made in the beginning, but was.
From the beginning He is With God: and though independent of time, isnot independent of an Author.
You will say, that a word is the sound of the voice, the enunciation of a thing, the expression of a thought: this Word was in the beginning with God, because the utterance of thought is eternal, when He who thinks is eternal. But how was that in the beginning, which exists no time either before, or after, I doubt even whether in time at all? For speech is neither in existence before one speaks, nor after; in the very act of speaking it vanishes; for by the time a speech is ended, that from which it began does not exist. But even if the first sentence, in the beginning was the Word, was through your inattention lost upon you, why dispute you about the next; and the Word was with God? Did you hear it said, “In God,” so that you should understand this Word to be only the expression of hidden thoughts? Or did John say with by mistake, and was not aware of the distinction between being in, and being with, when he said, that what was in the beginning, was not in God, but with God? Hear then the nature and name of the Word; and the Word was God. No more then of the sound of the voice, of the expression of the thought. The Word here is a Substance, not a sound; a Nature, not anexpression; God, not a nonentity.
But the title is absolute, and free from the offense of an extraneous subject. To Moses it is said, I have given you for a god to Pharaoh: but is not the reason for the name added, when it is said, to Pharaoh? Moses is given for a god to Pharaoh, when he is feared, when he is entreated, when he punishes, when he heals. And it is one thing to be given for a God, another thing to be God. I remember too another application of the name in the Psalms, I have said, you are gods. But there too it is implied that the title was but bestowed; and the introduction of, I said, makes it rather the phrase of the Speaker, than the name of the thing. But when I hear the Word was God, I not only hear the Word said to be, but perceive It proved to be, God.

[AD 367] Hilary of Poitiers on John 1:1

I will not endure to hear that Christ was born of Mary unless I also hear, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was God.”

Source: ON THE COUNCILS 27.70

[AD 367] Hilary of Poitiers on John 1:1

Consider and decide whether it were the greater feat to raise the dead or impart to an untrained mind the knowledge of mysteries so deep as he reveals by saying, “In the beginning was the Word.” What does this “in the beginning was” mean? He ranges backward over the spaces of time, centuries are left behind, and ages are cancelled. Fix in your mind what date you will for this “beginning”; you miss the mark, for even then he of whom we are speaking “was.” Survey the universe; note well what is written of it: “In the beginning God made the heaven and the earth.” This word beginning fixes the moment of creation; you can assign its date to an event that is definitely stated to have happened “in the beginning.” But this fisherman of mine, unlettered and unread, is untrammeled by time, undaunted by its immensity; he pierces beyond the beginning. For his “was” has no limit of time and no commencement; the uncreated Word “was in the beginning.”

Source: ON THE TRINITY 2.13

[AD 367] Hilary of Poitiers on John 1:1

He “was,” and he “is,” since he is from him who always is what he is.… Now since it is the special characteristic of his being that his Father always exists and that he is always his Son, and since eternity is expressed in the name “he that is,” therefore, since he possesses absolute being, he possesses also eternal being.… There can be no doubt that no one who already was in existence could be born. For no cause of birth can accrue to him who of himself continues eternal. But God Only Begotten … bears witness to the Father as the source of his being.

Source: ON THE TRINITY 12.25

[AD 367] Hilary of Poitiers on John 1:1

You will plead that a word is the sound of a voice; that it is a naming of things, an utterance of thought.… The nature of a word is that it is first a potentiality, afterwards a past event; an existing thing only while it is being heard. How can we say, “In the beginning was the Word,” when a word neither exists before, nor lives after, a definite point of time? Can we even say that there is a point of time in which a word exists? Not only are the words in a speaker’s mouth nonexistent until they are spoken and perished the instant they are uttered, but even in the moment of utterance there is a change from the sound that commences to that which ends a word.… Even though your unpracticed ear failed to catch the first clause, “In the beginning was the Word,” why complain of the next, “And the Word was with God”? Was it “and the Word was in God” that you heard?… Or is it that your provincial dialect makes no distinction between in and with? The assertion is that which was in the beginning was with, not in, another.… Hear now the rank and the name of the Word: And the Word was God. Your plea that the Word is the sound of a voice, the utterance of a thought, falls to the ground. The Word is a reality, not a sound, a Being, not a speech, God, not a nonentity.

Source: ON THE TRINITY 2.15

[AD 367] Hilary of Poitiers on John 1:1

[The Son], being God, is nothing else than God. For when I hear the words “And the Word was God,” they do not merely tell me that the Son was called God; they reveal to my understanding that he is God. In those previous instances, where Moses was called god and others were styled gods, there was the mere addition of a name by way of title. Here a solid essential truth is stated: “The Word was God.” That was indicates no accidental title but an eternal reality, a permanent element of his existence, an inherent character of his nature.

Source: ON THE TRINITY 7.11

[AD 373] Athanasius of Alexandria on John 1:1

[The Arians] whisper, “How can the Son be Word or the Word be God’s image? For a human word is composed of syllables, and only signifies the speaker’s will and then is over and done with.” … But the word of truth confutes them as follows: If they were disputing concerning any human being, then let them exercise reason in this human way, both concerning his Word and his Son. But if their dispute concerns God, who created humanity, let them no longer entertain human thoughts but others that are above human nature. For such as he that begets, such of necessity is the offspring. Whatever the Word’s Father is, the Word also must be. Now a man, begotten in time, also himself begets children in time. And since he came to be out of nothing, his word also is over and done with.But God is not like humans as Scripture has said. God is, exists and has always existed. Therefore also his Word exists and is forever with the Father, as radiance accompanies light. The human word is composed of syllables and neither lives nor operates anything but only signifies the speaker’s intention. It goes out and then goes away, no more to appear, since it did not exist at all before it was spoken. The word of human beings neither lives nor operates anything. Nor, in short, is it human. And this happens to it, as I said before, because the human being who begets it has his nature out of nothing. But God’s Word is not merely pronounced, as one may say, nor is it a sound of accents, nor should we think of his Son as his command. Rather he is the radiance of light and so is perfect offspring from perfect being. And so he is also God, since he is God’s image. For “the Word was God,” says Scripture. Since human words have no power or energy on their own, they work not by means of words but with their hands which they do have. But the human word does not subsist on its own. The “Word of God,” however, as the apostle says, “is living and powerful and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing of soul and spirit and of the joints and marrow, and it is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight, but all things are naked and opened before his eyes.” He is then Framer of all, “and without him was not one thing made,” nor can anything be made without him. Nor must we ask why the Word of God is not such as our word, considering God is not such as we are.

Source: Discourses Against the Arians 2.18.34-36

[AD 373] Ephrem the Syrian on John 1:1

The things that were hidden were revealed through him [our Lord], just as the secrets of the heart are made known by a word.

Source: COMMENTARY ON TATIAN’S DIATESSARON 1.2

[AD 379] Basil of Caesarea on John 1:1

(Hom. in princ. Joan.) This Word is not a human word. For how was there a human word in the beginning, when man received his being last of all? There was not then any word of man in the beginning, nor yet of Angels; for every creature is within the limits of time, having its beginning of existence from the Creator. But what says the Gospel? It calls the Only-Begotten Himself the Word.

(Hom. in Princ. Joan. c. 3) Wherefore then Word? Because born impassibly, the Image of Him that begat, manifesting all the Father in Himself; abstracting from Him nothing, but existing perfect in Himself.

(Hom. in princ. Joan. c. 3) Yet has our outward word some similarity to the Divine Word. For our word declares the whole conception of the mind; since what we conceive in the mind we bring out in word. Indeed our heart is as it were the source, and the uttered word the stream which flows therefrom.

(Hom. in Princ. Joan.) The Holy Ghost foresaw that men would arise, who should envy the glory of the Only-Begotten, subverting their hearers by sophistry; as if because He were begotten, He was not; and before He was begotten, He was not. That none might presume then to babble such things, the Holy Ghost saith, In the beginning was the Word.

(Hom. in princ. Joan. §. 4) Again he repeats this, was, because of men blasphemously saying, that there was a time when He was not. Where then was the Word? Illimitable things are not contained in space. Where was He then? With God. For neither is the Father bounded by place, nor the Son by aught circumscribing.

(Hom. i. in princ. Joan. c. 4) Thus cutting off the cavils of blasphemers, and those who ask what the Word is, he replies, and the Word was God.

Source: Catena Aurea by Aquinas

[AD 379] Basil of Caesarea on John 1:1

This Word is not a human word. For how was there a human word in the beginning, when man received his being last ofall? There was not then any word of man in the beginning, nor yet of Angels; for every creature is within the limits of time, having its beginning of existence from the Creator. But what says the Gospel? It calls the Only-Begotten Himself the Word.
Wherefore then Word? Because born impassibly, the Image of Him that begat, manifesting all the Father in Himself; abstracting from Him nothing, but existing perfect in Himself.
Yet has our outward word some similarity to the Divine Word. For our word declares the whole conception of the mind; since what we conceive in the mind we bring out in word. Indeed our heart is as it were the source, and the uttered word the stream which flows therefrom.
The Holy Spirit foresaw that men would arise, who should envy the glory of the Only-Begotten, subverting their hearers by sophistry; as if because He were begotten, He was not; and before He was begotten, he was not. That none might presume then to babble such things, the Holy Spirit says, In the beginning was the Word.
Again he repeats this, was, because of men blasphemously saying, that there was a time when He was not. Where then was the Word? Illimitable things are not contained in space. Where was He then? With God. For neither is the Father bounded by place, nor the Son by aught circumscribing.
Thus cutting off the cavils of blasphemers, and those who ask what the Word is, he replies, and the Word was God.

Source: HOMILY 16.3, IN THE BEGINNING WAS THE WORD

[AD 390] Gregory of Nazianzus on John 1:1

There never was a time when [the Father] was without his Word, or when he was not the Father.

Source: ON THE SON, THEOLOGICAL ORATION 3

[AD 390] Gregory of Nazianzus on John 1:1

[He] is not contained in any place; the timeless, the bodiless, the uncircumscribed, the same who was and is; who was both above time and came under time, and was invisible and is seen. He was in the beginning and was with God and was God. The word was occurs the third time to be confirmed by number. What he was, he laid aside; what he was not, he assumed; not that he became two, but he deigned to be one made out of the two. For both are God, that which assumed and that which was assumed; two natures meeting in one, not two sons (let us not give a false account of the blending).

Source: ON THE WORDS OF THE GOSPEL, “WHEN JESUS HAD FINISHED THESE SAYINGS,” ORATION 37.2

[AD 395] Gregory of Nyssa on John 1:1

[John] declares, “And the Word was with God.” Once more the Evangelist fears for our untrained state, once more he dreads our childish and untaught condition. He does not yet entrust to our ears the appellation of “Father,” in case any of the more carnally minded, learning of “the Father,” may be led by his understanding to imagine also by consequence a mother. Neither does he yet name in his proclamation the Son, for he still suspects our customary tendency to the lower nature and is concerned that if someone hears of the Son, that person might humanize the Godhead by an idea of passion. For this reason, resuming his proclamation, he again calls him “the Word,” making this the account of his nature to you in your unbelief. For as your word proceeds from your mind, without requiring the intervention of passion, so here also, in hearing of the Word, you shall conceive that which is from something and shall not conceive passion.

Source: AGAINST EUNOMIUS 4.1

[AD 397] Ambrose of Milan on John 1:1

“In the beginning,” we are told, “God created heaven and earth.” And the world was therefore created and that which was not began to exist. And the word of God was in the beginning and always was.

Source: SIX DAYS OF CREATION 1.5.19

[AD 397] Ambrose of Milan on John 1:1

That which was “in the beginning” is not comprehended in time, is not preceded by any beginning. Let Arius, therefore, hold his peace. Moreover, that which was “with God” is not confounded and mingled with him but is distinguished by the perfection unblemished that it has as the Word abiding with God; and so let Sabellius keep silence. And “the Word was God.” This Word, therefore, consists not in uttered speech but in the designation of celestial excellence, so that Photinus’s teaching is refuted. Furthermore, by the fact that in the beginning he was with God is proven the indivisible unity of eternal Godhead in Father and Son, to the shame and confusion of Eunomius.

Source: Exposition of the Christian Faith 1.8.57

[AD 397] Ambrose of Milan on John 1:1

Let the soul that wishes to approach God raise itself from the body and cling always to that highest Good that is divine and lasts forever and that was from the beginning and that was with God, that is, the Word of God. This is the divine Being “in which we live and are and move.” This was in the beginning, this is “The Son of God, Jesus Christ in you,” he says, “in whom there was not yes and no, but only yes was in him.” He himself told Moses to say, “He who is has sent me.”

Source: LETTER 79

[AD 400] Pseudo-Clement on John 1:1

But those who speak of nature instead of God, and declare that all things were made by nature, do not perceive the mistake of the name which they use. For if they think that nature is irrational, it is most foolish to suppose that a rational creature can proceed from an irrational creator. But if it is Reason — that is, Logos — by which it appears that all things were made, they change the name without purpose, when they make statements concerning the reason of the Creator. If you have anything to say to these things, my father, say on.

Source: Recognitions (Book VIII)

[AD 400] Ignatius of Antioch on John 1:1

Nor is He a mere man, by whom and in whom all things were made; for "all things were made by Him." "When He made the heaven, I was present with Him; and I was there with Him, forming [the world along with Him], and He rejoiced in me daily." And how could a mere man be addressed in such words as these: "Sit Thou at My right hand? " And how, again, could such an one declare: "Before Abraham was, I am? " And, "Glorify Me with Thy glory which I had before the world was? " What man could ever say, "I came down from heaven, not to do Mine own will, but the will of Him that sent Me? " And of what man could it be said, "He was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world: He was in the world, and the world was made by Him, and the world knew Him not. He came unto His own, and His own received Him not? " How could such a one be a mere man, receiving the beginning of His existence from Mary, and not rather God the Word, and the only-begotten Son? For "in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." And in another place, "The Lord created Me, the beginning of His ways, for His ways, for His works. Before the world did He found Me, and before all the hills did He beget Me."

Source: Epistle of Pseudo-Ignatius to the Tarsians

[AD 400] Ignatius of Antioch on John 1:1

The Evangelists, too, when they declared that the one Father was "the only true God," did not omit what concerned our Lord, but wrote: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made that was made." And concerning the incarnation: "The Word," says [the Scripture], "became flesh, and dwelt among us." And again: "The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham." And those very apostles, who said "that there is one God," said also that "there is one Mediator between God and men." Nor were they ashamed of the incarnation and the passion. For what says [one]? "The man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself" for the life and salvation of the world.

Source: Epistle of Pseudo-Ignatius to the Antiochians

[AD 407] John Chrysostom on John 1:1

(Hom. iv. [iii.] in Joan) While all the other Evangelists begin with the Incarnation, John, passing over the Conception, Nativity, education, and growth, speaks immediately of the Eternal Generation, saying, In the beginning was the Word.

(Hom. in Joan. ii. [i.] §. 4) But why omitting the Father, does he proceed at once to speak of the Son? Because the Father was known to all; though not as the Father, yet as God; whereas the Only-Begotten was not known. As was meet then, he endeavours first of all to inculcate the knowledge of the Son on those who knew Him not; though neither in discoursing on Him, is he altogether silent on the Father. And inasmuch as he was about to teach that the Word was the Only-Begotten Son of God, that no one might think this a passible (παθητὴν) generation, he makes mention of the Word in the first place, in order to destroy the dangerous suspicion, and show that the Son was from God impassibly. And a second reason is, that He was to declare unto us the things of the Father. (John. 15:15) But he does not speak of the Word simply, but with the addition of the article, in order to distinguish It from other words. For Scripture calls God's laws and commandments words; but this Word is a certain Substance, or Person, an Essence, coming forth impassibly from the Father Himself.

(Hom. i) Observe the spiritual wisdom of the Evangelist. He knew that men honoured most what was most ancient, and that honouring what is before every thing else, they conceived of it as God. On this account he mentions first the beginning, saying, In the beginning was the Word.

(Hom. i) As then when our ship is near shore, cities and port pass in survey before us, which on the open sea vanish, and leave nothing whereon to fix the eye; so the Evangelist here, taking us with him in his flight above the created world, leaves the eye to gaze in vacancy on an illimitable expanse. For the words, was in the beginning, are significative of eternal and infinite essence.

(Hom. in Joan. iii. [ii.] §. 2.) But they say that In the beginning does not absolutely express eternity: for that the same is said of the heaven and the earth: In the beginning God made the heaven and the earth. (Gen. 1:1) But are not made and was, altogether different? For in like manner as the word is, when spoken of man, signifies the present only, but when applied to God, that which always and eternally is; so too was, predicated of our nature, signifies the past, but predicated of God, eternity.

(Hom. iii. [ii.] 3) Because it is an especial attribute of God, to be eternal and without a beginning, he laid this down first: then, lest any one on hearing in the beginning was the Word, should suppose the Word Unbegotten, he instantly guarded against this; saying, And the Word was with God.

(Hom. iii) He has not said, was in God, but was with God: exhibiting to us that eternity which He had in accordance with His Person.

(Hom. ii. [i.] §. 4) Not asserting, as Plato does, one to be intelligence,1 the other soul;2 for the Divine Nature is very different from this... But you say, the Father is called God with the addition of the article, the Son without it. What say you then, when the Apostle. writes, The great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; (Tit. 2:13) and again, Who is over all, God; (Rom. 9:5) and Grace be unto you and peace from God our Father; (Rom. 1:7) without the article? Besides, too, it were superfluous here, to affix what had been affixed just before. So that it does not follow, though the article is not affixed to the Son, that He is therefore an inferior God.

Source: Catena Aurea by Aquinas

[AD 407] John Chrysostom on John 1:1

Were John about to converse with us, and to say to us words of his own, we needs must describe his family, his country, and his education. But since it is not he, but God by him, that speaks to mankind, it seems to me superfluous and distracting to enquire into these matters. And yet even thus it is not superfluous, but even very necessary. For when you have learned who he was, and from whence, who his parents, and what his character, and then hear his voice and all his heavenly wisdom, then you shall know right well that these (doctrines) belong not to him, but to the Divine power stirring his soul.

From what country then was he? From no country; but from a poor village, and from a land little esteemed, and producing no good thing. For the Scribes speak evil of Galilee, saying, Search and look, for out of Galilee arises no prophet. John 7:52 And the Israelite indeed speaks ill of it, saying, Can any good thing come out of Nazareth? And being of this land, he was not even of any remarkable place in it, but of one not even distinguished by name. Of this he was, and his father a poor fisherman, so poor that he took his sons to the same employment. Now you all know that no workman will choose to bring up his son to succeed him in his trade, unless poverty press him very hard, especially where the trade is a mean one. But nothing can be poorer, meaner, no, nor more ignorant, than fishermen. Yet even among them there are some greater, some less; and even there our Apostle occupied the lower rank, for he did not take his prey from the sea, but passed his time on a certain little lake. And as he was engaged by it with his father and his brother James, and they mending their broken nets, a thing which of itself marked extreme poverty, so Christ called him.

As for worldly instruction, we may learn from these facts that he had none at all of it. Besides, Luke testifies this when he writes not only that he was ignorant, but that he was absolutely unlettered. Acts 4:13 As was likely. For one who was so poor, never coming into the public assemblies, nor falling in with men of respectability, but as it were nailed to his fishing, or even if he ever did meet any one, conversing with fishmongers and cooks, how, I say, was he likely to be in a state better than that of the irrational animals? How could he help imitating the very dumbness of his fishes?

2. This fisherman then, whose business was about lakes, and nets, and fish; this native of Bethsaida of Galilee; this son of a poor fisherman, yes, and poor to the last degree; this man ignorant, and to the last degree of ignorance too, who never learned letters either before or after he accompanied Christ; let us see what he utters, and on what matters he converses with us. Is it of things in the field? Is it of things in rivers? On the trade in fish? For these things, perhaps, one expects to hear from a fisherman. But fear not; we shall hear nought of these; but we shall hear of things in heaven, and what no one ever learned before this man. For, as might be expected of one who speaks from the very treasures of the Spirit, he has come bringing to us sublime doctrines, and the best way of life and wisdom, [as though just arrived from the very heavens; yea, rather such as it was not likely that all even there should know, as I said before. ] Do these things belong to a fisherman? Tell me. Do they belong to a rhetorician at all? To a sophist or philosopher? To every one trained in the wisdom of the Gentiles? By no means. The human soul is simply unable thus to philosophize on that pure and blessed nature; on the powers that come next to it; on immortality and endless life; on the nature of mortal bodies which shall hereafter be immortal; on punishment and the judgment to come; on the enquiries that shall be as to deeds and words, as to thoughts and imaginations. It cannot tell what is man, what the world; what is man indeed, and what he who seems to be man, but is not; what is the nature of virtue, what of vice.

3. Some of these things indeed the disciples of Plato and Pythagoras enquired into. Of the other philosophers we need make no mention at all; they have all on this point been so excessively ridiculous; and those who have been among them in greater esteem than the rest, and who have been considered the leading men in this science, are so more than the others; and they have composed and written somewhat on the subject of polity and doctrines, and in all have been more shamefully ridiculous than children. For they have spent their whole life in making women common to all, in overthrowing the very order of life, in doing away the honor of marriage, and in making other the like ridiculous laws. As for doctrines on the soul, there is nothing excessively shameful that they have left unsaid; asserting that the souls of men become flies, and gnats, and bushes, and that God Himself is a soul; with some other the like indecencies.

And not this alone in them is worthy of blame, but so is also their ever-shifting current of words; for since they assert everything on uncertain and fallacious arguments, they are like men carried here and there in Euripus, and never remain in the same place.

Not so this fisherman; for all he says is infallible; and standing as it were upon a rock, he never shifts his ground. For since he has been thought worthy to be in the most secret places, and has the Lord of all speaking within him, he is subject to nothing that is human. But they, like persons who are not held worthy even in a dream to set foot in the king's palace, but who pass their time in the forum with other men, guessing from their own imagination at what they cannot see, have erred a great error, and, like blind or drunken men in their wandering, have dashed against each other; and not only against each other, but against themselves, by continually changing their opinion, and that ever on the same matters.

4. But this unlettered man, the ignorant, the native of Bethsaida, the son of Zebedee, (though the Greeks mock ten thousand times at the rusticity of the names, I shall not the less speak them with the greater boldness.) For the more barbarous his nation seems to them, and the more he seems removed from Grecian discipline, so much the brighter does what we have with us appear. For when a barbarian and an untaught person utters things which no man on earth ever knew, and does not only utter, (though if this were the only thing it were a great marvel,) but besides this, affords another and a stronger proof that what he says is divinely inspired, namely, the convincing all his hearers through all time; who will not wonder at the power that dwells in him? Since this is, as I said, the strongest proof that he lays down no laws of his own. This barbarian then, with his writing of the Gospel, has occupied all the habitable world. With his body he has taken possession of the center of Asia, where of old philosophized all of the Grecian party, shining forth in the midst of his foes, dispersing their darkness, and breaking down the stronghold of devils: but in soul he has retired to that place which is fit for one who has done such things.

5. And as for the writings of the Greeks, they are all put out and vanished, but this man's shine brighter day by day. For from the time that he (was) and the other fishermen, since then the (doctrines) of Pythagoras and of Plato, which seemed before to prevail, have ceased to be spoken of, and most men do not know them even by name. Yet Plato was, they say, the invited companion of kings, had many friends, and sailed to Sicily. And Pythagoras occupied Magna Græcia, and practiced there ten thousand kinds of sorcery. For to converse with oxen, (which they say he did,) was nothing else but a piece of sorcery. As is most clear from this. He that so conversed with brutes did not in anything benefit the race of men, but even did them the greatest wrong. Yet surely, the nature of men was better adapted for the reasoning of philosophy; still he did, as they say, converse with eagles and oxen, using sorceries. For he did not make their irrational nature rational, (this was impossible to man,) but by his magic tricks he deceived the foolish. And neglecting to teach men anything useful, he taught that they might as well eat the heads of those who begot them, as beans. And he persuaded those who associated with him, that the soul of their teacher had actually been at one time a bush, at another a girl, at another a fish.

Are not these things with good cause extinct, and vanished utterly? With good cause, and reasonably. But not so the words of him who was ignorant and unlettered; for Syrians, and Egyptians, and Indians, and Persians, and Ethiopians, and ten thousand other nations, translating into their own tongues the doctrines introduced by him, barbarians though they be, have learned to philosophize. I did not therefore idly say that all the world has become his theater. For he did not leave those of his own kind, and waste his labor on the irrational creatures, (an act of excessive vainglory and extreme folly,) but being clear of this as well as of other passions, he was earnest on one point only, that all the world might learn somewhat of the things which might profit it, and be able to translate it from earth to heaven.

For this reason too, he did not hide his teaching in mist and darkness, as they did who threw obscurity of speech, like a kind of veil, around the mischiefs laid up within. But this man's doctrines are clearer than the sunbeams, wherefore they have been unfolded to all men throughout the world. For he did not teach as Pythagoras did, commanding those who came to him to be silent for five years, or to sit like senseless stones; neither did he invent fables defining the universe to consist of numbers; but casting away all this devilish trash and mischief, he diffused such simplicity through his words, that all he said was plain, not only to wise men, but also to women and youths. For he was persuaded that the words were true and profitable to all that should hearken to them. And all time after him is his witness; since he has drawn to him all the world, and has freed our life when we have listened to these words from all monstrous display of wisdom; wherefore we who hear them would prefer rather to give up our lives, than the doctrines by him delivered to us.

6. From this then, and from every other circumstance, it is plain, that nothing of this man's is human, but divine and heavenly are the lessons which come to us by this divine soul. For we shall observe not sounding sentences, nor magnificent diction, nor excessive and useless order and arrangement of words and sentences, (these things are far from all true wisdom,) but strength invincible and divine, and irresistible force of right doctrines, and a rich supply of unnumbered good things. For their over-care about expression was so excessive, so worthy of mere sophists, or rather not even of sophists, but of silly striplings, that even their own chief philosopher introduces his own master as greatly ashamed of this art, and as saying to the judges, that what they hear from him shall be spoken plainly and without premeditation, not tricked out rhetorically nor ornamented with (fine) sentences and words; since, says he, it cannot surely be becoming, O men, that one at my age should come before you like a lad inventing speeches. And observe the extreme absurdity of the thing; what he has described his master avoiding as disgraceful, unworthy of philosophy and work for lads, this above all he himself has cultivated. So entirely were they given up to mere love of distinction.

And as, if you uncover those sepulchers which are whitened without you will find them full of corruption, and stench, and rotten bones; so too the doctrines of the philosopher, if you strip them of their flowery diction, you will see to be full of much abomination, especially when he philosophizes on the soul, which he both honors and speaks ill of without measure. And this is the snare of the devil, never to keep due proportion, but by excess on either hand to lead aside those who are entangled by it into evil speaking. At one time he says, that the soul is of the substance of God; at another, after having exalted it thus immoderately and impiously, he exceeds again in a different way, and treats it with insult, making it pass into swine and asses, and other animals of yet less esteem than these.

But enough of this; or rather even this is out of measure. For if it were possible to learn anything profitable from these things, we must have been longer occupied with them; but if it be only to observe their indecency and absurdity, more than requisite has been said by us already. We will therefore leave their fables, and attach ourselves to our own doctrines, which have been brought to us from above by the tongue of this fisherman, and which have nothing human in them.

7. Let us then bring forward the words, having reminded you now, as I exhorted you at the first, earnestly to attend to what is said. What then does this Evangelist say immediately on his outset?

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God. John 1:1 Do you see the great boldness and power of the words, how he speaks nothing doubting nor conjecturing, but declaring all things plainly? For this is the teacher's part, not to waver in anything he says, since if he who is to be a guide to the rest require another person who shall be able to establish him with certainty, he would be rightly ranked not among teachers, but among disciples.

But if any one say, What can be the reason that he has neglected the first cause, and spoken to us at once concerning the second? we shall decline to speak of first and second, for the Divinity is above number, and the succession of times. Wherefore we decline these expressions; but we confess that the Father is from none, and that the Son is begotten of the Father. Yes, it may be said, but why then does he leave the Father, and speak concerning the Son? Why? Because the former was manifest to all, if not as Father, at least as God; but the Only-Begotten was not known; and therefore with reason did he immediately from the very beginning hasten to implant the knowledge of Him in those who knew Him not.

Besides, he has not been silent as to the Father in his writings on these points. And observe, I beg of you, his spiritual wisdom. He knows that men most honor the eldest of beings which was before all, and account this to be God. Wherefore from this point first he makes his beginning, and as he advances, declares that God is, and does not like Plato assert, sometimes that He is intellect, sometimes that He is soul; for these things are far removed from that divine and unmixed Nature which has nothing common with us, but is separated from any fellowship with created things, I mean as to substance, though not as to relation.

And for this reason he calls Him The Word. For since he is about to teach that this Word is the only-begotten Son of God, in order that no one may imagine that His generation is passible, by giving Him the appellation of The Word, he anticipates and removes beforehand the evil suspicion, showing that the Son is from the Father, and that without His suffering (change).

8. Do you see then that as I said, he has not been silent as to the Father in his words concerning the Son? And if these instances are not sufficient fully to explain the whole matter, marvel not, for our argument is God, whom it is impossible to describe, or to imagine worthily; hence this man nowhere assigns the name of His essence, (for it is not possible to say what God is, as to essence,) but everywhere he declares Him to us by His workings. For this Word one may see shortly after called Light, and the Light in turn named Life.

Although not for this reason only did he so name Him; this was the first reason, and the second was because He was about to declare to us the things of the Father. For all things, He says, that I have heard from my Father, I have made known unto you. John 15:15 He calls Him both Light and Life, for He has freely given to us the light which proceeds from knowledge, and the life which follows it. In short, one name is not sufficient, nor two, nor three, nor more, to teach us what belongs to God. But we must be content to be able even by means of many to apprehend, though but obscurely, His attributes.

And he has not called Him simply Word, but with the addition of the article, distinguishing Him from the rest in this way also. Do you see then that I said not without cause that this Evangelist speaks to us from heaven? Only see from the very beginning whither he has drawn up the soul, having given it wings, and has carried up with him the mind of his hearers. For having set it higher than all the things of sense, than earth, than sea, than heaven, he leads it by the hand above the very angels, above cherubim and seraphim, above thrones and principalities and powers; in a word, persuades it to journey beyond all created things.

9. What then? When he has brought us to such a height as this, is he in truth able to stop us there? By no means; but just as one by transporting into the midst of the sea a person who was standing on the beach, and looking on cities, and beaches, and havens, removes him indeed from the former objects, yet does not stay his sight anywhere, but brings him to a view without bound; so this Evangelist, having brought us above all creation, and escorted us towards the eternal periods which lie beyond it, leaves the sight suspended, not allowing it to arrive at any limit upwards, as indeed there is none.

For the intellect, having ascended to the beginning, enquires what beginning; and then finding the was always outstripping its imagination, has no point at which to stay its thought; but looking intently onwards, and being unable to cease at any point, it becomes wearied out, and turns back to things below. For this was in the beginning, is nothing else than expressive of ever being and being infinitely.

Do you see true philosophy and divine doctrines? Not like those of the Greeks, who assign times, and say that some indeed of the gods are younger, some elder. There is nothing of this with us. For if God Is, as certainly He Is, then nothing was before Him. If He is Creator of all things, He must be first; if Master and Lord of all, then all, both creatures and ages, are after Him.

10. I had desired to enter the lists yet on other difficulties, but perhaps our minds are wearied out; when therefore I have advised you on those points which are useful to us for the hearing, both of what has been said, and of what is yet to be said, I again will hold my peace. What then are these points? I know that many have become confused by reason of the length of what has been spoken. Now this takes place when the soul is heavy laden with many burdens of this life. For as the eye when it is clear and transparent is keen-sighted also, and will not easily be tired in making out even the minutest bodies; but when from some bad humor from the head having poured into it, or some smoke-like fumes having ascended to it from beneath, a kind of thick cloud is formed before the ball, this does not allow it clearly to perceive even any larger object; so is naturally the case with the soul. For when it is purified, and has no passion to disturb it, it looks steadfastly to the fit objects of its regard; but when, darkened by many passions, it loses its proper excellence, then it is not easily able to be sufficient for any high thing, but soon is wearied, and falls back; and turning aside to sleep and sloth, lets pass things that concern it with a view to excellence and the life thence arising, instead of receiving them with much readiness.

And that you may not suffer this, (I shall not cease continually thus to warn you,) strengthen your minds, that you may not hear what the faithful among the Hebrews heard from Paul. For to them he said that he had many things to say, and hard to be uttered Hebrews 5:11; not as though they were by nature such, but because, says he, you are dull of hearing. For it is the nature of the weak and infirm man to be confused even by few words as by many, and what is clear and easy he thinks hard to be comprehended. Let not any here be such an one, but having chased from him all worldly care, so let him hear these doctrines.

For when the desire of money possesses the hearer, the desire of hearing cannot possess him as well; since the soul, being one, cannot suffice for many desires; but one of the two is injured by the other, and, from division, becomes weaker as its rival prevails, and expends all upon itself.

And this is wont to happen in the case of children. When a man has only one, he loves that one exceedingly. But when he has become father of many, then also his dispositions of affection being divided become weaker.

If this happens where there is the absolute rule and power of nature, and the objects beloved are akin one with another, what can we say as to that desire and disposition which is according to deliberate choice; especially where these desires lie directly opposed to each other; for the love of wealth is a thing opposed to the love of this kind of hearing. We enter heaven when we enter here; not in place, I mean, but in disposition; for it is possible for one who is on earth to stand in heaven, and to have vision of the things that are there, and to hear the words from thence.

11. Let none then introduce the things of earth into heaven; let no one standing here be careful about what is at his house. For he ought to bear with him, and to preserve both at home and in his business, what he gains from this place, not to allow it to be loaded with the burdens of house and market. Our reason for entering in to the chair of instruction is, that thence we may cleanse ourselves from the filth of the outer world; but if we are likely even in this little space to be injured by things said or done without, it is better for us not to enter at all. Let no one then in the assembly be thinking about domestic matters, but let him at home be stirring with what he heard in the assembly. Let these things be more precious to us than any. These concern the soul, but those the body; or rather what is said here concerns both body and soul. Wherefore let these things be our leading business, and all others but occasional employments; for these belong both to the future and the present life, but the rest neither to the one nor the other, unless they be managed according to the law laid down for these. Since from these it is impossible to learn not only what we shall hereafter be, and how we shall then live, but how we shall rightly direct this present life also.

For this house is a spiritual surgery, that whatever wounds we may have received without, here we may heal, not that we may gather fresh ones to take with us hence. Yet if we do not give heed to the Spirit speaking to us, we shall not only fail to clear ourselves of our former hurts, but shall get others in addition.

Let us then with much earnestness attend to the book as it is being unfolded to us; since if we learn exactly its first principles and fundamental doctrines, we shall not afterwards require much close study, but after laboring a little at the beginning, shall be able, as Paul says, to instruct others also. Romans 15:14 For this Apostle is very sublime, abounding in many doctrines, and on these he dwells more than on other matters.

Let us not then be careless hearers. And this is the reason why we set them forth to you little by little, so that all may be easily intelligible to you, and may not escape your memory. Let us fear then lest we come under the condemnation of that word which says, If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin. John 15:22 For what shall we be profited more than those who have not heard, if even after hearing we go our way home bearing nothing with us, but only wondering at what has been said.

Allow us then to sow in good ground; allow us, that you may draw us the more to you. If any man has thorns, let him cast the fire of the Spirit among them. If any has a hard and stubborn heart, let him by employing the same fire make it soft and yielding. If any by the wayside is trodden down by all kind of thoughts, let him enter into more sheltered places, and not lie exposed for those that will to invade for plunder: that so we may see your cornfields waving with grain. Besides, if we exercise such care as this over ourselves, and apply ourselves industriously to this spiritual hearing, if not at once yet by degrees, we shall surely be freed from all the cares of life.

Let us therefore take heed that it be not said of us, that our ears are those of a deaf adder. Psalm 58:4 For tell me, in what does a hearer of this kind differ from a beast? And how could he be otherwise than more irrational than any irrational animal, who does not attend when God is speaking? And if to be well-pleasing to God is really to be a man, what else but a beast can he be who will not even hear how he may succeed in this? Consider then what a misfortune it would be for us to fall down of our own accord from (the nature of) men to (that of) beasts, when Christ is willing of men to make us equal to angels. For to serve the belly, to be possessed by the desire of riches, to be given to anger, to bite, to kick, become not men, but beasts. Nay, even the beasts have each, as one may say, one single passion, and that by nature. But man, when he has cast away the dominion of reason, and torn himself from the commonwealth of God's devising, gives himself up to all the passions, is no longer merely a beast, but a kind of many-formed motley monster; nor has he even the excuse from nature, for all his wickedness proceeds from deliberate choice and determination.

May we never have cause to suspect this of the Church of Christ. Indeed, we are concerning you persuaded of better things, and such as belong to salvation; but the more we are so persuaded, the more careful we will be not to desist from words of caution. In order that having mounted to the summit of excellencies, we may obtain the promised goods. Which may it come to pass that we all attain to, through the grace and lovingkindness of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom and with whom, to the Father and the Holy Ghost, be glory world without end. Amen.

[AD 407] John Chrysostom on John 1:1

1. When children are just brought to their learning, their teachers do not give them many tasks in succession, nor do they set them once for all, but they often repeat to them the same short ones, so that what is said may be easily implanted in their minds, and they may not be vexed at the first onset with the quantity, and with finding it hard to remember, and become less active in picking up what is given them, a kind of sluggishness arising from the difficulty. And I, who wish to effect the same with you, and to render your labor easy, take little by little the food which lies on this Divine table, and instill it into your souls. On this account I shall handle again the same words, not so as to say again the same things, but to set before you only what yet remains. Come, then, let us again apply our discourse to the introduction.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God. Why, when all the other Evangelists had begun with the Dispensation ; (for Matthew says, The Book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the Son of David; and Luke too relates to us in the beginning of his Gospel the events relating to Mary; and in like manner Mark dwells on the same narratives, from that point detailing to us the history of the Baptist;) why, when they began with these matters, did John briefly and in a later place hint at them, saying, the Word was made flesh John 1:14; and, passing by everything else, His conception, His birth, His bringing up, His growth, at once discourse to us concerning His Eternal Generation?

I will now tell you what the reason of this is. Because the other Evangelists had dwelt most on the accounts of His coming in the flesh, there was fear lest some, being of grovelling minds, might for this reason rest in these doctrines alone, as indeed was the case with Paul of Samosata. In order, therefore, to lead away from this fondness for earth those who were like to fall into it, and to draw them up towards heaven, with good reason he commences his narrative from above, and from the eternal subsistence. For while Matthew enters upon his relation from Herod the king, Luke from Tiberius Cæsar, Mark from the Baptism of John, this Apostle, leaving alone all these things, ascends beyond all time or age. Thither darting forward the imagination of his hearers to the was in the beginning, not allowing it to stay at any point, nor setting any limit, as they did in Herod, and Tiberius, and John.

And what we may mention besides as especially deserving our admiration is, that John, though he gave himself up to the higher doctrine, yet did not neglect the Dispensation; nor were the others, though intent upon the relation of this, silent as to the subsistence before the ages. With good cause; for One Spirit It was that moved the souls of all; and therefore they have shown great unanimity in their narrative. But you, beloved, when you have heard of The Word, do not endure those who say, that He is a work; nor those even who think, that He is simply a word. For many are the words of God which angels execute, but of those words none is God; they all are -->prophecies--> or commands, (for in Scripture it is usual to call the laws of God His commands, and -->prophecies-->, words; wherefore in speaking of the angels, he says, Mighty in strength, fulfilling His word) Psalm 103:20, but this Word is a Being with subsistence, proceeding without affection from the Father Himself. For this, as I before said, he has shown by the term Word. As therefore the expression, In the beginning was the Word, shows His Eternity, so was in the beginning with God, has declared to us His Co-eternity. For that you may not, when you hear In the beginning was the Word, suppose Him to be Eternal, and yet imagine the life of the Father to differ from His by some interval and longer duration, and so assign a beginning to the Only-Begotten, he adds, was in the beginning with God; so eternally even as the Father Himself, for the Father was never without the Word, but He was always God with God, yet Each in His proper Person.

How then, one says, does John assert, that He was in the world, if He was with God? Because He was both with God and in the world also. For neither Father nor Son are limited in any way. Since, if there is no end of His greatness Psalm 145:3, and if of His wisdom there is no number Psalm 147:5, it is clear that there cannot be any beginning in time to His Essence. You have heard, that In the beginning God made the heaven and the earth Genesis 1:1; what do you understand from this beginning? Clearly, that they were created before all visible things. So, respecting the Only-Begotten, when you hear that He was in the beginning, conceive of him as before all intelligible things, and before the ages.

But if any one say, How can it be that He is a Son, and yet not younger than the Father? Since that which proceeds from something else needs must be later than that from which it proceeds; we will say that, properly speaking, these are human reasonings; that he who questions on this matter will question on others yet more improper; and that to such we ought not even to give ear. For our speech is now concerning God, not concerning the nature of men, which is subject to the sequence and necessary conclusions of these reasonings. Still, for the assurance of the weaker sort, we will speak even to these points.

2. Tell me, then, does the radiance of the sun proceed from the substance itself of the sun, or from some other source? Any one not deprived of his very senses needs must confess, that it proceeds from the substance itself. Yet, although the radiance proceeds from the sun itself, we cannot say that it is later in point of time than the substance of that body, since the sun has never appeared without its rays. Now if in the case of these visible and sensible bodies there has been shown to be something which proceeds from something else, and yet is not after that from whence it proceeds; why are you incredulous in the case of the invisible and ineffable Nature? This same thing there takes place, but in a manner suitable to That Substance. For it is for this reason that Paul too calls Him Brightness Hebrews 1:3; setting forth thereby His being from Him and His Co-eternity. Again, tell me, were not all the ages, and every interval created by Him? Any man not deprived of his senses must necessarily confess this. There is no interval therefore between the Son and the Father; and if there be none, then He is not after, but Co-eternal with Him. For before and after are notions implying time, since, without age or time, no man could possibly imagine these words; but God is above times and ages.

But if in any case you say that you have found a beginning to the Son, see whether by the same reason and argument you are not compelled to reduce the Father also to a beginning, earlier indeed, but still a beginning. For when you have assigned to the Son a limit and beginning of existence, do you not proceed upwards from that point, and say, that the Father was before it? Clearly you do. Tell me then, what is the extent of the Father's prior subsistence? For whether you say that the interval is little, or whether you say it is great, you equally have brought the Father to a beginning. For it is clear, that it is by measuring the space that you say whether it is little or great; yet it would not be possible to measure it, unless there were a beginning on either side; so that as far as you are concerned you have given the Father a beginning, and henceforth, according to your argument, not even the Father will be without beginning. See you that the word spoken by the Saviour is true, and the saying everywhere discovers its force? And what is that word? It is He that honors not the Son, honors not the Father. John 5:23

And I know indeed that what now has been said cannot by many be comprehended, and therefore it is that in many places we avoid agitating questions of human reasonings, because the rest of the people cannot follow such arguments, and if they could, still they have nothing firm or sure in them. For the thoughts of mortal men are miserable, and our devices are but uncertain. Wisdom 9:14 Still I should like to ask our objectors, what means that which is said by the Prophet, Before Me there was no God formed, nor is there any after Me? Isaiah 43:10 For if the Son is younger than the Father, how, says He, Nor is there any after me? Will you take away the being of the Only-Begotten Himself? You either must dare this, or admit one Godhead with distinct Persons of the Father and Son.

Finally, how could the expression, All things were made by Him, be true? For if there is an age older than He, how can that which was before Him have been made by Him? Do you see to what daring the argument has carried them, when once the truth has been unsettled? Why did not the Evangelist say, that He was made from things that were not, as Paul declares of all things, when he says, Who calls those things which be not as though they were; but says, Was in the beginning? Romans 4:17 This is contrary to that; and with good reason. For God neither is made, nor has anything older; these are words of the Greeks. Tell me this too: Would you not say, that the Creator beyond all comparison excels His works? Yet since that which is from things that were not is similar to them, where is the superiority not admitting of comparison? And what mean the expressions, I am the first and I am the last Isaiah 44:6; and, before Me was no other God formed? Isaiah 43:10 For if the Son be not of the same Essence, there is another God; and if He be not Co-eternal, He is after Him; and if He did not proceed from His Essence, clear it is that He was made. But if they assert, that these things were said to distinguish Him from idols, why do they not allow that it is to distinguish Him from idols that he says, the Only True God? John 17:3 Besides, if this was said to distinguish Him from idols, how would you interpret the whole sentence? After Me, He says, is no other God. In saying this, He does not exclude the Son, but that After Me there is no idol God, not that there is no Son. Allowed, says he; what then? And the expression, Before Me was no other God formed, will you so understand, as that no idol God indeed was formed before Him, but yet a Son was formed before Him? What evil spirit would assert this? I do not suppose that even Satan himself would do so.

Moreover, if He be not Co-eternal with the Father, how can you say that His Life is infinite? For if it have a beginning from before, although it be endless, yet it is not infinite; for the infinite must be infinite in both directions. As Paul also declared, when he said, Having neither beginning of days, nor end of life Hebrews 7:3; by this expression showing that He is both without beginning and without end. For as the one has no limit, so neither has the other. In one direction there is no end, in the other no beginning.

3. And how again, since He is Life, was there ever when He was not? For all must allow, that Life both is always, and is without beginning and without end, if It be indeed Life, as indeed It is. For if there be when It is not, how can It be the life of others, when It even Itself is not?

How then, says one, does John lay down a beginning by saying, 'In the beginning was'? Tell me, have you attended to the In the beginning, and to the was, and do you not understand the expression, the Word was? What! When the Prophet says, From everlasting and to everlasting You are Psalm 90:2, does he say this to assign Him limits? No, but to declare His Eternity. Consider now that the case is the same in this place. He did not use the expression as assigning limits, since he did not say, had a beginning, but was in the beginning; by the word was carrying you forward to the idea that the Son is without beginning. Yet observe, says he, the Father is named with the addition of the article, but the Son without it. What then, when the Apostle says, The Great God, and our Saviour Jesus Christ Titus 2:13; and again, Who is above all, God? Romans 9:5 It is true that here he has mentioned the Son, without the article; but he does the same with the Father also, at least in his Epistle to the Philippians Philippians 2:6, he says, Who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God; and again to the Romans, Grace to you, and peace, from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ. Romans 1:7 Besides, it was superfluous for it to be attached in that place, when close above it was continually attached to the Word. For as in speaking concerning the Father, he says, God is a Spirit John 4:24, and we do not, because the article is not joined to Spirit, yet deny the Spiritual Nature of God; so here, although the article is not annexed to the Son, the Son is not on that account a less God. Why so? Because in saying God, and again God, he does not reveal to us any difference in this Godhead, but the contrary; for having before said, and the Word was God; that no one might suppose the Godhead of the Son to be inferior, he immediately adds the characteristics of genuine Godhead, including Eternity, (for He was, says he, in the beginning with God,) and attributing to Him the office of Creator. For by Him were all things made, and without Him was not anything made that was made; which His Father also everywhere by the Prophets declares to be especially characteristic of His own Essence. And the Prophets are continually busy on this kind of demonstration, not only of itself, but when they contend against the honor shown to idols; Let the gods perish, says one who have not made heaven and earth Jeremiah 10:11: and again, I have stretched out the heaven with My hand Isaiah 44:24; and it is as declaring it to be indicative of Divinity, that He everywhere puts it. And the Evangelist himself was not satisfied with these words, but calls Him Life too and Light. If now He was ever with the Father, if He Himself created all things, if He brought all things into existence, and keeps together all things, (for, this he meant by Life,) if He enlightens all things, who so senseless as to say, that the Evangelist desired to teach an inferiority of Divinity by those very expressions, by which, rather than by any others, it is possible to express its equality and not differing? Let us not then confound the creation with the Creator, lest we too hear it said of us, that they served the creature rather than the Creator Romans 1:25; for although it be asserted that this is said of the heavens, still in speaking of the heavens he positively says, that we must not serve the creature, for it is a heathenish thing.

4. Let us therefore not lay ourselves under this curse. For this the Son of God came, that He might rid us from this service; for this He took the form of a slave, that He might free us from this slavery; for this He was spit upon, for this He was buffeted, for this He endured the shameful death. Let us not, I entreat you, make all these things of none effect, let us not go back to our former unrighteousness, or rather to unrighteousness much more grievous; for to serve the creature is not the same thing as to bring down the Creator, as far at least as in us lies, to the meanness of the creature. For He continues being such as He is; as says the Psalmist, You are the same, and Your years shall not fail. Psalm 102:27 Let us then glorify Him as we have received from our fathers, let us glorify Him both by our faith and by our works; for sound doctrines avail us nothing to salvation, if our life is corrupt. Let us then order it according to what is well-pleasing to God, setting ourselves far from all filthiness, unrighteousness, and covetousness, as strangers and foreigners and aliens to the things here on earth. If any have much wealth and possessions, let him so use them as one who is a sojourner, and who, whether he will or not, shall shortly pass from them. If one be injured by another, let him not be angry forever, nay rather not even for a time. For the Apostle has not allowed us more than a single day for the venting of anger.

Let not, says he, the sun go down upon your wrath Ephesians 4:26; and with reason; for it is matter for contentment that even in so short a time nothing unpleasant take place; but if night also overtake us, what has happened becomes more grievous, because the fire of our wrath is increased ten thousand times by memory, and we at our leisure enquire into it more bitterly. Before therefore we obtain this pernicious leisure and kindle a hotter fire, he bids us arrest beforehand and quench the mischief. For the passion of wrath is fierce, fiercer than any flame; and so we need much haste to prevent the flame, and not allow it to blaze up high, for so this disease becomes a cause of many evils. It has overturned whole houses, it has dissolved old companionships, and has worked tragedies not to be remedied in a short moment of time. For, says one, the sway of his fury shall be his destruction. Sirach 1:22 Let us not then leave such a wild beast unbridled, but put upon him a muzzle in all ways strong, the fear of the judgment to come. Whenever a friend grieves you, or one of your own family exasperates you, think of the sins you have committed against God, and that by kindness towards him you make that judgment more lenient to yourself, (Forgive, says He, and you shall be forgiven) Luke 6:37, and your passion shall quickly skulk away.

And besides, consider this, whether there has been a time when thou were being carried away into ferocity, and controlled yourself, and another time when you have been dragged along by the passion. Compare the two seasons, and you shall gain thence great improvement. For tell me, when did you praise yourself? Was it when you were worsted, or when you had the mastery? Do we not in the first case vehemently blame ourselves, and feel ashamed. even when none reproves us, and do not many feelings of repentance come over us, both for what we have said and done; but when we gain the mastery, then are we not proud, and exult as conquerors? For victory in the case of anger is, not the requiting evil with the like, (that is utter defeat,) but the bearing meekly to be ill treated and ill spoken of. To get the better is not to inflict but to suffer evil. Therefore when angry do not say, certainly I will retaliate, certainly I will be revenged; do not persist in saying to those who exhort you to gain a victory, I will not endure that the man mock me, and escape clear. He will never mock you, except when you avenge yourself; or if he even should mock you he will do so as a fool. Seek not when you conquer honor from fools, but consider that sufficient which comes from men of understanding. Nay, why do I set before you a small and mean body of spectators, when I make it up of men? Look up straight to God: He will praise you, and the man who is approved by Him must not seek honor from mortals. Mortal honor often arises from flattery or hatred of others, and brings no profit; but the decision of God is free from this inequality, and brings great advantage to the man whom He approves. This praise then let us follow after.

Will you learn what an evil is anger? Stand by while others are quarreling in the forum. In yourself you cannot easily see the disgrace of the thing, because your reason is darkened and drunken; but when you are clear from the passion, and while your judgment is sound, view your own case in others. Observe, I pray you, the crowds collecting round, and the angry men like maniacs acting shamefully in the midst. For when the passion boils up within the breast, and becomes excited and savage, the mouth breathes fire, the eyes emit fire, all the face becomes swollen, the hands are extended disorderly, the feet dance ridiculously, and they spring at those who restrain them, and differ nothing from madmen in their insensibility to all these things; nay, differ not from wild asses, kicking and biting. Truly a passionate man is not a graceful one.

And then, when after this exceedingly ridiculous conduct, they return home and come to themselves, they have the greater pain, and much fear, thinking who were present when they were angry. For like raving men, they did not then know the standers by, but when they have returned to their right mind, then they consider, were they friends? Were they foes and enemies that looked on? And they fear alike about both; the first because they will condemn them and give them more shame; the others because they will rejoice at it. And if they have even exchanged blows, then their fear is the more pressing; for instance, lest anything very grievous happen to the sufferer; a fever follow and bring on death, or a troublesome swelling rise and place him in danger of the worst. And, what need (say they) had I of fighting, and violence, and quarreling? Perish such things. And then they curse the ill-fated business which caused them to begin, and the more foolish lay on wicked spirits, and an evil hour, the blame of what has been done; but these things are not from an evil hour, (for there is no such thing as an evil hour,) nor from a wicked spirit, but from the wickedness of those captured by the passion; they draw the spirits to them, and bring upon themselves all things terrible. But the heart swells, says one, and is stung by insults. I know it; and that is the reason why I admire those who master this dreadful wild beast; yet it is possible if we will, to beat off the passion. For why when our rulers insult us do we not feel it? It is because fear counterbalances the passion, and frightens us from it, and does not allow it to spring up at all. And why too do our servants, though insulted by us in ten thousand ways, bear all in silence? Because they too have the same restraint laid upon them. And think thou not merely of the fear of God, but that it is even God Himself who then insults you, who bids you be silent, and then you will bear all things meekly, and say to the aggressor, How can I be angry with you? There is another that restrains both my hand and my tongue; and the saying will be a suggestion of sound wisdom, both to yourself and to him. Even now we bear unbearable things on account of men, and often say to those who have insulted us, Such an one insulted me, not you. Shall we not use the same caution in the case of God? How else can we hope for pardon? Let us say to our soul, It is God who holds our hands, who now insults us; let us not be restive, let not God be less honored by us than men. Did you shudder at the word? I wish you would shudder not at the word only, but at the deed. For God has commanded us when buffeted not only to endure it, but even to offer ourselves to suffer something worse; and we withstand Him with such vehemence, that we not only refuse to offer ourselves to suffer evil, but even avenge ourselves, nay often are the first to act on the offensive, and think we are disgraced if we do not the same in return. Yes, and the mischief is, that when utterly worsted we think ourselves conquerors, and when lying undermost and receiving ten thousand blows from the devil, then we imagine that we are mastering him. Let us then, I exhort you, understand what is the nature of this victory, and this kind of nature let us follow after. To suffer evil is to get the crown. If then we wish to be proclaimed victors by God, let us not in these contests observe the laws of heathen games, but those of God, and learn to bear all things with longsuffering; for so we may get the better of our antagonists, and obtain both present and promised goods, through the grace and lovingkindness of our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom and with whom to the Father and the Holy Spirit be glory, power, and honor, now and ever, and world without end. Amen.

[AD 407] John Chrysostom on John 1:1

1. On the subject of attention in hearkening it is superfluous to exhort you any more, so quickly have you shown by your actions the effects of my advice. For your manner of running together, your attentive postures, the thrusting one another in your eagerness to get the inner places, where my voice may more clearly be heard by you, your unwillingness to retire from the press until this spiritual assembly be dissolved, the clapping of hands, the murmurs of applause; in a word, all things of this kind may be considered proofs of the fervor of your souls, and of your desire to hear. So that on this point it is superfluous to exhort you. One thing, however, it is necessary for us to bid and entreat, that you continue to have the same zeal, and manifest it not here only, but that also when you are at home, you converse man with wife, and father with son, concerning these matters. And say somewhat of yourselves, and require somewhat in return from them; and so all contribute to this excellent banquet.

For let no one tell me that our children ought not to be occupied with these things; they ought not only to be occupied with them, but to be zealous about them only. And although on account of your infirmity I do not assert this, nor take them away from their worldly learning, just as I do not draw you either from your civil business; yet of these seven days I claim that you dedicate one to the common Lord of us all. For is it not a strange thing that we should bid our domestics slave for us all their time, and ourselves apportion not even a little of our leisure to God; and this too when all our service adds nothing to Him, (for the Godhead is incapable of want,) but turns out to our own advantage? And yet when you take your children into the theaters, you allege neither their mathematical lessons, nor anything of the kind; but if it be required to gain or collect anything spiritual, you call the matter a waste of time. And how shall you not anger God, if you find leisure and assign a season for everything else, and yet think it a troublesome and unseasonable thing for your children to take in hand what relates to Him?

Do not so, brethren, do not so. It is this very age that most of all needs the hearing these things; for from its tenderness it readily stores up what is said; and what children hear is impressed as a seal on the wax of their minds. Besides, it is then that their life begins to incline to vice or virtue; and if from the very gates and portals one lead them away from iniquity, and guide them by the hand to the best road, he will fix them for the time to come in a sort of habit and nature, and they will not, even if they be willing, easily change for the worse, since this force of custom draws them to the performance of good actions. So that we shall see them become more worthy of respect than those who have grown old, and they will be more useful in civil matters, displaying in youth the qualities of the aged.

For, as I before said, it cannot be that they who enjoy the hearing of such things as these, and who are in the company of such an Apostle, should depart without receiving some great and remarkable advantage, be it man, woman, or youth, that partakes of this table. If we train by words the animals which we have, and so tame them, how much more shall we effect this with men by this spiritual teaching, when there is a wide difference between the remedy in each case, and the subject healed as well. For neither is there so much fierceness in us as in the brutes, since theirs is from nature, ours from choice; nor is the power of the words the same, for the power of the first is that of the human intellect, the power of the second is that of the might and grace of the Spirit. Let then the man who despairs of himself consider the tame animals, and he shall no longer be thus affected; let him come continually to this house of healing, let him hear at all times the laws of the Spirit, and on retiring home let him write down in his mind the things which he has heard; so shall his hopes be good and his confidence great, as he feels his progress by experience. For when the devil sees the law of God written in the soul, and the heart become tablets to write it on, he will not approach any more. Since wherever the king's writing is, not engraved on a pillar of brass, but stamped by the Holy Ghost on a mind loving God, and bright with abundant grace, that (evil one) will not be able even to look at it, but from afar will turn his back upon us. For nothing is so terrible to him and to the thoughts which are suggested by him as a mind careful about Divine matters, and a soul which ever hangs over this fountain. Such an one can nothing present annoy, even though it be displeasing; nothing puff up or make proud, even though it be favorable; but amidst all this storm and surge it will even enjoy a great calm.

2. For confusion arises within us, not from the nature of circumstances, but from the infirmity of our minds; for if we were thus affected by reason of what befalls us, then, (as we all sail the same sea, and it is impossible to escape waves and spray,) all men must needs be troubled; but if there are some who stand beyond the influence of the storm and the raging sea, then it is clear that it is not circumstances which make the storm, but the condition of our own mind. If therefore we so order the mind that it may bear all things contentedly, we shall have no storm nor even a ripple, but always a clear calm.

After professing that I should say nothing on these points, I know not how I have been carried away into such a length of exhortation. Pardon my prolixity; for I fear, yes, I greatly fear lest this zeal of ours should ever become weaker. Did I feel confident respecting it, I would not now have said to you anything on these matters, since it is sufficient to make all things easy to you. But it is time in what follows to proceed to the matters proposed for consideration today; that you may not come weary to the contest. For we have contests against the enemies of the truth, against those who use every artifice to destroy the honor of the Son of God, or rather their own. This remains for ever as it now is, nothing lessened by the blaspheming tongue, but they, by seeking eagerly to pull down Him whom they say they worship, fill their faces with shame and their souls with punishment.

What then do they say when we assert what we have asserted? That the words, 'in the beginning was the Word,' do not denote eternity absolutely, for that this same expression was used also concerning heaven and earth. What enormous shamelessness and irreverence! I speak to you concerning God, and do you bring the earth into the argument, and men who are of the earth? At this rate, since Christ is called Son of God, and God, Man who is called Son of God must be God also. For, I have said, You are Gods, and all of you are children of the Most High. Psalm 82:6 Will you contend with the Only-Begotten concerning Sonship, and assert that in that respect He enjoys nothing more than thou? By no means, is the reply. And yet you do this even though thou say not so in words. How? Because you say that thou by grace art partaker of the adoption, and He in like manner. For by saying that He is not Son by nature, thou only makest him to be so by grace.

However, let us see the proofs which they produce to us. In the beginning, it is said, God made the Heaven and the earth, and the earth was invisible and unformed. Genesis 1:2 And, There 'was' a man of Ramathaim Zophim. 1 Samuel 1:1 These are what they think strong arguments, and they are strong; but it is to prove the correctness of the doctrines asserted by us, while they are utterly powerless to establish their blasphemy. For tell me, what has the word was in common with the word made? What has God in common with man? Why do you mix what may not be mixed? Why confound things which are distinct, why bring low what is above? In that place it is not the expression was only which denotes eternity, but that One was in the beginning. And that other, The Word was; for as the word being, when used concerning man, only distinguishes present time, but when concerning God, denotes eternity, so was, when used respecting our nature, signifies to us past time, and that too limited, but when respecting God it declares eternity. It would have been enough then when one had heard the words earth and man, to imagine nothing more concerning them than what one may fitly think of a nature that came into being, for that which came to be, be it what it may, has come to be either in time, or the age before time was, but the Son of God is above not only times, but all ages which were before, for He is the Creator and Maker of them, as the Apostle says, by whom also He made the ages. Now the Maker necessarily is, before the thing made. Yet since some are so senseless, as even after this to have higher notions concerning creatures than is their due, by the expression He made, and by that other, there was a man, he lays hold beforehand of the mind of his hearer, and cuts up all shamelessness by the roots. For all that has been made, both heaven and earth, has been made in time, and has its beginning in time, and none of them is without beginning, as having been made: so that when you hear that he made the earth, and that there was a man, you are trifling to no purpose, and weaving a tissue of useless folly.

For I can mention even another thing by way of going further. What is it? It is, that if it had been said of the earth, In the beginning was the earth, and of man, In the beginning was the man, we must not even then have imagined any greater things concerning them than what we have now determined. For the terms earth and man as they are presupposed, whatever may be said concerning them, do not allow the mind to imagine to itself anything greater concerning them than what we know at present.  Just as the Word, although but little be said of It, does not allow us to think (respecting It) anything low or poor. Since in proceeding he says of the earth, The earth was invisible and unformed. For having said that He made it, and having settled its proper limit, he afterwards declares fearlessly what follows, as knowing that there is no one so silly as to suppose that it is without beginning and uncreated, since the word earth, and that other made, are enough to convince even a very simple person that it is not eternal nor increate, but one of those things created in time.

3. Besides, the expression was, applied to the earth and to man, is not indicative of absolute existence. But in the case of a man (it denotes) his being of a certain place, in that of the earth its being in a certain way. For he has not said absolutely the earth was, and then held his peace, but has taught how it was even after its creation, as that it was invisible and unformed, as yet covered by the waters and in confusion. So in the case of Elkanah he does not merely say that there was a man, but adds also whence he was, of Armathaim Zophim. But in the case of the Word, it is not so. I am ashamed to try these cases, one against the other, for if we find fault with those who do so in the case of men, when there is a great difference in the virtue of those who are so tried, though in truth their substance be one; where the difference both of nature and of everything else is so infinite, is it not the extremest madness to raise such questions? But may He who is blasphemed by them be merciful to us. For it was not we who invented the necessity of such discussions, but they who war against their own salvation laid it on us.

What then do I say? That this first was, applied to the Word, is only indicative of His eternal Being, (for In the beginning, he says, was the Word,) and that the second was, (and the Word was with God,) denotes His relative Being. For since to be eternal and without beginning is most peculiar to God, this he puts first; and then, lest any one hearing that He was in the beginning, should assert, that He was unbegotten also, he immediately remedies this by saying, before he declares what He was, that He was with God.  And he has prevented any one from supposing, that this Word is simply such a one as is either uttered or conceived, by the addition, as I beforesaid, of the article, as well as by this second expression. For he does not say, was in God, but was with God: declaring to us His eternity as to person. Then, as he advances, he has more clearly revealed it, by adding, that this Word also was God.

But yet created, it may be said. What then hindered him from saying, that In the beginning God made the Word? At least Moses speaking of the earth says, not that in the beginning was the earth, but that He made it, and then it was. What now hindered John from saying in like manner, that In the beginning God made the Word? For if Moses feared lest any one should assert that the earth was uncreated, much more ought John to have feared this respecting the Son, if He was indeed created. The world being visible, by this very circumstance proclaims its Maker, (the heavens, says the Psalmist, declare the glory of God Psalm 19:1), but the Son is invisible, and is greatly, infinitely, higher than all creation. If now, in the one instance, where we needed neither argument nor teaching to know that the world is created, yet the prophet sets down this fact clearly and before all others; much more should John have declared the same concerning the Son, if He had really been created.

Yes, it may be said, but Peter has asserted this clearly and openly. Where and when? When speaking to the Jews he said, that 'God has made Him both Lord and Christ.' Acts 2:36 Why do you not add what follows, That same Jesus whom you have crucified? Or do you not know that of the words, part relate to His unmixed Nature, part to His Incarnation? But if this be not the case, and you will absolutely understand all as referring to the Godhead, then you will make the Godhead capable of suffering; but if not capable of suffering, then not created. For if blood had flowed from that divine and ineffable Nature, and if that Nature, and not the flesh, had been torn and cut by the nails upon the cross, on this supposition your quibbling would have had reason; but if not even the devil himself could utter such a blasphemy, why do you feign to be ignorant with ignorance so unpardonable, and such as not the evil spirits themselves could pretend? Besides the expressions Lord and Christ belong not to His Essence, but to His dignity; for the one refers to His Power, the other to his having been anointed. What then would you say con cerning the Son of God? For if he were even, as you assert, created, this argument could not have place. For He was not first created and afterwards God chose Him, nor does He hold a kingdom which could be thrown aside, but one which belongs by nature to His Essence; since, when asked if He were a King, He answers, To this end was I born. John 18:37 But Peter speaks as concerning one chosen, because his argument wholly refers to the Dispensation.

4. And why do you wonder if Peter says this? For Paul, reasoning with the Athenians, calls Him Man only, saying, By that Man whom He has ordained, whereof He has given assurance to all men, in that He has raised Him from the dead. Acts 17:31 He speaks nothing concerning the form of God Philippians 2:6, nor that He was equal to Him, nor that He was the brightness of His glory. Hebrews 1:3 And with reason. The time for words like these was not yet come; but it would have contented him that they should in the meanwhile admit that He was Man, and that He rose again from the dead. Christ Himself acted in the same manner, from whom Paul having learned, used this reserve. For He did not at once reveal to us His Divinity, but was at first held to be a Prophet and a good man; but afterwards His real nature was shown by His works and words. On this account Peter too at first used this method, (for this was the first sermon that he made to the Jews;) and because they were not yet able clearly to understand anything respecting His Godhead, he dwelt on the arguments relating to His Incarnation; that their ears being exercised in these, might open a way to the rest of his teaching. And if any one will go through all the sermon from the beginning, he will find what I say very observable, for he (Peter) calls Him Man, and dwells on the accounts of His Passion, His Resurrection, and His generation according to the flesh. Paul too when he says, Who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh Romans 1:3, only teaches us that the word made is taken with a view to His Incarnation, as we allow. But the son of thunder is now speaking to us concerning His Ineffable and Eternal Existence, and therefore he leaves the word made and puts was; yet if He were created, this point he needs must most especially have determined. For if Paul feared that some foolish persons might suppose that He shall be greater than the Father, and have Him who begot Him made subject to Him, (for this is the reason why the Apostle in sending to the Corinthians writes, But when He says, All things are put under Him, it is manifest that He is excepted which did put all things under Him, yet who could possibly imagine that the Father, even in common with all things, will be subject to the Son?) if, I say, he nevertheless feared these foolish imaginations, and says, He is excepted that did put all things under Him; much more if the Son of God were indeed created, ought John to have feared lest any one should suppose Him uncreated, and to have taught on this point before any other.

But now, since He was Begotten, with good reason neither John nor any other, whether apostle or prophet, has asserted that He was created. Neither had it been so would the Only-Begotten Himself have let it pass unmentioned. For He who spoke of Himself so humbly from condescension would certainly not have been silent on this matter. And I think it not unreasonable to suppose, that He would be more likely to have the higher Nature, and say nothing of it, than not having it to pass by this omission, and fail to make known that He had it not. For in the first case there was a good excuse for silence, namely, His desire to teach mankind humility by being silent as to the greatness of His attributes; but in the second case you can find no just excuse for silence. For why should He who declined many of His real attributes have been, if He were created, silent as to His having been made? He who, in order to teach humility, often uttered expressions of lowliness, such as did not properly belong to Him, much more if He had been indeed created, would not have failed to speak of this. Do you not see Him, in order that none may imagine Him not to have been begotten, doing and saying everything to show that He was so, uttering words unworthy both of His dignity and His essence, and descending to the humble character of a Prophet? For the expression, As I hear, I judge John 5:30; and that other, He has told Me what I should say, and what I should speak John 12:49, and the like, belong merely to a prophet. If now, from His desire to remove this suspicion, He did not disdain to utter words thus lowly, much more if He were created would He have said many like words, that none might suppose Him to be uncreated; as, Think not that I am begotten of the Father; I am created, not begotten, nor do I share His essence. But as it is, He does the very contrary, and utters words which compel men, even against their will and desire, to admit the opposite opinion. As, I am in the Father, and the Father in Me John 14:11; and, Have I been so long time with you, and yet have you not known Me, Philip? He that has seen Me, has seen the Father. John 14:9 And, That all men should honor the Son, even as they honor the Father. John 5:23 As the Father raises up the dead and quickens them, even so the Son quickens whom He will. John 5:21 My Father works hitherto, and I work. John 5:17 As the Father knows Me, even so know I the Father. John 10:15 I and My Father are One. John 10:30 And everywhere by putting the as, and the so, and the being with the Father, He declares His undeviating likeness to Him. His power in Himself He manifests by these, as well as by many other words; as when He says, Peace, be still. Mark 4:39 I will, be thou clean. Matthew 8:3 Thou dumb and deaf spirit, I charge you, come out of him. Mark 9:25 And again, You have heard that it was said by them of old time, You shall not kill; but I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause, shall be in danger. Matthew 5:21-22 And all the other laws which He gave, and wonders which He worked, are sufficient to show His power, or rather, I should say, a very small part of them is enough to bring over and convince any, except the utterly insensate.

5. But vainglory is a thing powerful to blind even to very evident truths the minds of those ensnared by it, and to persuade them to dispute against what is allowed by others; nay, it instigates some who know and are persuaded of the truth to pretended ignorance and opposition. As took place in the case of the Jews, for they did not through ignorance deny the Son of God, but that they might obtain honor from the multitude; they believed, says the Evangelist, but were afraid, lest they should be put out of the synagogue. John 12:40 And so they gave up their salvation to others. For it cannot be that he who is so zealous a slave to the glory of this present world can obtain the glory which is from God. Wherefore He rebuked them, saying, How can you believe, which receive honor of men, and seek not the honor which comes from God? John 5:44 This passion is a sort of deep intoxication, and makes him who is subdued by it hard to recover. And having detached the souls of its captives from heavenly things, it nails them to earth, and lets them not look up to the true light, but persuades them ever to wallow in the mire, giving them masters so powerful, that they have the rule over them without needing to use commands. For the man who is sick of this disease, does of his own accord, and without bidding, all that he thinks will be agreeable to his masters. On their account he clothes himself in rich apparel, and beautifies his face, taking these pains not for himself but for others; and he leads about a train of followers through the market-place, that others may admire him, and all that he does he goes through, merely out of obsequiousness to the rest of the world. Can any state of mind be more wretched than this? That others may admire him, he is ever being precipitated to ruin.

Would you learn what a tyrannous sway it exercises? Why surely, the words of Christ are sufficient to show it all. But yet listen to these further remarks. If you will ask any of those men who mingle in state affairs and incur great expenses, why they lavish so much gold, and what their so vast expenditure means; you will hear from them, that it is for nothing else but to gratify the people. If again you ask what the people may be; they will say, that it is a thing full of confusion and turbulent, made up for the most part of folly, tossed blindly to and fro like the waves of the sea, and often composed of varying and adverse opinions. Must not the man who has such a master be more pitiable than any one? And yet strange though it be, it is not so strange that worldly men should be eager about these things; but that those who say that they have started away from the world should be sick of this same disease, or rather of one more grievous still, this is the strangest thing of all. For with the first the loss extends only to money, but in the last case the danger reaches to the soul. For when men alter a right faith for reputation's sake, and dishonor God that they may be in high repute themselves, tell me, what excess of stupidity and madness must there not be in what they do? Other passions, even if they are very hurtful, at least bring some pleasure with them, though it be but for a time and fleeting; those who love money, or wine, or women, have, with their hurt, a pleasure, though a brief one. But those who are taken captives by this passion, live a life continually embittered and stripped of enjoyment, for they do not obtain what they earnestly desire, glory, I mean, from the many. They think they enjoy it, but do not really, because the thing they aim at is not glory at all. And therefore their state of mind is not called glory, but a something void of glory, vaingloriousness, so have all the ancients named it, and with good reason; inasmuch as it is quite empty, and contains nothing bright or glorious within it, but as players' masks seem to be bright and lovely, but are hollow within, (for which cause, though they be more beautiful than natural faces, yet they never draw any to love them,) even so, or rather yet more wretchedly, has the applause of the multitude tricked out for us this passion, dangerous as an antagonist, and cruel as a master. Its countenance alone is bright, but within it is no more like the mask's mere emptiness, but crammed with dishonor, and full of savage tyranny. Whence then, it may be asked, has this passion, so unreasonable, so devoid of pleasure, its birth? Whence else but from a low, mean soul? It cannot be that one who is captivated by love of applause should imagine readily anything great or noble; he needs must be base, mean, dishonorable, little. He who does nothing for virtue's sake, but to please men worthy of no consideration, and who ever makes account of their mistaken and erring opinions, how can he be worth anything? Consider; if any one should ask him, What do you think of the many? He clearly would say, that they are thoughtless, and not to be regarded. Then if any one again should ask him, Would you choose to be like them? I do not suppose he could possibly desire to be like them. Must it not then be excessively ridiculous to seek the good opinion of those whom you never would choose to resemble?

6. Do you say that they are many and a sort of collective body? This is the very reason why you ought most to despise them. If when taken singly they are contemptible, still more will this be the case when they are many; for when they are assembled together, their individual folly is increased by numbers, and becomes greater. So that a man might possibly take a single one of them and set him right, but could not do so with them when together, because then their folly becomes intense, and they are led like sheep, and follow in every direction the opinions of one another. Tell me, will you seek to obtain this vulgar glory? Do not, I beg and entreat you. It turns everything upside down; it is the mother of avarice, of slander, of false witness, of treacheries; it arms and exasperates those who have received no injury against those who have inflicted none. He who has fallen into this disease neither knows friendship nor remembers old companionship, and knows not how to respect any one at all; he has cast away from his soul all goodness, and is at war with every one, unstable, without natural affection.

Again, the passion of anger, tyrannical though it be and hard to bear, still is not wont always to disturb, but only when it has persons that excite it; but that of vainglory is ever active, and there is no time, as one may say, when it can cease, since reason neither hinders nor restrains it, but it is always with us not only persuading us to sin, but snatching from our hands anything which we may chance to do aright, or sometimes not allowing us to do right at all. If Paul calls covetousness idolatry, what ought we to name that which is mother, and root, and source of it, I mean, vainglory? We cannot possibly find any term such as its wickedness deserves. Beloved, let us now return to our senses; let us put off this filthy garment, let us rend and cut it off from us, let us at some time or other become free with true freedom, and be sensible of the nobility which has been given to us by God; let us despise vulgar applause. For nothing is so ridiculous and disgraceful as this passion, nothing so full of shame and dishonor. One may in many ways see, that to love honor, is dishonor; and that true honor consists in neglecting honor, in making no account of it, but in saying and doing everything according to what seems good to God. In this way we shall be able to receive a reward from Him who sees exactly all our doings, if we are content to have Him only for a spectator. What need we other eyes, when He who shall confer the prize is ever beholding our actions? Is it not a strange thing that, whatever a servant does, he should do to please his master, should seek nothing more than his master's observation, desire not to attract other eyes (though they be great men who are looking on) to his conduct, but aim at one thing only, that his master may observe him; while we who have a Lord so great, seek other spectators who can nothing profit, but rather hurt us by their observation, and make all our labor vain? Not so, I beseech you. Let us call Him to applaud and view our actions from whom we shall receive our rewards. Let us have nothing to do with human eyes. For if we should even desire to attain this honor, we shall then attain to it, when we seek that which comes from God alone. For, He says, Them that honor Me, I will honor. 1 Samuel 2:30 And even as we are best supplied with riches when we despise them, and seek only the wealth which comes from God (Seek, he says, the kingdom of God, and all these things shall be added to you Matthew 6:33); so it is in the case of honor. When the granting either of riches or honor is no longer attended with danger to us, then God gives them freely; and it is then unattended with danger, when they have not the rule or power over us, do not command us as slaves, but belong to us as masters and free men. For the reason that He wishes us not to love them is, that we may not be ruled by them; and if we succeed in this respect, He gives us them with great liberality. Tell me, what is brighter than Paul, when he says, We seek not honor of men, neither of you, nor yet of others. 1 Thessalonians 2:6 What then is richer than him who has nothing, and yet possesses all things? For as I said, when we are not mastered by them, then we shall master them, then we shall receive them. If then we desire to obtain honor, let us shun honor, so shall we be enabled after accomplishing the laws of God to obtain both the good things which are here, and those which are promised, by the grace of Christ, with whom, to the Father and the Holy Ghost, be glory for ever and ever. Amen.

[AD 407] John Chrysostom on John 1:1

While all the other Evangelists begin with the incarnation … John, passing by everything else—his conception, his birth, his education, and his growth—speaks immediately of his eternal generation.

Source: HOMILIES ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 4.1

[AD 407] John Chrysostom on John 1:1

As when our ship is near shore and cities and ports pass in view before us that on the open sea vanish and leave nothing to fix the eye on, so the Evangelist here takes us with him in his flight above the created world leaving the eye to gaze upon emptiness and an unlimited expanse.…For the intellect, having ascended to “the beginning,” enquires, “What beginning?” Finding then that the “was” in the text exceeds its imagination, [the intellect] has no point on which to focus its thought. Looking intently onward but being unable to fix its gaze, it becomes wearied and turns back to things below. Indeed, this expression, “was in the beginning,” is expressive of eternal and infinite being.

Source: HOMILIES ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 2.9

[AD 407] John Chrysostom on John 1:1

[Heretics] say that the words “in the beginning was the Word” do not denote eternity absolutely, for this same expression was also used concerning heaven and earth.…However, let us see the proofs that they give to us. “In the beginning,” it is said, “God made the heavens and the earth, and the earth was invisible and unformed.” And, “There ‘was’ a certain man of Ramathaim-zophim.” These are what they think are strong arguments, and they are strong—in proving the correctness of the doctrines asserted by us. Meanwhile, they are utterly powerless to establish their blasphemy. For tell me, what has the word was in common with the word made? What does God have in common with human beings? Why do you mix what may not be mixed? Why confound things that are distinct, why bring low what is above? In this text it is not only the expression “was” that denotes eternity, but also the expressions “was in the beginning” and “the Word was.” For even as the word being distinguishes present time when used in regard to human beings but denotes eternity when used in regard to God, so “was” signifies to us past time—limited at that—when used in regard to our nature but declares eternity when used in regard to God.

Source: HOMILIES ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 3.2

[AD 407] John Chrysostom on John 1:1

The first “was” applied to “the Word” is only indicative of his eternal Being—for “In the beginning,” he says, “was the Word.” The second “was”—“and the Word was with God”—denotes his relational being. For since to be eternal and without beginning is most peculiar to God, this he puts first. Then, in case any one hearing that he was “in the beginning” should assert that he was “unbegotten” also, he immediately remedies this by saying (before he declares what he was) that he was “with God.” And he has prevented anyone from supposing that this “Word” is simply one who is either uttered or conceived, by the addition, as I said before, of the article, as well as by this second expression. For he does not say was “in God” but was “with God,” declaring to us his eternity as to person.

Source: HOMILIES ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 3.3

[AD 407] John Chrysostom on John 1:1

See, he says, how the Father is named with the addition of the article but the Son without it. What do you do then when the apostle says, “The great God, and our Savior Jesus Christ,” and again, “Who is above all, God”? It is true that here he has mentioned the Son, without the article; but [the apostle] does the same with the Father also, at least in his epistle to the Philippians, where he says, “Who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God,” and again to the Romans, “Grace to you, and peace, from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.” Besides, it was superfluous for it to be attached in that place, when close above it was continually attached to “the Word.” For as in speaking concerning the Father, he says, “God is a Spirit,” and we do not, because the article is not joined to “Spirit,” yet deny the spiritual nature of God. Likewise here, although the article is not annexed to the Son, the Son is not on that account a lesser God. Why so? Because in saying “God” and again “God,” he does not reveal to us any difference in this Godhead, but the contrary. For having before said, “and the Word was God,” so that no one might suppose the Godhead of the Son to be inferior, he immediately adds the characteristics of genuine Godhead, including eternity, for “He was,” says he, “in the beginning with God,” and attributes to him [in the next verse] the office of creator.

Source: HOMILIES ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 4.3

[AD 420] Jerome on John 1:1

John, the apostle whom Jesus most loved, the son of Zebedee and brother of James, the apostle whom Herod, after our Lord's passion, beheaded, most recently of all the evangelists wrote a Gospel, at the request of the bishops of Asia, against Cerinthus and other heretics and especially against the then growing dogma of the Ebionites, who assert that Christ did not exist before Mary. On this account he was compelled to maintain His divine nativity. But there is said to be yet another reason for this work, in that when he had read Matthew, Mark, and Luke, he approved indeed the substance of the history and declared that the things they said were true, but that they had given the history of only one year, the one, that is, which follows the imprisonment of John and in which he was put to death. So passing by this year the events of which had been set forth by these, he related the events of the earlier period before John was shut up in prison, so that it might be manifest to those who should diligently read the volumes of the four Evangelists. This also takes away the discrepancy which there seems to be between John and the others... In the fourteenth year then after Nero Domitian having raised a second persecution he was banished to the island of Patmos, and wrote the Apocalypse, on which Justin Martyr and Irenæus afterwards wrote commentaries. But Domitian having been put to death and his acts, on account of his excessive cruelty, having been annulled by the senate, he returned to Ephesus under Pertinax and continuing there until the time of the Emperor Trajan, founded and built churches throughout all Asia, and, worn out by old age, died in the sixty-eighth year after our Lord's passion and was buried near the same city.

Source: De Viris Illustribus (On Illustrious Men), Section 9

[AD 428] Theodore of Mopsuestia on John 1:1

In a word, they have shown in their use of terms and exposition of their doctrines that they call “beginning” that which is before everything. Indeed, you will not find that the divine Scriptures say anything different. Even among common people the name “beginning” is used in a similar sense. Let me now give a suitable example: the blessed Moses, intending to instruct the Jewish nation both about God and created things—how God alone was the one who existed, while they were made—and wishing to explain to us the order of the creation of those things, said, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” He did not say “they were in the beginning,” because he believed that expression was not suitable for things that did not exist by themselves and were created. This is because he knew that the Creator, God, existed before them. Nor was he content only to say “in the beginning.” Rather, he said, “In the beginning God created,” thinking that it would be better to mention their creator first and then add what had been created in the beginning. He first mentioned God their creator in order to raise the mind of his audience toward him, and then he related the things that were made.

Source: COMMENTARY ON JOHN 1.1.1

[AD 428] Theodore of Mopsuestia on John 1:1

Since he thought it necessary to speak about the divinity of the Only Begotten and to teach both who he is and the nature of his existence, the blessed John emulates this use of language, saying, “In the beginning was the Word.” You see, since Moses described the beginning of the things that were made—showing clearly in the account of creation that their maker preexisted—John judged it to be superfluous for himself also to recount the beginning of what was made and declares that the Son was the beginning of the things that exist; that is, he was in the beginning because he always was. So then, when making inquiry into issues of existence, one concerned with creation should not say that created things existed in the beginning, for they did not exist before they were made, because if they existed, they were not made. Rather, going beyond these—on the ground that at some time they did not exist—since we find something transcending them, we should say that it was this that was in the beginning.Therefore, if indeed the Word did not exist—as the crazed Arians say—but received his existence at a later time, then he was not the one who was in the beginning, and [the title would belong to] the one who was when he was not. I shall not pass over the first and refer to the second as “the beginning.” This is, then, the meaning of the Word found in the Gospel of John, since he is the first terminus of the things that exist. If he is the first terminus, however, it was never when he was not, because he always was. Therefore, nothing will ever preexist him—inasmuch as the Father may be regarded as preceding any cause, for he himself exists in himself, so also the Son exists. For this reason he certainly did not mean for the phrase “he was in the beginning” to be taken in the same sense as the phrase “in the beginning God created.” Indeed, there34 the addition of the word created defined the beginning in regard to the created things, so as to signify only their beginning, whereas here he said simply and absolutely, “He was in the beginning.” And so it is apparent that the Word discussed here is the Word that is the first and principal beginning, to which nothing of what exists can be regarded as prior. And he added the word was to the phrase “in the beginning” to show that he was indicating without any qualification the “beginning” of the things that exist, which indeed is the “first being” and the “ever-being” and the “never not being.”

Source: COMMENTARY ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN, FRAGMENT 2.1, 1-2

[AD 430] Augustine of Hippo on John 1:1

(lib. lxxxiii. Quæst. q. 63) The Greek word "logos" signifies both Word and Reason. But in this passage it is better to interpret it Word; as referring not only to the Father, but to the creation of things by the operative power of the Word; whereas Reason, though it produce nothing, is still rightly called Reason.

(Tract. super Joan. i. c. 8) Words by their daily use, sound, and passage out of us, have become common things. But there is a word which remaineth inward, in the very man himself; distinct from the sound which proceedeth out of the mouth. There is a word, which is truly and spiritually that, which you understand by the sound, not being the actual sound. (de Trin. l. xv. c. 19. [x.]). Now whoever can conceive the notion of word, as existing not only before its sound, but even before the idea of its sound is formed, may see enigmatically, and as it were in a glass, some similitude of that Word of Which it is said, In the beginning was the Word. For when we give expression to something which we know, the word used is necessarily derived from the knowledge thus retained in the memory, and must be of the same quality with that knowledge. For a word is a thought formed from a thing which we know; which word is spoken in the heart, being neither Greek nor Latin, nor of any language, though, when we want to communicate it to others, some sign is assumed by which to express it... (Ibid. cap. 20. [xi.]). Wherefore the word which sounds externally, is a sign of the word which lies hid within, to which the name of word more truly appertains. For that which is uttered by the mouth of our flesh, is the voice of the word; and is in fact called word, with reference to that from which it is taken, when it is developed externally.

(xv. de Trin. c. 22. [xiii.]) As our knowledge differs from God's, so does our word, which arises from our knowledge, differ from that Word of God, which is born of the Father's essence; we might say, from the Father's knowledge, the Father's wisdom, or, more correctly, the Father Who is Knowledge, the Father Who is Wisdom. (c. 23. (xiv.)) The Word of God then, the Only-Begotten Son of the Father, is in all things like and equal to the Father; being altogether what the Father is, yet not the Father; because the one is the Son, the other the Father. And thereby He knoweth all things which the Father knoweth; yet His knowledge is from the Father, ever as is His being: for knowing and being are the same with Him; and so as the Father's being is not from the Son, so neither is His knowing. Wherefore the Father begat the Word equal to Himself in all things as uttering forth Himself. For had there been more or less in His Word than in Himself, He would not have uttered Himself fully and perfectly. With respect however to our own inner word, which we find, in whatever sense, to be like the Word, let us not object to see how very unlike it is also. (cap. 25. (xv.)) A word is a formation of our mind going to take place, but not yet made, and something in our mind which we toss to and fro in a slippery circuitous way, as one thing and another is discovered, or occurs to our thoughts. When this, which we toss to and fro, has reached the subject of our knowledge, and been formed therefrom, when it has assumed the most exact likeness to it, and the conception has quite answered to the thing; then we have a true word. Who may not see how great the difference is here from that Word of God, which exists in the Form of God in such wise, that It could not have been first going to be formed, and afterwards formed, nor can ever have been unformed, being a Form absolute, and absolutely equal to Him from Whom It is. Wherefore in speaking of the Word of God here nothing is said about thought in God; lest we should think there was any thing revolving in God, which might first receive form in order to be a Word, and afterwards lose it, and be carried round and round again in an unformed state.

(de Verb. Dom. Serm. 38) Now the Word of God is a Form, not a formation, but the Form of all forms, a Form unchangeable, removed from accident, from failure, from time, from space, surpassing all things, and existing in all things as a kind of foundation underneath, and summit above them.

(de Trin. vi. c. 3 [ii]) Or, In the beginning, as if it were said, before all things.

(de verb. Dom. Serm. 38. [117.] §. 6) They say, however, if He is the Son, He was born. We allow it. They rejoin: if the Son was born to the Father, the Father was, before the Son was born to Him. This the Faith rejects. Then they say, explain to us how the Son could be born from the Father, and yet be coeval with Him from whom He is born: for sons are born after their fathers, to succeed them on their death. They adduce analogies from nature; and we must endeavour likewise to do the same for our doctrine. But how can we find in nature a coeternal, when we cannot find an eternal? However, if a thing generating and a thing generated can be found any where coeval, it will be a help to forming a notion of coeternals. Now Wisdom herself is called in the Scriptures, (Wisd. 7:26) the brightness of Everlasting Light, the image of the Father. Hence then let us take our comparison, and from coevals form a notion of coeternals. Now no one doubts that brightness proceeds from fire: fire then we may consider the father of the brightness. Presently, when I light a candle, at the same instant with the fire, brightness ariseth. Give me the fire without the brightness, and I will with thee believe that the Father was without the Son. An image is produced by a mirror. The image exists as soon as the beholder appears; yet the beholder existed before he came to the mirror. Let us suppose then a twig, or a blade of grass which has grown up by the water side. Is it not born with its image? If there had always been the twig, there would always have been the image proceeding from the twig. And whatever is from another thing, is born. So then that which generates may be coexistent from eternity with that which is generated from it. But some one will say perhaps, Well, I understand now the eternal Father, the coeternal Son: yet the Son is like the emitted brightness, which is less brilliant than the fire, or the reflected image, which is less real than the twig. Not so: there is complete equality between Father and Son. I do not believe, he says; for thou hast found nothing whereto to liken it. However, perhaps we can find something in nature by which we may understand that the Son is both coeternal with the Father, and in no respect inferior also: though we cannot find any one material of comparison that will be sufficient singly, and must therefore join together two, one of which has been employed by our adversaries, the other by ourselves. For they have drawn their comparison from things which are preceded in time by the things which they spring from, man, for example, from man. Nevertheless, man is of the same substance with man. We have then in that nativity an equality of nature; an equality of time is wanting. But in the comparison which we have drawn from the brightness of fire, and the reflexion of a twig, an equality of nature thou dost not find, of time thou dost. In the Godhead then there is found as a whole, what here exists in single and separate parts; and that which is in the creation, existing in a manner suitable to the Creator.

Source: Catena Aurea by Aquinas

[AD 430] Augustine of Hippo on John 1:1

1. When I give heed to what we have just read from the apostolic lesson, that the natural man perceives not the things which are of the Spirit of God, 1 Corinthians 2:14 and consider that in the present assembly, my beloved, there must of necessity be among you many natural men, who know only according to the flesh, and cannot yet raise themselves to spiritual understanding, I am in great difficulty how, as the Lord shall grant, I may be able to express, or in my small measure to explain, what has been read from the Gospel, In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God; for this the natural man does not perceive. What then, brethren? Shall we be silent for this cause? Why then is it read, if we are to be silent regarding it? Or why is it heard, if it be not explained? And why is it explained, if it be not understood? And so, on the other hand, since I do not doubt that there are among your number some who can not only receive it when explained, but even understand it before it is explained, I shall not defraud those who are able to receive it, from fear of my words being wasted on the ears of those who are not able to receive it. Finally, there will be present with us the compassion of God, so that perchance there may be enough for all, and each receive what he is able, while he who speaks says what he is able. For to speak of the matter as it is, who is able? I venture to say, my brethren, perhaps not John himself spoke of the matter as it is, but even he only as he was able; for it was man that spoke of God, inspired indeed by God, but still man. Because he was inspired he said something; if he had not been inspired, he would have said nothing; but because a man inspired, he spoke not the whole, but what a man could he spoke.

2. For this John, dearly beloved brethren, was one of those mountains concerning which it is written: Let the mountains receive peace for your people, and the hills righteousness. The mountains are lofty souls, the hills little souls. But for this reason do the mountains receive peace, that the hills may be able to receive righteousness. What is the righteousness which the hills receive? Faith, for the just does live by faith. The smaller souls, however, would not receive faith unless the greater souls, which are called mountains, were illuminated by Wisdom herself, that they may be able to transmit to the little ones what the little ones can receive; and the hills live by faith, because the mountains receive peace. By the mountains themselves it was said to the Church, Peace be with you; and the mountains themselves in proclaiming peace to the Church did not divide themselves against Him from whom they received peace, John 20:19 that truly, not feignedly, they might proclaim peace.

3. For there are other mountains which cause shipwreck, on which, if any one drive his ship, she is dashed to pieces. For it is easy, when land is seen by men in peril, to make a venture as it were to reach it; but sometimes land is seen on a mountain, and rocks lie hidden under the mountain; and when any one makes for the mountain, he falls on the rocks, and finds there not rest, but wrecking. So there have been certain mountains, and great have they appeared among men, and they have created heresies and schisms, and have divided the Church of God; but those who divided the Church of God were not those mountains concerning which it is said, Let the mountains receive peace for your people. For in what manner have they received peace who have severed unity?

4. But those who received peace to proclaim it to the people have made Wisdom herself an object of contemplation, so far as human hearts could lay hold on that which eye has not seen, nor ear heard, neither has ascended into the heart of man. 1 Corinthians 2:9 If it has not ascended into the heart of man, how has it ascended into the heart of John? Was not John a man? Or perhaps neither into John's heart did it ascend, but John's heart ascended into it? For that which ascends into the heart of man is from beneath, to man; but that to which the heart of man ascends is above, from man. Even so brethren, can it be said that, if it ascended into the heart of John (if in any way it can be said), it ascended into his heart in so far as he was not man. What means was not man? In so far as he had begun to be an angel. For all saints are angels, since they are messengers of God. Therefore to carnal and natural men, who are not able to perceive the things that are of God, what says the apostle? For whereas ye say, I am of Paul, I of Apollos, are you not men? 1 Corinthians 3:4 What did he wish to make them whom he upbraided because they were men? Do you wish to know what he wished to make them? Hear in the Psalms: I have said, you are gods; and all of you are children of the Most High. To this, then, God calls us, that we be not men. But then will it be for the better that we be not men, if first we recognize the fact that we are men, that is, to the end that we may rise to that height from humility; lest, when we think that we are something when we are nothing, we not only do not receive what we are not, but even lose what we are.

5. Accordingly, brethren, of these mountains was John also, who said, In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. This mountain had received peace; he was contemplating the divinity of the Word. Of what sort was this mountain? How lofty? He had risen above all peaks of the earth, he had risen above all plains of the sky, he had risen above all heights of the stars, he had risen above all choirs and legions of the angels. For unless he rose above all those things which were created, he would not arrive at Him by whom all things were made. You cannot imagine what he rose above, unless you see at what he arrived. Do you inquire concerning heaven and earth? They were made. Do you inquire concerning the things that are in heaven and earth? Surely much more were they made. Do you inquire concerning spiritual beings, concerning angels, archangels, thrones, dominions, powers, principalities? These also were made. For when the Psalm enumerated all these things, it finished thus: He spoke, and they were made; He commanded, and they were created. If He spoke and they were made, it was by the Word that they were made; but if it was by the Word they were made, the heart of John could not reach to that which he says, In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God, unless he had risen above all things that were made by the Word. What a mountain this! How holy! How high among those mountains that received peace for the people of God, that the hills might receive righteousness!

6. Consider, then, brethren, if perchance John is not one of those mountains concerning whom we sang a little while ago, I have lifted up my eyes to the mountains, from whence shall come my help. Therefore, my brethren, if you would understand, lift up your eyes to this mountain, that is, raise yourselves up to the evangelist, rise to his meaning. But, because though these mountains receive peace he cannot be in peace who places his hope in man, do not so raise your eyes to the mountain as to think that your hope should be placed in man; and so say, I have lifted up my eyes to the mountains, from whence shall come my help, that you immediately add, My help is from the Lord, who made heaven and earth. Therefore let us lift our eyes to the mountains, from whence shall come our help; and yet it is not in the mountains themselves that our hope should be placed, for the mountains receive what they may minister to us; therefore, from whence the mountains also receive there should our hope be placed. When we lift our eyes to the Scriptures, since it was through men the Scriptures were ministered, we are lifting our eyes to the mountains, from whence shall come our help; but still, since they were men who wrote the Scriptures, they did not shine of themselves, but He was the true light, John 1:9 who lights every man that comes into the world. A mountain also was that John the Baptist, who said, I am not the Christ, John 1:30 lest any one, placing his hope in the mountain, should fall from Him who illuminates the mountain. He also confessed, saying, Since of His fullness have all we received. John 1:16 So you ought to say, I have lifted up my eyes to the mountains, from whence shall come my help, so as not to ascribe to the mountains the help that comes to you; but continue and say, My help is from the Lord, who made heaven and earth.

7. Therefore, brethren, may this be the result of my admonition, that you understand that in raising your hearts to the Scriptures (when the gospel was sounding forth, In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God, and the rest that was read), you were lifting your eyes to the mountains. For unless the mountains said these things, you would not find out how to think of them at all. Therefore from the mountains came your help, that you even heard of these things; but you cannot yet understand what you have heard. Call for help from the Lord, who made heaven and earth; for the mountains were enabled only so to speak as not of themselves to illuminate, because they themselves are also illuminated by hearing. Thence John, who said these things, received them— he who lay on the Lord's breast, and from the Lord's breast drank in what he might give us to drink. But he gave us words to drink. You ought then to receive understanding from the source from which he drank who gave you to drink; so that you may lift up your eyes to the mountains from whence shall come your aid, so that from thence you may receive, as it were, the cup, that is, the word, given you to drink; and yet, since your help is from the Lord, who made heaven and earth, you may fill your breast from the source from which he filled his; whence you said, My help is from the Lord, who made heaven and earth: let him, then, fill who can. Brethren, this is what I have said: Let each one lift up his heart in the manner that seems fitting, and receive what is spoken. But perhaps you will say that I am more present to you than God. Far be such a thought from you! He is much more present to you; for I appear to your eyes, He presides over your consciences. Give me then your ears, Him your hearts, that you may fill both. Behold, your eyes, and those your bodily senses, you lift up to us; and yet not to us, for we are not of those mountains, but to the gospel itself, to the evangelist himself: your hearts, however, to the Lord to be filled. Moreover, let each one so lift up as to see what he lifts up, and whither. What do I mean by saying, what he lifts up, and whither? Let him see to it what sort of a heart he lifts up, because it is to the Lord he lifts it up, lest, encumbered by a load of fleshly pleasure, it fall ere ever it is raised. But does each one see that he bears a burden of flesh? Let him strive by continence to purify that which he may lift up to God. For Blessed are the pure in heart, because they shall see God. Matthew 5:8

8. But let us see what advantage it is that these words have sounded, In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. We also uttered words when we spoke. Was it such a word that was with God? Did not those words which we uttered sound and pass away? Did God's Word, then, sound and come to an end? If so, how were all things made by it, and without it was nothing made? How is that which it created ruled by it, if it sounded and passed away? What sort of a word, then, is that which is both uttered and passes not away? Give ear, my beloved, it is a great matter. By everyday talk, words here become despicable to us, because through their sounding and passing away they are despised, and seem nothing but words. But there is a word in the man himself which remains within; for the sound proceeds from the mouth. There is a word which is spoken in a truly spiritual manner, that which you understand from the sound, not the sound itself. Mark, I speak a word when I say God. How short the word which I have spoken— four letters and two syllables! Is this all that God is, four letters and two syllables? Or is that which is signified as costly as the word is paltry? What took place in your heart when you heard, God? What took place in my heart when I said God? A certain great and perfect substance was in our thoughts, transcending every changeable creature of flesh or of soul. And if I say to you, Is God changeable or unchangeable? you will answer immediately, Far be it from me either to believe or imagine that God is changeable: God is unchangeable. Your soul, though small, though perhaps still carnal, could not answer me otherwise than that God is unchangeable: but every creature is changeable; how then were you able to enter, by a glance of your spirit, into that which is above the creature, so as confidently to answer me, God is unchangeable? What, then, is that in your heart, when you think of a certain substance, living, eternal, all-powerful, infinite, everywhere present, everywhere whole, nowhere shut in? When you think of these qualities, this is the word concerning God in your heart. But is this that sound which consists of four letters and two syllables? Therefore, whatever things are spoken and pass away are sounds, are letters, are syllables. His word which sounds passes away; but that which the sound signified, and was in the speaker as he thought of it, and in the hearer as he understood it, that remains while the sounds pass away.

9. Turn your attention to that word. You can have a word in your heart, as it were a design born in your mind, so that your mind brings forth the design; and the design is, so to speak, the offspring of your mind, the child of your heart. For first your heart brings forth a design to construct some fabric, to set up something great on the earth; already the design is conceived, and the work is not yet finished: you see what you will make; but another does not admire, until you have made and constructed the pile, and brought that fabric into shape and to completion; then men regard the admirable fabric, and admire the design of the architect; they are astonished at what they see, and are pleased with what they do not see: who is there who can see a design? If, then, on account of some great building a human design receives praise, do you wish to see what a design of God is the Lord Jesus Christ, that is, the Word of God? Mark this fabric of the world. View what was made by the Word, and then you will understand what is the nature of the world. Mark these two bodies of the world, the heavens and the earth. Who will unfold in words the beauty of the heavens? Who will unfold in words the fruitfulness of the earth? Who will worthily extol the changes of the seasons? Who will worthily extol the power of seeds? You see what things I do not mention, lest in giving a long list I should perhaps tell of less than you can call up to your own minds. From this fabric, then, judge the nature of the Word by which it was made: and not it alone; for all these things are seen, because they have to do with the bodily sense. By that Word angels also were made; by that Word archangels were made, powers, thrones, dominions, principalities; by that Word were made all things. Hence, judge what a Word this is.

10. Perhaps some one now answers me, Who so conceives this Word? Do not then imagine, as it were, some paltry thing when you hear, the Word, nor suppose it to be words such as you hear them every day— he spoke such words, such words he uttered, such words you tell me; for by constant repetition the term word has become, so to speak, worthless. And when you hear, In the beginning was the Word, lest you should imagine something worthless, such as you have been accustomed to think of when you were wont to listen to human words, hearken to what you must think of: The Word was God.

11. Now some unbelieving Arian may come forth and say that the Word of God was made. How can it be that the Word of God was made, when God by the Word made all things? If the Word of God was itself also made, by what other Word was it made? But if you say that there is a Word of the Word, I say, that by which it was made is itself the only Son of God. But if you do not say there is a Word of the Word, allow that that was not made by which all things were made. For that by which all things were made could not be made by itself. Believe the evangelist then. For he might have said, In the beginning God made the Word: even as Moses said, In the beginning God made the heavens and the earth; and enumerates all things thus: God said, Let it be made, and it was made. Genesis i If said, who said? God. And what was made? Some creature. Between the speaking of God and the making of the creature, what was there by which it was made but the Word? For God said, Let it be made, and it was made. This Word is unchangeable; although changeable things are made by it, the Word itself is unchangeable.

12. Do not then believe that that was made by which were made all things, lest you be not new-made by the Word, which makes all things new. For already have you been made by the Word, but it behooves you to be new-made by the Word. If, however, your belief about the Word be wrong, you will not be able to be new-made by the Word. And although creation by the Word has happened to you, so that you have been made by Him, you are unmade by yourself: if by yourself you are unmade, let Him who made you make you new: if by yourself you have been made worse, let Him who created you re-create you. But how can He re-create you by the Word, if you hold a wrong opinion about the Word? The evangelist says, In the beginning was the Word; and you say, In the beginning the Word was made. He says, All things were made by Him; and you say that the Word Himself was made. The evangelist might have said, In the beginning the Word was made: but what does he say? In the beginning was the Word. If He was, He was not made; that all things might be made by it, and without Him nothing be made. If, then, in the beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God; if you can not imagine what it is, wait till you are grown. That is strong meat: receive milk that you may be nourished, and be able to receive strong meat.

13. Give good heed to what follows, brethren, All things were made by Him, and without Him was nothing made, so as not to imagine that nothing is something. For many, wrongly understanding without Him was nothing made, are wont to fancy that nothing is something. Sin, indeed, was not made by Him; and it is plain that sin is nothing, and men become nothing when they sin. An idol also was not made by the Word;— it has indeed a sort of human form, but man himself was made by the Word;— for the form of man in an idol was not made by the Word, and it is written, We know that an idol is nothing. 1 Corinthians 8:4 Therefore these things were not made by the Word; but whatever was made in the natural manner, whatever belongs to the creature, everything that is fixed in the sky, that shines from above, that flies under the heavens, and that moves in universal nature, every creature whatsoever: I will speak more plainly, brethren, that you may understand me; I will say, from an angel even to a worm. What more excellent than an angel among created things? What lower than a worm? He who made the angel made the worm also; but the angel is fit for heaven, the worm for earth. He who created also arranged. If He had placed the worm in heaven, you might have found fault; if He had willed that angels should spring from decaying flesh, you might have found fault: and yet God almost does this, and He is not to be found fault with. For all men born of flesh, what are they but worms? And of these worms God makes angels. For if the Lord Himself says, But I am a worm and no man, who will hesitate to say what is written also in Job, How much more is man rottenness, and the son of man a worm? Job 25:6 First he said, Man is rottenness; and afterwards, The son of man a worm: because a worm springs from rottenness, therefore man is rottenness, and the son of man a worm. Behold what for your sake He was willing to become, who in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God! Why did He for your sake become this? That you might suck, who were not able to chew. Wholly in this sense, then, brethren, understand All things were made by Him, and without Him was nothing made. For every creature, great and small, was made by Him: by Him were made things above and things beneath; spiritual and corporeal, by Him were they made. For no form, no structure, no agreement of parts, no substance whatever that can have weight, number, measure, exists but by that Word, and by that Creator Word, to whom it is said, You have ordered all things in measure, and in number, and in weight. Wisdom 11:21

14. Therefore, let no one deceive you, when perchance you suffer annoyance from flies. For some have been mocked by the devil, and taken with flies. As fowlers are accustomed to put flies in their traps to deceive hungry birds, so these have been deceived with flies by the devil. Some one or other was suffering annoyance from flies; a Manichæan found him in his trouble, and when he said that he could not bear flies, and hated them exceedingly, immediately the Manichæan said, Who made them? And since he was suffering from annoyance, and hated them, he dared not say, God made them, though he was a Catholic. The other immediately added, If God did not make them, who made them? Truly, replied the Catholic, I believe the devil made them. And the other immediately said, If the devil made the fly, as I see you allow, because you understand the matter well, who made the bee, which is a little larger than the fly? The Catholic dared not say that God made the bee and not the fly, for the case was much the same. From the bee he led him to the locust; from the locust to the lizard; from the lizard to the bird; from the bird to the sheep; from the sheep to the cow; from that to the elephant, and at last to man; and persuaded a man that man was not made by God. Thus the miserable man, being troubled with the flies, became himself a fly, and the property of the devil. In fact, Beelzebub, they say, means Prince of flies; and of these it is written, Dying flies deprive the ointment of its sweetness. Ecclesiastes 10:1

15. What then, brethren? Why have I said these things? Shut the ears of your hearts against the wiles of the enemy. Understand that God made all things, and arranged them in their orders. Why, then, do we suffer many evils from a creature that God made? Because we have offended God? Do angels suffer these things? Perhaps we, too, in that life of theirs, would have no such thing to fear. For your punishment, accuse your sin, not the Judge. For, on account of our pride, God appointed that tiny and contemptible creature to torment us; so that, since man has become proud and has boasted himself against God, and, though mortal, has oppressed mortals, and, though man, has not acknowledged his fellowman—since he has lifted himself up, he may be brought low by gnats. Why are you inflated with human pride? Some one has censured you, and you are swollen with rage. Drive off the gnats, that you may sleep: understand who you are. For, that you may know, brethren, it was for the taming of our pride these things were created to be troublesome to us, God could have humbled Pharaoh's proud people by bears, by lions, by serpents; He sent flies and frogs upon them, Exodus viii that their pride might be subdued by the meanest creatures.

16. All things, then, brethren, all things were made by Him, and without Him was nothing made. But how were all things made by Him? That, which was made, in Him is life. It can also be read thus: That, which was made in Him, is life; and if we so read it, everything is life. For what is there that was not made in Him? For He is the Wisdom of God, and it is said in the Psalm, In Wisdom have You made all things. If, then, Christ is the Wisdom of God, and the Psalm says, In Wisdom have You made all things: as all things were made by Him, so all things were made in Him. If, then, all things were made in Him, dearly beloved brethren, and that, which was made in Him, is life, both the earth is life and wood is life. We do indeed say wood is life, but in the sense of the wood of the cross, whence we have received life. A stone, then, is life. It is not seemly so to understand the passage, as the same most vile sect of the Manichæans creep stealthily on us again, and say that a stone has life, that a wall has a soul, and a cord has a soul, and wool, and clothing. For so they are accustomed to talk in their raving; and when they have been driven back and refuted, they in some sort bring forward Scripture, saying, Why is it said, 'That, which was made in Him, is life'? For if all things were made in Him, all things are life. Be not carried away by them; read thus That which was made; here make a short pause, and then go on, in Him is life. What is the meaning of this? The earth was made, but the very earth that was made is not life; but there exists spiritually in the Wisdom itself a certain reason by which the earth was made: this is life.

17. As far as I can, I shall explain my meaning to you, beloved. A carpenter makes a box. First he has the box in design; for if he had it not in design, how could he produce it by workmanship? But the box in theory is not the very box as it appears to the eyes. It exists invisibly in design, it will be visible in the work. Behold, it is made in the work; has it ceased to exist in design? The one is made in the work, and the other remains which exists in design; for that box may rot, and another be fashioned according to that which exists in design. Give heed, then, to the box as it is in design, and the box as it is in fact. The actual box is not life, the box in design is life; because the soul of the artificer, where all these things are before they are brought forth, is living. So, dearly beloved brethren, because the Wisdom of God, by which all things have been made, contains everything according to design before it is made, therefore those things which are made through this design itself are not immediately life, but whatever has been made is life in Him. You see the earth, there is an earth in design; you see the sky, there is a sky in design; you see the sun and the moon, these also exist in design: but externally they are bodies, in design they are life. Understand, if in any way you are able, for a great matter has been spoken. If I am not great by whom it is spoken, or through whom it is spoken, still it is from a great authority. For these things are not spoken by me who am small; He is not small to whom I refer in saying these things. Let each one take in what he can, and to what extent he can; and he who is not able to take in any of it, let him nourish his heart, that he may become able. How is he to nourish it? Let him nourish it with milk, that he may come to strong meat. Let him not leave Christ born through the flesh till he arrive at Christ born of the Father alone, the God-Word with God, through whom all things were made; for that is life, which in Him is the light of men.

18. For this follows: and the life was the light of men; and from this very life are men illuminated. Cattle are not illuminated, because cattle have not rational minds capable of seeing wisdom. But man was made in the image of God, and has a rational mind, by which he can perceive wisdom. That life, then, by which all things were made, is itself the light; yet not the light of every animal, but of men. Wherefore a little after he says, That was the true light, which lights every man that comes into the world. By that light John the Baptist was illuminated; by the same light also was John the Evangelist himself illuminated. He was filled with that light who said, I am not the Christ; but He comes after me, whose shoe's latchet I am not worthy to unloose. John 1:26-27 By that light he had been illuminated who said, In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. Therefore that life is the light of men.

19. But perhaps the slow hearts of some of you cannot yet receive that light, because they are burdened by their sins, so that they cannot see. Let them not on that account think that the light is in any way absent, because they are not able to see it; for they themselves are darkness on account of their sins. And the light shines in darkness, and the darkness comprehended it not. Accordingly, brethren, as in the case of a blind man placed in the sun, the sun is present to him, but he is absent from the sun. So every foolish man, every unjust man, every irreligious man, is blind in heart. Wisdom is present; but it is present to a blind man, and is absent from his eyes; not because it is absent from him, but because he is absent from it. What then is he to do? Let him become pure, that he may be able to see God. Just as if a man could not see because his eyes were dirty and sore with dust, rheum, or smoke, the physician would say to him: Cleanse from your eye whatever bad thing is in it, so that you may be able to see the light of your eyes. Dust, rheum, and smoke are sins and iniquities: remove then all these things, and you will see the wisdom that is present; for God is that wisdom, and it has been said, Blessed are the pure in heart; for they shall see God. Matthew 5:8

[AD 430] Augustine of Hippo on John 1:1

There are two births of our Lord Jesus Christ, the one divine, the other human.… Consider that first begetting: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” Whose Word? The Father’s own. Which Word? The Son himself. The Father has never been without the Son; and yet the one who has never been without the Son begot the Son. He both begot and yet did not begin to do so. There is no beginning for one begotten without beginning. And yet he is the Son, and yet he is begotten. A mere human is going to say, “How is it that he is begotten, and yet he does not have a beginning? If he does not have a beginning, how was he begotten?” How, I do not know. Are you asking a mere human how God was begotten? I am overwhelmed by your questioning, but I appeal to the prophet: “His begetting who can tell the tale of?”

Source: SERMON 196.1

[AD 430] Augustine of Hippo on John 1:1

Moses, they tell us, says, “In the beginning God made heaven and earth,” and does not even mention the Son through whom all things were made; whereas John says, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. This was in the beginning with God, all things were made through him, and without him was made nothing.” Is this contradictory, or are they not rather contradicting themselves when they prefer blindly to find fault with what they do not understand instead of earnestly seeking to understand?… For the Lord says to the unbelieving Jews, “If you believed Moses, you would believe me too; for he wrote about me.” So why shouldn’t I understand the Lord himself as the beginning in which God the Father made heaven and earth? For Moses certainly wrote, “In the beginning God made heaven and earth,” and it is the Lord’s words that confirm that he wrote about the Lord. Or perhaps he himself is not also the beginning? But there need be no doubt about that either, with the Gospel telling us, when the Jews asked the Lord who he was, that he replied, “The beginning, because I am also speaking to you.” There you have the beginning in which God made heaven and earth. So God made heaven and earth in the Son, through whom all things were made and without whom was made nothing. And so, since the Gospel is in agreement with Genesis, we may retain our inheritance in line with the consensus of both Testaments and leave fault-finding quibbles to the disinherited heretics.

Source: SERMON 1.2

[AD 430] Augustine of Hippo on John 1:1

Whoever, then, is able to understand a word, not only before it is uttered in sound but also before the images of its sounds are considered in thought … may see enigmatically, and as it were in a glass, some similarity with that Word of which it is said, “In the beginning was the Word.” … For when we give expression to something that we know, the word used is necessarily derived from the knowledge thus retained in the memory and must be of the same quality with that knowledge. For a word is a thought formed from a thing that we know. This word is spoken in the heart, being neither Greek nor Latin nor any other language, although, when we want to communicate it to others, some sign is assumed by which to express it.…Accordingly, the word that sounds externally is a sign of the word that lies hidden within, having the greater claim to be called a “word.” For what is uttered by the mouth of our flesh is the voice of the word and is in fact called “word” with reference to that from which it is taken as it then makes externally apparent.

Source: ON THE TRINITY 15.10.19-11.20

[AD 430] Augustine of Hippo on John 1:1

Just as our knowledge is not like God’s knowledge, so also is our word, born from our knowledge, unlike that Word of God which is born from the essence of the Father—we might even say, born from the Father’s knowledge, from the Father’s wisdom, or still more exactly, from the Father who is knowledge, from the Father who is wisdom.…The Word of God, then, the only begotten Son of the Father—in all things like and equal to the Father, God of God, Light of Light, Wisdom of Wisdom, Essence of Essence—is altogether what the Father is. And yet, he is not the Father because the one is Son, the other is Father. Therefore he knows all that the Father knows; but his knowledge is from the Father. For knowing and being are one in him. And therefore, as the Father’s being is not from the Son, so neither is his knowing. Accordingly, the Father begat the Word equal to himself in all things as though uttering forth himself. For he would not have uttered himself wholly and perfectly if there were in his Word anything more or less than in himself.…
Our own inner word … which is at least in some way like that [divine] Word, should nonetheless cause us to stop and consider how dissimilar it is as well.… What is this [word that we have] that is formable, but not yet formed, except a something in our mind which we toss to and fro, turning it over in our mind, thinking first one thing and then another as each occurs to us? A true word comes into being when, as I said, what we have been tossing to and fro by turning it over in our minds arrives at what we know, and then takes on that entire likeness. At this point the conception corresponds exactly to the thing, In other words, it is said in the heart, but without articulate sound or even the thought of articulate sound that might otherwise belong to a particular language. And so, if we even admit (in order not to dispute laboriously about a name) that this something of our mind which can be formed from our knowledge is already to be called a word—even before it is so formed because it is, so to say, already formable—who would not see how great the dissimilarity would be between this word and that Word of God which is so in the form of God as not to have been formable before it was formed, or to have been capable at any time of being formless, but is a simple form, and simply equal to him from whom it is, and with whom it is wonderfully co-eternal?
Wherefore that Word of God is … not to be called a thought of God. Otherwise we might believe that there is something revolving in God so that it at one time receives and at another recovers a form, so as to be a word, and again can lose that form and revolve, in some sense, formlessly.

Source: ON THE TRINITY 15.13.22-16.25

[AD 430] Augustine of Hippo on John 1:1

We are not now discussing, brothers and sisters, possible ways of understanding the text, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” It can only be understood in ways beyond words; human words cannot suffice for understanding the Word of God. What we are discussing and stating is why it is not understood. I am not speaking in order that it may be understood but telling you what prevents it being understood.You see, it is a kind of form, a form that has not been formed but is the form of all things that have been formed; an unchangeable form that has neither fault not failing, beyond space, standing apart as at once the foundation for all things to stand on and the ceiling of them to stand under. If you say that all things are in it, you are not lying. The Word itself, you see, is called the Wisdom of God; but we have it written, “In wisdom you have made them all.” Therefore all things are in it. And yet because it is God, all things are under it.

Source: SERMON 117.3

[AD 430] Augustine of Hippo on John 1:1

Words, by their everyday usage, sound and proceeding out of us, have become common, almost despicable things to us, seeming to be nothing more than words. However, there is a word that remains inward, in the very person himself; distinct from the sound that proceeds out of the mouth. There is a word that is truly and spiritually that which you understand by the sound, not being the actual sound itself. Notice, for instance, when I say “God,” how short the word is I have spoken—four letters and two syllables [in Latin]. Is this all that God is, four letters and two syllables? Or is that which is signified as costly as the word is paltry?… What then is in your heart when you think of a certain substance, living, eternal, all-powerful, infinite, everywhere present, everywhere whole, nowhere shut in? When you think of these qualities, this is the word concerning God in your heart. But is this the sound that consists of four letters and two syllables? Therefore, those things that are spoken and pass away are sounds, are letters and are syllables. His word, which sounds, passes away; but what the sound signified—and what is in the speaker as he thought it and in the hearer as he understood it—that is what remains while the sound itself passes away.

Source: TRACTATES ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 1.8

[AD 431] Council of Ephesus on John 1:1

(Gest. Conc. Eph.) Wherefore in one place divine Scripture calls Him the Son, in another the Word, in another the Brightness of the Father; names severally meant to guard against blasphemy. For, forasmuch as thy son is of the same nature with thyself, the Scripture wishing to show that the Substance of the Father and the Son is one, sets forth the Son of the Father, born of the Father, the Only-Begotten. Next, since the terms birth and son, convey the idea of passibleness, therefore it calls the Son the Word, declaring by that name the impassibility of His Nativity. But inasmuch as a father with us is necessarily older than his son, lest thou shouldest think that this applied to the Divine nature as well, it calls the Only-Begotten the Brightness of the Father; for brightness, though arising from the sun, is not posterior to it. Understand then that Brightness, as revealing the coeternity of the Son with the Father; Word as proving the impassibility of His birth, and Son as conveying His consubstantiality.

Source: Catena Aurea by Aquinas

[AD 444] Cyril of Alexandria on John 1:1

Exact of a truth, and God-taught is the mind of the holy Evangelists, from the splendour of their power to behold, as from some lofty mountain-spur and watch-peak, on all sides observing what is of profit to the hearers, and tracking with intent zeal whatever may seem to be of profit to those who thirst after the truth of the Divine dogmas and with good purpose search after the mind that is hidden in the Divine Scriptures. For not in those who search too curiously, and take pleasure in the many-tangled wiles of reasonings, rather than rejoice in the truth, does the Spirit make His revelation, since neither does He enter into a malicious soul, nor otherwise does He suffer His precious 'pearls to be rolled at the feet of swine. But with exceeding pleasure does He have fellowship with simpler minds, as having a more guileless motion, and shunning superfluous subtleties, whereto specially pertains the meeting with sudden fear, and from too great turning aside unto the right hand to err from the straight and royal road. For he that walketh simply walketh surely, as saith Solomon.

But while the holy Evangelists have a marvellous exactness in writing (for it is not they that speak, as the Saviour saith, but the Spirit of the Father which is in them): reasonably may one grant that the Book of John has been composed beyond all marvel, looking both to the supereminence of his thoughts, the keenness of his intellect, and the constant and |8 close-succeeding cumulation of conceptions. For course-fellows are they one with, another in the exposition of the Divine dogmas, and loosing as it were from the starting line they course charioteers to one goal. But a diverse fashion of speech is wrought out by them, and they appear to me to resemble persons, who are ordered to come together unto one city, but care not to approach it by one and the same beaten road. Thus one may see the other Evangelists with great exactness giving the account of our Saviour's genealogy in the Flesh, and bringing down step by step those from Abraham unto Joseph, or again carrying up those from Joseph to Adam. But we find the blessed John not caring to be over-studious about these, but with a most fervent and fire-full motion of intellect endeavouring to lay hold of those very things that are above human mind, and daring to explain the unspeakable and unutterable Generation of God the Word. For he knew that the glory of God hideth speech, and greater than our idea and utterance is the God-befitting dignity, and hard to utter and most difficult of unfolding are the properties of the Divine Nature.

But since it was necessary in some sort to mete out heaven with the span, and to suffer the scant measures of human nature to approach to what is by all unattainable and hard to be explained, that the approach might not be opened out for those who teach otherwise to come against the more simple, in that no voice of the saints who have been eyewitnesses and ministers of the word held in check their ill-surmisings, keen comes he to the very essence of the Divine dogmas, crying aloud, In the beginning was the Word, and the Word, was with God and the Word was God: the Same was in the beginning with God.

But I think that those who are engaged on the Holy Scriptures ought to admit all writings that are honest and good and free from harm. For thus collecting together the varied thoughts of many and bringing them together into one scope and understanding, they will mount up to a good measure of knowledge, and imitating the bee, wise workwoman, will compact the sweet honeycomb of the Spirit.

Some then of those of most research, say that after our Saviour's Cross and Ascension into Heaven, certain false shepherds and false teachers falling like wild beasts on the Saviour's flocks terrified them not a little, speaking out of their own heart, as it is written, and not out of the mouth of the Lord; yea rather, not merely out of their own heart, but out of the teachings of their own father, I mean the devil. For if no one can call Jesus Anathema, save in Beelzebub, how is not what we say of them clearly true? What things then are they which these men belched forth against their own head? They ignorantly and impiously affirmed that the Only-Begotten Word of God, the Eternal Light, in Whom we both move and are, was then first called into being, when He was born Man of the Holy Virgin, and taking this our common fashion, showed Himself upon earth, as it is written, and conversed with men. On those then who are thus disposed, and who dare to slander the ineffable and eternal Generation of the Son, the word of the Prophet comes heavily, saying thus: But draw near hither, ye sons of the sorceress, the seed of the adulteress and the whore, against whom do ye sport yourselves? against whom make ye a wide mouth and draw out the tongue? not bringing forth good things out of a good heart, but spueing forth the venom of the blood-defiled dragon, of whom saith the Psalmist unto the one God That is over all: Thou brakest the heads of the dragons in the waters.

But since there was no slight disturbance in regard to these things amongst them that had believed, and the ill of the scandal thereof was consuming like a plague the souls of the simpler (for some drawn away from the true doctrines by their prattle imagined that the Word was then barely called to the beginning of Being, when He became Man), those of the believers who were wiser being assembled and met together, came to the Disciple of the Saviour (I mean this John) and declared the disease that was pressing upon the brethren, and unfolded to him the prattle of them that teach otherwise, and besought that he would both strenuously assist themselves with the illumination through the Spirit, |10 and stretch forth a saving hand to those who were already within the devil's meshes.

The disciple grieving then over them that were lost and corrupted in mind, and at the same time thinking it most unnatural to take no forethought for those that should succeed and come after, betakes himself to making the book: and the more human side, the genealogy of the legal and natural Birth according to the flesh, he left to the other Evangelists to tell at fuller length; himself with extreme ardour and courage of soul springs upon the prattle of those who are introducing such things, saying, IN THE BEGINNING WAS THE WORD.

[AD 444] Cyril of Alexandria on John 1:1

THE LORD will give utterance to them who evangelize with much power, declareth exceeding well the Psalmist. But I deem that they who ought to approach this, are, not mere chance persons, but those who have been illumined with the grace that is from above, seeing that both All wisdom is from the Lord, as it is written, and Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above and cometh down from the Father of lights. For a thing unsure and not unfraught with peril to the many, is the speaking concerning the Essence that is above all, and the Mysteries belonging thereunto, and silence on these subjects is free from danger. Us nevertheless albeit deeming that we have much need of silence, God Who is over all excludes from this, saying to one of the Saints (this was Paul), Speak and hold not thy peace. And no less does the ordinance of the Law show this, indicating things spiritual in the grosser type. For it enjoins those who have been called to the Divine Priesthood, to declare to the people by the sound of trumpets, about those things which they ought to learn. For God, when He willed to set forth in His laws most excellent things, did not I deem intend that the leaders of the people should lay their hand on their mouth, as it is written, and, in fear of appearing rashly to attempt things above the mind of man, hold back from the doctrine that is so necessary for those who are being instructed in piety and the knowledge of God, and choose a silence perilous to those who are their disciples. But the Disciple of Christ again terrifies us, saying Be not many masters, and moreover the |2 most wise Preacher too, darkly showing the peril that exists in the teaching of such things. For, says he, he that cleaveth wood, shall be endangered thereby; if the iron head fall, both himself hath troubled his face and he shall strengthen powers. For he likens the keenness of the mind to the iron-head, in that it is of a nature to pierce through, and sinks in to the innermost parts, even though it be resisted by the thickness and close texture of the wood. Wood again he in a figure calls the thoughts that are in Holy Scripture, which render the Books wherein they are a kind of Spiritual Paradise, and yet more than this, full with the fruitfulness that comes of the Holy Ghost. He that endeavours therefore to unfold the spiritual wood, that is the Divine and Mystic thoughts of Divinely-inspired Scripture by means of insearch, and most accurate grasp and keenness of mind, will run very deep risk, saith he, when the iron-head slippeth, that is when the mind not carried to a true understanding of the things which are written, misses the right perception, and having left, as it were, the straight path, is borne on some other way of thought turned aside from what is fitting. Whereupon he will place in jeopardy the face of his soul, that is, his heart, and will invigorate against himself the bad opposing powers, who with their bitter perverse words sophisticate the mind of those who have gone astray; not suffering it to behold the beauty of truth, but manifoldly perverting it and persuading it to go astray after mad thoughts. For no one calleth Jesus Anathema save in Beelzebub.

And let no one deem, himself astray, that the exposition of the above is astray, or otherwise of false reasoning. For Divine Scripture does sometimes, as we said before, call the thoughts of Holy Scripture wood. And indeed the God Who is over all says something on this sort through the all-wise Moses to those at that time: When thou shalt besiege a city a long time, in making war against it to take it, thou shalt not destroy the trees thereof by forcing an axe against them, for thou mayest eat of them and thou shalt not cut them down: (is the tree of the forest a man, to go before thee unto the palisade?) Only the trees which thou knowest that they be |3 not trees for meat, thou shalt destroy and cut them down, But that the God of all would not have deemed it worth to prescribe to us such things, if it were to be understood only of trees of the earth, is I suppose clear to every one, yet I think one ought to show from another command also that He is very unsparing of these, and takes not account of them. For what I pray does He enjoin should be done to the false-called gods? Ye shall destroy their altars, saith He, and break down their images, and cut down their groves. And by His own altar He no way suffers any tree to be cultivated. For He plainly declares: Thou shalt not plant thee a grove of any trees near unto the altar of the Lord thy God. And if one must add anything to this, I will speak after the manner of most wise Paul. Both God take care for trees? or saith He it altogether for our sakes? by grosser examples leading us by the hand to the idea of spiritual things.

Let us now say that the writings of the unholy heretics may be considered as cities, and fortified, haply not without skill, by the wisdom of the world, and the intricate deceits of their cogitations. There comes to storm them, and in some sort environs and sits round them taking the shield of the faith and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God, every one who agonizes for the holy dogmas of the Church, and sets himself in array with all his strength against their false-speaking, studying to cast down imaginations, as Paul saith, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ. When then, He says, such a soldier of Christ compasses, as a land of aliens, the bitter writings of heresies, and lights upon the best cultivated trees, that is, if he find words from the Divinely-inspired Scripture, or things spoken by the Prophets or even testimonies from the New Testament, wrested unto their own purpose, let him not apply his mental acumen, like a sort of tool, to destroy and cut them down. For not because taken hold of by those who know not to interpret it aright, is therefore that which proceeds of the Mouth of God to be wholly rejected too: but since it is fruit-bearing, it shall be to thee rather as a help |4 and for food. For turning round unto the right argument of the faith that which is sometimes foolishly taken by them, not only shall we not be caught unstrung, but rather are we nerved into words against heresy. But he subjoins forthwith an argument persuading the hearers, that the onslaught of the advocate for the truth should be made, not for the overthrow of the Divine oracles, but for the destruction of what is non-rightly said by the opponents. For is, it says, the tree of the forest a man, to go before thee unto the palisade? For do you suppose, he says, that the utterance of the holy writings, will of its own self rise up against thee to battle, like one of the arch-heretics, and is not rather wronged by their madness? Do not then cut it down, says it, but let it be to thee as food also; only the trees which thou knowest that they be not trees for meat, thou shalt destroy and cut them down. For uneatable by them who would think aright, is the fruit of those men's writings: against them let every tool come: there let the might of the spiritual wood-men be shown, upon them let the axe of strength in advocacy glitter. For the uselessness and unprofitableness of the babbling of the heterodox the Prophet Hosea also most excellently interprets to us saying: A stalk having no strength to yield meal; if so be it yield, the strangers shall swallow it up. For they that are diligent to estrange themselves from friendship with God, shall feast themselves on the weak and old-wife tale of those people's unlearning. As then I was saying at the beginning (for I think we must go back to that), most exceeding hard is the exposition of the Divine mysteries, and better perchance were silence, but since thy much speech persuadeth us, O most labour-loving brother, to offer the work, as a sort of fruit of our lips, and spiritual sacrifice, this too will I not shrink from doing, encouraging myself in God who maketh wise the blind, and seeketh at our hands not surely that which is above us, but accepteth equally the offerings of poor men. For him that would offer a gift for a burnt-sacrifice to the Lord, as is put in the beginning of Leviticus, the lawgiver having enjoined an offering of the herd and having moreover herein set down |5 the measure of the honour of the type, he again lowers it, saying that they who cannot attain to this, should sacrifice of the flock. And well did he know that sad and inexorable poverty will render some powerless even to this: therefore he says, he shall bring his offering of turtledoves or of young pigeons. But him that comes yet short of these too, and approaches with the most insignificant offerings, he honours. For says he, his offering shall be fine flour, defining an offering easily procurable I suppose by every one and not too oppressive to the deepest poverty. For the lawgiver well knew (I think) that better and more excellent is it to bear fruit even a little, than to be wholly bereft of it and through shame of seeming to come short of others' gifts, to rush forward to the conclusion that it needs not to honour the Lord of all.

Persuaded then with reason by all these things, and having dismissed from my mind unreadiness, the ally of silence, I will deem it my duty to honour my Lord with what I have, discourse wholesome and joyous to the readers, like fine flour bedewed with oil: and we will begin the Book of John, taking in hand an exceeding great work, yet by reason of faith, not unstrung. And that we shall say and think less than is meet, we must unhesitatingly confess. But the great difficulty of the book, or to speak more truly, the weakness of our understanding, will persuade us to ask meet pardon for this.

Turning about on every hand our discourse to the more dogmatical exposition, we will set it in array, according to our power, against the false doctrines of them that teach otherwise, not stretching it forth to its full extent, but even retrenching superfluity, and studying to render it not lacking fitness. The subjoined subscription of the chapters, will show the subjects over which our discourse extends, to which we have also annexed numbers, that what is sought may be readily found by the readers.

[AD 444] Cyril of Alexandria on John 1:1

CHAPTER III. That the Son is both God by Nature and in no wise either inferior to or unlike the Father.

And the Word was God.

He who bare within him the Spirit was not ignorant that there should arise some in the last times who should accuse the Essence of the Only Begotten and deny the Lord that bought them, by supposing that the Word Who appeared from God the Father is not by Nature God, but should bring in besides Him some so to speak spurious and false-called god, having about him the name of Sonship and Deity, but not so in truth. Such do they, who give the Jewish impiety of Arius an abode in their own mind; wherefore they put forth out of a dead heart, no life-giving word of pious thought, but that which looketh and tendeth unto death. Their tongue verily is as an arrow shot out; deceitful the words of their mouth.

As though then some one were already resisting the words of truth, and were almost saying to the Holy Evangelist; The Word was with God, Sir, be it so, we agree fully to what you have written as to this. Be the Father and Exist He separately, and the Son likewise. What now ought one to suppose that the Word is by Nature? for His Being with God, does not at all reveal His Essence. But since the Divine Scriptures proclaim One God, we will allot this to the Father only, with Whom the Word was. What then replies Truth's herald? Not only was the Word with God, but He was also God, that through His being with God, He might be known to be Other than the Father and might be believed to be Son distinct and by Himself; through being God, He might be conceived of as Consubstantial and of Him by Nature, as being both God and coming forth from God. For it were inconceivable, since the Godhead is by all confessed to be One, that the Holy Trinity should not in every wise arrive at Sameness of Essence and so reach one relation of Godhead. He was then also God. He did not become so at last, but He was, if indeed eternal being will most specially and surely follow on being God: for that which became in time, or was at all brought from not being into being, will not be by Nature God.

Seeing then that God the Word has Eternity through the word was, Consubstantiality with the Father through being God, how great punishment and vengeance must we needs think that they shall be found to incur, who think that He is in ought whatever inferior, or unlike Him who begat Him, and shudder not to go forward to that height of impiety, as even to dare to utter such things to others also, understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm?

But that the Son Who is of Him of a truth is in no wise inferior to the Father, we shall know again from the accompanying considerations.

Another. By many and varied names do the Divine Scriptures call the Son. For they say that He is the Wisdom and Power of the Father, according to what is said by Paul, Christ the Power of God and the Wisdom of God. He is called again both His Light and His Truth, as is sung in the Psalms by one of the Saints, O send out Thy Light and Thy Truth. He is called also Righteousness, as, Quicken me in Thy Righteousness: for the Father quickens in Christ those who believe on Him. He is called also the Counsel of the Father, as it is said, Thou shalt guide me with Thy Counsel, and again, The Counsel of the Lord standeth for ever. Since then the Son is all these to God the Father, let them tell us who fawn on the error of Arius and are filled with that man's folly, how He is lesser than He. For if they be right, it is time to say that the Father is not wholly wise, not wholly Mighty, not wholly Light, not wholly Truth, not wholly Righteous, yea, not even Perfect in Counsel, if the Son Who is all these to Him, by reason of being inferior is shown to be not Perfect. But to think or say thus is impious. Perfect is the Father, because He has all things perfectly in Himself: Perfect then clearly the Son too, the Wisdom and the Power, the Light and the Truth, the Righteousness and the Counsel of the Father. But He Who fulfilleth Perfection in His own Father, how can He be conceived of as inferior?

Another. If the Son having inferiority to God the Father, is worshipped both by us and by the Holy Angels, we shall be taken in the act of serving two gods, since that which lacks perfection will never attain to sameness of essence with the Perfect; but vast is the difference sundering unto alienship things unlike as regards their nature. But the faith is not in plurality of gods, but One is God the Father, the Son and Holy Ghost attaining unto unity with Him. The charge against the Son then comes to nothing. For how yet will that which is inferior be admitted into unity with the Perfect Father, and be united as to Nature in unity of Essence?

Another. If the Son is fulness (for of His fulness have all we received) how will what is inferior have a place? for things that are contrary to one another are irreconcileable in one subject at the same time.

Another. If the Son who has the lesser filleth all things, where will the greater of the Father have place? For the argument shall be used in more corporeal form, in the way of example, while the superiority and inferiority in the unembodied is otherwise conceived of.

Another. If God is That Which is above every name, and the Son Who is His Heir attains not to be Perfect by reason of the lesser, there is no greatness in that which is above all things, that is God. But it is absurd either to think or to say this: Perfect therefore is the Son, as being above every name, and God.

Another. If the Divine Nature is without quantity, and the lesser is cognizant of degree, how can the Son Who is by Nature God be conceived of as inferior? For He will not be beyond the province of quantity, if they say that He has inferiority to the Father.

Another. The blessed John says of the Son that He giveth not the Spirit by measure, to those that is who are worthy. Since then there is not measure in the Son, He is immeasurable, and surpasses all comprehension in quantity as being God. How then is the not-measured less?

Another. If the Son is lesser, the Father greater, differently, it is plain, and in proportion to the measures that Either hath, will they contribute to our sanctification. And the Father will sanctify in a greater degree, the Son in a less and separately. The Spirit therefore will be twofold, and less in the Son, greater in the Father. And they who are sanctified by the Father will be sanctified perfectly, they who by the Son, not perfectly. But great is the absurdity of reasoning herein. For One is the Holy Ghost, one and perfect the Sanctification, freely given by the Father through the Son Naturally. Not lesser then is He Who has the same operation with the Perfect Father, and Who has the Spirit of Him Who begat Him, a good of His own Nature, Living and inexisting, even as the Father hath.

Another. If the Son were in the Form and Equality of God, as Paul saith, how is He lesser that He? For the mode of the dispensation with Flesh and the humiliation thereupon mentioned, which has the Second Appearance from Heaven as its termination, will not, I suppose, bare the Son of the dignity by Nature belonging to Him. For He will surely come, as we heard Him say, in the glory of His Father. How then is he at all in the glory of the Perfect Father who is inferior to Him?

Another. God the Father is somewhere found to say by one of the prophets, I will not give My glory unto another. We must ask therefore those who impiously dishonour the Son, nay rather through Him the Father too (for he that honoureth not the Son, neither doth he honour the Father), whether the Son being, as they suppose, less than God the Father is Consubstantial with Him, or no? If then they shall say that He is Consubstantial, why do they for nought put on Him the less? For things that are of the same essence and nature, will never have the greater in themselves, as regards the mode of their being: for this altogether is it that is under consideration.

But they will not perhaps agree, nor will grant that the Son is Consubstantial with the Father, He being according to them less: He will therefore be wholly other and alien from the Father. How then has He His glory? For there was given Him, says blessed Daniel, glory and a kingdom. For either God the Father will lie in saying, I will not give My glory unto another: or if He is true, and did give His glory to the Son, then is He not other than He, the Fruit of His Essence and His True Offspring. And He Who is so situated towards the Father in regard of Essence, how will He be less than He?

Others, simple and without connection. If the Father is Almighty, and the Son likewise Almighty, how is He lesser than He? for I do not suppose that according to the law of sequence, the imperfect will mount up to the measure of the perfect. And if the Father is Lord, and the Son likewise Lord; how is He less than He? For He will be not perfectly free, if He be less in lordship, and have not the full dignity in Himself. And if the Father be Light, and the Son likewise Light, how is He less than He? For He will be not perfectly Light, but will be in part comprehended by darkness, and the Evangelist will lie in saying, The darkness comprehended it not. And if the Father is Life, and the Son likewise Life, how is He less than He? For in us life will not exist in perfect measure, even if Christ dwell in the inner man: but they who believe are still to some degree dead, if so be that the Son having the less, is not perfectly life. But since one must needs put as far away as possible the absurdity of this, we say that Perfect is the Son, being . made equal to the Perfect Father by reason of the exact Likeness of His Essence.

Another. If the Son be less than the Father, and therefore not Consubstantial; He is as a consequence other by nature and wholly alien: hence He is not Son, yea not even God at all. For how will he be called Son who is not of the Father, or how will he be any longer God who is not of God by Nature? But since our faith is in the Son, we are still it seems in error, not knowing the True God. But this is absurd. Believing therefore in the Son, we believe in the Father too and in the Holy Ghost. The Son is not therefore alien from God the Father as lesser, but has unity with Him, by reason of being of Him by Nature, and is therefore both Equal and Perfect.

Another. If God the Word Who beamed forth from God the Father is in truth Son, of necessity must our opponents even against their will confess that He is of the Essence of the Father; for this is what sonship in truth means. Then how is Such inferior to the Father, if He be Fruit of His Essence, Which is nowise receptive of the lesser within Itself? For all things are in perfect degree in God. But if He be not of the Essence of the Father, neither is He Son, but some counterfeit and falsely-called: yea neither will the Father Himself be rightly and truly called Father. For if there be no Son by Nature, on account of Whom He is Father, how is He conceived of as Father? But this is absurd, for God is Very Father; for so do all the Divine Scriptures cry aloud. He Who is of Him by Nature is therefore surely Son: if so, not lesser; for He is Consubstantial as Son.

Another. The name of family or fathership not God has of right from us, but we rather clearly received it from Him. And trusty is the word of Paul crying on this wise, Of Whom every family in heaven and earth is named. But since God is that which is most ancient of all, by imitation are we fathers, who are called to His Pattern by reason of our being made after His Image. Then how, tell me, are we who are made after His Likeness, by nature fathers of our own children, if this be not the case in the Archetype, after Which we too have been formed? How will any one |28 grant that the name of family or fathership passed even unto the rest from God, if He be not in very deed a Father? For, if it were so, the nature of the thing would be wholly overturned and we should rather give to Him to be called Father in imitation of us, than He give it to us. For this the argument will compel the heretic even against his will to admit. The witness therefore of the truth lies in saying that from Him is every family both in heaven and earth. But to say this is most absurd: for true is he who is bold to say, Do ye seek a proof of Christ speaking in me? and from God does the name of family flow down to us also. He is therefore by Nature the Father of the Word, He begat Him in all respects not unlike Himself, through His having the lesser than whatever Himself has. For we who are made after an imitation of Him, do not so have those that are begotten of us, but altogether equal, as regards the nature.

Another. Let not the heretic manifold in arguments deal subtilly with the truth, nor confessing that the Word of God is Son, honour Him in mere words, saying that He is not of the Essence of the Father. For how is He Son at all, except He be so by Nature? Let them then either, stripping off the mask of hypocrisy, blaspheme openly, confessing that He is neither God nor Son: or if convicted by the whole Divine Scripture and wounded by the words of the Saints as by sling-stones they feel shame in presence of the truth, and say that He is Son and God, let them not think that He is lesser than He Who begat Him. For how will the Word, being God, admit of the lesser, compared to God the Father? although man too is both called and is son of man, yet will he not be inferior to his father so far as he is man. For man will not be greater or less than man, in respect of his being man, nor yet angel than angel, in regard of his being angel, nor ought else of things that are that is con-natural to any-thing whatsoever, and has a share of the same essence allotted to it. Therefore if He is truly Son, one must needs say that He is of the Essence of the Father, having all His Father's properties in Himself of Nature. And if the Father be God by Nature, God by Nature plainly is also the Word Who is begotten of That Nature. How then will God be less than God in regard to being God?

Another. Whence, sirs, did ye get the daring to say that the Son is in lesser condition than He Who begat Him? How will He admit the lesser? As regards the date of being, no one I suppose, even though exceeding silly, would surmise. For before the ages is the Son, and Himself is the Maker of the ages: and it will be with reason conceived that He Who has His Generation elder than all time, will not be defined by time. But neither is He lesser than He in the dimension that belongs to size: for the Divine Nature is conceived of and is without size, dimension and body. How then is the lesser to be taken of Him Who is begotten? In glory, perhaps one will say, in power, in wisdom. Let them say then, how great and large the Father is herein (if one must speak thus), in order that the Son may be conceived of as less, when measured with Him? Or if the Father is in good inconceiveable and immeasurable, and that far outstrips the measure of our understanding, whence do the Arians, readily daring all things, say that the Son is lesser, to the overthrow of the dignity that belongs to Him by nature? For the lesser is proved by the juxtaposition of the greater; but if the Dignity of the Father is unmeasured, what is the proof of its diminution in the Son?

Another. One may indeed with truth reply to the abomination of the unholy heretics, Our enemies are without understanding. For how are they not full of all unlearning, understanding neither what they say nor whereof they affirm, as Paul saith? The reason why we think it needful to accuse them is this. If they say that the Son is of a truth begotten God of God the Father, and so believe, how is He lesser than the Father? For great absurdity of ideas will hence be generated, on every side containing blasphemy, and such that one would refuse only to hear them. For if the Son being God by Nature can any whit admit in Himself the lesser, we must needs at length conceive that there is something greater than God. The Essence then of the Father is not conceived of as being in Perfection of every thing, even though He be by Nature God, but He will Himself progress in some direction towards the greater, convicted in the Son His Image that He Himself too is of the essence that admits the lesser. And He will suffer this virtually, even if He have not yet suffered it; since things that are capable of ought, will altogether admit the things whereof they are capable, and when the time calls them to suffer it, they will not refuse it. But great is the blasphemy that is apparent herein. For neither will the Father advance in any direction towards the greater, nor yet will He admit of the lesser, by reason that He is by Nature God. Therefore neither will the Son admit in Himself the lesser, in that He too is God by Nature, lest the syllable or two which was devised by the unlearning of the heretics, should be imagined to be an accusal of the Essence that is above all.

Another. If the Word of God the Father being by Nature His Son is lesser than He, either in regard of God-befitting Dignity, or as not by Nature Unchangeable, or in any sort of inferiority, the accusal will be not so much of Him as of the Essence Whereof He is believed to be, if It altogether generate the lesser, or the worse, than Itself, although the originate and constructed creation would not endure to do such a thing. For everything that is fruit-bearing, brings forth what is wholly like itself. But if they say that the Divine Nature of the Father is above all passion, It will manifestly be beyond this charge, and being the Archetype of the good things that are in us, will beget the Son not lesser, but Equal and Consubstantial, lest the God That is so far above us be inferior even to us.

Another by the method of reductio ad absurdum. Christ showing that He is Equal with God the Father says to His own Disciples, He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father. Then how will He that is by Nature Such, and so IS as Himself with truth declares, have the lesser, according to the uncounsel of some? For if being lesser He shows in Himself the Father, without any intervening change, the lesser will reach to the Father, as appearing in His Unchanged Image, the Son. But this is absurd: therefore not lesser is the Son, in whom the Father being Perfect is imaged. Another. And how will the Son admit the lesser, than wherein is the Father, seeing that He says without blame, All things that the Father hath are Mine: and again, as to God the Father, All Mine are Thine and Thine are Mine? For if indeed the Son is, according to the uncounsel of some, lesser; since He speaks truth in saying to the Father, Mine are Thine and Thine are Mine, the lesser will make its way to the Father too, and likewise the greater to the Son, the order of things being indifferent, if what belongs to either are seen in the other, and whatsoever is the Father's, this is the Son's also, and again whatever appears as the special property of the Son, this is the Father's too. Nothing then will hinder our saying that the Father is lesser than the Son, and the Son greater than the Father. But this is most absurd only to conceive of: Equal therefore and not lesser is He Who hath the Prerogatives of Essence in common with the Father.

Another of the same. If all that the Father hath, are wholly the Son's, and the Father hath Perfection, Perfect will be the Son too, Who hath the properties and excellencies of the Father. Therefore is He not lesser, according to the impiety of the heretics.

Another by the method of reductio ad absurdum, with combination of arguments. Let them tell us who are pouring down the flame unquenchable on their own head, and who reject the uprightness that is in the Divine Dogmas, devising wiles of many-coloured arguments unto the deceiving and overthrow of the simpler, whether the Father is superior to the Son, having the greater in comparison with Him, if He be less, as they in their silly talk say, or not? But I entirely suppose that they will say, He is superior: or let them say what advantage the Father hath in possessing the greater, if He be not superior. For if nothing at all, the whole charge against the Son immediately comes to nought: but if there is any great difference, He is then superior, as having the greater. Let them answer then and tell us, if they are indeed wise, why the Father begetting the Son, begat Him not Equal to Himself but lesser. For if it were clearly better to beget the Son in all things Equal to Himself, who hindered His doing it? For if there is ought that hindered as of necessity, they will admit even against their will, that there is somewhat greater than the Father. But if there were nothing at all to hinder, but having the power and knowing that it is better to beget the Son equal He begot Him lesser, this is plainly envy towards Him and an evil eye: for He chose not to give equality to the Son. Either then the Father is impotent in regard to His Begetting, or it will be evil eye, according to the result collected out of the arguments, if the Son have the lesser according to their account. But this is absurd; for the Divine and Untaint Nature is above all passion. Therefore not less is the Son, that He lose not the equality, the Father being in no wise powerless to beget His Offspring equal to Himself, nor yet hindered by evil eye from choosing the better.

Another. The Saviour Himself somewhere says that He is in the Father and the Father likewise in Him. But it is plain to every one, that we are not to suppose that like as one body is in another, or one vessel in another, so the Father is contained in the Son, or the Son again in some way placed in the Father: but One appears in the Other, and He in Him in the Unchanged Sameness of Essence, and in the Unity and Likeness that belongs to Nature. As though a person beholding his own form in an image were to say truly to any, and marvelling at the finished likeness of his figure to cry out, I am in this picture and this picture in me.

Or in another way:----As if the sweetness of the honey when laid on the tongue should say of itself, I am in the honey and the honey in me; or as though again the heat that proceeds naturally from fire, emitting a voice were to say, I am in the fire and the fire in me. For each of the things mentioned is I suppose divisible in idea, but one in nature, and the one proceeding by a sort of indivisible and continuous forthcome from the other, so as to seem to be even severed from that wherein it is. Yet though the force of ideas regarding these things takes this form, still one appears in the other and both are the same as regards essence. If then by reason of the unchangeableness of Their Essence, and the entire exactness in express Image, the Father is in the Son, how will the greater find place and appear in the Son Who is according to them lesser? But since He is wholly in Him, altogether Perfect is the Son, Who is able to contain the Perfect and is the express Image of the Mighty Father.

[AD 444] Cyril of Alexandria on John 1:1

CHAPTER I. That Everlasting and before the ages is the Only-Begotten.

What do they say to this [namely, In the beginning was the Word] who introduce to us the Son, as one new and of late, that so He may no longer be believed to be even God at all. For, says the Divine Scripture, there shall no new God be in thee. How then is He not new, if He were begotten in the last times? How did He not speak falsely when He said to the Jews, Verily I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am? For plain is it and confessed by all, that many ages after the blessed Abraham was Christ born of the Holy Virgin. How at all will the words was in the beginning remain and come to anything, if the Only-Begotten came into being at the close of the ages? See I pray by the following arguments too how great absurdity, this cutting short the Eternal Being of the Son, and imagining that He came into being in the last times, yields.

But this same word of the Evangelist shall be proposed again for a finer test:

In the Beginning was the Word.

Than the beginning is there nothing older, if it have, retained to itself, the definition of the beginning (for a beginning of beginning there cannot be); or it will wholly depart from being in truth a beginning, if something else be imagined before it and arise before it. Otherwise, if anything can precede what is truly beginning, our language respecting it will go off to infinity, another beginning ever cropping up before, and making second the one under investigation.

There will then be no beginning of beginning, according to exact and true reasoning, but the account of it will recede unto the long-extended and incomprehensive. And since its ever-backward flight has no terminus, and reaches up to the limit of the ages, the Son will be found to have been not made in time, but rather invisibly existing with the Father: for in the beginning was He. But if He was in the beginning, what mind, tell me, can over-leap the force of the was? When will the was stay as at its terminus, seeing that it ever runs before the pursuing reasoning, and springs forward before the conception that follows it?

Astonishment-stricken whereat the Prophet Isaiah says, Who shall declare His generation? for His Life is lifted from the earth. For verily lifted from the earth is the tale of the generation of the Only-Begotten, that is, it is above all understanding of those who are on the earth and above all reason, so as to be in short inexplicable. But if it is above our mind and speech, how will He be originate, seeing that our understanding is not powerless to clearly define both as to time and manner things originate?

To look in another way at the same, In the Beginning was the Word.

It is not possible to take beginning, understood in any way of time, of the Only-Begotten, seeing that He is before all time and hath His Being before the ages, and, yet more, the Divine Nature, shuns the limit of a terminus. For It will be ever the same, according to what is sung in the Psalms, But Thou art the Same and Thy years shall have no end. From what beginning then measured in respect of time and dimension will the Son proceed, Who endureth not to hasten to any terminus, in that He is God by Nature, and therefore crieth, I am the Life? For no beginning will ever be conceived of by itself that does not look to its own end, since beginning is so called in reference to end, end again in reference to beginning. But the beginning we are pointing to in this instance is that relating to time and dimension. Hence, since the Son is elder than the ages themselves, He will be free of any generation in time; and He ever was in the Father as in a Source, according to that which He Himself said, I came forth from the Father and am come. The Father then being considered as the Source, the Word was in Him, being His Wisdom and Power and Express Image and Radiance and Likeness. And if there was no time when the Father was without Word and Wisdom and Express Image and Radiance, needs is it to confess too that the Son Who is all these to the Everlasting Father, is Everlasting. For how at all is He Express Image, how Exact Likeness, except He be plainly formed after that Beauty, Whose Likeness He also is?

Nor is it any objection to conceive of the Son being in the Father as in a Source: for the word source here only means the "whence." But the Son is in the Father, and of the Father, not as made externally, nor in time, but being in the Essence of the Father and flashing forth from Him, as from the sun its radiance, or as from fire its innate heat. For in such examples, one may see one thing generated of another, but yet ever co-existing and inseparable, so that one cannot exist of itself apart from the other, and yet preserve the true condition of its own nature. For how can there be sun which has not radiance, or how radiance without sun being within to irradiate it? how fire, if it have not heat? whence heat, save from fire, or from some other thing not removed from the essential quality of fire? As then in these, the in-existence of the things that are of them does not take away their co-existence, but indicates the things generated ever keeping pace with their generators and possessed of one nature so to speak with them, so too is it with the Son. For even if He be conceived and said to be in the Father and of the Father, He will not come before us as alien and strange and a Being second to Him, but as in Him and co-existing ever, and shining forth from Him, according to the ineffable mode of the Divine generation.

But that God the Father is spoken of by the saints too as the Beginning of the Son in the sense only of "whence," hear the Psalmist through the Holy Ghost foretelling the second Appearance of our Saviour and saying as to the Son: With Thee the Beginning in the Day of Thy Power in the beauty of Thy Saints. For the day of the Son's Power is that whereon He shall judge the world and render to every one according to his works. Yerily shall He then come, Himself in the Father, and having in Himself the Father, the so to say unbeginning Beginning of His Nature in regard only to the "whence," by reason of His Being of the Father.

In the Beginning was the Word.

Unto many and various ideas does our discourse respecting the here signified beginning diversify itself, on all sides zealous to capture things that tend to profit, and after the manner of a hound, tracking the true apprehension of the Divine dogmas, and exactitude in the mysteries. For search, saith the Saviour, the Holy Scriptures, for in them ye think ye have eternal life, and they are they which testify of Me. The Blessed Evangelist, then, seems here to name the Father Ἀρχὴ 1, that is the Power over all, that the Divine Nature Which is over all may be shown, having under Its feet every thing which is originate, and borne above those things which are by It called into being.

In this Ἀρχὴ then that is above all and over all was the Word, not, with all things, under Its feet, but apart from all things, in It by Nature as Its Co-Eternal Fruit, having the Nature of Him Who begat Him as it were a place the most ancient of all. Wherefore He Begotten Free of Free Father, will with Him possess the Sovereignty over all. What then now too will be the nature of the argument in this, it is meet to see.

Hazardful have certain, as we said above, asserted that the Word of God was then first called into being, when taking the Temple that is of the Holy Virgin He became Man for us. What then will be the consequence, if the Son's Nature be thus, or originate and made and of like nature with all things else, to which birth out of not being, and the name and fact of servitude, are rightfully and truly predicated? For what of things that are made can with impunity escape servitude under the God That is Lord of all? what does not stoop under the sovereignty and power and lordship that is over all, which Solomon himself too signifies to us when he says, For the throne of Sovereignty is established with righteousness? For ready and exceeding prepared unto righteousness is the Throne of the Sovereignty, that I mean which is over all. And what throne that is of which we are now speaking, hear God saying by one of the Saints, The Heaven is My Throne. Ready therefore unto righteousness is the Heaven, that is, the holy spirits in the heavens.

Since then one must needs confess that the Son is with the rest of the creatures subject to God the Father, as having the position of a servant, and together with the rest falling under the authority of the Ἀρχὴ, if He be according to them late in Birth and one of those who have been made in time:----of necessity does the Blessed Evangelist spring with energy on those who teach otherwise, and withdraw the Son from all bondage. And he shows that He is of the Essence that is Free and Sovereign over all, and declares that He is in Him by Nature saying, In the beginning was the Word.

But to the word Ἀρχὴ he fitly annexes the was, that He may be thought of as not only of renown, but also before the ages. For the word was is here put, carrying on the idea of the thinker to some deep and incomprehensible Generation, the Ineffable Generation that is outside of time. For that was, spoken indefinitely, at what point will it rest, its nature being ever to push forward before the pursuing mind, and whatever point of rest any might suppose that it has, that it makes the starting point of its further course? The Word was then in the Ἀρχὴ, that is in Sovereignty over all things, and possessing the dignity of Lord, as being by Nature from It. But if this be true, how is He any longer originate or made? And where the was wholly is, how will the "was not" come in, or what place will it have at all as regards the Son?

[AD 444] Cyril of Alexandria on John 1:1

CHAPTER II. That the Son being Consubstantial with the Father is also God in His Own Person, even as also the Father.

And the Word was with God.

Having sufficiently shown that already out of date and astray from the truth is the senseless mind of those who hold such opinions, and having, by saying In the beginning was the Word, closed every loophole to those who say that the Son is of the things that are not, and having utterly stripped off all their nonsense in these words, he goes to another akin and most perverse heresy. And like as some gardener at once most excellent and enduring, delights much in the toils of the mattock, and girding his loins, and in the working-dress befitting him, gives all diligence to present the appearance of his park free from the unseemliness of thorns, and ceases not throwing one upon another, and, ever going round about, removes the troublesome root, applying the stern tooth of the mattock; so the blessed John too, bearing in his mind the quick and powerful and most sharp word of God and considering with keenest glance and clearest attention the bitter shoots of the naughtiness of those who think otherwise, comes upon them so to speak at a run, and with mighty resolution cuts them off on every side, to those who read his books ministering defence in the right faith.

For see now again I pray, the vigilance of this bearer within him of the Spirit. He taught in the foregoing, that the Word was in Ἀρχὴ, that is, in God the Father, as we said. But since, with the eye of his understanding illumined, he was not ignorant, as we may suppose, that certain would arise, of their great ignorance saying that the Father and Son are one and the same, and distinguishing the Holy Trinity only by name, but not suffering Them to exist in Their several Persons, so that the Father should be conceived of as in truth Father and not Son, the Son again to be by Himself Son, not Father, as the word of truth is:----needs against this heresy too as already confronting him, and mooted at that time, or about so to be, does he arm himself, and for its destruction, by the side of In the beginning was the Word he puts forthwith, And the Word was with God: every where adding of necessity the was on account of His Generation before the ages, yet by saying that the Word was with God, showing that the Son is One, having existence by Himself, God the Father again, with Whom was the Word, Another. For how can that which is one in number be conceived of as itself with itself, or beside itself?

But that the reasoning of the heretics about these things also will be found without learning, we will teach by the considerations below, making an exact test of the questions regarding it.

Proof by demonstration and Scripture testimonies, that the Father is in His Own Person, and the Son likewise, the Holy Ghost being counted with Them as God, even though nothing is for the present enquired into regarding Him.

Consubstantial is the Son with the Father and the Father with the Son, wherefore They arrive at an unchangeable Likeness, so that the Father is seen in the Son, the Son in the Father, and Each flashes forth in the Other, even as the Saviour Himself says, He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father, and again, I in the Father and the Father in Me. But even though He be in the Father, and have again the Father in Him, Himself full well, as has been already said, perfectly exact unto the Form of Him Who begat Him, and depicting again in Himself without any shortcome, the Father whence He is:----not therefore will He be deprived of His separate existence, nor will the Father lose His own special Being; but neither will the surpassing Likeness and Resemblance work any confusion of Persons, so that the Father Who begat and the Son Who is Begotten of Him should be considered as one in number. But sameness of Nature will be confessed of Both, yet the Individual Existence of Each will surely follow, so that both the Father should be conceived of as indeed Father, and the Son as Son. For thus, the Holy Ghost being numbered with them and counted as God, the Holy and Adorable Trinity will have Its Proper Fullness.

Another. If the Son Himself is Father too, what place has the distinction of names? For if He begat not at all, why is He called Father? How Son, if He were not begotten of the Father? For the Names ask as of necessity such an idea regarding them. But since the Divine Scriptures preach that the Son was Begotten, and the truth is so, He has therefore an existence by Himself. The Father too is again by Himself, if indeed that which is begotten is plainly one thing from another as regards that which begets.

Another. The blessed Paul writing his letter to the Philippians says of the Son, Who being in the Form of God, thought it not robbery to be Equal with God. Who then is He Who would not that His being Equal with God should be thought robbery? For must one not needs say, that One is He Who is in the Form of God, Another again He Whose Form it was? But this is clear and confessed by all. Therefore not one and the same in number are Father and Son, but of distinct Being and beheld in One Another, according to sameness of Essence, even if They be One of One, to wit the Son of the Father.

Another. I and My Father are One, said the Saviour, as knowing, that is, that Himself has a separate existence and the Father too. But if the truth of the fact be not so, why did He not, keeping what belongs to oneness, say, I and My Father am One? But since He explains what He means by the plural number, clearly He overthrows the surmise of those who think otherwise. For we are will not be with sense taken of one.

Another. At the fashioning of man the voice of God is introduced saying, Let Us make man in Our Image, after Our likeness. If then the amplitude, if I may so call it, of the Holy Trinity is contracted into a One in number, and they impiously take away from the Father and the Son Their separate Existence: who is he who says, and to whom, Let us make man in Our Image? For He ought forsooth to say, if it be as they in their silly nonsense say, Let us make man in my image, after my likeness. But now the writer of the Book, not saying this indeed, but allotting the creation to the plural number and adding Our image, well-nigh with clear and mighty voice proclaims the enumeration of the Holy Trinity to be above One.

Another. If the Son is the Brightness of the Father, as Light of Light, how is He not other than Him, as of distinct Being? For that which is the embrightened, is so in very deed from other, that namely which brightens it, and not itself from itself.

Another. The Son showing Himself of the Essence of God the Father says again, I came forth from the Father and am come; again I go to the Father. How then will He not be Other than the Father in Person and number, when all reason persuades us to conceive of that which proceeds from ought as other than that from whence it proceeded? Not true therefore is the contrary argument.

Another. Believing in God the Father, in His Only-Begotten Son, and in the Holy Ghost we are justified. Wherefore the Saviour Himself too enjoins His own Disciples saying Go ye therefore and teach all nations baptizing them in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. If then the difference of the Names is to contribute nothing to our conception, but when one says the Father, he means the Son, and in naming the Son makes mention of the Father, what need was there of bidding that the believers should be baptized not into Unity but into Trinity? But since the tale of the Divine Nature runs forth into the number three, it is I suppose wholly manifest to all that Each of those so numbered exists in His Own Person, but by reason of there being no change in the Nature, It arrives at One Godhead and has the same worship.

Another. The Divine Scripture says that the cities of the Sodomites were burned by the Anger of God, and explaining how the Divine wrath was brought upon them, and clearly describing the mode of the destruction, The Lord, it says, rained upon Sodom brimstone and fire from, the Lord, since this too is the portion of the cup most befitting those who are wont to commit such sins. What Lord then from what Lord sent the fire on and consumed the cities of the Sodomites? It is clear that it was the Father Who worketh all things through the Son, since He is too His Might and His Arm, Who caused Him to rain the fire upon the Sodomites. Since therefore the Lord sends the fire from the Lord upon them, how is not the Father Other, in respect to His own Being, than the Son,, and the Son again than the Father? For the One is here signified as being from One.

Another. Moved by prophetic spirit, and through it foreknowing things to come, the blessed Psalmist had perceived that the human race could no otherwise be saved, except by the alone Appearing of the Son of God, Who is able easily to trans-order all things to whatsoever He will. Wherefore he besought that the Son might be sent to us, as alone able to save those who were under subjection and oppression of the devil, and said, as though to God the Father, O send out Thy Light and Thy Truth. What then the Light is, and what the Truth, hear the Son Himself saying, I am the Light and I am the Truth. But if the Light and the Truth of the Father, that is the Son, be sent to us, how is He not Other than He, as far as His own Being, even if He be One with Him as regards Sameness of Essence? For if any imagine that it is not so, but that Father and Son are one and the Same, why does not he who bears within him the Spirit make the fashion of his prayer different and cry, Come to us, O Light and Truth? But since he says O send out, plainly he knew that One is the Sender, Another the Sent: be the mode of the Sending conceived of as befits God.

Another. The Divine Scriptures say, that through the Son were made all things that are in heaven and that are in earth, visible and invisible, and thus believing, we the worshippers of the truth go on our way in rightness of conception, and within the dogmas of piety. Let us then scrutinize the expression through the Son, and examine what sense it gives us. It is clear that it would have us conceive of the Doer and Worker as One, Him through Whom all things are wrought as Another. For the expression through the Son gives, as of necessity, a sort of exhibition of two Persons. Else let them say how the word through the Son in His being said to do anything, will rightly and truly admit the one in number and in the reckoning thereto pertaining, if none other be conceived of with Him and concurring with Him. But I suppose that our opponent will be wholly at a loss. But since both the Divine Scriptures proclaim that the Father hath wrought all things through the Son, and we believe it and I suppose that they too: how is it not of necessity to conceive that the Father exists separately and by Himself, and in like manner the Son, nor does this any way overthrow the fact that the Holy Trinity is seen in sameness of Essence.

[AD 444] Cyril of Alexandria on John 1:1

There is nothing older than “the beginning” if we stay with the definition of beginning (for there cannot be a beginning of a beginning), or else it would diverge from being in truth a beginning if there is something else one can imagine before it or that arises before it. Otherwise, if anything can precede what is truly “beginning,” our language respecting it will go on into infinity with beginnings continually cropping up and making the one we are looking at a “second.” … And since its ever-backward flight has no termination, reaching up to the limit of the ages, the Son will be found to have been not made in time but rather invisibly existing with the Father. For “in the beginning was” the Son. But if he “was in the beginning,” what mind, tell me, can leap over the force of that word was? When will the “was” stay within a boundary, seeing that it always runs before … whatever conception follows it?

Source: COMMENTARY ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 1:1

[AD 444] Cyril of Alexandria on John 1:1

It is not possible to take “beginning” (archē) of the Only Begotten as being understood in any way dealing with time, seeing that the Son is before all time and has his being before the ages, and, what is even more, that the divine nature shuns such a boundary.… For no beginning will ever be conceived of by itself that does not look to its own end, since beginning is called this in reference to an end, and end again in reference to a beginning. But the beginning we are pointing to in this instance is that relating to time and dimension. And so, since the Son is older than the ages themselves, he will be free of any generation in time, and he always was in the Father as in a source. The Father then being considered as the Source, the Logos was in him being his wisdom, power, express image, radiance and likeness. If there was no time when the Father was without Logos, wisdom, image, radiance and likeness, it is necessary to confess also that the Son, who is all these to the eternal Father, is eternal.

Source: COMMENTARY ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 1:1

[AD 444] Cyril of Alexandria on John 1:1

The blessed Evangelist, then, seems here to name the Father Archē, that is, the power over all, that the divine nature that is over all may be shown, having under its feet everything that is originate and borne above those things that are called by it into being. In this Archē, then, that is above all and over all, was the Word. The Word was not with all things under its feet, but [it was] apart from all things. It was in the Archē by nature as its co-eternal fruit, having the nature of him who begot him (as it were) the most ancient place of all. So then, he who is begotten free of a Father, who is also himself free, will with him possess the sovereignty over all.… The blessed Evangelist shows that the Son is of the essence that is free and sovereign over all and declares that he is in the Father by nature saying, “In the beginning was the Word.”

Source: COMMENTARY ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 1.1

[AD 444] Cyril of Alexandria on John 1:1

John taught in the foregoing, that the Word was in archē, that is, in God the Father, as we said. But, with the eye of his understanding illumined, he was not ignorant that certain people would arise who, out of their great ignorance, would say that the Father and Son are one and the same and distinguish the Holy Trinity in name only. Thus, they wouldn’t allow them to exist in their several Persons so that the Father should be conceived of as in truth Father and not Son, the Son again to be by himself Son, not Father, as the word of truth is. Since John knew this would happen and that, perhaps, this heresy was already confronting him and being debated at that time—or was about to be so—John arms himself for its destruction. And so, by the side of “In the beginning was the Word,” he put, “And the Word was with God” everywhere adding of necessity the “was” on account of his generation before the ages. And yet, by saying that the Word was with God, he shows both that the Son is One, having his existence by himself, and that God the Father is another, with whom the Word was. For how can that which is one in number be conceived of as itself with itself, or beside itself?…The Son is consubstantial with the Father and the Father with the Son, which is why they arrive at an unchangeable likeness, so that the Father is seen in the Son, the Son in the Father, and each flashes forth in the other, even as the Savior himself says: “He that has seen me has seen the Father,” and again, “I in the Father and the Father in me.”

Source: COMMENTARY ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 1.2

[AD 444] Cyril of Alexandria on John 1:1

[The] sameness of nature will be confessed of both [Father and Son], yet the individual existence of each will surely follow, so that both the Father should be conceived of as indeed Father and the Son as Son. For thus, the Holy Spirit being numbered with them and counted as God, the holy and adorable Trinity will have its proper fullness.

Source: COMMENTARY ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 1.2

[AD 444] Cyril of Alexandria on John 1:1

The one who bore within him the Spirit was not ignorant that some should arise in the last times who would accuse the essence of the Only Begotten and “deny the Lord that bought them.” These suppose that the Word who appeared from God the Father is not by nature God but rather bring in besides him some, so to speak, spurious and false-called god having the name of Sonship and Deity, but this not really being the case.…It was almost as though someone was already resisting the words of truth and almost saying to the holy Evangelist: “ ‘The Word was with God.’ And so it was. We agree fully to what you have written concerning this. The Father has being and exists separately, and the Son is the same way. What now should one suppose that the Word is by nature? For his being with God does not at all reveal his essence. But since the divine Scriptures proclaim one God, this pertains to the Father only with whom the Word was.”
What then does truth’s herald reply? Not only was “the Word” with God, but he was also “God.” Through his being with God, he might be known to be other than the Father and might be believed to be Son distinct and by himself. Through being “God,” he might be conceived of as consubstantial and of him by nature as being both God and coming forth from God. For it were inconceivable, since the Godhead is by all confessed to be one, that the holy Trinity should not in every possible way arrive at sameness of essence and so reach one relation of Godhead. He “was” then also “God.” He did not become so at last, but he “was,” if indeed eternal being will most specially and surely follow on being God. For that which became in time, or was at all brought from not being into being, will not be by nature God. Seeing then that God the Word has eternity through the word was, consubstantiality with the Father through being “God,” how great punishment and vengeance must we necessarily think that they shall be found to incur who think that he is in any way inferior or unlike him who begat him.

Source: COMMENTARY ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 1.3

[AD 532] Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite on John 1:1

"The evangelist, on the other hand, has not prefixed his name even to the catholic epistle; but without any circumlocution, he has commenced at once with the mystery of the divine revelation itself in these terms: "That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes.".
.
For "the Word was with God."

[AD 604] Gregory the Dialogist on John 1:1

In the Son, as it is written, "The Word was God; ".
And we anathematize those who constitute different worships, one for the divine and another for the human, and who worship the man born of Mary as though He were another than the God of God. For we know that "in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.".
"The law was given to them through Moses "for their discipline; "but grace and truth "have been given to us by Jesus Christ.
I have need to be baptized of Thee, and comest Thou to me? Thou who wast in the beginning, and wast with God, and wast God;

[AD 638] Sophronius of Jerusalem on John 1:1

The Life of the Evangelist John
John, the beloved disciple [see Jn. 13:23], was the son of Zebedee and the brother of James, who was beheaded by Herod after the Passion of the Lord [see Acts 12:1-2]. John was the last of the Evangelists to write a Gospel. At the request of the bishops of Asia, he wrote his Gospel to combat the teachings of Cerinthus and other heretics, and especially the newly appeared doctrine of the Ebionites, who claimed that Christ did not exist until Mary gave birth to Him. This prompted John to expound on Christ’s divine generation. There is another reason why he wrote. After examining the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke from beginning to end, John confirmed that they had recorded the truth [in contrast to authors of other, so-called gospels then in circulation]. Then he composed his own Gospel, focusing on the final year of the Lord’s earthly ministry and on His Passion. John omitted most of the events of the previous two years because these had already been faithfully recorded by Matthew, Mark and Luke. A careful study of the four Gospels will resolve the apparent discrepancies between John’s narrative and the narratives of the other three Evangelists. John also wrote an epistle, which begins, That which was from the beginning. This epistle is accepted as John’s by all ecclesiastical and scholarly authorities. The other two epistles bearing his name—the first, beginning, The elder unto the elect lady; and the second, The elder unto the well-beloved Gaius—are considered by some to be the work of a certain John the Elder, whose tomb (one of two bearing the name John) still exists in Ephesus to this day. Others, however, maintain that these two epistles are also the work of John the Evangelist. We will say more about this in the Life of Papias, the disciple of John. [This Life was not included here]. Now in the fourteenth year of his reign, the emperor Domitian initiated the second major persecution of Christians (Nero’s persecution was the first). John was banished to the island of Patmos and there wrote the Apocalypse, later translated by Justin Martyr and Irenaeus. After Dometian was murdered, his decrees were annulled by the Senate on account of their inhuman cruelty. Nerva ascended the throne, and John was allowed to return to Ephesus, where he lived until [101 AD, the fourth year of] Trajan’s reign. During this time, John founded and built up churches throughout Asia. In the sixty-eighth year after the Passion of the Lord, John reposed in great old age near Ephesus.

[AD 773] Cosmas of Maiuma on John 1:1

The Father begot me, creative Wisdom, before the ages;
He established me as the beginning of his ways
For the works now mystically accomplished
For though I am the uncreated Word by nature,
I make my own the voice
Of the nature I have now assumed.
As I am a man
In reality, not a mirage,
So divinized is the nature which,
By the manner of the exchange,
Is united to me.
Wherefore know that I am one Christ
Who saves that of which and in which I am.

Source: KANON FOR THE FIFTH DAY OF GREAT WEEK, NINTH ODE

[AD 804] Alcuin of York on John 1:1

To refute those who inferred from Christ's Birth in time, that He had not been from everlasting, the Evangelist begins with the eternity of the Word, saying, In the beginning was the Word.

And the Word was with God.

Source: Catena Aurea by Aquinas

[AD 1107] Theophylact of Ohrid on John 1:1

(in loco.) Sabellius is overthrown by this text. For he asserts that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one Person, Who sometimes appeared as the Father, sometimes as the Son, sometimes as the Holy Ghost. But he is manifestly confounded by this text, and the Word was with God; for here the Evangelist declares that the Son is one Person, God the Father another.
And the Word was God

Or combine it thus. From the Word being with God, it follows plainly that there are two Persons. But these two are of one Nature; and therefore it proceeds, In the Word was God: to show that Father and Son are of One Nature, being of One Godhead.

Source: Catena Aurea by Aquinas

[AD 1107] Theophylact of Ohrid on John 1:1

The strength of the Holy Spirit is made perfect in weakness (II Cor. 12:9): so it is written and so we believe. It is made perfect in weakness of the body, and especially in feebleness of understanding (logos) and of speech. This has been proven time and again, but nowhere so clearly as in the life of John, the great theologian and brother of Christ by grace. John was a fisherman and the son of a fisherman, not just ignorant of higher Greek and Judaic learning, but completely illiterate, as the divine Luke says in the book of Acts (4:3). His native town, Bethsaida, was lowly and obscure: a "place of fishing," not of learning. Behold how a man like this—unlettered, unknown, and insignificant—acquired such spiritual power that he thundered forth doctrines taught by none of the other Evangelists. Their Gospels dealt with the life of Christ in the flesh and made no clear declaration of His existence before the ages. From this arose the danger that certain contemptible men, with minds fixed on the physical world and unable to comprehend anything exalted, would imagine that Christ first came into existence when He was born of Mary, and that He was not begotten of the Father before all ages. Paul of Samosata fell to exactly that temptation. Realizing this, the great John clearly set forth the spiritual begetting of Christ, without neglecting to record that the Word was made flesh (Jn 1:14). Some maintain that the Orthodox—the rightly believing Christians—asked John to write about Christ’s eternal generation in order to refute certain heretics who had already begun to teach that the Saviour was merely a man. It is also said that when the saint read the books of the other Evangelists, he marveled at the accuracy of their narratives on every point, and judged them to be sound and unbiased towards any of the apostles. But what the other Evangelists had not stated clearly, or had omitted, John clarified, developed, or added to his own Gospel, which he wrote thirty-two years after the Ascension of Christ, while living in exile on the island of Patmos. The Lord loved John more than any of the disciples, because of his simplicity, meekness and goodness, and especially because he was a virgin and pure of heart. It was on account of his purity in particular that John was entrusted with the gift of theology. Blessed are the pure in heart, the Lord says, for they shall see God (Mt 5:8); and, indeed, John delighted in mysteries which most men do not perceive.

John was related to Jesus, in the following manner. Joseph, the Betrothed of the most pure Theotokos, had seven children by his previous wife—four sons, and three daughters whose names were Martha, Esther, and Salome. John was the son of Salome; therefore, Jesus was John’s uncle. Because Salome was the daughter of Joseph—the "father of the Lord"—she was considered to be the Lord’s sister; and her son, John, the Lord’s nephew. Salome means "peaceful"; John means "the grace of her." May every soul understand that Christ’s peace, which is offered to all men, calms the passions of the soul, and gives birth to divine grace within us. But a soul in turmoil, always battling with others and with itself, cannot be counted worthy of divine grace. Consider another marvelous thing about John. Only he is said to have three mothers: first, Salome, his natural mother; second, thunder, for he is a "son of thunder" (Mk 3:17), on account of his powerful proclamation of the Gospel ; and third, Mary, the Theotokos, concerning whom the Lord said to John, "Behold thy mother" (Jn 19:27).

Source: Preface to the Four Gospels

[AD 1107] Theophylact of Ohrid on John 1:1

In the beginning was the Word:
I will say again here what I have already said in the preface, that the other Evangelists give a lengthy account of the Lord's birth in the flesh, His childhood, and His growth to manhood, while John omits these things altogether because they have been dealt with sufficiently by his fellow disciples. Instead, he takes as his theme the Godhead Who became man for our sake. But if you consider carefully, the other Evangelists did not neglect to speak of the divinity of the Only-begotten Son. They too declared it, but not at length. Nor was John so intent on the more exalted Word that he neglected the economy of the Incarnation; for it is one and the same Spirit Which moved and inspired all the Evangelists. John, then, tells us about the Son, for the Father was already known from the Old Testament. Yet John is not silent about the Father on that account; on the contrary, he mentions the Father while speaking of the Son. He shows that the Only-begotten is eternal when he says, In the beginning was the Word, which means, "From the beginning." Because He is from the beginning, there is no time when He was not. "How do you know," one might ask, "that In the beginning means the same as â€™from the beginningâ€™?" We know this both from the common meaning of the words, and in particular because this same Evangelist says so in one of his Epistles: That Which was from the beginning, Which we have heard. [I Jn. 1:1] Do you see how the Beloved Apostle himself interprets these words? "Yes," one might answer, "but I understand In the beginning to mean what it meant to Moses when he said, In the beginning God made the heaven and the earth. [Gen. 1:1] In the beginning, there, does not mean that the things God made are eternal; why, then, should In the beginning, here, mean that the Only-begotten is eternal?" So speaks the heretic. But to such quibbling, we say this, "O cunning sophist, why do you say nothing about the words that follow? But we will mention them, even if you do not. In that place Moses said, In the beginning God made heaven and the earth. But here John says, In the beginning was the Word. What similarity is there between the words made and was? If it were written here, "In the beginning God made the Son," I would keep silent. But instead it is written, In the beginning was. From this I understand the Word to be eternal, and not from a later point in time, as you say in your babbling. Why did the Evangelist say, In the beginning was the Word, and not, "In the beginning was the Son?" Listen: he did so on account of the weakness of his listeners, so that we would not, in the very first words, hear of a "Son" and at once imagine a passionate and carnal birth giving. He calls Him Word, so that you may learn, O readers, that just as a word is born from the mind without passion, in the same manner the Word was begotten of the Father without passion. He also called Him Word because Christ the Word proclaimed to us the things of the Father, just as every word and speech proclaims the thoughts of the mind. He is also called the Word to show that the Word is co-eternal with the Father. Just as it is impossible to say that the mind ever existed without words, so too is it impossible that God the Father ever was without the Son. The Evangelist said the Word, using the definite article, for there are many other words of God, as for example, prophecies and commandments. It is said of His angels that they are mighty in strength, that perform His word [Ps. 102:18], that is, His commands. But the very Word Himself is divine essence and Person.

[AD 1107] Theophylact of Ohrid on John 1:1

And the Word was with God. And the Word was God:
Here he shows more clearly that the Son is co-eternal with the Father. So that you would not imagine that the Father ever was without the Son, the Evangelist states that the Word was with God [pros ton Theon], that is, together with God in the bosom of the Father. You should understand that pros here means "with," as it does elsewhere in the Scriptures: And are not His brothers and His sisters here with us [pros mn]? [Mk. 6:3] This means "living with us and among us."â€™ It is not possible that God is ever without word and reason, without wisdom, or without power. Therefore, since the Son is the Word [Logos], the Wisdom, and the Power of God, we believe that He always was with God, meaning, with the Father. But how is it possible to be the Son and not come after the Father? Learn from an example in the material world. The brightness of the sun is from the sun, is it not? Most certainly. Does it then come after the sun, so that the sun is understood to have once been without brightness? This is impossible. How can the sun not have brightness? How much more is this true of God the Father and God the Son? Because the Son is the brightness of the Father, as the Apostle Paul says [Heb. 1:3], we must believe that the Son always shone forth together with the Father, and did not come after Him. Consider how Sabellius the Libyan is refuted by these words. He taught that the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are one person, and that this one person sometimes appeared as the Father, sometimes as the Son, and sometimes as the Spirit. Sabellius babbled these things, being himself the son of the father of lies, and full of the evil spirit. He is openly rebuked by these words: and the Word was with God. The Evangelist speaks most clearly here that the Word is one thing, and God the Father is another. Because the Word was together with God, it is clear that two Persons are presented, though these two share one nature. The proof that there is one nature is this: and the Word was God. Do you see that the Word is God? Therefore the Father and the Son have one nature, because there is one divinity. Let both Arius and Sabellius be put to shame. Arius, who said that the Son is the creation and work of the Father, is shamed by this: in the beginning was the Word â€¦and the Word was God. And Sabellius, who said there was a unity, not a Trinity, of persons, is shamed by this: the Word was with God. The great John here proclaims clearly that the Word and the Father are different from each other, but not different in kind. They are different in their persons, but one and the same in their natures. I will give an example to make the thought more clear. Peter and Paul are different from each other because they are two different persons; but they are not different in kind, because they have the same human nature. This is how we must teach concerning the Father and the Son: They are different from one another in their two persons; but They are not different in kind, because They share the same divine nature.

[AD 220] Tertullian on John 1:2

For its salvation is endangered, not by its being ignorant of itself, but of the word of God. "The life," says He, "was manifested," not the soul.

Source: On the Flesh of Christ

[AD 235] Hippolytus of Rome on John 1:2

This, says he, was alone sufficient for its being understood by men; (I mean) the cup of Anacreon declaring, (albeit) mutely, an ineffable mystery. For dumb, says he, is Anacreon's cup; and (yet) Anacreon affirms that it speaks to himself, in language mute, as to what sort he must become-that is spiritual, not carnal-if he shall listen in silence to the concealed mystery. And this is the water in those fair nuptials which Jesus changing made into wine. This, he says, is the mighty and true beginning of miracles which Jesus performed in Cana of Galilee, and (thus) manifested the kingdom of heaven. This, says he, is the kingdom of heaven that reposes within us as a treasure, as leaven hid in the three measures of meal.

Source: Hippolytus Refutation of All Heresies Book V

[AD 253] Origen of Alexandria on John 1:2

(tom. ii. in Joan. c. 4) Or thus, the Evangelist having begun with those propositions, reunites them into one, saying, The Same was in the beginning with God. For in the first of the three we learnt in what the Word was, that it was in the beginning; in the second, with whom, with God; in the third who the Word was, God. Having, then, by the term, The Same, set before us in a manner God the Word of Whom he had spoken, he collects all into the fourth proposition, viz. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God; into, the Same was in the beginning with God. It may be asked, however, why it is not said, In the beginning was the Word of God, and the Word of God was with God, and the Word of God was God? Now whoever will admit that truth is one, must needs admit also that the demonstration of truth, that is wisdom, is one. But if truth is one, and wisdom is one, the Word which enuntiates truth and developes wisdom in those who are capable of receiving it, must be One also. And therefore it would have been out of place here to have said, the Word of God, as if there were other words besides that of God, a word of angels, word of men, and so on. We do not say this, to deny that It is the Word of God, but to show the use of omitting the word God. John himself too in the Apocalypse says, And his Name is called the Word of God. (Rev. 19:13)

Source: Catena Aurea by Aquinas

[AD 253] Origen of Alexandria on John 1:2

After the Evangelist has taught us the three orders through the three propositions that were previously mentioned, he sums up the three under one head, saying, “The same was in the beginning with God.”Now we have learned from the three propositions first, in what the Word was, namely, “in the beginning,” and with whom he was, namely, “God,” and who the Word was, namely, “God.” It is as if, therefore, he indicates the previously mentioned God the Word by the expression “the same” and gathers the three, “in the beginning was the Word” and “The Word was with God, and the Word was God,” into a fourth proposition and says, “The same was in the beginning with God.”

Source: COMMENTARY ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 2.34-35

[AD 367] Hilary of Poitiers on John 1:2

(ii. de Trin. c. 16) Whereas he had said, the Word was God, the fearfulness, and strangeness of the speech disturbed me; the prophets having declared that God was One. But, to quiet my apprehensions, the fisherman reveals the scheme of this so great mystery, and refers all to one, without dishonour, without obliterating [the Person], without reference to timeb, saying, The Same was in the beginning with God; with One Unbegotten God, from whom He is, the One Only-begotten God.

Source: Catena Aurea by Aquinas

[AD 367] Hilary of Poitiers on John 1:2

Whereas he had said, the Word was God, the fearfulness, and strangeness of the speech disturbed me; the prophets having declared that God was One. But, to quiet my apprehensions, the fisherman reveals the scheme of this so great mystery, and refers all toone, without dishonor, without obliterating , without reference to time , saying, The Same was in the beginning with God; with One Unbegotten God, from whom He its, the One Only-begotten God.

[AD 367] Hilary of Poitiers on John 1:2

But I tremble to say it; the audacity staggers me. I hear, “And the Word was God”—I, who have been taught by the prophets that God is one. To save me from further apprehension, my friend, the fisherman, needs to provide a fuller understanding of this great mystery. Show me that these assertions are consistent with the unity of God; that there is no blasphemy in them, no explaining away, no denial of eternity. And so he continues, “He was in the beginning with God.” This “He was in the beginning” removes the limit of time; the word God shows that he is more than a voice; that “he is with God” proves that he neither encroaches nor is encroached on, for his identity is not swallowed up in that of Another, and he—that is, his one and only begotten Son—is clearly stated to be present with the one unbegotten God as God.

Source: ON THE TRINITY 2.16

[AD 367] Hilary of Poitiers on John 1:2

The backward straining of our thoughts can never grasp anything prior to God’s property of absolute existence since nothing presents itself to enable us to understand the nature of God, even though we might go on seeking it forever—nothing, that is, except the fact that God always is. That then which has both been declared about God by Moses, that of which our human intelligence can give no further explanation, that [is] the very quality the Gospels testify to be a property of God the only begotten since in the beginning was the Word, and since the Word was with God, and since he was the true Light, and since God the only begotten is in the bosom of the Father, and since Jesus Christ is God over all.6Therefore he was and he is, since he is from him who always is what he is. But to be from him, that is to say, to be from the Father, is birth. Moreover, to be always from him, who always is, is eternity; but this eternity is derived not from himself but from the Eternal. And from the Eternal nothing can spring but what is eternal: for if the offspring is not eternal, then neither is the Father, who is the source of generation, eternal.

Source: ON THE TRINITY 12.24-25

[AD 407] John Chrysostom on John 1:2

(Hom. ii. [i.] §. 4) Not asserting, as Plato does, one to be intelligence,1 the other soul;2 for the Divine Nature is very different from this... But you say, the Father is called God with the addition of the article, the Son without it. What say you then, when the Apostle. writes, The great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; (Tit. 2:13) and again, Who is over all, God; (Rom. 9:5) and Grace be unto you and peace from God our Father; (Rom. 1:7) without the article? Besides, too, it were superfluous here, to affix what had been affixed just before. So that it does not follow, though the article is not affixed to the Son, that He is therefore an inferior God.

(Hom. iv. [iii.] §. 1) Or, lest hearing that In the beginning was the Word, you should regard It as eternal, but yet understand the Father's Life to have some degree of priority, he has introduced the words, The Same was in the beginning with God. For God was never solitary, apart from Him, but always God with God. (ibid. 3). Or forasmuch as he said, the Word was God, that no one might think the Divinity of the Son inferior, he immediately subjoins the marks of proper Divinity, in that he both again mentions Eternity, The Same was in the beginning with God; and adds His attribute of Creator (τδ δημιουργικὸν), All things were made by Him.

Source: Catena Aurea by Aquinas

[AD 407] John Chrysostom on John 1:2

As therefore the expression “in the beginning was the Word” shows his eternity, so “was in the beginning with God” has declared to us his coeternity. For, so that you may not think the Word is eternal when you hear “in the beginning was the Word,” but yet imagine the life of the Father to differ from his by some interval and longer duration and thus assign a beginning to the Only Begotten—this is why John adds, “was in the beginning with God.” He exists eternally even as the Father himself does, for the Father was never without the Word, but he was always God with God, yet each in his proper person.… So that no one might suppose the Godhead of the Son to be inferior, he immediately added the characteristics of genuine Godhead, including eternity (for “He was,” says he, “in the beginning with God,”) and attributed to him the office of Creator. For “by him were all things made.”

Source: HOMILIES ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 4.1, 3

[AD 428] Theodore of Mopsuestia on John 1:2

John wanted to persuade by using the name “Word,” as if by an analogy, that it was possible for something to be from something else without having to be separated from it by length of time.… Also, because he said “he was in the beginning,” he showed not that he was without a beginning but rather that he was coexistent from eternity with his beginning.

Source: COMMENTARY ON JOHN 1.1.1

[AD 444] Cyril of Alexandria on John 1:2

CHAPTER IV. Against those who dare to say that the conceived and Natural word in God the Father is one, and He that is called Son by the Divine Scriptures another: such is the misconceit of Eunomius' party.

This was in the beginning with God.

The Evangelist herein made a sort of recapitulation of what had been already before said. But adding the word This, he is seen all-but crying aloud. He Who is in the beginning, the Word with the Father, He Who is God of God, He it is and none other, regarding Whom our august book is set forth. But he seems again not idly to add to what has been said the words, This was in the beginning with God. For he, enlightened by the Divine Spirit unto the knowledge of things to come, was not ignorant, as seems to me and as we may truly say, that certain would appear, perdition's workpeople, the devil's nets, death's snares leading down to the chambers and depth of hell those who from unlearning give heed to the things that them belch forth out of an evil heart. For they will rise up and be valiant against their own head, saying that one is the word that is conceived in God the Father, and that some other most similar and like to the conceived one, is the Son and Word through Whom God works all things; in order that He may be conceived of as word of word and image of image and radiance of radiance.

The Blessed Evangelist then, as though he had already heard them blaspheming and with reason stirred against the absurd follies of their writings, having already defined, and by many words, as was due, shown that the Word is One, and Only and Very, of God and in God and with God, with flashing eye he adds, This was in the beginning with God, as Son, that is, with the Father, as inborn, as of His Essence, as Only-Begotten; This, there being no second.

But since I deem that we ought, zealously declaring such impiety, to lay yet more open their blasphemy, for the greater security of the simpler ones (for he who has learnt it will give heed and will spring out of its reach, as though a serpent lurking in the midst of the path), needs will I expose their opinion, after the form of antithesis. For it shall receive its refutations in order, according to the modes which God who giveth wisdom to all shall grant.

Eunomius' opinion as to the Son of God.

"The Only-Begotten Son of God, says he, is not of very right His Word, but the conceived word of God the Father moves and is ever in Him; while the son who is said to have been begotten of Him, becoming recipient of his conceived word, knoweth all things from having learnt them and, after the likeness of the former, is called and is word."

Then in confirmation, as he imagines, of his blasphemy, he weaves some such arguments of perverted ideas, that, as it is written, the wretched man may be holden with the cords of his sins.

"If the Son Himself, says he, be the Word Natural and Conceived in God the Father, and is Consubstantial with Him Who begat Him, what hinders the Father too from being and being called Word, as Consubstantial with the Word?"

And again: "If the Son be the Word of God the Father and there is none other than He, by means of what word, says he, is the Father found saying to Him: Thou art My Son, this day have I begotten Thee? For it is very clear that not without a word did the Father address Him, since every thing that is uttered, is altogether uttered in word, and no otherwise. And the Saviour Himself somewhere says, I know the Father and keep His saying, and again, The word which ye hear is not Mine, but the Father's Which sent Me. Since then the Father addresses Himself to Him in word, and He Himself acknowledges, one while that He keeps the Father's word, at another again, that the Jews heard, not His word, but the Father's; how will it not, he says, be confessed beyond a doubt, that the Son is other than the word that is conceived or that stands in motion of the mind, whereof participating and replete, the utterer and exponent of the Father's Essence, that is the Son, is called word?"

Such ills then does the foolish man sow to himself and gainsaying all the Divine Scriptures at once is not ashamed, showing that true is that which is written of himself. When the wicked man cometh into the depth of evils, he despiseth. For verily exceeding deep unto naughtiness hath the fighter against God of his folly dug, refusing the uprightness that is of truth, and halting with the rottenness of his own arguments. For that the Only-Begotten Son of God the Father is of very right His Word, we shall know by the subjoined.

Refutation in order of the misconceit of Eunomius.

Slow to learn is the silly heretic. For how into a malicious soul will wisdom at all enter? or what, tell me, can be more malicious than such men, who, as it is written, turn away their ears from the truth and run more easily unto the fables of their own cogitations, that justly too they may hear, uttering things not of the Divine Scriptures, Woe to them that prophesy of their own heart and not out of the mouth of the Lord? For who speaking out of the mouth of the Lord calleth Jesus Anathema? which thing indeed some do in unbridled haughtiness against the doctrines of piety, and as one of the holy Prophets said, perverting all equity. For they say that the natural and conceived word in God the Father is one, him that is called Son and Word again another: and they bring in support of their own, as they deem, opinion, but more truly, their unbridled impiety, our Lord Jesus Christ in His discourses with the Jews saying, I know the Father and keep His word: and moreover that which was said to Him by the Father, From the womb before the Day-star begat I Thee. Then they say belching forth the venom of their own father, If the speaker is other than he whom he addresses, and the Father addresses the Son by word, the innate word wherewith the Father conversed will be other than the Son. And again: If, says he, the Son Himself declared that He keeps the Father's word, how will not he that keepeth be other than that which is kept? To this it is perhaps not hard to reply (for the Lord will give utterance to them that evangelize with much power). But those who are sick of such unlearning ought to remember Him Who says, Ah they who leave the paths of uprightness to walk in the ways of darkness, and for us it is meet that we should cry unto our Guide Who is in the heavens, Turn away mine eyes from beholding vanity. For vanity of a truth and rubbish and nought else are the vain utterances of their uninstructedness. For not as though He had another word of the Father in Himself did the Son say that He kept the Father's word, nor yet did He declare that He had come to us, bringing him with Him as though a pedagogue, but as Alone in-being in the Father by Nature, and having again likewise in Himself the Father, none else intervening, I, says He, in the Father and, the Father in Me, not the innate, nor yet any other word, but the Father, in Me. How then ought one to conceive of what was said by Him to the Jews, may one ask us, and that with reason. To this we say with truth what comes up upon our mind. The Saviour was teaching the most incredulous people of the Jews and, drawing by little and little His hearers from the worship of the law, did ofttimes call out to them, I am the Truth, all but saying, Throw off, sirs, the yoke of the law, receive the spiritual worship; let shadow now depart, type recede afar, the Truth hath beamed. But He did not seem to all to be doing rightly, subverting Moses' precepts, yea rather leading them to what was more true, so that some even cried, If this man were of God, He would not have broken the Sabbath, which was to openly condemn of sin Him Who knew it not.

To such like follies then of the Jews He replying puts away all boast in His words, and lowlily and darkly designs to teach them, that the Son Who knows not sin would not work ought other than seemed good to God the Father; lest saying more nakedly, I know not sin, He should |38 again stir them up to stone Him. For they straightway boiling with wrath would have sprung upon Him saying, Not to sin belongs to God Alone: Thou then being a Man, utter not the things that beseem God Alone. Which thing they even did at another time, saying that with reason do they stone Him, because being a Man He makes Himself God. Obscurely did the Saviour, in that He was both Man and as under the law with those who were under the law, say that He kept the Father's word, all-but saying, I will never transgress the Father's Will. For by stepping aside from the Divine law is sin born, but I know not sin Who am God by Nature. Therefore I offend not the Father in My teaching. For the rest let no one find fault with Him Who is by Nature Lawgiver, but because of His Likeness unto us is Law-keeper. But He says that He knows the Father, not simply as do we, only the very same thing more simply for that He is God, but from what Himself is does He declare that He understands the Nature of the Father. But since He knows that He Who begat Him knows not to endure change, He knows, it is plain, that Himself is Unchangeable of an Unchangeable Father. And that which knows not change, how can it be said to sin, and not rather to stand unswerving in its own natural endowments?

Yain then is the accusal of the Jews imagining that the Son thinks ought beside the Counsel of the Father: for He keeps, as He says, His word, and by Nature knows not sinning: for He knows that the Father cannot suffer this, with Whom He is Consubstantial as Very Son. But since they meet this by citing what has been annexed to their objection, From the womb before the Day-star begat I Thee, come let us unfold the word of piety as to this also. For not because the Father says such things to the Son, ought we therefore to think, that there is in Him an innate word and to conceive of the Son as other than it. But first of all let us think this with ourselves that a prophet versed in uttering mysteries in the Spirit puts on for us the person of the Son, and introduces Him hearing of the Father, Thou art My Son, and what follows. And the form of speech, in that it is constructed after human |39 fashion, will not I presume at all compel us to conceive of two words, but referring to our own habits [of speech] the unavoidable arrangement herein, we shall blame, if we do rightly, the weakness of our own nature, which has neither words, nor modes of idea which accurately serve unto the mysteries that are above us, or that are adequate to express faultlessly things more Divine: and to the Divine Nature again we shall attribute the superiority over our mind and speech, not conceiving of Its relations exactly as they are spoken of, but as befit It and as It wills. Or if any of the unholy heretics imagine that we unrightly abuse such words, and do not admit that the form of speech comes up to our usage of it, they will rightly hear: Let the Father be conceived of as also begetting as we do, let Him not deny the womb and the pangs of birth. For from the womb begat I Thee, says He to the Son. But perchance, yea rather of a certainty, they will say that from the likeness to us the Father's True Begetting of the Son is signified. Therefore let the other too be piously understood, even if it be uttered in human guise, and their bitter and unholy difficulty is solved.

And these things were, I suppose, sufficient. But since we thought that we ought to smite down the difficulties devised of their stubbornness (as it were some swarm of foes), with the uprightness of pious dogmas, come let us now bringing them forward in the manner befitting each, raise up against each its opponent, and with more zealous thoughts let us arm against them the ever victorious truth. The objection again, as from them, shall be set forth in order before the arguments which confute it, inciting the vigilance of the argument to proceed to more accurate test, and like the rush of some mountain-torrent, ever bearing down headlong the good readiness of the readers to desire ever to learn the answer.

Oppositions or objections, as from the heretics.

"If there exist not, says he, in God the Father a word essential and conceived, other than the Only-Begotten Son That |40 is of Him, Who is also called word in imitation of that one, the result will be absurd, and we who deem we think rightly must needs confess, that if the Word is Consubstantial with the Father and the Father with the Word, there is nothing yet to hinder the Father from being and being called word, as Consubstantial with the Word."

Refutation of this.

No argument, O most excellent, will ever constrain us to think that we ought to believe and call the Father Word, or even to believe that He could be so, because He is Consubstantial with the Word. For in no wise will things that are of the same essence admit of a mutual interchange, and receive a sort of mixture, as from one into the other, so that the things named could be reduced from many into one, or from duality into unity. For not because our forefather Adam was consubstantial with the son born of him, will father therefore advance unto son, son again mount up into father; but being one with him as far as regards the unity of essential quality, he will retain what is his own: and he who is of any father will be conceived of as a son, and again the begetter of any will clearly be father. But if ye imagine that ye are constructing a clever argument hereupon, and that consubstantiality will surely constrain consubstantial to be one with consubstantial, and will suffer no distinction to prevail, so that each should exist by itself and in whatever it is, what was it persuaded the Judge of all not to punish the father for the son, nor to demand of the son satisfaction for the father? For the soul, says he, that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son. But since the sentence of Him Who judges righteously does not bring down the father, albeit consubstantial with the son, into the position of sonship, nor yet does it bring up the son into the condition of fatherhood, but knoweth each individually, not this progressing into that, nor that stepping into this; it is I suppose evident, that no argument will constrain God the Father, because He is Consubstantial with the Word, to change into being the Word. For He abideth wholly in Himself, that is Father, even though He Who is begotten of Him be conceived to be and be Word and therefore Son, that things Divine may not appear in worse state than ours are.

Another in equal guise with the objection, by the method of reductio ad absurdum.

The Son, as having no difference from His Father, but being His most exact Likeness and the express Image of His Person, is found saying to His disciples, He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father. But if He being thus, is Consubstantial with the Father, and things consubstantial admit of utter confusion with one another, there will be nothing it seems to hinder the Son from being conceived of as Father, in that He is Consubstantial with the Father, and capable of passing over into this, nought hindering it, if consubstantiality suffice unto this kind of change or transposition. Let the Son then be conceived of as Father, and let Him say, as now being so, to the real Father, From the womb before the Day-star begat I Thee; and let Him assume to Himself every word in short that belongs to the Father. When this at length has taken place, every thing is now thrown into confusion, and That Which ever so existeth, I mean the Holy and Consubstantial Trinity will be reduced to Unity, if That which rightly and separately belongs to Each vanishes on account of the Con-substantiality, and the sameness of nature overthrows the distinction of Persons. But this is absurd. Hence the Father will not be the Word, because Consubstantial with the Word, but will abide unchanged, being What He is, even though He have Co-nature or Consubstantiality with His Own Word. And their objection has been proved to be nought.

Another. If every word be the word of some one, pouring it forth from the tongue, that is, or belching it forth and bringing it up from the heart; and the Father be Word, because He is Consubstantial with the Word: He will be His own word, or rather no one's, or will even have no existence at all (for how will there be word, when he whose word it is, is not?). But this is absurd: for never will the Divine and Untaint Nature be receptive of non-being, nor will the Father |42 ever pass into the Word, even though He be Consubstantial with the Word, but will remain Father, Whose Wordalso the Son is.

Another. If the Divine Nature be believed non-recipient of all turn and change as regards Essence, how will the Father, leaving His own position, pass into being the Word? For He will be recipient of change, suffering it as of necessity, and will not be the same, as not keeping what He was from the beginning. But if this be absurd (for to change is wholly foreign from the Divine Nature), the Father will not have the change into the Word, but will be Father ever, having immutability and unchange as God.

Another as of the same, at length.

The Only-Begotten Word and Son of God, showing that He is Very God of Very God the Father says, All things that the Father hath are Mine. But though the Son is Heir of all the properties that are in the Father of Nature, as being of Him by Nature, yet He will never have that of being Father (for this too is one thing that belongs to the Father); but the Son will remain bereft of nought that is inherent in the Father, though He be not deemed of as Father, but having in Himself perfectly all the properties and endowments of the Father's Essence. Applying this very same method of reasoning to the Person of the Father also, we say that He has all the properties of the Son by Nature, yet not the power of passing into sonship and into being Word, but that as un-turning by Nature He remains what He is, that in addition to being God the Father, He may be also without change, having Unchanged in Himself the Word That appeared from Him, the Son.

Another. God the Lawgiver found fault with certain by the holy Prophets saying, They have put no difference between the holy and profane. For great indeed is the difference or contrariety of manners which is seen between them by those who will discern. But if it be admissible to commingle the nature of things consubstantial one with another, and things that are in separate and individual persons can run off to whatever they please of congenerate or connatural;----what is there to separate the profane from the holy, if the distinction of separate being or of who one is, is never seen, but one exists in another because of sameness of essence? Be then (the knowledge in regard to each being hence indifferent), all jumbled up together, and let the traitor Judas be Peter or Paul, because consubstantial with Peter and Paul; be Peter again or Paul, Judas, because consubstantial with him. But so to think is most unreasoning; and the being of the same substance will by no means take away the difference of things congenerate or connatural from one another. Our weakness then will not so set itself to contend with the Divine Essence, as to compel God the Father to be called and be the Word, because He is Consubstantial with the Word. For He abides ever Father, in no wise able to lose the distinction of what He is in regard to this, nor yielding to sameness of Essence that He should possess nothing distinctively. And He will no way wrong the Son by this, but rather will show Him as His own, and possessing from Him by Nature the Unturning and Unchangeableness of Him That begat Him, both by His possessing properly and alone Sonship and not being changed into the Father, even as neither does He into Son.

Opposition, or another objection as on the part of the heretics.

"Not reasonably, say they, do ye blame as not thinking rightly those who say that the Word innate in God the Father is other than the Son, although ye hear Him clearly say in the Gospel narrative, I know Him and keep His word. But if, as Himself affirmed, He keeps the Father's word, other in all respects, I suppose, and of necessity will he be than him; since needs must the distinction of being other exist between him who keeps and that which is kept."

Different solutions in order showing clearly that the Son is the Word of God the Father.

If the Only-Begotten Son of God the Father is not Himself His Word, but some other than He, which they call conceived, exists in God, let those who put forth this contrary opinion tell us whether the word which is the conception of their own ignorance be hypostatic or no. For if they say that it exists of itself conceived of as in separate being, they will surely confess that there are two sons: but if they say that it has no existence, then, since nothing any longer conies between and severs the Son, how will He be third from the Father and not rather next Him, as Son with Father?

Another by the same considerations. The opponents define that there is in God the Father a word, the conceived, by means of which, according to their most unlovely imagination, the Son is taught the counsel of the Father. But how great folly their dogma hereupon has, we must see.

"We must consider the argument about this matter thus. The name father, has of necessity no mean in relation to the son. For what will be the mean of father as regards the son, or again of son as regards the father? But if, according to their unlearning, there severs the Son from the Father an intervening will and a conceived word, which they say is interpretative thereof, no longer will the Father be conceived of as altogether father nor yet the Son as son, if we conceive that the will of God and the word that interprets it, exist in their own hypostases. But if we grant that these are without hypostasis, then the Son is in God the Father without any thing mediate and next to Him; where then will the conceived word retire, or what place will the will have, conceived of as other than the Son?

Another by the reductio ad absurdum. We believe that the Holy and Adorable Trinity is Consubstantial, even if the madness of the heretics will it not. But I think that there ought to be admitted with regard to things consubstantial, a likeness also with one another in all things, in regard to natural properties. If then there be, according to the uncounsel of some, in God the Father some conceived word other than the Son, the Son too will surely have a conceived word in Himself, as being His Likeness and the unchangeable Express Image of His Person, as it is written: the Holy Ghost will have one equally with Him, according to the equal analogy of conceptions. The Trinity then has come to be in double, and the Divine Nature is shown to be compound. But this is absurd. But in simple essences, there is nothing whatever save themselves. Nothing then will hinder the Holy and Consubstantial Trinity from being closely connected, nought intervening. Another at length. When Divine Scripture puts forth nouns with the article prefixed, then it means some one thing which alone is properly and truly that which it is said to be; but when it does not prefix the article, it makes a more general declaration of every thing that is so called, as for example (for our discourse shall attain clear demonstration) many are called gods, but when God is spoken of with the article it signifies Him Who alone and properly is so; more simply and without the article, one perchance of those called hereto by grace. And again there are many men. But when the Saviour says with the article, The son of man, He signifies Himself as one picked out of ten thousand. Since then names have this character in Divine Scripture, how ought we to understand, In the beginning was the Word? For if every word of God is hereby meant as being in the beginning, let them show it, and it is we who are the triflers. But if the Evangelist prefixing the article, signifies One and that is so properly, crying, In the beginning was the Word, why strive they in vain, bringing in another besides, only that they may expel the Son from the Essence of the Father? But we ought, considering the absurdity herein, to refuse the uncounsel of those who think otherwise.

Another, showing that not after the conceived word, as they say, is the Son formed, but He is the Likeness of the Father Himself.

If the Only-Begotten Son of God is and is called, according to them, therefore Word, because, receiving the conceived word of the Father, He is as it were formed thereafter, why is He not found to say to His Disciples, I and the word of the Father are one, He that hath seen Me hath seen the word of the Father? But since overstepping all things, He likens Himself Alone to the Father Alone, none intermediate coming forward to the Likeness, the Son will be conceived of as likening Himself to Him Who begat Him, and to none other than Him.

Opposition, as from the opponents.

"We find, they say, the Son to be other than the conceived word of God, giving heed not to our own thoughts thereon, but to considerations from the Divine Scripture. For what shall we say when we hear the Son saying to the Father, Glorify Thy Son, the Father again answering and saying, I have both glorified, and will glorify again? Shall we not altogether acknowledge that the Father replies to the Son in a word? How then is not he through whom the Father answers the Son other than He?"

Different solutions to this in order.

Worthy of utter marvel, yea rather of mourning too, are the unholy heretics, and moreover that one should say over them that which is spoken in the Prophets: Weep ye not for the dead, neither bemoan him, but weep sore for him that thinketh and sayeth such things respecting the Only Begotten. For what more wretched than such, if they fancied that this was actually and truly the voice of the Father, which not only the Saviour heard, but also this crowd of the Jews which stood around, yea rather the choir of the holy disciples? For they should rather have imagined God-befitting excellencies, and not have attempted to submit things above us to the laws that guide our affairs. For upon the bodily hearing strikes a bodily voice, and noise which through the lips is emitted into the air, or contrived by any other instrument. But the Will of the Father, in ineffable voice gently and as it were in the mind revolved, the Son Alone knoweth Who is in Him by Nature as His Wisdom. But to suppose that God uses a voice consisting in sound is wholly incredible, if we would retain to the Nature That is above all things Its superiority to the creation. Besides, our Lord Jesus Christ Himself says that this was not the voice of God the Father, and moreover shows that He needs no interpretation from another to be able to learn the Father's will saying, This voice came not because of Me, but for your sakes. He should rather have said, my good friends, if ye are right in holding such opinions regarding Him, Ye have heard with Me the voice of the Father; but now, turning His declaration right round to the exact contrary, He avers that He had no need of the voice, but asserts that it came rather for their sakes, not that it was uttered by the Father, but came and that for their sakes. And if God the Father works all things through Him, through Him altogether was this also, yea rather He was Himself the voice, not to Himself interpreting the disposition of the Father (for He knew it as Son), but to the hearing of the by-standers, that they might believe.

Another. If they say that the Son needs some innate word, that thereby He may be taught the Will of God the Father, what will become of Paul who says, Christ the Power of God and the Wisdom of God? For how is the Son the Wisdom of the Father, if lacking in wisdom He receive perfection from another, through learning what forsooth He knows not? or how must one not needs say, that the wisdom which is in the Father is not perfect? and if the Son be the Wisdom of the Father, how can His Will be conceived of as other than He? We come then to say that the Will of God the Father is not perfected in wisdom. But great is the impiety of this, and full of blasphemy the statement. Not therefore as partaker of instruction from another does the Son know what belongs to His own Father, but as Himself the Word and the Wisdom and the Will, does He search all things, yea, the deep things of God, as it is written concerning the Spirit too.

Another. As the Likeness and the exact express Image of the Father do the Divine Scriptures introduce to us the Son: and the Saviour Himself saith, He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father. But if with that likeness to Him, He knows not of Himself what is in Him, but needs so to speak expositions from another in order to learn it, it is time to think that the Father Himself is in the same case, if He is in the Likeness of the Son, and He will Himself too need one to unfold to Him what lies hid in His Offspring. And thus in addition to the absurdities that result from hence, the Divine Nature becomes also a recipient of ignorance. But since it is impious thus to think, we must betake ourselves to more fitting thoughts: for this clearly is what is profitable and helpful.

Another. The Spirit, says the blessed Paul, searcheth all things, yea the deep things of God; and he adds, For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man but the Spirit of God That is in Him. Since then the Holy Spirit Which accurately discerneth all things, is Spirit not only of the Father, but of the Son too, how can He having within Him by Nature the Spirit Which knoweth all things be yet ignorant of ought that is in the Father? Superfluous then in truth does it plainly appear to imagine that the Son learns of another the Will of the Father; and utterly will vanish the need of a word to mediate in vain, according to their ill-instructedness. For the Son knows all things of Himself.

Another, by the method of reductio ad absurdum. They who accuse the Essence of the Only-Begotten, saying that He knew not the Will of the Father, but made use of in order to learn, another teacher, the word invented by them, which they call conceived, let them tell us, if they think that their own opinion hereupon ought to prevail, whether they will say that the conceived word is by nature equal to the Son (for let it be supposed to have a separate existence of itself) or not equal, but inferior perchance or even superior. If then they suppose it inferior, they will commit impiety against the Father Himself also: for there will be of a surety in Him what is worse than He, and other than He, the conceived word. But if they do not say worse, but shall allot to it a superiority to the Son, the charge against the Son will operate two-fold against the Father. For first of all He will be found to have begotten what is in worse condition than Himself. Then moreover He too will have the conceived word superior to Him, if the Father is Consubstantial with the Son who according to them has got an inferior position. But it is likely I suppose that the opponents will start back from the blasphemy that results from either alternative: and will say that the conceived word of the Father is equal to the Son as regards essence. The question then is at an end. For how will the one teach the other, as one who knows one who does not know, if both are equal by nature? The argument of these people being then on all sides weak, it will be superfluous to imagine that the Son has any mean, and not rather to believe that He is in God the Father, God the "Word Who was in the beginning.

Another. The blessed Paul says that in the Son are hid the treasures of all wisdom and all knowledge. But if he is true in saying such things, how yet shall we suppose that He needed teaching from another, or in whom shall we any more seek perfectness in knowledge, if He Who has it all is made wise by another? how is he Wisdom who is made wise? But since we must needs give heed not to their words, but to those through the Spirit, and the Son hath, as Paul saith, in Himself the treasures of wisdom and of all knowledge, not from any one else will He know the things whereby He is wisdom, but being in the Father He knows all that is the Father's, as His Wisdom.

[AD 444] Cyril of Alexandria on John 1:2

The Evangelist here makes a sort of recapitulation of what had already been said. But when he adds the word this, he is all but crying aloud, “He who is in the beginning, the Word with the Father, he who is God of God, he it is and no one else who is the subject of this august book.” But he seems again not idly to add to what has been said, “This was in the beginning with God.” For he, enlightened by the divine Spirit about the future, was not ignorant … that certain people would appear, … who would rise up and strive against their own leader, saying that one is the word that is conceived in God the Father, and that the other, who is very similar and like the conceived one, is the Son and Word through whom God works all things. In this way he might be [falsely] conceived of as word of word and image of image and radiance of radiance.The blessed Evangelist, then, as though he had already heard them blaspheming, and having already defined and shown by many words that the Word is one and only and truly of God and in God and with God—with flashing eye adds, “This was in the beginning with God,” as Son, that is, with the Father, as inborn, as of his [the Father’s] essence, as only begotten—this one, there being no second. COMMENTARY ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 1.4.
For every person imaginable would admit that the truth is one. No one would dare say, in the case of [truth] too, that the truth of God is one thing, and that of the angels is another, and that of people still another. For it belongs to the nature of beings that the truth concerning each is one.… And if truth is one and wisdom is one, the Word also, who announces the truth and wisdom simply and openly to those capable of apprehending it, would be one. And we say these things, not to deny that the truth and wisdom and the Word are of God but to show the advantage of the omission of the phrase “of God.”

Source: COMMENTARY ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 2.37, 39-41

[AD 804] Alcuin of York on John 1:2

Wherefore does he use the substantive verb, was? That you might understand that the Word, Which is coeternal with God the Father, was before all time.

Source: Catena Aurea by Aquinas

[AD 1107] Theophylact of Ohrid on John 1:2

Again, to stop any diabolical suspicion, that the Word, because He was God, might have rebelled against His Father, as certain Gentiles fable, or, being separate, have become the antagonist of the Father Himself, he says, The Same was in the beginning with God; that is to say, this Word of God never existed separate from God.

Source: Catena Aurea by Aquinas

[AD 1107] Theophylact of Ohrid on John 1:2

God the Word never was separated from God the Father. Since he had said that the Word was God, he wanted to quell any devilish suspicion that might disturb us, that perhaps, because the Word was God, He may have risen up against the Father, and separated Himself from Him, and become the enemy of the Father, as the gods behave in Greek mythology. This is why John says that, while the Word indeed is God [and equal in power to the Father], yet He is always together with the Father, and never separated from Him. We should also address the Arians. Listen, you deaf men who say that the Son is the work and creation of God the Father: understand what name the Evangelist has given to the Son of God. He called Him Word. But you name Him work and creation. He is Word, not work or creation. "Word" is twofold. There is the inner word [diathetos logos] which we possess even when we are not speaking, namely, the faculty of speech. When a man is not talking, and even when he sleeps, the power of word and speech is still within him. There is also the outward word [prophorikos logos], when we articulate with our lips the inner power of speech, bringing it forth into activity and deed. Therefore, "word" is twofold, yet neither aspect fittingly describes the Son of God. For the Word of God is neither the spoken word nor the inner power of speech. These things pertain to the physical world and to us. The Word of the Father is above nature and is not subject to any analysis of the things of this world. Therefore the sophistry of Porphyrius the Greek was rendered useless and vain when he tried to refute the Gospel by using such distinctions. If the Son of God is Word, he said, He is so either as spoken word or as the inner power of speech. But since He is neither one nor the other, He cannot be Word at all. But the Evangelist foresaw this argument and disarmed it by saying that the distinction between inner and outer speech is used in reference to us and the physical world. But to that which is beyond nature, there is no such thing. It should also be said that if the name Word was truly worthy of God, and if He were called this in a literal and essential sense, then the doubt of the Greek would be justified. But this is not the case. Not only does this name, Word, not apply literally and essentially to God, but no other name can be found that would do so. It merely indicates the passionless begetting of the Son from the Father, as a word springs forth from the mind, and it shows that the Son is an Angel of the Fatherâ€™s will. Therefore, why do you lay hold of the name with your sophistry, wretched Porphyrius? And how is it that when you hear Father, Son, and Spirit, you descend to material things, and imagine in your mind carnal fathers and sons, and an aerial spirit, such as the North Wind or the South Wind, or something else which whips up storms? But if you wish to learn what kind of Word is the Word of God, listen to what follows.

[AD 180] Tatian the Assyrian on John 1:3

Follow the one God. "All things

[AD 202] Irenaeus on John 1:3

"The same was in the beginning with God"-this clause discloses the order of production. "All things were made by Him, and without Him was nothing made; ".
for the Word was the author of form and beginning to all the Aeons that came into existence after Him. But "what was made in Him "says John, "is life.".
And again, "All things were made by Him, and without Him was nothing made.".
His own Word is both suitable and sufficient for the formation of all things, even as John, the disciple of the Lord, declares regarding Him: "All things were made by Him, and without Him was nothing made.".
For when he had spoken of the Word of God as having been in the Father, he added, "All things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made.".
), and was formed by the hand of God, that is, by the Word of God, for "all things were made by Him".
and as we read in the Gospel, "All things were made by Him; and without Him was nothing made; "

Source: Against Heresies Book I

[AD 215] Clement of Alexandria on John 1:3

.
The divine Instructor is trustworthy, adorned as He is with three of the fairest ornament"-knowledge, benevolence, and authority of utterance;-with knowledge, for He is the paternal wisdom: "All Wisdom is from the Lord, and with Him for evermore; "-with authority of utterance, for He is God and Creator: "For all things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made; ".
He that is illuminated is therefore awake towards God; and such an one lives. "For what was made in Him was life.".
At home, therefore, they ought to regard with modesty parents and domestics; in the ways, those they meet; in the baths, women; in solitude, themselves; and everywhere the Word, who is everywhere, "and without Him was not anything.".
But a rational work is accomplished through God. "And nothing "it is said, "was made without Him"-the Word of God.
And since the unoriginated Being is one, the Omnipotent God; one, too, is the First-begotten, "by whom all things were made, and without whom not one thing ever was made.".
"Understand now for me the mystery of the truth, granting pardon if I shrink from advancing further in the treatment of it, by announcing this alone: "All things were made by Him, and without Him was not even one thing.".
and if "all things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made that was made".
"by whom all things were made, and without whom not even one thing was made.".
(that is, of the great High Priest, "by whom all things were made, and without whom not even one thing was made".
For the knowledge and apprehension of intellectual objects must necessarily be called certain scientific knowledge, whose function in reference to divine things is to consider what is the First Cause, and what that "by whom all things were made, and without whom nothing was made; "

Source: Clement of Alexandria The Instructor Book I

[AD 220] Tertullian on John 1:3

If Christ is not "the first-begotten before every creature," as that "Word of God by whom all things were made, and without whom nothing was made; " if "all things were" not "in Him created, whether in heaven or on earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones or dominions, or principalities, or powers; "if "all things were" not "created by Him and for Him" (for these truths Marcion ought not to allow concerning Him), then the apostle could not have so positively laid it down, that "He is before all.

Source: Against Marcion Book V

[AD 220] Tertullian on John 1:3

I revere the fulness of His Scripture, in which He manifests to me both the Creator and the creation. In the gospel, moreover, I discover a Minister and Witness of the Creator, even His Word. But whether all things were made out of any underlying Matter, I have as yet failed anywhere to find.

Source: Against Hermogenes

[AD 220] Tertullian on John 1:3

Then that the Word was produced, "through whom all things were made, and without whom nothing was made." Indeed, "by the Word of the Lord were the heavens made, and all their hosts by the breath of His mouth.

Source: Against Hermogenes

[AD 220] Tertullian on John 1:3

In the first place, because all things were made by the Word of God, and without Him was nothing made. Now the flesh, too, had its existence from the Word of God, because of the principle, that here should be nothing without that Word.

Source: On the Resurrection of the Flesh

[AD 220] Tertullian on John 1:3

For if indeed Wisdom in this passage seems to say that She was created by the Lord with a view to His works, and to accomplish His ways, yet proof is given in another Scripture that "all things were made by the Word, and without Him was there nothing made; " as, again, in another place (it is said), "By His word were the heavens established, and all the powers thereof by His Spirit" -that is to say, by the Spirit (or Divine Nature) which was in the Word: thus is it evident that it is one and the same power which is in one place described under the name of Wisdom, and in another passage under the appellation of the Word, which was initiated for the works of God which "strengthened the heavens; " "by which all things were made," "and without which nothing was made.

Source: Against Praxeas

[AD 220] Tertullian on John 1:3

Source: Against Praxeas

[AD 220] Tertullian on John 1:3

Source: Against Praxeas

[AD 220] Tertullian on John 1:3

But all the rest of the created things did He in like manner make, who made the former ones-I mean the Word of God. "through whom all things were made, and without whom nothing was made." Now if He too is God, according to John, (who says.

Source: Against Praxeas

[AD 220] Tertullian on John 1:3

For the Father acts by mind and thought; whilst the Son, who is in the Father's mind and thought, gives effect and form to what He sees. Thus all things were made by tile Son, and without Him was not anything made.

Source: Against Praxeas

[AD 220] Tertullian on John 1:3

But (if we are to follow the heretics), the Gospel itself will have to be rejected, because it tells us that all things were made by God through the Word, without whom nothing was made. And if I am not mistaken, there is also another passage in which it is written: "By the Word of the Lord were the heavens made, and all the hosts of them by His Spirit.

Source: Against Praxeas

[AD 220] Tertullian on John 1:3

Wherefore he also exhorts us to believe in the name of His (the Father's, ) Son Jesus Christ, that "our fellowship may be with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ." Paul, in like manner, everywhere speaks of "God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ.

Source: Against Praxeas

[AD 235] Hippolytus of Rome on John 1:3

For, says he, it is necessary that the magnitudes be declared, and that they thus be declared by all everywhere, "in order that hearing they may not hear, and seeing they may not see." For if, he says, the magnitudes were not declared, the world could not have obtained consistence. These are the three tumid expressions (of these heretics), Caulacau, Saulasu, Saulasu. Saulasu, i.e., Adam, who is farthest above; Saulasau, that is, the mortal one below; Zeesar, that is, Jordan that flows upwards. This, he says, is the hermaphrodite man (present) in all. But those who are ignorant of him, call him Geryon with the threefold body-Geryon, i.e., as if (in the sense of) flowing from earth-but (whom) the Greeks by common consent (style) "celestial horn of the moon," because he mixed and blended all things in all. "For all things," he says, "were made by him, and not even one thing was made without him, and what was made in him is life." This, says he, is the life, the ineffable generation of perfect men, which was not known by preceding generations. But the passage, "nothing was made without him," refers to the formal world, for it was created without his instrumentality by the third and fourth (of the quaternion named above). For says he, this is the cup "Condy, out of which the king, while he quaffs, draws his omens." This, he says, has been discovered hid in the beauteous seeds of Benjamin.

Source: Hippolytus Refutation of All Heresies Book V

[AD 235] Hippolytus of Rome on John 1:3

The Phrygians, however, further assert that the father of the universe is "Amygdalus," not a tree, he says, but that he is "Amygdalus" who previously existed; and he having in himself the perfect fruit, as it were, throbbing and moving in the depth, rent his breasts, and produced his now invisible, and nameless, and ineffable child. respecting whom we shall speak. For the word "Amyxai" signifies, as it were, to burst and sever through, as he says (happens) in the case of inflamed bodies, and which have in themselves any tumour; and when doctors have cut this, they call it "Amychai." In this way, he says, the Phrygians call him "Amygdalus," from which proceeded and was born the Invisible (One), "by whom all things were made, and nothing was made without Him." And the Phrygians say that what has been thence produced is "Syrictas" (piper), because the Spirit that is born is harmonious. "For God," he says, "is Spirit; wherefore," he affirms, "neither in this mountain do the true worshippers worship, nor in Jerusalem, but in spirit. For the adoration of the perfect ones," he says, "is spiritual, not carnal." The Spirit, however, he says, is there where likewise the Father is named, and the Son is there born from this Father. This, he says, is the many-named, thousand-eyed Incomprehensible One, of whom every nature-each, however, differently-is desirous. This, he says, is the word of God, which, he says, is a word of revelation of the Great Power. Wherefore it will be sealed, and hid, and concealed, lying in the habitation where lies the basis of the root of the universe, viz. Aeons, Powers, Intelligences, Gods, Angels, delegated Spirits, Entities, Nonentities, Generables, Ingenerables, Incomprehensibles, Comprehensibles, Years, Months, Days, Hours, (and) Invisible Point from which what is least begins to increase gradually. That which is, he says, nothing, and which consists of nothing, inasmuch as it is indivisible-(I mean) a point-will become through its own reflective power a certain incomprehensible magnitude. This, he says, is the kingdom of heaven, the grain of mustard seed, the point which is indivisible in the body; and, he says, no one knows this (point) save the spiritual only. This, he says, is what has been spoken: "There is no speech nor language where their voice is not heard."

Source: Hippolytus Refutation of All Heresies Book V

[AD 253] Origen of Alexandria on John 1:3

(tom. ii. c. 8) Here too Valentinus errs, saying, that the Word supplied to the Creator the cause of the creation of the worlde. If this interpretation is true, it should have been written that all things had their existence from the Word through the Creator, not contrariwise, through the Word from the Creator.
And without him was not any thing made

(Hom. iii. in div. loc.): Or thus, that thou mightest not think that the things made by the Word had a separate existence, and were not contained in the Word, he says, and without Him was not any thing made: that is, not any thing was made externally of Him; for He encircles all things, as the Preserver of all things.

(in Joh. tom. ii. c. 7) If all things were made by the Word, and in the number of all things is wickedness, and the whole influx of sin, these too were made by the Word; which is false. Now 'nothing' and 'a thing which is not,' mean the same. And the Apostle seems to call wicked things, things which are not, God calleth those things which be not, (Rom. 4:17) as though they were. All wickedness then is called nothing, forasmuch as it is made without the Word. Those who say however that the devil is not a creature of God, err. In so far as he is the devil, he is not a creature of God; but he, whose character it is to be the devil, is a creature of God. It is as if we should say a murderer is not a creature of God, when, so far as he is a man, he is a creature of God.

(tom. ii. c. 8) Valentinus excludes from the things made by the Word, all that were made in the ages which he believes to have existed before the Word. This is plainly false; inasmuch as the things which he accounts divine are thus excluded from the "all things," and what he deems wholly corrupt are properly 'all things!'

(tom. ii. c. 9) If 'the word' be taken for that which is in each man, inasmuch as it was implanted in each by the Word, which was in the beginning, then also, we commit nothing without this 'word' [reason] taking this word 'nothing' in a popular sense. For the Apostle says that sin was dead without the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived; for sin is not imputed when there is no law. But neither was there sin, when there was no Word, for our Lord says, If I had not come and spoken to them, they had not had sin. (John 15:22) For every excuse is withdrawn from the sinner, if, with the Word present, and enjoining what is to be done, he refuses to obey Him. Nor is the Word to be blamed on this account; any more than a master, whose discipline leaves no excuse open to a delinquent pupil on the ground of ignorance. All things then were made by the Word, not only the natural world, but also whatever is done by those acting without reason.

Source: Catena Aurea by Aquinas

[AD 253] Origen of Alexandria on John 1:3

Now let us see why the statement “And without him was not anything made” is added. Some might think it superfluous to subjoin “without him was not anything made” to “all things were made through him.” For if every conceivable thing has been made “through the Word,” nothing has been made “without the Word.” That all things have been made through the Word, however, does not now follow from the assertion that nothing has been made without the Word. It is possible that not only have all things been made through the Word but also that some things have been made by the Word.We must know, therefore, how the expression “all things” is to be understood and how “nothing” should be understood. For it is possible, if both expressions have not been made clear, to take it to mean that if all things were made through the Word, and evil and all the profusion of sin and wickedness belong to the “all things,” that these too, were made through the Word. But this is a false conclusion. For … it is not surprising that all creatures have been made through the Word … but this does not now follow also for acts of sin and falling away.

Source: COMMENTARY ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 2.91-92

[AD 253] Origen of Alexandria on John 1:3

So far as the meaning of “nothing” and “not being” are concerned, they will appear to be synonyms. “Not being” would be meant by “nothing,” and “nothing” by “not being.” The apostle indeed appears to use the expression “those things that are not” not for things that exist nowhere but for things that are wicked, considering “those things that are not” to be things that are bad. For he says, “God called those things that are not as those that are.” … “Not being” and “nothing” are synonyms, and for this reason those “who are not” are “nothing,” and all evil is “nothing,” since it too is “not being.” And evil, which is called “nothing,” has been made without the Word, not being included in “all things.” We have presented then to the best of our ability, what the “all things” are that have been made through the Word, and what that is which was made without him, and, because it never was, is also for this reason called “nothing.”

Source: COMMENTARY ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 2.94, 99

[AD 328] Alexander of Alexandria on John 1:3

And, "by Him were all things made"

[AD 367] Hilary of Poitiers on John 1:3

(ii. de Trin. c. 17) Or thus: [It is said], the Word indeed was in the beginning, but it may be that He was not before the beginning. But what saith he; All things were made by him. He is infinite by Whom every thing, which is, was made: and since all things were made by Him, time is likewisec.

(lib. ii. de Trin. c. 18) Or thus; That all things were made by him, is pronouncing too much, it may be said. There is an Unbegotten Who is made of none, and there is the Son Himself begotten from Him Who is Unbegotten. The Evangelist however again implies the Author, when he speaks of Him as Associated; saying, without Him was not any thing made. This, that nothing was made without Him, I understand to mean the Son's not being alone, for 'by whom' is one thing, 'not without whom' another.

Source: Catena Aurea by Aquinas

[AD 367] Hilary of Poitiers on John 1:3

Or thus:, the Word indeed was in the beginning, but it may be that He was not before the beginning. But what says he; All things were made by him. He is infinite by Whom everything, which is, was made: and since all things were made by Him, time is likewise.
Or thus; That all things were made by him, is pronouncing too much, it maybe said. There is an Unbegotten Who is made of none, and there is the Son Himself begotten from Him Who is Unbegotten. The Evangelist however again implies the Author, when he speaks of Him as Associated; saying, without Him was not any thing made. This, that nothing was made without Him, I understand to mean the Son’s not being alone, for ‘by whom’ is one thing, ‘not without whom another.

[AD 367] Hilary of Poitiers on John 1:3

“All things were made through him” needs qualification. There is the Unbegotten who no one made; there is also the Son, begotten of the unborn Father. “All things” is an unguarded statement, admitting no exceptions. While we are silent, not daring to answer or trying to think of some reply, you [John] break in with, “And without him was nothing made.” You have restored the author of the Godhead to his place while proclaiming that he has a companion. From your saying that nothing was made “without him,” I learn that he was not alone. He through whom the work was done is one; he without whom it was not done is another: a distinction is drawn between Creator and Companion.Reverence for the one unbegotten Creator distressed me, lest in your sweeping assertion that all things were made by the Word you had included him. You have banished my fears by your “without him was nothing made.” Yet this same “without him was nothing made” brings its own trouble and distraction. There was, then, something made by that other; not made, it is true, “without him.” If the other did make anything, even if the Word were present at the making, then it is untrue that “through him all things were made.” It is one thing to be the Creator’s Companion, quite another to be the Creator’s self. I could find answers of my own to the previous objections; in this case, fisherman, I can only turn at once to your words, “All things were made through him.” And now I understand, for the apostle has enlightened me with these words: “Things visible and things invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers, all are “through” him and “in him.”

Source: ON THE TRINITY 2.18-19

[AD 397] Ambrose of Milan on John 1:3

He himself who calls the Son of God the maker even of heavenly things has also plainly said that all things were made in the Son, that in the renewal of his works he might by no means separate the Son from the Father but unite him to the Father.

Source: On the Holy Spirit 3.11.83

[AD 400] Ignatius of Antioch on John 1:3-9

Source: Epistle of Pseudo-Ignatius to the Tarsians

[AD 407] John Chrysostom on John 1:3

(Hom. v. [iv.] 1) Moses indeed, in the beginning of the Old Testament, speaks to us in much detail of the natural world, saying, In the beginning God made the heaven and the earth; and then relates how that the light, and the firmament, and the stars, and the various kinds of animals were created. But the Evangelist sums up the whole of this in a word, as familiar to his hearers; and hastens to loftier matter, making the whole of his book to bear not on the works, but on the Maker.

(Hom. in Joan. v. [iv.] c. 2) If the preposition by perplex thee, and thou wouldest learn from Scripture that the Word Itself made all things, hear David, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of Thy hands. (Ps. 101) That he spoke this of the Only-Begotten, you learn from the Apostle, who in the Epistle to the Hebrews applies these words to the Son.

(Hom. v. c. 2. 3) But if you say that the prophet spoke this of the Father, and that Paul applied it to the Son, it comes to the same thing. For he would not have mentioned that as applicable to the Son, unless he fully considered that the Father and the Son were of equal dignity. If again thou dream that in the preposition by any subjection is implied, why does Paul use t of the Father? as, God is faith ful, by Whom ye were called into the fellowship of His Son; (1 Cor. 1:9) and again, Paul an Apostle by the will of God. (2 Cor. 1:1)

(Hom. v. in princ.) That you may not suppose, when he says, All things were made by Him, that he meant only the things Moses had spoken of, he seasonably brings in, And without Him was not any thing made, nothing, that is, cognizable either by the senses, or the understanding. Or thus; Lest you should suspect the sentence, All things were made by Him, to refer to the miracles which the other Evangelists had related, he adds, and without Him was not any thing made.

Source: Catena Aurea by Aquinas

[AD 407] John Chrysostom on John 1:3

Moses in the beginning of the history and writings of the Old Testament speaks to us of the objects of sense and enumerates them to us at length. For “in the beginning,” he says, “God made the heaven and the earth,” and then he adds that light was created, and a second heaven and the stars, the various kinds of living creatures, and (that we may not delay by going through particulars) everything else. But this Evangelist, cutting to the quick, includes both these things and the things that are above these in a single sentence. He does this because they were known to his hearers and because he is hurrying on to a greater subject. His treatise is not so much about the works as about the Creator and him who produced them all. And therefore Moses, though he has selected the smaller portion of the creation (for he has spoken nothing to us concerning the invisible powers), dwells on these things; while John, as hurrying to ascend to the Creator himself, passes over both of these things and those on which Moses was silent, having comprised them in one little saying: “All things were made by him.”

Source: HOMILIES ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 5.1

[AD 407] John Chrysostom on John 1:3

Paul, inspired by the same grace, said, “For by him were all things created.” … But if you think that the expression “through” is a mark of inferiority (as making Christ an instrument), listen to what [David] says: “You, Lord, in the beginning, have laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands.” He says of the Son what is said of the Father in his character of Creator. This is something he would not have said unless he had thought of him as he thought of a Creator and yet not subservient to any. And if the expression “through him” is used here, it is for no other reason than to prevent anyone from thinking that Son is unbegotten. For listen to Christ himself tell how, with respect to the title of Creator, he is nothing inferior to the Father: “As the Father raises up the dead and quickens them, even so the Son quickens whom he will.” If now in the Old Testament it is said of the Son, “You, Lord, in the beginning have laid the foundation of the earth,” his title of Creator is plain. But if you say that the prophet spoke this of the Father and that Paul attributed to the Son what was said of the Father, even so the conclusion is the same. For Paul would not have decided that the same expression suited the Son, unless he had been very confident that between Father and Son there was an equality of honor.

Source: HOMILIES ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 5.2

[AD 407] John Chrysostom on John 1:3

And that you may not think that he merely speaks of all the things mentioned by Moses, he adds that “without him was not anything made that was made.” That is to say, that of created things, not one—whether it be visible or intelligible—was brought into being without the power of the Son.

Source: HOMILIES ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 5.1

[AD 410] Prudentius on John 1:3

Though you came from the mouth of God,
Born as his Word on earth below,
Yet as his Wisdom you lived
Forever in the Father’s heart.
This Wisdom uttered made the sky,
The sky and light and all besides;
All by the Word’s almighty power
Were fashioned, for the Word was God.
But when the universe was formed
And ordered by unchanging laws,
The Cause and architect divine
In the Father’s bosom still remained,
Until the slow revolving years
In centuries at length had passed,
And he himself condescended to come
Down to the world grown old in sin.…
But such destruction of humankind
The heart of Christ could not endure;
And lest his Father’s handiwork,
Unvindicated, should be lost,
He clothed himself in mortal flesh,
That by arising from the tomb
He might unlock the chains of death
And bring man to his Father’s house.
This is your natal day, on which
The high Creator sent you forth,
And gave to you a form of clay,
Uniting flesh with his own Word.

Source: HYMNS FOR EVERY DAY 11, A HYMN FOR CHRISTMAS DAY

[AD 428] Theodore of Mopsuestia on John 1:3

Intending to make the divinity of the Only Begotten clearer, [the Evangelist] wanted to show the difference [of the Son] not only by indicating his dignity but also by demonstrating that he has no participation with the created order. He says, “[The Word] was with God in the beginning,” and “All things were made through him.” By saying this, he has opposed himself to “all things made.” He was, he says, in the beginning with God, all creatures were made through him. And clearly he made a comparison with “in the beginning was,” and its opposite, “all things were made through him.” Therefore he was not made, because in the beginning he was; they were made because they did not exist before. He himself is the explanation of the precedents. He shows what he means through the words “In the beginning was,” clearly asserting his eternity.

Source: COMMENTARY ON JOHN 1.1.2-3

[AD 430] Augustine of Hippo on John 1:3

(1. de Gen ad lit. cap. 2) Since all things were made by him, it is evident that light was also, when God said, Let there be light. And in like manner the rest. But if so, that which God said, viz. Let there be light, is eternal. For the Word of God, God with God, is coeternal with the Father, though the world created by Him be temporal. For whereas our when and sometimes are words of time, in the Word of God, on the contrary, when a thing ought to be made, is eternal; and the thing is then made, when in that Word it is that it ought to be made, which Word hath in It neither when, or at sometimes, since It is all eternal.

(in Joan. tract. i. c. 11) How then can the Word of God be made, when God by the Word made all things? For if the Word Itself were made, by what other Word was It made? If you say it was the Word of the Word by Which That was made, that Word I call the Only-Begotten Son of God. But if thou dost not call It the Word of the Word1, then grant that that Word was not made, by which all things were made.

(de Trin. i. c. 9. [vi.]) And if It is not made, It is not a creature; but if It is not a creature, It is of the same Substance with the Father. For every substance which is not God is a creature; and what is not a creature is God.

(Quæst. Test. N. V. qu. 97) Or, by saying, without Him was not any thing made, he tells us not to suspect Him in any sense to be a thing made. For how can He be a thing made, when God, it is said, made nothing without Him?

(in Joh. tract. i. c. 13) For sin was not made by Him; for it is manifest that sin is nothing, and that men become nothing when they sin. Nor was an idol made by the Word. It has indeed a sort of form of man, and man himself was made by the Word; but the form of man in an idol was not made by the Word: for it is written, we know that an idol is nothing. (1 Cor. 8:4) These then were not made by the Word; but whatever things were made naturally, the whole universe, were; every creature from an angel to a worm.

(de Natura boni, c. 25) The folly of those men is not to be listened to, who think nothing is to be understood here as something, because it is placed at the end of the sentence1: as if it made any difference whether it was said, without Him nothing was made, or, without Him was made nothing.

Source: Catena Aurea by Aquinas

[AD 430] Augustine of Hippo on John 1:3

Let someone of the unbelieving Arians come forward now and say that the Word of God was made. How can it happen that the Word of God was made when God made all things through the Word? If even the Word of God itself was made, through what other Word was it made? If you say that there is a Word of the Word, through which that [Word] was made, I say that this itself is the only Son of God. If you deny there is a Word of the Word, grant that that through which all things were made was itself not made. For that through which all things were made could not be made through itself.

Source: TRACTATES ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 1.11.1

[AD 430] Augustine of Hippo on John 1:3

And if he was not made, then he is not a creature; but if he is not a creature, then he is of the same substance with the Father. For all substance that is not God is creature, and all that is not creature is God. And if the Son is not of the same substance with the Father, then he is a substance that was made; and if he is a substance that was made, then all things were not made by him; but “all things were made by him,”

Source: therefore he is of one and the same substance with the Father. And so, he is not only God but also very God. ON THE TRINITY 1. [9]

[AD 430] Augustine of Hippo on John 1:3

Certainly sin was not made through him, and it is clear that sin is nothing and that human beings become nothing when they sin. And an idol was not made through the Word. Indeed an idol has a certain shape, but humankind has been made through the Word. For the form of humanity in the idol was not made through the Word. And it has been written, “We know that an idol is nothing.” These things, then, were not made through the Word; but whatever things were made through the agency of nature, whatever exist in creation, all things of all kinds whatsoever—from the angel to the grubworm—[these are what were made by the Word].

Source: TRACTATES ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 1.13.1

[AD 430] Augustine of Hippo on John 1:3

We have found the genuine poor person. We have found him to be kind and humble, not trusting in himself, truly poor, a member of the poor man, who became poor for our sake, though he was rich. Look at this rich man of ours, who “for our sake became poor, though he was rich;” see how rich he is: “All things were made through him, and without him was made nothing.” There is more to making gold than to having it. You are rich in gold, silver, flocks, household, farms, produce; you were unable to create these things for yourself, though. See how rich he is: “All things were made though him.” See how poor he is: “The Word became flesh and dwelt among us.” Who can fittingly reflect on his riches, how he makes and is not made, how he creates and is not created, is not formed but forms, forms changeable things while changelessly abiding ephemeral things while he himself is everlasting? Who can fittingly ponder his riches? Let us ponder his poverty instead, in case being poor ourselves we may just be able to grasp it.

Source: SERMON 14.9

[AD 444] Cyril of Alexandria on John 1:3

CHAPTER V. That the Son is by Nature Creator with the Father, as being of His Essence, and not taken to Him as a minister.

All things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made.

The blessed Evangelist, having overthrown the intricate objections of the unholy heretics, and having completed his subtil and most exact utterance respecting the Only-Begotten, comes to another snare of the devil compounded of the ancient deceit, and putting forth to us the sting of the polytheic error, which has wounded and cast down many, and widening the way of perdition, and throwing open the broad and spacious gate of death, heaped up souls of men in herds unto hell and set rich food as it were before the devil and brought before him choice meat. For since the children of the Greeks applying themselves to the wisdom of the world, and having plenteously in their mind the spirit of the ruler of this world, were carried away unto polytheic error, and perverted the beauty of the truth and, like to those who walk in mist and darkness, went down to the pit of their own ignorance, serving lifeless idols, and saying to a stock, Thou art my father, and to a stone, Thou hast brought me forth: others again transgressing akin to them, devising nevertheless a more polished error, deemed that they ought to worship the creature more than the Creator, and lavished the glory that befitted the Divine Nature Alone on the elements that were made by It, of necessity does the Divine introduce to us the Only-Begotten as Maker and Creator by Nature, saying that all things were made by Him and that without Him nothing passed into being, that he might close for the future the entrance for their deceits, and might show to them that know Him |51 not the Creator of all things, and by the very words wherein he says that the creation was made, might clearly teach that other than it is He Who called it into being, and by His Ineffable Power brought things that are from not being unto birth. For thus at length was it possible by the beauty of the creatures proportionally to see the Maker, and to recognize Him Who is in truth God, through Whom all things have been already made, and made are preserved. Against the false-worship then of the Greeks do I deem that he thus well arrayed the Gospel word, and for this cause do we believe that the Only-Begotten was introduced by the voice of the saint as Maker and Creator.

But since it is meet to consider the crooked inventions of the heretics, I think that we ought looking to their ways too to say again a little.

All things, says he, were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made.

This God-befitting dignity too does he put about the Son, on all sides showing that He is Consubstantial with God Who begat Him and saying that all things that belong to Him by Nature are in His Offspring: that He may be conceived of as truly God of God, not (as we) having the appellation adventitious and accruing to us by grace alone, according to the words, I have said, Ye are gods and all of you are children of the most High. For if all things were made by Him, He will be Other than they all. For in this, All things, there is nothing which is not seen among all things. As the blessed Paul too is found to have understood the all things: for when in one of his Epistles he was discoursing of our Saviour and said that all things were put in subjection under His feet, excellently does he subjoin, For in that he saith all, he left nothing that is not put under Him. Therefore since we believe that all things were made by the Son, we will not think that He is one of all, but will conclude that He is external to all, and severing Him from the nature and kin of things originate, will at length confess that He is none else save God of God by Nature. For what will intervene between God and the creature? I do not mean in regard of essence, for much intervenes, but only in regard to the position of anything that is, in conception. Or what other position will the Son have, Who surpasses the nature of things made, yea rather is Himself the Maker? For all things were made "by Him, as by the Power, as by the Wisdom of God the Father, not hidden in the Nature of Him Who begat Him, as in man is for instance his innate wisdom and power, but existing separately and by Himself, yet proceeding according to the ineffable mode of Generation from the Father, that the Wisdom and Power of the Father may be conceived of as truly-existing Son.

But though the blessed Evangelist says that all things were made through Him, the saying will not I deem at all minister damage to the words concerning Him. For not because it is said that the things that are were made through Him, will the Son be introduced as an underworker, or a minister of others' wills, so that He should be no longer conceived of as being by Nature Creator, nor will He be one given the power of Creation by some other, but rather being Himself Alone the Strength of God the Father, as Son, as Only-Begotten, He works all things, the Father and the Holy Ghost co-working and co-with Him: for all things are from the Father through the Son in the Holy Ghost. And we conceive of the Father as co-with the Son, not as though He were powerless to work ought of things that are, but as being wholly in Him, by reason of unchangeableness of Essence, and His entire kin and the absence of any medium towards His Natural Procession from Him. As though one were to say that to the sweet scent of a flower, the flower itself was co-present for the operation of the sweet scent, since it proceeds from it naturally. But the force of the example is slight and the Nature That is above all will overpass this too, receiving of it little-impresses of ideas. Since how shall we understand, My Father worketh hitherto and I work? For not separately and by Himself does the Son say that God the Father works ought regarding things that are, and that Himself again likewise works apart from the Father, the Essence Whence He is after some sort resting: for so the Creator would be two and not One, if Either work apart and separately. Moreover the Father will be recipient of the power of not having the Son ever in Him, and the Son likewise will be seen to not have the Father ever in Him, if it were possible that Either should work apart and separately with regard to things that are, as we said before, and the Son will not be true, when He says, I am in the Father and the Father in Me. For it is not, I suppose, merely after likeness of Essence, that we see the Son in the Father as Express Image, or again the Father in the Son as Archetype; but we hold that the Son beams forth by Generation from the Essence of the Father, and is and subsists in It and of It in distinct Being, God the Word: and that the Father again is in the Son, as in Consubstantial Offspring, Connaturally, yet severally, according to simply the difference of being, and being conceived of as that which He is. For the Father remains that which He is, even though He be Connaturally in the Son, as we say that the Sun is in its brightness. And the Son again will be conceived of, as not other than He is, even if He be Connaturally in the Father, as in the sun its brightness. For thus, the Father being conceived of and being in truth Father, the Son again being and conceived of as Son, the Holy Ghost having His place with them, the number of the Holy Trinity mounts to One and the Same Godhead.

For how will God be at all conceived of as One, if Each of the Persons mentioned withdraw into a complete individuality, and, while wholly removed from Connature and Essential participation with the Other, be called God? Therefore let us conceive of Father, Son and Spirit, according to the mode of individual being, not mixing up the difference of the Persons or names in regard to That Which Each IS: but while we reserve severally to each the being and being called what He IS, and thus believe, referring them still of Nature to One Godhead, and refusing to hold a complete severance, because the Son is called the Word and Wisdom and Brightness and Express Image and Might of the Father. For He is Word and Wisdom, by reason of these being, immediately and without any intervention, of the mind and in the mind, and because of the reciprocal interpassing into one another so to say of both. For the mind is seen in word and wisdom, and word in its turn in the mind, and there is nought that intervenes, or severs the one from the other. He is called Power again, as being a quality inherent without any interval in those who have it, and that can nowise be severed from them in the manner of an accident, apart from the destruction of the subject: Express Image again, as being even connate, and unable to be severed from the essence of which it is the express image.

Hence since Either is naturally and of necessity in Other, when the Father works the Son will work, as being His Natural and Essential and Hypostatic Power. Likewise when the Son works, the Father too works, as the Source, of the Creating Word, Naturally In-existent in His Own Offspring, even as the fire too in the heat that proceeds from it.

It is clear then, that vainly has been iterated the accusation of the opponents against the Only-Begotten, who introduce Him to us as creator by having learnt, yea rather as minister too; because of the Blessed Evangelist saying, All things were made through Him and without Him, was not anything made. Much do I marvel at the unholy heretics: for whatever seems any way to undo the Dignity of the Only-Begotten and to show Him second to Him Who begat Him, according to their own view, this they hunt with much zeal, and from all sides bring to it the drugs of their own stubbornness; whatever again are healthfully and rightly said and bring the Son up to the Glory of the Father, these things they bury most surely in deep silence, as having one sole aim, to in vain revile Him Who is glorified of all the creation. For when they hear that All things were made through Him, they hotly bring on Him the name of service, dreaming that the Son is bond instead of free, and worshipper rather than Lord. But when they learn that without Him was not anything made, they do not mount up to think ought great and marvellous of Him. For since it is not in God the Father to create otherwise than by His own Offspring, Which is His Wisdom |55 and Power, the Evangelist says that nought at all was made without Him. For therefore is the Only-Begotten the Glory of God the Father (for He is glorified as Creator through the Son); for He worketh all things and bringeth into being things that are not.

And well will one conceive of the words, without Him, was not anything made, if he consider with himself what was said at the creation of man. For Let us make man, says he, in Our image after Our likeness. For here specially one can behold in the Son of a truth nought that is lowly, as in a minister according to their phrase. For God the Father does not command the Word, Make man, but as Co-with Him by Nature and His inseparably so to say In-existing Co-worker, He made Him also Partaker of His Counsel respecting man, not anticipating the knowledge that is in the Son in regard to any conception, but as Mind inseparably and apart from time manifested in the in-imaged and in-existing Word.

Let God-befitting contemplations again be above the reach of the example. Yet we say that He co-works with the Son, not conceiving as of two severally, lest there be conceived to be two gods, nor yet as though both together were one, in order that neither the Son be compressed into Father, nor again the Father into Son, but rather in such sort as if one allowed to be co-existent in the brightness from light the light whence it flashed forth: for in such examples the generator seems to be separated in idea from the generated and that which springs forth from it indivisibly; yet are both one and the same by nature, and the one in no wise separate from the other. But above this too will God again be, inasmuch as He is both Super-substantial and has nothing wholly like Him in things originate, that it should be taken as a image of the Holy Trinity, without any difference, in exactness of doctrine. But if they deem that the word, through Whom, said of the Son, can bring down His Essence from Equality and Natural likeness to the Father, so as to be minister rather than Creator, let those insane consider and come forward and make answer, what we are to conceive of the Father Himself also, and Whom we are to suppose Him too to be, seeing that He clearly receives the words through Whom in the Divine Scripture: for God, says he, is faithful, through Whom ye were called unto the fellowship of His Son, and Paul an Apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of God: and again Paul writeth to some, Wherefore thou art no more a servant but a son; and if a son, then an heir through God . All these then have reference to the Person of God the Father, and no one I suppose will rush to that extreme of madness (except perchance he hold with the above mentioned), as to say that the name and fact of service, is reasonably predicated of the very glory of the Father, because the word through Whom is applied to Him too. For the Divine Scripture is sometimes indifferent in regard to its words, in no wise wronging the subject thereby, but applying to the things signified in a less proper sense both the words themselves and those whereby it deems that they are well explained. But it is well to say of those, that The glory of the Lord veileth speech. For little in truth is all might of words unto the exact exposition of the Ineffable and God-befitting glory. Wherefore one must not be offended at the meanness of the things uttered, but must rather yield supremacy, and might in tongue, and keenness of every mind, to the Divine and unutterable Nature, for thus shall we be and not in small degree pious.

[AD 804] Alcuin of York on John 1:3

After speaking of the nature of the Son, he proceeds to His operations, saying, All things were made by him, i. e. every thing whether substance, or property.

Source: Catena Aurea by Aquinas

[AD 1107] Theophylact of Ohrid on John 1:3

(in loc.) The Arians are wont to say, that all things are spoken of as made by the Son, in the sense in which we say a door is made by a saw, viz. as an instrument; not that He was Himself the Maker. And so they talk of the Son as a thing made, as if He were made for this purpose, that all things might be made by Him. Now we to the inventors of this lie reply simply: If, as ye say, the Father had created the Son, in order to make use of Him as an instrument, it would appear that the Son were less honourable than the things made, just as things made by a saw are more noble than the saw itself; the saw having been made for their sake. In like way do they speak of the Father creating the Son for the sake of the things made, as if, had He thought good to create the universe, neither would He have produced the Son. What can be more insane than such language? They argue, however, why was it not said that the Word made all things, instead of the preposition by1 being used? For this reason, that thou mightest not understand an Unbegotten and Unoriginate Son, a rival Godd.

Source: Catena Aurea by Aquinas

[AD 1107] Theophylact of Ohrid on John 1:3

Do not think, the Evangelist is saying, that the Word is like a spoken word which is uttered and then dies away in the air. The Word is the Maker of everything, both that which is perceived by the mind and that perceived by the senses. Again the Arians leap to the attack, saying, "We may also say that a door was made by a saw, that is, by a tool, yet the craftsman who moves the tool differs greatly from the tool itself. Therefore, where it is written that all things were made by the Son, it does not mean that the Son is the Maker, but that he is an instrument, just like the saw. God the Father is the Maker Who uses the Son as His tool. Therefore the Son is something which was created for the very purpose of making all other things, just as a saw is made as the tool by which crafted items are produced." This is how the wicked band of Arians speaks. How do we answer? Simply and directly, that if, as they claim, the Father created the Son to be the instrument whereby He fashioned the world, then the Son would be held in less honor than the created world. The things made by a saw are more precious than the saw itself, which is only a tool. The saw was made for the sake of the things which it will produce; the crafted objects were not made for the sake of the saw. In the same vein, creation would be honored more highly than the Only-begotten Son, since the Father made the Son, they say, for the sake of creation, and if He had not intended to make the universe, neither would He have formed the Only-begotten Son. What could be more foolish than these words? "But," protests the Arian, "why did the Evangelist not say directly, â€™The Word Himself made all things,â€™ but instead that the Father made all things by [dia] the Son?" Why? So that you would not think that the Word, because He was uncreated and without beginning, was also an enemy and rival of God. Imagine a king intending to build a new city, who entrusts the work to his son. If one said, The city was founded by the son of the king, this would not mean that the son of the king is a servant. It would show, instead, that the son has a father and that he is not acting alone. So it is here, that when the Evangelist says that all things were made by the Son, he shows that the Father used Him, as it were, as an intermediary in the creating, not as someone inferior to Himself, but, on the contrary, as One of equal power, able to carry out such a great command. I will add this: if you are still troubled by the preposition by, and want to find in Scripture some expression that says that the Word Himself made all things, listen to the words of David. In the beginning, O Lord, Thou didst lay the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the works of Thy hands. [Ps. 101:25] You see that he did not say, "By Thee were the heavens made and the foundation of the earth was laid," but, Thou didst lay the foundation, and "these things are the work of Thy hands." That David said this concerning the Only-begotten Son and not the Father, you may learn from the Apostle Paul himself, who used these lines in his Letter to the Hebrews. [Heb. 1:8-10] It is also clear in the very same Psalm. For when it says that the Lord hath looked upon the earth, to hear the groaning of them that be in fetters, to loose the sons of the slain, to declare in Sion the name of the Lord [Ps. 101:20-21], to whom else can it refer except the Son of God? For it is He who looked upon the earth, meaning either this earth on which we move, or our nature which became earthly, or our flesh of which it was said, Earth thou art. [Gen. 3:20] This earthly flesh He took upon Himself and loosed us who were bound by the bonds of our own sins, and freed us, the sons of the slain, Adam and Eve, and declared in Sion the name of the Lord. For He stood in the temple and taught concerning His Father, as He Himself says, I have manifested Thy name unto the men which Thou gavest Me. [Jn. 17:6] To Whom do these things apply, to the Father or to the Son? Certainly, they apply to the Son. For the Son declared the name of the Father as He taught. After saying these things, the blessed David then adds the words, In the beginning, O Lord, Thou didst lay the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the works of Thy hands. Does not David clearly present the Son as the Maker, and not as an instrument? But if the preposition dia still seems to you to indicate something lesser and inferior, what will you say when Paul uses this same preposition to refer to the Father? For he writes, God is faithful, by [dia] Whom ye were called into the communion of His Son. [I Cor. 1:9] Surely Paul here does not suggest that the Father is an instrument. And again, Paul, â€¦an apostle â€¦by [dia] the will of God. [I Cor. 1:1] But enough said: let us return to where we began. All things were made by Him. Moses described the visible creation and revealed nothing to us concerning the creation of the noetic world. But the Evangelist with one word includes all. All things were made by Him, both the visible and the noetic. And without Him was not any thing made that was made. The Evangelist first says that all things were made by the Son. Then, to dispel any idea that the Son also created the Holy Spirit, he carefully defines the words, all things. Every thing which is by its nature created was made by the Word. But the Spirit is not part of created nature, and therefore It was not made by the Son. Without the power of the Word was not any thing made that was of a created nature.

[AD 215] Clement of Alexandria on John 1:4

We then alone, who first have touched the confines of life, are already perfect; and we already live who are separated from death. Salvation, accordingly, is the following of Christ: "For that which is in Him is life.
And what? Does not he, who denies the Lord, deny himself? For does he not rob his Master of His authority, who deprives himself of his relation to Him? He, then, who denies the Saviour, denies life; for "the light was life."

Source: Clement of Alexandria The Instructor Book I

[AD 220] Tertullian on John 1:4

Now the mystery of this "sign" was in various ways predicted; (a "sign") in which the foundation of life was forelaid for mankind; (a "sign") in which the Jews were not to believe: just as Moses beforetime kept on announcing in Exodus, saying, "Ye shall be ejected from the land into which ye shall enter; and in those nations ye shall not be able to rest: and there shall be instabilityof the print of thy foot: and God shall give thee a wearying heart, and a pining soul, and failing eyes, that they see not: and thy life shall hang on the tree before thine eyes; and thou shalt not trust thy life.

Source: An Answer to the Jews

[AD 253] Origen of Alexandria on John 1:4

(tom. ii. c. 9) If 'the word' be taken for that which is in each man, inasmuch as it was implanted in each by the Word, which was in the beginning, then also, we commit nothing without this 'word' [reason] taking this word 'nothing' in a popular sense. For the Apostle says that sin was dead without the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived; for sin is not imputed when there is no law. But neither was there sin, when there was no Word, for our Lord says, If I had not come and spoken to them, they had not had sin. (John 15:22) For every excuse is withdrawn from the sinner, if, with the Word present, and enjoining what is to be done, he refuses to obey Him. Nor is the Word to be blamed on this account; any more than a master, whose discipline leaves no excuse open to a delinquent pupil on the ground of ignorance. All things then were made by the Word, not only the natural world, but also whatever is done by those acting without reason.

(Hom. ii. in div. loc. ante med.) It may also be divided thus: That which was made in him; and then, was life; the sense being, that all things that were made by Him and in Him, are life in Him, and are one in Him. They were, that is, in Him; they exist as the cause, before they exist in themselves as effects. If thou ask how and in what manner all things which were made by the Word subsist in Him vitally, immutably, causally, take some examples from the created world. See how that all things within the arch of the world of sense have their causes simultaneously and harmoniously subsisting in that sun which is the greatest luminary of the world: how multitudinous crops of herbs and fruits are contained in single seeds: how the most complex variety of rules, in the art of the artificer, and the mind of the director, are a living unit, how an infinite number of lines coexist in one point. Contemplate these several instances, and thou wilt be able as it were on the wings of physical science, to penetrate with thy intellectual eye the secrets of the Word, and as far as is allowed to a human understanding, to see how all things which were made by the Word, live in Him, and were made in Him.

(t. ii. c. 12, 13.) Or thus: Our Saviour is said to be some things not for Himself, but for others; others again, both for Himself and others. When it is said then, That which was made in Him was life; we must enquire whether the life is for Himself and others, or for others only; and if for others, for whom? Now the Life and the Light are both the same Person: He is the light of men: He is therefore their life. The Saviour is called Life here, not to Himself, but to others; whose Light He also is. This life is inseparable from the Word, from the time it is added on to it. For Reason or the Word must exist before in the soul, cleansing it from sin, till it is pure enough to receive the life, which is thus ingrafted or inborn in every one who renders himself fit to receive the Word of God. Hence observe, that though the Word itself in the beginning was not made, the Beginning never having been without the Word; yet the life of men was not always in the Word. This life of men was made, in that It was the light of men; and this light of men could not be before man was; the light of men being understood relatively to menk. And therefore he says, That which was made in the Word was life; not That which was in the Word was life. Some copies read, not amiss, "That which was made, in Him is life." If we understand the life in the Word, to be He who says below, 'I am the life,' we shall confess that none who believe not in Christ live, and that all who live not in God, are dead. (John 11:25; 14:6)
And the life was the light of men.

(non occ.) We must not omit to notice, that he puts the life before the light of men. For it would be a contradiction to suppose a being without life to be illuminated; as if life were an addition to illumination. (tom. ii. c. 16). But to proceed: if the life was the light of men, meaning men only, Christ is the light and the life of men only; an heretical supposition. It does not follow then, when a thing is predicated of any, that it is predicated of those only; for of God it is written, that He is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; and yet He is not the God of those fathers only. In the same way, the light of men is not excluded from being the light of others as well. (c. 17). Some moreover contend from Genesis, (Gen. 1:26) Let us make man after our image, that man means whatever is made after the image and similitude of God. If so, the light of men is the light of any rational creature what ever.

Source: Catena Aurea by Aquinas

[AD 253] Origen of Alexandria on John 1:4

Our Savior is said to be some things not for himself but for others; others again, both for himself and others.… When it is said then, “That which was made in him was life” … we must inquire whether the life is for himself and others or for others only; and if for others, for whom? Now the Life and the Light are both the same person: he is “the light of men [humanity]”; he is therefore their life. The Savior is called Life here, not to himself but to others whose Light he also is.…This life is inseparable from the Word, from the time it is added on to it. For Reason or the Word must exist before in the soul, cleansing it from sin, till it is pure enough to receive the life, which is thus engrafted or inborn in everyone who renders himself fit to receive the Word of God. And so, observe … that though the Word itself in the beginning was not made—the beginning never having been without the Word—yet the life of people was not always in the Word. This life of people was made in the sense that it was the light of people. And this light of people could not be before humankind was; the light of people being understood relatively to people.…
And therefore he says, “that which was made in the Word was life,” and not “that which was in the Word was life.” Some copies read, and perhaps not without credibility, “that which was made, in him is life.” If we understand the life in the Word, to be he who says below, “I am the life,” we shall confess that none who believe not in Christ live, and that all who live not in God, are dead.

Source: COMMENTARY ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 2.128-32

[AD 253] Origen of Alexandria on John 1:4

Let us not fail to notice that while it could have been written, “What was made in him was the light of men, and the light of men was life,” John has done the reverse. For he places “the life” before the “light of men,” although “life” and “light of men” are the same.…Why isn’t the “Word” said to be the “light of men,” instead of the “life” that was made in the Word?… The “life” mentioned there is not that life that makes both rational and irrational beings [alive]. It is instead the life that is added to the Word, which is completed in us when a share from the first Word is received. And so, when we turn away from what seems to be life but really is not and we yearn to truly possess life—that is when we first share in it. Once this [kind of] life exists in us, it also becomes the foundation of the light of knowledge.
And perhaps this life is light potentially (and not actually) for those who really do not want to learn, but with others it becomes light also in actuality.

Source: COMMENTARY ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 2.153, 156-57

[AD 367] Hilary of Poitiers on John 1:4

Or it can be understood thus. In that he had said, without Him was not any thing made, one might have been perplexed, and have asked, Was then any thing made by another, which yet was not made without Him? if so, then though nothing is made without, all things are not made by Him: it being one thing to make, another to be with the maker. On this account the Evangelist declares what it was which was not made without Him, viz. what was made in Him. This then it was which was not made without Him, viz. what was made in Him. And that which was made in Him, was also made by Him. For all things were created in Him and by Him. Now things were made in Him, because He was born God the Creator. And for this reason also things that were made in Him, were not made without Him, viz. that God, in that He was born, was life, and He who was life, was not made life after being born. Nothing then which was made in Him, was made without Him, because He was life, in Whom they were made; because God Who was born of God was God, not after, but in that He was bornh.

Source: Catena Aurea by Aquinas

[AD 367] Hilary of Poitiers on John 1:4

Or it can be understood thus. In that he had said, without Him was not anything thing made, one might have been perplexed, and have asked, Was then any thing made by another, which yet was not made without Him? if so, then though nothing is made without, all things are not made by Him: it being one thing to make, another to be with the maker. On this account the Evangelist declares what it was which was not made without Him, viz. what was made in Him. This then it was which was not made without Him, viz. what was made in Him. And that which was made in Him, was also made by Him. For all things were created in Him and by Him. Now things were made in Him, because He was born God the Creator. And for this reason also things that were made in Him, were not made without Him, viz. that God, in that He was born, was life, and He who was life, was not made life after being born. Nothing then which was made in Him, was made without Him, because He was life, in Whom they were made; because God Who was born of God was God, not after, but in that He was born.

[AD 367] Hilary of Poitiers on John 1:4

Since then, all things were made through him, come to our help and tell us what it was that was made not without him. “That which was made in him is life.” That which was in him was certainly not made without him, for that which was made in him was also made through him. All things were created in him and through him. They were created in him, for he was born as God the Creator. Again, nothing that was made in him was made without him, for the reason that God the begotten was life and was born as life, not made life after his birth; for there are not two elements in him, one inborn and one afterwards conferred. There is no interval in his case between birth and maturity. None of the things that were created in him was made without him, for he is the life that made their creation possible. Moreover God, the Son of God, became God by virtue of his birth, not after he was born. Being born the Living from the Living, the True from the True, the Perfect from the Perfect, he was born in full possession of his powers. He did not need to learn in the time that followed what his birth was, but was conscious of his Godhead by the very fact that he was born as God of God.

Source: ON THE TRINITY 2.20

[AD 407] John Chrysostom on John 1:4

(Hom. v. [iv.] in Joan. c. 1, 2) Or to give an other explanation. We will not put the stop at without Him was not any thing made, as the heretics do. For they wishing to prove the Holy Ghost a creature, read, That which was made in Him, was life. But this cannot be so understood. For first, this was not the place for making mention of the Holy Ghost. But let us suppose it was; let us take the passage for the present according to their reading, we shall see that it leads to a difficulty. For when it is said, That, which was made in Him, was life; they say the life spoken of is the Holy Ghost. But this life is also light; for the Evangelist proceeds, The life was the light of men. Where fore according to them, he calls the Holy Ghost the light of all men. But the Word mentioned above, is what he here calls consecutively, God, and Life, and Light. Now the Word was made flesh. It follows that the Holy Ghost is incarnate, not the Son. Dismissing then this reading, we adopt a more suitable one, with the following meaning: All things were made by Him, and without Him was not any thing made which was made: there we make a stop, and begin a fresh sentence: In Him was life. Without Him was not any thing made which wan made; (γενητὸν) i. e. which could be made. You see how by this short addition, he removes any difficulty which might follow. For by introducing without Him was not any thing made, and adding, which was made, be includes all things invisible, and excepts the Holy Spirit: for the Spirit cannot be made. (δημιουργίας) To the mention of creation, succeeds that of providence. In Him was life1. As a fountain which produces vast depths of water, and yet is nothing diminished at the fountain head; so worketh the Only-Begotten. How great soever His creations be, He Himself is none the less for them. By the word life here is meant not only creation, but that providence by which the things created are preserved. But when you are told that in Him was life, do not suppose Him compounded; for, as the Father hath life in Himself, so hath He given to the Son to have life in Himself. (John 5:26) As then you would not call the Father compounded, so neither should you the Son.

Source: Catena Aurea by Aquinas

[AD 407] John Chrysostom on John 1:4

We will not put the break at “without him was not any thing made,” as the heretics do. For they are trying to prove the Holy Spirit is a creature and so read, “That which was made in him was life.” But this cannot be so understood. For first of all, this was not the place for mentioning the Holy Spirit.… But let us suppose it was; let us take the passage for the present according to their reading, and we shall see that it leads to a difficulty. For when it is said, “That which was made in him was life,” they say the life spoken of is the Spirit. But this life is also light, for the Evangelist proceeds, “The life was the light of men [humankind].” And so, according to them, “light of men” here means the Spirit.… But the Word mentioned above is what he here calls consecutively God and life and light. If now this Word was life and if this Word and the life became flesh … it follows that the Spirit is incarnate, not the Son.…Dismissing then this reading, we adopt a more suitable one, with the following meaning: “All things were made by him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.” There we make a break and begin a fresh sentence: “In him was life. Without him was not any thing made which was as made,” that is, that could be made. You see how by this short addition he removes any difficulty that might follow. For by introducing “without him was not any thing made” and adding “which was made,” he includes all things invisible but excludes the Spirit.… For the Spirit is uncreated. Do you see the precision of his teaching?

Source: HOMILIES ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 5.1-2

[AD 407] John Chrysostom on John 1:4

John spoke of the work of creation, that “all things were made by him, and without him was not anything made that was made.” And so now he goes on to speak concerning his providence, where he says, “In him was life.” That no one may doubt how so many and so great things were “made by him,” he adds, “In him was life.” For as [it is] with the fountain, which is the mother of the great deeps—however much you take away, you do not lessen the fountain—so [it is] with the energy of the Only Begotten. However much you believe has been produced and made by it, it has not diminished. Or, to use a more familiar example, I will use the instance of light, which the apostle himself added immediately, saying, “And the life was the light.” Light, however many millions of times it may enlighten, suffers no diminution of its own brightness. In the same way also God, before commencing his work and after completing it, remains alike indefectible, undiminished, unwearied by the greatness of the creation. No, if it were necessary that ten thousand or even an infinite number of such worlds were created, he still remains the same, sufficient for them all not merely to produce but also to control them after their creation. For the word life here refers not merely to the act of creation but also to the providence engaged in maintaining the things created.

Source: HOMILIES ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 5.3

[AD 407] John Chrysostom on John 1:4

It also lays down beforehand the doctrine of the resurrection and is the beginning of these marvelous good tidings, since when “life” has come to be with us, the power of death is dissolved; and when “light” has shone upon us, there is no longer darkness, but life always remains within us, and death cannot overcome it. So that what is asserted of the Father might be asserted absolutely of [Christ] also, that “in him we live and move and have our being.” As Paul has shown when he says, “By him were all things created” and “by him all things consist.” Thus, [Christ] has been called also “root” and “foundation.”

Source: HOMILIES ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 5.3

[AD 420] Jerome on John 1:4

Many read this inaccurately because they add without any punctuation, “that which has been made in him was life.” The correct statement is “All things were made through him, and without him was made nothing that has been made,” meaning that that which has been made without him has not been made. … Now, if all things were made through him, is the Father, on that account, excluded from creation, or Holy Spirit, and has the Son alone worked? Because the Evangelist had said, “All things were made through him,” lest he take away creation from the Holy Spirit and the Father, he added, “And without him was made nothing that has been made.” When he says, “without him was made nothing,” he reveals that another has made but has made nothing without him.

Source: HOMILY 87, ON JOHN 1.1-14

[AD 430] Augustine of Hippo on John 1:4

(in Joh. tr. i. c. 16, 17) The passage can be read thus: What was made in Him was life1. Therefore the whole universe is life: for what was there not made in Him? He is the Wisdom of God, as is said, In Wisdom hast Thou made them all. (Ps. 104) All things therefore are made in Him, even as they are by Him. But, if whatever was made in Him is life, the earth is life, a stone is life. We must not interpret it so unsoundly, lest the sect of the Manicheans creep in upon us, and say, that a stone has life, and that a wall has life; for they do insanely assert so, and when reprehended or refuted, appeal as though to Scripture, and ask, why was it said, That which was made in Him was life? Read the passage then thus: make the stop after What was made, and then proceed, In Him was life. The earth was made; but, the earth itself which was made is not life. In the Wisdom of God however there is spiritually a certain Reason after which the earth is made. This is Lifef. A chest in workmanship is not life, a chest in art is, inasmuch as the mind of the workman lives wherein that original pattern exists. And in this sense the Wisdom of God, by Which all things are made, containeth in art 'all things which are made, according to that art.' And therefore whatever is made, is not in itself life, but is life in Him.

(in Joh. tr. 1. c. 18) Life of itself gives illumination to men, but to cattle not: for they have not rational souls, by which to discern wisdom: whereas man, being made in the image of God, has a rational soul, by which he can discern wisdom. Hence that life, by which all things are made, is light, not however of all animals whatsoever, but of men.

Source: Catena Aurea by Aquinas

[AD 430] Augustine of Hippo on John 1:4

But how were all things made by him? “That, which was made, in him is life.” It can also be read, “That, which was made in him, is life,” and if we read it this way, everything is life. For what is there that was not made in him? For he is the wisdom of God, and it is said in the psalm, “In Wisdom you have made all things.” If then Christ is the wisdom of God, and the psalm says, “In wisdom you have made all things,” since all things were made by him all things were also made in him. If, then, all things were made in him, dearly beloved brothers, and that, which was made in him, is life, both the earth is life and wood is life. We do indeed say wood is life, but in the sense of the wood of the cross from which we have received life. A stone, then, is life. But this is an unseemly way to read this passage.… Rather, read it this way: “That which was made;” here make a short pause and then go on, “in him is life.” What is the meaning of this? The earth was made, but the very earth that was made is not life; but there exists spiritually in the wisdom itself a certain reason by which the earth was made: this [reason] is life.As far as I can, I shall explain my meaning to you, beloved. A carpenter makes a box. First he has the box in design; for if he had it not in design, how could he produce it by workmanship? But the box in theory is not the very box as it appears to the eyes. It exists invisibly in design; it will be visible in the work. Behold, it is made in the work; has it ceased to exist in design? The one is made in the work, and the other remains that exists in design; for that box may rot and another be fashioned according to that which exists in design. Listen, then, to the box as it is in design and the box as it is in fact; the actual box is not life, the box in design is life; because the soul of the artificer, where all these things are before they are brought forth, is living. So, dearly beloved brothers, because the wisdom of God, by which all things have been made, contains everything according to design before it is made, therefore those things that are made through this design itself are not immediately life, but whatever has been made is life in him.

Source: TRACTATES ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 1.16-17

[AD 430] Augustine of Hippo on John 1:4

From where do we get life, from where does he get death? Just look at him: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” Look for death there. Where? Where from? What sort of Word? The Word with God, the Word that was God. If you can find flesh and blood there, you can find death. So where did death come from for that Word? On the other hand, where did life come from for us human beings, stuck on the earth, mortal, perishable, sinners? He had nothing where he could get death from; we had nothing where we could get life from. He accepted death from what was ours, in order to give us life from what was his. How did he get death from what was ours? “The Word became flesh and dwelt among us.” He accepted from us here what he would offer for us. And where did life come from for us? “And the life was the light of men.” He was life for us; we were death for him.

Source: SERMON 232.5

[AD 444] Cyril of Alexandria on John 1:4

CHAPTER VII. That the Son is by Nature Light and therefore not originate, but of the Essence of God the Father, as Very Light from Very Light.

And the Life was the light of men.

In these words too does the blessed Evangelist show us that the Son is by Nature God and Essentially Heir of the good things of Him Who begat Him. For having taught before that being by Nature Life, He was in all things that were made by Him, holding them together and quickening them and granting them of His unutterable Power to pass from not being into being, and preserving them when made, he advances to another train of ideas, from all sides minded to lead us by the hand unto the apprehension of the truth, as was right. Therefore in things made was the Word, as Life. But since the rational living creature among them on earth recipient both of mind and knowledge and participant of the wisdom that is from God, is man, needs does the Spirit-bearer show us clearly the Word as Bestower of the wisdom that is in man, that God the Father may be conceived of being all things in all through the Son;----life in them that lack life, light again and life in them that lack life and light. And therefore he says, And the Life was the light of men, that is, God the Word Who quickeneth all things, the Life in all that are, both enlighteneth the rational creature, and lavisheth understanding upon those who are recipient of understanding: that so that may be kept and have full force that is said to the creature, for what hast thou that thou didst not receive? For nought of wealth from itself hath the originate and created nature, but whatever it is seen to possess, this is surely of God, Who bestoweth both being, and |63 how one ought to be. And well was the was put of the life, that it might signify in every way the eternal Being of the Word, and might cut off the triflings of those void of understanding, who introduce to us the Son, of the things that are not, which manifestly warreth against the whole of Divine Scripture.

In regard then of the Eternity of the Word with the Father;----having already sufficiently gone through it both in the present Book, and in that called the Thesaurus, we deem that we may be silent. But what the mind of the words before us introduces, this with all readiness examining to the extent of our power, we will be diligent to profit both ourselves and those who shall hereafter read it, God again opening to us both doors and a mouth to our words.

What then will the fighter against Christ say to us, when he learns that the Life, that is, the ever-living God the Word, is the Light of men? What arguments will he sling at us, when we come forward and say, If the Son be not by Nature God, and Fruit of the Essence That begat Him, if He have not beamed forth to us Very Light from Very Light, but Himself too being from without is subordinated according to your unlearning: He is connatural with things made, and will in no wise escape being originate. How then, O ye filled full of all folly, doth He illuminate, they receive illumination from Him? For is not that which illuminates one thing, that which is illuminated another? but this is plain and clear to every one. For if we grant that they are the same, as regards kind of essence and the mode of existence, what is there more in that which has power of illumining, what again less in that which lacketh light? For whatsoever cometh, will come to both of them, and apart to each, and that which is in need of light will be light, and the light will not differ from the illumined. But great is the confusion of ideas manifest herein, and necessity of reason severs each of the things named and puts in its own proper nature the supplier herein apart from the supplied. Not therefore connatural with things made is the Son, but He will abide in the Essence of the Father, being Very Light of Very Light.

And it were nothing hard, by transferring the method of reasoning in the foregoing, which we made concerning the Son being by Nature Life, and demonstrated that He is Other than the things wherein He is, to give clear proof in this chapter too.----But in order not to leave the labour of this to others, nor to appear overmastered by sloth, I myself will endeavour, so far as I can, to transfer the form of argument used in the foregoing reasonings. For as in those, He being Life by Nature, is shown to be Other than those wherein He is, so here too, said to be and in verity being the Light of men, He will be found to be Other than things that lack light and partake thereof; as we shall see more clearly in the following.

Proofs by demonstrations, that the Son who illumineth is Other than the creation that is illumined.

If the Word was in the things spoken of, as Light by Nature, immingling Himself by means of participation in things that are, He is then Other than the things wherein He is believed to be. But He That is by Nature Other than what the creation participant of Him and by Him illumined is, how will He not needs be the God Who is over all?

Another. If the fighter against God says that the Son being by Nature Light is in things originate as originate, illumining things that lack light:----first of all He will be conceived of as being in Himself, then besides, He will Himself be partaker of Himself and Light, if being in things originate, He one and the same be conceived to be of them. But he that has applied his heart unto wisdom, as it is written, sees surely how great the absurdity of thinking thus. Therefore if the Word Who illuminateth them is by participation in things originate, He will not Himself be among the participants and illumined, but Other therefore than they. And if so, He is then not originate, but as Light by Nature and God in things that lack Light.

Another. If the Son be not of the Essence of God the Father, but being from without He have subordinated Him according to them, He is then originate and created: how then is He in things made, enlightening them? or what special shall we find any longer in the Divine Essence? or how does the most wise Psalmist say as something marvellous of Him Who is by Nature God, In Thy Light shall we see light? For if the Son being originate illumines all things, the creation will illumine itself, having no wise need thereto of God its Maker. There is then nothing more in God than in the creature, and it inworks no less than God could do. But this is absurd. The Son then is not originate, but God rather, and therefore Light by Nature, as is the Father.

Another of the same. If the Son being the Light of God the Father (as is said, In Thy Light shall we see Light and, O send out Thy Light and Thy Truth), is originate and brought into being, there is no longer ought to hinder, by equal analogy, all things originate from being called the Light of God the Father. For if the nature of things created at all admits this, it will be in potential common to them all, and not the own property of the One Son. But this is absurd: for to the Son Alone will it pertain to be called and to be the Light of God the Father. Not therefore originate is He, but Light, as God from God Who illumineth through Him things lacking light.

Another. If the Son being by Nature Light is not of the Essence of the Father, but being from without is subordinated, according to the uninstructed speech of the fighters against God, it follows that He is connatural and kin to things created, as having forsooth fallen away from the Divine Essence. How then is He called and is Light, but of the holy Baptist it is said, He was not the Light, albeit the blessed Baptist is light in potential, and not he alone, if it be once granted that the Son being originate, can be by Nature Light? For that which has once had place in the nature, is I suppose common to each that partakes of such nature, according to the law of consequence. But John was not Light, the Son Light. Other therefore by Nature is He and not connatural with things made.

Another of the same. If the Son being by Nature Light is originate and created, as not possessing forsooth the being of the Essence of God the Father, as some surmise, the nature of things originate will admit of being and being called light; it will be altogether light according to the law of potential. For that which has in its nature to be anything, will I suppose surely be so, even if it have not yet been. Since then the being light is common to the nature of things originate, and the property in aloneness of none, why in vain does the Son vaunt of Himself, saying, I am the Light? for He ought I suppose to say, I am with you the Light. But since He puts it about Himself Alone as His own proper good, joining to Himself no one else, He clearly classes Himself, not with things originate, but with the Divine Essence of God the Father, whereto belongs the being by Nature Light..

Another. That which is participate of light is not in its own right the Light; for it is clearly one thing in another. If then the Son be by participation in things originate, as Light; He will be other than those that partake of Him and lack Light. Therefore not originate is He, nor seeking, as things originate, to be illumined by another: it remains therefore that He is God and able to illuminate. If so, He will be conceived of also as sprung of the Essence of the Father, if we worship One God, and serve none other than the True God.

Another. Accurately testing the nature of things that are, we behold God and the creature, and nought else besides. For whatever faileth of being by Nature God, is wholly originate, and whatever escapeth the category of being made, is wholly and entirely within the limits of Divinity. Since then we have established this, let them tell us who thrust forth the Son from being of the Essence of God the Father, how He can illumine as Light, seeing the Divine Nature retaineth this as Its own, and yields it to none else. But if the Son being originate, can be also Light, the grace of this excellence will surely overtake all things originate, and all will be by nature light. What further need then have they of participation with the Son, or what more will they gain hence, having themselves too the being by |67 nature light, even as the Son hath it in them? But the creature does need the Illuminator, not having this of its own. God then by Nature is the Son, and therefore Light, as able to illumine things that lack Light.

Another. The Son being by Nature Light, is either Other than the creature, in regard that is of the mode of being, or connatural with it. If then He be cognate and consubstantial, vainly, as it seems, did He come to us saying, I am come a Light into the world; for the creation has of its own itself also the being light: but light is impartici-pate of light, that it may be understood to be light. But if He be not connatural, but the creature lack light to whom belongs, What hast thou that thou didst not receive? needs will the Son escape being originate, withdrawing from the creation together with Himself His own proper good. For the creature will not be by nature light, but rather lacking and participate of light.

Another. If nought be participate of itself and the creature partake of the Son as Light: He is not a creature, nor yet the creature Light, which the Son is.

Another. If to illumine be one thing, to be illumined another, as action and passion, and the Son illumines, the creature is illumined; therefore not the same is Son and creature, since neither is the inworker with the inwrought.

[AD 444] Cyril of Alexandria on John 1:4

CHAPTER VI. That the Son is by Nature Life and therefore not originate, but of the Essence of God the Father.

That which was made, in it was Life.

Yet doth the Blessed Evangelist make to us his discourse concerning God the Word, and he seemeth to me profitably to go through all that pertains to Him by Nature, that he may both put to shame the outrages of the heretics, and may fortify those who would fain excel in right faith, with reasonings thereunto tending, not providing from words of worldly wisdom unpersuasion, but in demonstration of the Spirit marvelling at the beauty of the truth.

What he would then teach through the words before us, is this. He showed us just now that the Son is by Nature Maker and Creator, saying that all things were made by Him and that without Him not so much as one thing was called into being. But since on the creation He bestows not only to be called into being, but also holds it together when made through Himself, immingling in some way Himself with those who have not by their own nature eternity of being, and becoming life to those that are, that having become they may abide, and that each may be preserved according to its own limit of nature;----needs does he say, That which was made, in it was life. Not only, says he, were all things made by Him, but also whatever was made, in it was the Life, that is, the Only-Begotten Word of God, the Beginning and Subsistence of all things both visible and invisible, heavenly and earthly and infernal. For Himself being the by-Nature Life, bestows manifoldly on things that are, being and life and motion, not in any way of partition and change passing into each one of things that are by nature distinct: but their |58 nature, viewed by itself, is variously fashioned by the ineffable Power and Wisdom of the Creator, while One is the Life of all passing into each, in such sort as befits it, and it is able to partake thereof. But since that which is brought from not being into being must needs also decay, and that which has beginning surely hasteth unto its end (for to the Divine and All-superior Nature Alone beseemeth the being preceded by no beginning and being free from ending): the Creator wisely deviseth for the weakness that is in things made, and contriveth for them by His skill an eternity. For the perpetual succession unto each of its like, and the natural progression of things connatural or kin unto one another looking ever towards onward course, make the creation ever-visible and ever-co-enduring with God its Maker. And this (contrivance) is that every one of things that are, soweth seed in itself after its kind and after its likeness, according to the unspeakable sentence of its Creator. In all then was the Life; for this is our subject. But, excellent sir, may one with reason say to the heretic warring against the truth, what will you say to this too, when you hear him who bears within him the Spirit say, that in all things that were made was the Life, that is, the Word That is in the beginning? Will you dare to say now too, that the Son is not of the Essence of God the Father, that He may be deemed of as originate and created? How then will one not cry out against thine unlearning, O thou, and that with justice? For if in things that were made was the Word, as Life by Nature, immingling Himself by participation with things that are, He is then Other than those wherein He is believed to be. But He being by Nature Other than what the creation is, how will He not be the God over all? But if you remain shameless, and cease not to imagine that originate is the Son Who is in things made, as Life:----first of all He will be conceived of as being somewhat in Himself, then besides. He will Himself be partaker of Himself 5, and |59 Life, if being in things made, He be conceived to be Himself too one of them. But the fighter against God sees surely himself too, how great the absurdity of thinking thus. Therefore if the Word Who quickens them is by participation in things originate, He will not be Himself too among the participators, but other than they. And if so, not originate, but in them as by Nature Life.

This again we shall see by the subjoined considerations.

Thoughts or arguments.

If the Son be not of the Essence of God the Father, but from without He have subordinated Him according to them, He is originate and made. How then does He quicken all things, Who is among things made? Or what distinction shall we find any longer in the Divine Nature? or how does the most wise Paul say, as something admirable of Him That is by Nature God, Who quickeneth all things? For if the Son being originate, quickeneth all things, the creation quickeneth itself, in no wise needing thereto God its Maker. There is then nothing in God more than in the creation; For it inworketh not less than God can do. But this is absurd. Not originate then is the Son, but God and therefore by Nature Life also.

Another. The Psalmist marvelleth exceedingly and that with reason at the Divine Nature, and in particular attributeth to It a most fair dignity saying, For with Thee is the Fountain of life. But if the Father have set the Son below Him, and have Him not of His own Nature, and He even being so, quickens things originate and is by Nature Life as quickening, why vainly strives the Psalmist saying that the fountain of life is with God Alone? For the nature of things originate also is recipient of this, if the Son, albeit not of the Divine Essence according to the uncounsel of some, quickens. But this is absurd. Therefore Life by Nature is the Son, as God of God, and Life of Life.

Another. If the Son being by Nature Life be originate and created, as not having His Being of the Essence of God the Father, according to their fantasy, the nature of things originate will be recipient of being and being called life, and |60 all things will be life in potential, even if they have not yet the exercise of the thing itself. For that which has the natural power of being ought, will surely be so I ween, even if it be not so as yet; for it has the power inherent in its nature. When then the being life is common to the creature, the special and alone prerogative of none, why vainly does the Son vaunt of Himself, I am the Life? for He should, I suppose, have rather said, I am along with you the life. This would I suppose have been truer, if being indeed originate He is Life too. But since He puts about Himself Alone as His special good the being Life, it is at length clear that He classes Himself, not with things originate, but with the Divine Essence of the Father, whereto the being Life also pertains.

Another. That which is participate of life is not in its own right life, for it is clearly in it as other than itself. If then the Son is by participation in things originate as Life, He will be other than the things that are participate of Him and lack life. Therefore not originate is He, nor seeking to be quickened by another. He is therefore God as quickening; but if so, He will be confessedly of the Essence of the Father, if we worship One God, and serve none other than Him Who is.

Another. Accurately testing the nature of things that are, we see God and the creation and nought else besides. For whatever falleth short of being God by Nature, that is surely originate; and whatever escapeth the catalogue of creation, will surely be within the limits of Deity. Since then we have well established this, let them tell us who thrust forth the Son from the Essence of God the Father, how He can quicken as Life, seeing that the Divine Nature has this as its own property, and yields it to none else. But if being originate He can be Life also, the grace of the excellence will surely overtake all things that are originate, and all will be by nature life. What need will they have therefore of participation of the Son, or what more will they gain hence? for they too possess the being by nature life. But this is not true, but they partake of necessity as needing life, of the Son. Alone then is the Only-Begotten by Nature Life, and therefore will He not be reckoned among things originate, but will mount up unto the Nature of Him Who begat Him: for Life by Nature is the Father too.

Another. The Son being by Nature Life, is either Other than the creation, I mean by nature, or con-natural with it. If then He be connatural and consubstantial, how will He not lie in saying, I am the Bread of Life Which cometh down from Heaven and giveth life unto the world? for the creation hath from its own the being life, but life is imparticipate of life, that it may show itself life. But if He is not connatural, He will also escape being originate, withdrawing from the creation together with Himself His own proper good also. For the creation will not be by nature Life, but rather lacking and participate of life.

Another. If the Son being by Nature Life is connatural with things made, by reason of not being of the Essence of God the Father, according to their speech, wherefore does the blessed Psalmist say that the heavens shall perish, and shall wax old like a garment: but to Him did he attribute His own proper prerogative, crying aloud, But Thou art the Same and Thy years shall have no end? For either He will perish and fail along with us, as connatural, and will no longer be conceived of as Life, or our natural connection with Him will draw up us too to be ever the same and to unfailing number of years. But verily He shall be ever the same, and we shall fail: He is therefore not originate as we; but since He is of the Life by Nature He will also quicken as Life the things that lack life.

Another. If nought is participate of itself, but the creation partakes of the Son as Life; He is not the creation, nor yet is the creation Life, which the Son is.

Another. If to quicken is one thing, to be quickened another, as action and passion, and the Son quickens, the creation is quickened: therefore not the same is Son and creation, since neither is the inworker with the inwrought.

[AD 735] Bede on John 1:4

(in 1 Joh.) The Evangelist having said that every creature was made by the Word, lest perchance any one might think that His will was changeable, as though He willed on a sudden to make a creature, which from eternity he had not made; he took care to show that, though a creature was made in time, in the Wisdom of the Creator it had been from eternity arranged what and when He should create.

Source: Catena Aurea by Aquinas

[AD 1107] Theophylact of Ohrid on John 1:4

(in loc.) He had said, In him was life, that you might not suppose that the Word was without life. Now he shows that life is spiritual, and the light of all reasonable creatures. And the life was the light of men: i. e. not sensible, but intellectual light, illuminating the very soul.

He saith not, the Light of the Jews only, but of all men: for all of us, in so far as we have received intellect and reason, from that Word which created us, are said to be illuminated by Him. For the reason which is given to us, and which constitutes us the reasonable beings we are, is a light directing us what to do, and what not to do.

Source: Catena Aurea by Aquinas

[AD 1107] Theophylact of Ohrid on John 1:4

The Pneumatomachoi read this verse and the previous as follows: "And without Him was not anything made." Here they punctuate, and read the next words as the beginning of a new sentence: "[That] which was made was life in Him." They interpret the passage according to their own understanding, claiming that here the Evangelist is describing the Holy Spirit and saying that the Holy Spirit was life. The followers of Macedonius give this interpretation in their eagerness to show that the Holy Spirit is a created thing and to categorize Him among the things that have been made. We do not give the text such an interpretation, but place a period after the words, which were made, and read the words, In Him was life, as the beginning of a new sentence. Because he had spoken of the creating of things, that all things were made by Him, now he speaks of the providence and care which the Word has for His creation. He says that the Word did not simply create the world and then withdraw from it, but that it is He Himself Who sustains the life of all that has been created. For he says, In Him was life. I know that one of the saints has read this passage as follows, And without Him was not anything made that was made in Him. Here he punctuates and begins again, "He was life." I consider that this reading is not in error, and that it contains the same Orthodox understanding. This saint thought in Orthodox manner that without the Word there was not anything made that was made in Him. For I say that every thing that was made and created in Him, the Word, was not made without Him. Then in the new sentence, He was Life, and the Life was the Light of men. (3) The Evangelist names the Lord Life, because it is He Who sustains the life of every living thing, and Who gives spiritual life to all reason endowedcreatures. He is Light, not light perceivable by the senses, but noetic light which enlightens the soul itself. He does not say that the Lord is the light of the Jews only, but of all men. For we can say that all men have been enlightened by Him, inasmuch as we all have received mind and reason [logos] from the Word [Logos] Who created us. For the reason bestowed upon us, by which we are called rational [logikoi] creatures, is a light to guide us into what we ought, and ought not, to do.

[AD 180] Tatian the Assyrian on John 1:5

In itself it is darkness, and there is nothing luminous in it. And this is the meaning of the saying, "The darkness comprehendeth not the light."

[AD 202] Irenaeus on John 1:5

For, in discoursing of the Saviour and declaring that all things beyond the Pleroma received form from Him, he says that He is the fruit of the entire Pleroma. For he styles Him a "light which shineth in darkness, and which was not comprehended"

Source: Against Heresies Book I

[AD 215] Clement of Alexandria on John 1:5

But he who has the light watches, "and darkness seizes not on him".
For how, says Heraclitus, can one escape the notice of that which never sets? Let us by no means, then, veil our selves with the darkness; for the light dwells in us. "For the darkness "it is said, "comprehendeth it not."

Source: Clement of Alexandria The Instructor Book II

[AD 220] Tertullian on John 1:5

Draw whatever (veil of) darkness you please over your deeds, "God is light." But some think as if God were under a necessity of bestowing even on the unworthy, what He has engaged (to give); and they turn His liberality into slavery.

Source: On Repentance

[AD 220] Tertullian on John 1:5

Nay, but this whole world is the one house of all; in which world it is more the heathen, who is found in darkness, whom the grace of God enlightens, than the Christian, who is already in God's light. Finally, it is one "straying" which is ascribed to the ewe and the drachma: (and this is an evidence in my favour); for if the parables had been composed with a view to a Christian sinner, after the loss of his faith, a second loss and restoration of them would have been noted.

Source: On Modesty

[AD 253] Origen of Alexandria on John 1:5

(non occ.) We must not omit to notice, that he puts the life before the light of men. For it would be a contradiction to suppose a being without life to be illuminated; as if life were an addition to illumination. (tom. ii. c. 16). But to proceed: if the life was the light of men, meaning men only, Christ is the light and the life of men only; an heretical supposition. It does not follow then, when a thing is predicated of any, that it is predicated of those only; for of God it is written, that He is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; and yet He is not the God of those fathers only. In the same way, the light of men is not excluded from being the light of others as well. (c. 17). Some moreover contend from Genesis, (Gen. 1:26) Let us make man after our image, that man means whatever is made after the image and similitude of God. If so, the light of men is the light of any rational creature what ever.

(in Joan. t. ii. c. 14) This kind of darkness however is not in men by nature, according to the text in the Ephesians, Ye were sometime darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord1. (Eph. 5:8)

(Hom. ii. in div. loc.) Or thus, The light shineth in the darkness of faithful souls, beginning from faith, and drawing onwards to hope; but the deceit and ignorance of undisciplined souls did not comprehend the light of the Word of God shining in the flesh. That however is an ethical meaning. The metaphysical signification of the words is as follows. Human nature, even though it sinned not, could not shine by its own strength simply; for it is not naturally light, but only a recipient of it; it is capable of containing wisdom, but is not wisdom itself. As the air, of itself, shineth not, but is called by the name of darkness, even so is our nature, considered in itself, a dark substance, which however admits of and is made partaker of the light of wisdom. And as when the air receives the sun's rays, it is not said to shine of itself, but the sun's radiance to be apparent in it; so the reasonable part of our nature, while possessing the presence of the Word of God, does not of itself understand God, and intellectual things, but by means of the divine light implanted in it. Thus, The light shineth in darkness: for the Word of God, the life and the light of men, ceaseth not to shine in our nature; though regarded in itself, that nature is without form and darkness. And forasmuch as pure light cannot be comprehended by any creature, hence the text: The darkness comprehended it not.

(tom. ii. in Joan. c. 19) But they ask, why is not the Word Itself called the light of men, instead of the life which is in the Word? We reply, that the life here spoken of is not that which rational and irrational animals have in common, but that which is annexed to the Word which is within us through participation of the primæval Word. For we must distinguish the external and false life, from the desirable and true. We are first made partakers of life: and this life with some is light potentially only, not in act; with those, viz. who are not eager to search out the things which appertain to knowledge: with others it is actual light, those who, as the Apostle saith, covet earnestly the best gifts, (1 Cor. 12:31) that is to say, the word of wisdom. (c. 14.). (Ifk the life and the light of men are the same, whoso is in darkness is proved not to live, and none who liveth abideth in darkness.)

(tom. ii. c. 20) As the light of men is a word expressing two spiritual things, so is darkness also. To one who possesses the light, we attribute both the doing the deeds of the light, and also true understanding, inasmuch as he is illuminated by the light of knowledge: and, on the other hand, the term darkness we apply both to unlawful acts, and also to that knowledge, which seems such, but is not. Now as the Father is light, and in Him is no darkness at all, so is the Saviour also. Yet, inasmuch as he underwent the similitude of our sinful flesh, it is not incorrectly said of Him, that in Him there was some darkness; for He took our darkness upon Himself, in order that He might dissipate it. This Light therefore, which was made the life of man, shines in the darkness of our hearts, when the prince of this darkness wars with the human race. This Light the darkness persecuted, as is clear from what our Saviour and His children suffer; the darkness fighting against the children of light. But, forasmuch as God takes up the cause, they do not prevail; nor do they apprehend the light, for they are either of too slow a nature to overtake the light's quick course, or, waiting for it to come up to them, they are put to flight at its approach. We should bear in mind, however, that darkness is not always used in a bad sense, but sometimes in a good, as in Psalm 17. He made darkness His secret place: (Ps. 18:11) the things of God being unknown and incomprehensible. This darkness then I will call praiseworthy, since it tends toward light, and lays hold on it: for, though it were darkness before, while it was not known, yet it is turned to light and knowledge in him who has learned.

Source: Catena Aurea by Aquinas

[AD 253] Origen of Alexandria on John 1:5

People are not [darkness] by nature, since Paul says, “For we were once darkness but now are light in the Lord,” and this is especially the case if we are now called saints and spiritual. Just as Paul, although he was darkness, became capable of becoming light in the Lord, so may anyone who was once darkness.

Source: COMMENTARY ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 2.134

[AD 253] Origen of Alexandria on John 1:5

Christ, because of the benefit that follows for humankind, took our darkness on himself that by his power he might destroy our death and completely destroy the darkness in our soul so that what Isaiah said might be fulfilled: “The people who sat in darkness have seen a great light.”69This light, indeed, that was made in the Word, which also is life, “shines in the darkness” of our souls. It has come to stay where the world rulers of this darkness live. They by wrestling with the human race struggle to subject those who do not stand firm in every manner to darkness. He comes that, when they have been enlightened, they may be called children of light. And this light shines in the darkness and is pursued by it, but it is not overcome.…
The darkness pursued this light, as is clear from what our Savior and his children suffer. The darkness fighting against the children of light wanted to chase the light away. However, if “God is for us,” no one will be able to be “against us.” …
Now there are two ways that the darkness did not overcome the light. The darkness is either left very far behind it and, because it is slow, cannot keep up with the swiftness of the flight of light even to a limited extent, or, perhaps the light wanted to set an ambush for the darkness and awaited its approach and when the darkness drew near the light it was destroyed.

Source: COMMENTARY ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 2.166-70

[AD 311] Methodius of Olympus on John 1:5

They ungratefully and malignantly ask, Who is this? as if they had never yet seen their Benefactor, and Him whom divine miracles, beyond the power of man, had made famous and renowned; for the darkness comprehended not

Source: Methodius Oration on the Psalms

[AD 390] Gregory of Nazianzus on John 1:5

The light shines in darkness, in this life and in the flesh, and is chased by the darkness but is not overtaken by it. By this I mean the adverse power leaping up in its shamelessness against the visible Adam but encountering God and being defeated—in order that we, putting away the darkness, may draw near to the Light and may then become perfect Light, the children of perfect Light.

Source: ON THE HOLY LIGHTS, ORATION 39.2

[AD 397] Ambrose of Milan on John 1:5

The person who supposes that he is protected by the darkness is vain, since he cannot escape the light that shines in the darkness, and the darkness grasped it not. Accordingly, he is discovered like a fugitive and a wicked hireling and is recognized before he can conceal himself. For all things are known to the Lord before he seeks them out, not only past events but also those that are to come.

Source: THE PRAYER OF JOB AND DAVID 1.3.6

[AD 407] John Chrysostom on John 1:5

(Hom. v. [iv.] c. 3) Or thus: throughout the whole foregoing passage he had been speaking of creation; then he mentions the spiritual benefits which the Word brought with it: and the life was the light of men. He saith not, the light of Jews, but of all men without exception; for not the Jews only, but the Gentiles also have come to this knowledge. The Angels he omits, for he is speaking of human nature, to whom the Word came bringing glad tidings.

(Hom. v. [iv.] c. 3)l. Life having come to us, the empire of death is dissolved; a light having shone upon us, there is darkness no longer: but there remaineth ever a life which death, a light which darkness cannot overcome. Whence he continues, And the light shineth in darkness: by darkness meaning death and error, for sensible light does not shine in darkness, but darkness must be removed first; whereas the preaching of Christ shone forth amidst the reign of error, and caused it to disappear, and Christ by dying changed death into life, so overcoming it, that, those who were already in its grasp, were brought back again. Forasmuch then as neither death nor error hath overcome his light, which is every where conspicuous, shining forth by its own strength; therefore he adds, And the darkness comprehended it notm.

Source: Catena Aurea by Aquinas

[AD 430] Augustine of Hippo on John 1:5

(tr. 1. c. 19) Whereas that life is the light of men, but foolish hearts cannot receive that light, being so incumbered with sins that they cannot see it; for this cause lest any should think there is no light near them, because they cannot see it, he continues: And the light shineth in darkness, and the darkness comprehended it not. For suppose a blind man standing in the sun, the sun is present to him, but he is absent from the sun. In like manner every fool is blind, and wisdom is present to him; but, though present, absent from his sight, forasmuch as sight is gone: the truth being, not that she is absent from him, but that he is absent from her.

(de Civit. Dei, l. x. c. 29. circ. fin.) A certain Platonist once said, that the beginning of this Gospel ought to be copied in letters of gold, and placed in the most conspicuous place in every church.

Source: Catena Aurea by Aquinas

[AD 430] Augustine of Hippo on John 1:5

But perhaps the foolish hearts cannot receive that light because they are so encumbered with sins that they cannot see it. Let them not on that account think that the light is in any way absent, because they are not able to see it. For they, because of their sins, are darkness.… For suppose, as in the case of a blind person placed in the sun, the sun is present to him, but he is absent from the sun. This is how every foolish person, every unjust person, every irreligious person is blind in heart. Wisdom is present, but it is present to a blind person and is absent from his eyes; not because it is absent from him but because he is absent from it. What then is he to do? Let him become pure, that he may be able to see God.

Source: TRACTATES ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 1.19

[AD 430] Augustine of Hippo on John 1:5

The old saint Simplicianus, afterwards bishop of Milan, used to tell me that a certain Platonist was in the habit of saying that this opening passage of the holy Gospel, entitled “According to John,” should be written in letters of gold and hung up in all churches in the most conspicuous place.

Source: City of God 10.29

[AD 444] Cyril of Alexandria on John 1:5

Needs does the most wise Evangelist hasten to expand to us by this too that is now before us the thought expressed above. For he did not think, I suppose, that it would suffice to the hearers unto being able to think unerringly of God the Word, that He is verily the Light of men, by only saying, And the Life was the Light of men. For it was like I suppose that some would arise who should hear the things uttered without weighing them, and should moreover set forth or try to teach others also that the Word of God is indeed verily Light, but not Giver of light to all, but in whomsoever He will He infuses the light of understanding, approving him who |68 ought to receive it and is worthy of so bright a gift: and that the nature of the rest of the rational creation either gets the power of understanding from its natural seed, or God the Father ingrafts into it mind and understanding, as though the Son were unable to do this. In order then that God the Word, Who was in God the Father, may be clearly shown to be both Life and Light, not of some individually, of others not, but by some ineffable mode of participation, as wisdom and understanding (which is what is called light in things rational), immingling Himself in all things that are, that the things rational may become rational, and things recipient of sense may have sense, which in no other way they could have had:----needs does he say, And the Light shineth in darkness and the darkness comprehended it not.

As though he with all exactitude crieth aloud to his hearers after this sort: I said, sirs, teaching the truth with all my power, that the Life was the Light of men, not that any should suppose from these words that they who show themselves righteous and good receive from another, as the reward of their conduct, the illumination from Him, but that ye might learn, that as the Word is Life in all things that have been made, quickening things recipient of life; so He is in them Light also, rendering things recipient of understanding and sense, what they are. For God the Father through the Son in the Spirit is all things in all.

Darkness he calls the nature that lacks illumination, i. e. the whole originate nature. For since he calls Him the Light, to show that the rational creation which lacks and is imparticipate thereof is other than It, he turns the force of the epithet used to the very contrary, doing this also, after my judgment, not without an aim, but considering in himself this above all, that the nature of things originate, producing nothing whatever from its own self, but receiving its whole being and well-being such as it is from its Creator, has rightly said to it, What hast thou that thou didst not receive? And since along with the rest, it has light itself also God-given, not possessing it does it receive it: but that which has not of itself light, how will it not be the contrary, or how |69 will it not be called darkness? For that the Light shineth in darkness is a credible demonstration (yea rather one following from very necessity), that the creation is darkness, the Word of God Light. For if the nature of things originate receive the Word of God by participation, as Light, or as of Light: it receives it then as itself darkness, and the Son shineth in it, as the light doth in darkness, even though the darkness know not a whit the Light. For this, I suppose, is the meaning of The darkness comprehended it not. For the Word of God shineth upon all things that are receptive of His Irradiance, and illumineth without exception things that have a nature receptive of illumining. But He is unknown of the darkness. For that which is the rational nature upon earth, I mean man, served the creature more than the Creator: it comprehended not the Light, for it knew not the Creator, the Fountain of wisdom, the beginning of understanding, the root of sense. Things originate possess nevertheless, of His love to man, the light, and are provided with the power of perception implanted concurrently with their passing into being.

But we must again note here, that no argument will permit to suppose that the Son of God is originate or created, but in every way does He surpass our measure, and rise above the nature of the creature, and is wholly Other than they are and far removed as regards quality of essence, even as the light is not the same as darkness, but soothly contrary and parted by incomparable diversity into physical alieniety.

Having now sufficiently gone through the method of reasoning hereupon in the foregoing, we will go on to what follows.

[AD 444] Cyril of Alexandria on John 1:5

The most wise Evangelist now expands the thought expressed above.… Not only is the Word of God indeed truly light, but he is also the giver of light to all whom he infuses with the light of understanding.

Source: COMMENTARY ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 1.7

[AD 444] Cyril of Alexandria on John 1:5

“Darkness” is what John calls the nature that lacks illumination, that is, the whole originate nature.… For such a nature produces nothing on its own. Instead, it receives its whole being and well-being, such as it is, from its creator. This is why Paul says, “What do you have that you did not receive?” And since, along with the rest, it receives its light from God, not possessing it on its own, it receives it. But that which does not have light of itself cannot be called anything but “darkness.” The fact that “the Light shines in darkness” is a credible demonstration (in fact, one following from very necessity) that the creation is “darkness” while the Word of God is “Light.” For if the nature of things originate receives the Word of God by participation, as Light, or as of Light, it receives it then since it is inherently darkness, and the Son “shines in it” as “the light” shines in “darkness,” even though the darkness has no idea of the light’s existence. For this, I suppose, is the meaning of “the darkness did not comprehend it.” For the Word of God shines upon all things that are receptive to his radiance and illumines without exception things that have a nature that is receptive to being illumined. But [the Word of God] is unknown by “the darkness.” For that which is the rational nature upon earth, I mean humanity, “served the creature more than the Creator: it did not comprehend the Light,” for it did not know the Creator, the fountain of wisdom, the beginning of understanding, the root of sense. Nevertheless, because of his love for humankind, things originate possess the light and are provided with the power of perception implanted concurrently with their passing into being.

Source: COMMENTARY ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 1.7

[AD 700] Isaac of Nineveh on John 1:5

Let us not be troubled when we are plunged into darkness, especially if we are not the cause of it ourselves. For this darkness is brought about by divine providence for reasons that are known only to God. Our soul becomes suffocated and placed, as it were, in the middle of a storm system. Even if someone tries to approach Scripture—or whatever he approaches, it is only darkness on darkness that he finds instead that causes him to give up. How often is it that he is not even allowed to approach. He is totally incapable of believing that any other possibilities are out there that might give him some peace again. It is an hour filled with despair and fear! The soul is utterly deprived of hope in God and the consolation of faith. It is entirely filled with doubt and fear.But those who have been tested by the distress of such an hour know that in the end it is followed by a change. God never leaves the soul for a whole day in such a state, otherwise it would lose life and all Christian hope.… Rather, he allows it to emerge very soon from the darkness. Blessed is he who endures such temptations. For, as the Fathers say, great will be the stability and the strength to which he will come after that. This struggle will not be over all at once, however; neither will grace come and dwell in the soul completely at once, but gradually. After grace, the trial returns. Sometimes there is temptation, sometimes consolation.… We do not expect complete deliverance from it here, nor do we expect complete consolation.

Source: ASCETICAL HOMILY 48

[AD 735] Bede on John 1:5

(in loc.) The other Evangelists describe Christ as born in time; John witnesseth that He was in the beginning, saying, In the beginning was the Word. The others describe His sudden appearance among men; he witnesseth that He was ever with God, saying, And the Word was with God. The others prove Him very man; he very God, saying, And the Word was God. The others exhibit Him as man conversing with men for a season; he pronounces Him God abiding with God in the beginning, saying, The Same was in the beginning with God. The others relate the great deeds which He did amongst men; he that God the Father made every creature through Him, saying, All things were made by Him, and without Him was not any thing made.

Source: Catena Aurea by Aquinas

[AD 1107] Theophylact of Ohrid on John 1:5

The Light, namely, the Word of God, shineth in the darkness, which means, It shines in death and in deception. Even when He Himself was dead, He so completely vanquished death that He compelled death to vomit forth those whom it had swallowed before Him. And the preaching of the Word also shines amidst the deception of the pagan Greeks. And the darkness comprehended it not. Neither death nor deception overcame it, for this Light, God the Word, is unconquerable. Some have thought that darkness means "flesh" and "life." For the Word shone forth while in the flesh and in this life. And the darkness, that is, the opposing power of the evil one, tempted and persecuted the Light, but found It to be unassailable and invincible. Darkness means "flesh," not according to the nature of fleshâ€”far from it!â€”but because of sin. Flesh contains absolutely nothing evil when it is directed in accordance with its nature. But when directed against its nature and made to serve sin, it is called, and indeed becomes darkness.

[AD 202] Irenaeus on John 1:6

The same came as a witness, that he might bear witness of that Light. He was not that Light, but

Source: Against Heresies Book III

[AD 202] Irenaeus on John 1:6

By what God, then, was John, the forerunner, who testifies of the Light, sent [into the world]? Truly it was by him of whom Gabriel is the angel, who also announced the glad tidings of his birth: [that God] who also had promised by the prophets that he would send his messenger before the face of his Son, who should prepare his way, that is, that he should bear witness of that Light in the spirit and power of Elijah. But, again, of what God was Elijah the servant and the prophet? Of him who made heaven and earth, as he does himself confess. John, therefore, having been sent by the founder and maker of this world is … deemed “more than a prophet.” For all the other prophets preached the advent of the paternal Light and desired to be worthy of seeing him whom they preached. But John both announced [the advent] beforehand in the same way as the others did, and actually saw him when he came and pointed him out and persuaded many to believe on him, so that he did himself hold the place of both prophet and apostle.

Source: AGAINST HERESIES 3.11.4

[AD 220] Tertullian on John 1:6

That, then, was no celestial thing which furnished no celestial (endowments): whereas the very thing which was celestial in John-the Spirit of prophecy-so completely failed, after the transfer of the whole Spirit to the Lord, that he presently sent to inquire whether He whom he had himself preached, whom he had pointed out when coming to him, were "HE.

Source: On Baptism

[AD 253] Origen of Alexandria on John 1:6

The fact that John was filled with the Holy Spirit while he was still in his mother’s womb is an even more striking argument for John to have been sent from some other region when he was placed in a body with no other purpose for his sojourn in life than his testimony to the light. Gabriel mentions that John was filled with the Spirit while still in his mother’s womb when he announces the birth of John to Zechariah. …John is like sound in relation to Christ, who is speech. … John himself suggests this view since he once said, “I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness.” … And perhaps it is because Zechariah disbelieved in the birth of the voice that makes known the Word of God that he loses his voice and regains it when the voice that is the forerunner of the Word is born. For a voice must be listened to so that the mind can afterwards receive the word revealed by the voice.

Source: COMMENTARY ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 2.180, 193-94

[AD 253] Origen of Alexandria on John 1:6-8

(t. ii. c. 28) Some try to undo the testimonies of the Prophets to Christ, by saying that the Son of God had no need of such witnesses; the wholesome words which He uttered and His miraculous acts being sufficient to produce belief; just as Moses deserved belief for his speech and goodness, and wanted no previous witnesses. To this we may reply, that, where there are a number of reasons to make people believe, persons are often impressed by one kind of proof, and not by another, and God, Who for the sake of all men became man, can give them many reasons for belief in Him. And with respect to the doctrine of the Incarnation, certain it is that some have been forced by the Prophetical writings into an admiration of Christ by the fact of so many prophets having, before His advent, fixed the place of His nativity; and by other proofs of the same kind. It is to be remembered too, that, though the display of miraculous powers might stimulate the faith of those who lived in the same age with Christ, they might, in the lapse of time, fail to do so; as some of them might even get to be regarded as fabulous. Prophecy and miracles together are more convincing than simply past miracles by themselves. We must recollect too that men receive honour themselves from the witness which they bear to God. He deprives the Prophetical choir of immeasurable honour, whoever denies that it was their office to bear witness to Christ. John when he comes to bear witness to the light, follows in the train of those who went before him.

Source: Catena Aurea by Aquinas

[AD 407] John Chrysostom on John 1:6

1. Having in the introduction spoken to us things of urgent importance concerning God the Word, (the Evangelist) proceeding on his road, and in order, afterwards comes to the herald of the Word, his namesake John. And now that you hear that he was sent from God, do not for the future imagine that any of the words spoken by him are mere man's words; for all that he utters is not his own, but is of Him who sent him. Wherefore he is called messenger Malachi 3:1, for the excellence of a messenger is, that he say nothing of his own. But the expression was, in this place is not significative of his coming into existence, but refers to his office of messenger; for 'there was' a man sent from God, is used instead of a man 'was sent' from God.

How then do some say, that the expression, being in the form of God Philippians 2:6 is not used of His invariable likeness to the Father, because no article is added? For observe, that the article is nowhere added here. Are these words then not spoken of the Father? What then shall we say to the prophet who says, that, Behold, I send My messenger before Your face, who shall prepare Your way Malachi 3:1, as found in Mark 1:2? For the expressions My and Your declare two Persons.

[AD 407] John Chrysostom on John 1:6-8

(Hom. vi. [v.] c. 1) After this esteem nothing that he says as human; for he speaketh not his own, but his that sent him. And therefore the Prophet calls him a messenger, I send My messenger, (Mal. 3:1) for it is the excellence of a messenger, to say nothing of his own. But the expression, was sent, does not mean his entrance into life, but to his office. As Esaias was sent on his commission, not from any place out of the world, but from where he saw the Lord sitting upon His high and lofty throne; (Isai. 6:1.) in like manner John was sent from the desert to baptize; for he says, He that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon Whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on Him, the same is He which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost. (John 1:33)

(Hom. vi. [v.] in Joh. c. 1) Not because the light wanted the testimony, but for the reason which John himself gives, viz. that all might believe on Him. For as He put on flesh to save all men from death; so He sent before Him a human preacher, that the sound of a voice like their own, might the readier draw men to Him.

(Hom. vi. in Joh. c. 1) Forasmuch however as with us, the one who witnesses, is commonly a more important, a more trustworthy person, than the one to whom he bears witness, to do away with any such notion in the present case the Evangelist proceeds; He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light. If this were not his intention, in repeating the words, to bear witness of the Light, the addition would be superfluous, and rather a verbal repetition, than the explanation of a truth.

Source: Catena Aurea by Aquinas

[AD 420] Jerome on John 1:6

Where we say “sent,” the Hebrew says, “one sent forth”; in Greek apostolos, in Hebrew siloas. You see, therefore, that this John, the prophet, is not only a prophet but also an apostle. Isaiah is sent; he was an apostle. “Here I am, send me!” “Sent” is a term well said.… Those who have come on their own authority and have not been sent are the thieves and robbers. But this man has been sent from God, “whose name was John” and whose name corresponds to his calling. The name “Ioannes” is interpreted as the grace of the Lord, for io means Lord, and anna means grace. And so John is called the grace of the Lord. His mission as messenger he receives from the Lord.

Source: HOMILY 87, ON JOHN 1.1-14

[AD 430] Augustine of Hippo on John 1:6

1. It is fitting, brethren, that as far as possible we should treat of the text of Holy Scripture, and especially of the Holy Gospel, without omitting any portion, that both we ourselves may derive nourishment according to our capacity, and may minister to you from that source from which we have been nourished. Last Lord's day, we remember, we treated of the first section; that is, In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him; and without Him was nothing made. That which was made, in Him is life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shines in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not. So far, I believe, had I advanced in the treatment of the passage: let all who were present recall what was then said; and those of you who were not present, believe me and those who chose to be present. Now therefore—because we cannot always be repeating everything, out of justice to those who desire to hear what follows, and because repetition of the former thought is a burden to them and deprives them of what succeeds—let those who were absent on the former occasion refrain from demanding repetition, but, together with those who were here, listen to the present exposition.

2. It goes on, There was a man sent from God whose name was John. Truly, brethren beloved, those things which were said before, were said regarding the ineffable divinity of Christ, and almost ineffably. For who shall comprehend In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God? And do not allow the name word to appear mean to you, through the habit of daily words, for it is added, and the Word was God. This Word is He of whom yesterday we spoke much; and I trust that God was present, and that even from only thus much speaking something reached your hearts. In the beginning was the Word. He is the same, and is in the same manner; as He is, so He is always; He cannot be changed; that is, He is. This His name He spoke to His servant Moses: I am that I am; and He that is has sent me. Exodus 3:14 Who then shall comprehend this when you see that all mortal things are variable; when you see that not only do bodies vary as to their qualities, by being born, by increasing, by becoming less, by dying, but that even souls themselves through the effect of various volitions are distended and divided; when you see that men can obtain wisdom if they apply themselves to its light and heat, and also lose wisdom if they remove themselves from it through some evil influence? When, therefore, you see that all those things are variable, what is that which is, unless that which transcends all things which are so that they are not? Who then can receive this? Or who, in what manner soever he may have applied the strength of his mind to touch that which is, can reach to that which he may in any way have touched with his mind? It is as if one were to see his native land at a distance, and the sea intervening; he sees whither he would go, but he has not the means of going. So we desire to arrive at that our stability where that which is, is, because this alone always is as it is: the sea of this world interrupts our course, even although already we see whither we go; for many do not even see whither they go. That there might be a way by which we could go, He has come from Him to whom we wished to go. And what has He done? He has appointed a tree by which we may cross the sea. For no one is able to cross the sea of this world, unless borne by the cross of Christ. Even he who is of weak eyesight sometimes embraces this cross; and he who does not see from afar whither he goes, let him not depart from it, and it will carry him over.

3. Therefore, my brethren, I would desire to have impressed this upon your hearts: if you wish to live in a pious and Christian manner, cling to Christ according to that which He became for us, that you may arrive at Him according to that which is, and according to that which was. He approached, that for us He might become this; because He became that for us, on which the weak may be borne, and cross the sea of this world and reach their native country; where there will be no need of a ship, for no sea is crossed. It is better then not to see with the mind that which is, and yet not to depart from the cross of Christ, than to see it with the mind, and despise the cross of Christ. It is good beyond this, and best of all, if it be possible, that we both see whither we ought to go, and hold fast that which carries us as we go. This they were able to do, the great minds of the mountains, who have been called mountains, whom the light of divine justice pre-eminently illuminates; they were able to do this, and saw that which is. For John seeing said, In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. They saw this, and in order that they might arrive at that which they saw from afar, they did not depart from the cross of Christ, and did not despise Christ's lowliness. But little ones who cannot understand this, who do not depart from the cross and passion and resurrection of Christ, are conducted in that same ship to that which they do not see, in which they also arrive who do see.

4. But truly there have been some philosophers of this world who have sought for the Creator by means of the creature; for He can be found by means of the creature, as the apostle plainly says, For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and glory; so they are without excuse. And it follows, Because that, when they knew God; he did not say, Because they did not know, but Because that, when they knew God, they glorified Him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. How darkened? It follows, when he says more plainly: Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools. Romans 1:20-22 They saw whither they must come; but ungrateful to Him who afforded them what they saw, they wished to ascribe to themselves what they saw; and having become proud, they lost what they saw, and were turned from it to idols and images, and to the worship of demons, to adore the creature and to despise the Creator. But these having been blinded did those things, and became proud, that they might be blinded: when they were proud they said that they were wise. Those, therefore, concerning whom he said, Who, when they had known God, saw this which John says, that by the Word of God all things were made. For these things are also found in the books of the philosophers: and that God has an only-begotten Son, by whom are all things. They were able to see that which is, but they saw it from afar: they were unwilling to hold the lowliness of Christ, in which ship they might have arrived in safety at that which they were able to see from afar and the cross of Christ appeared vile to them. The sea has to be crossed, and do you despise the wood? Oh, proud wisdom! You laugh to scorn the crucified Christ; it is He whom you see from afar: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God. But wherefore was He crucified? Because the wood of His humiliation was needful to you. For you had become swollen with pride, and had been cast out far from that fatherland; and by the waves of this world has the way been intercepted, and there is no means of passing to the fatherland unless borne by the wood. Ungrateful one! You laugh Him to scorn who has come to you that you may return: He has become the way, and that through the sea: Matthew 14:25 thence He walked in the sea to show that there is a way in the sea. But you who are not able in any way yourself to walk in the sea, be carried in a ship, be carried by the wood: believe in the crucified One, and you shall arrive there. On account of you He was crucified, to teach you humility; and because if He should come as God, He would not be recognized. For if He should come as God, He would not come to those who were not able to see God. For not according to His Godhead does He either come or depart; since He is everywhere present, and is contained in no place. But, according to what did He come? He appeared as a man.

5. Therefore, because He was so man, that the God lay hid in Him, there was sent before Him a great man, by whose testimony He might be found to be more than man. And who is this? He was a man. And how could that man speak the truth concerning God? He was sent by God. What was he called? Whose name was John. Wherefore did he come? He came for a witness, that he might bear witness concerning the light, that all might believe through him. What sort of man was he who was to bear witness concerning the light? Something great was that John, vast merit, great grace, great loftiness! Admire, by all means, admire; but as it were a mountain. But a mountain is in darkness unless it be clothed with light. Therefore only admire John that you may hear what follows, He was not that light; lest if, when you think the mountain to be the light, you make shipwreck on the mountain, and find not consolation. But what ought you to admire? The mountain as a mountain. But lift yourself up to Him who illuminates the mountain, which for this end was elevated that it might be the first to receive the rays, and make them known to your eyes. Therefore, he was not that light.

6. Wherefore then did he come? But that he might bear witness concerning the light. Why so? That all might believe through him. And concerning what light was he to bear witness? That was the true light. Wherefore is it added true? Because an enlightened man is also called a light; but the true light is that which enlightens. For even our eyes are called lights; and nevertheless, unless either during the night a lamp is lighted, or during the day the sun goes forth, these lights are open in vain. Thus, therefore, John was a light, but not the true light; because, if not enlightened, he would have been darkness; but, by enlightenment, he became a light. For unless he had been enlightened he would have been darkness, as all those once impious men, to whom, as believers, the apostle said, You were sometimes darkness. But now, because they had believed, what?— but now are you light, he says, in the Lord. Ephesians 5:8 Unless he had added in the Lord, we should not have understood. Light, he says, in the Lord: darkness you were not in the Lord. For you were sometimes darkness, where he did not add in the Lord. Therefore, darkness in you, light in the Lord. And thus he was not that light, but was sent to bear witness of the light.

7. But where is that light? He was the true light, which lights every man that comes into the world. If every man that comes, then also John. The true light, therefore, enlightened him by whom He desired Himself to be pointed out. Understand, beloved, for He came to infirm minds, to wounded hearts, to the gaze of dim-eyed souls. For this purpose had He come. And whence was the soul able to see that which perfectly is? Even as it commonly happens, that by means of some illuminated body, the sun, which we cannot see with the eyes, is known to have arisen. Because even those who have wounded eyes are able to see a wall illuminated and enlightened by the sun, or a mountain, or a tree, or anything of that sort; and, by means of another body illuminated, that arising is shown to those who are not as yet able to gaze on it. Thus, therefore all those to whom Christ came were not fit to see Him: upon John He shed the beams of His light; and by means of him confessing himself to have been irradiated and enlightened, not claiming to be one who irradiates and enlightens, He is known who enlightens, He is known who illuminates, He is known who fills. And who is it? He who lights every man, he says, who comes into the world. For if man had not receded from that light, he would not have required to be illuminated; but for this reason has he to be illuminated here, because he departed from that light by which man might always have been illuminated.

8. What then? If He came hither, where was He? He was in this world. He was both here and came hither; He was here according to His divinity, and He came hither according to the flesh; because when He was here according to His divinity, He could not be seen by the foolish, by the blind, and the wicked. These wicked men are the darkness concerning which it was said, The light shines in darkness, and the darkness comprehended it not. John 1:5 Behold, both here He is now, and here He was, and here He is always; and He never departs, departs no-whither. There is need that you have some means whereby you may see that which never departs from you; there is need that you depart not from Him who departs no-whither; there is need that you desert not, and you shall not be deserted. Do not fall, and His sun will not set to you. If you fall, His sun sets upon you; but if you stand, He is present with you. But you have not stood: remember how you have fallen, how he who fell before you cast you down. For he cast you down, not by violence, not by assault, but by your own will. For had you not consented unto evil, you would have stood, you would have remained enlightened. But now, because you have already fallen, and hast become wounded in heart—the organ by which that light can be seen—He came to you such as you might see; and He in such fashion manifested Himself as man, that He sought testimony from man. From man God seeks testimony, and God has man as a witness—God has man as a witness, but on account of man: so infirm are we. By a lamp we seek the day; because John himself was called a lamp, the Lord saying, He was a burning and a shining light; and you were willing for a season to rejoice in his light: but I have greater witness than John. John 5:35

9. Therefore He showed that for the sake of men He desired to have Himself revealed by a lamp to the faith of those who believed, that by means of the same lamp His enemies might be confounded. There were enemies who tempted Him, and said, Tell us by what authority do you do these things? I also, says He, will ask you one question; answer me. The baptism of John, whence was it? From heaven, or of men? And they were troubled, and said among themselves, If we shall say, From heaven, he will say unto us, Why did ye not believe him? (Because he had borne testimony to Christ, and had said, I am not the Christ, but He. But if we shall say, Of men, we fear the people, lest they should stone us: for they held John as a prophet. Afraid of stoning, but fearing more to confess the truth, they answered a lie to the Truth; and wickedness imposed a lie upon itself. For they said, We know not. And the Lord, because they shut the door against themselves, by professing ignorance of what they knew, did not open to them, because they did not knock. For it is said, Knock, and it shall be opened unto you. Matthew 7:7 Not only did these not knock that it might be opened to them; but, by denying that they knew, they barred that door against themselves. And the Lord says to them, Neither tell I you by what authority I do these things. And they were confounded by means of John; and in them were the words fulfilled, I have ordained a lamp for mine anointed. His enemies will I clothe with shame.

10. He was in the world, and the world was made by Him. Think not that He was in the world as the earth is in the world, as the sky is in the world, as the sun is in the world, the moon and the stars, trees, cattle, and men. He was not thus in the world. But in what manner then? As the Artificer governing what He had made. For He did not make it as a carpenter makes a chest. The chest which he makes is outside the carpenter, and so it is put in another place, while being made; and although the workman is near, he sits in another place, and is external to that which he fashions. But God, infused into the world, fashions it; being everywhere present He fashions, and withdraws not Himself elsewhere, nor does He, as it were, handle from without, the matter which He fashions. By the presence of His majesty He makes what He makes; His presence governs what He made. Therefore was He in the world as the Maker of the world; for, The world was made by Him, and the world knew Him not.

11. What means the world was made by Him? The heaven, the earth, the sea, and all things which are therein, are called the world. Again, in another signification, those who love the world are called the world. The world was made by Him, and the world knew Him not. Did not the heavens know their Creator, or did the angels not know their Creator, or did the stars not know their Creator, whom the demons confess? All things from all sides gave testimony. But who did not know? Those who, for their love of the world, are called the world. By loving we dwell with the heart; but because of their loving the world they deserved to be called after the name of that in which they dwelt. In the same manner as we say, This house is bad, or this house is good, we do not in calling the one bad or the other good accuse or praise the walls; but by a bad house we mean a house with bad inhabitants, and by a good house, a house with good inhabitants. In like manner we call those the world who by loving it, inhabit the world. Who are they? Those who love the world; for they dwell with their hearts in the world. For those who do not love the world in the flesh, indeed, sojourn in the world, but in their hearts they dwell in heaven, as the apostle says, Our conversation is in heaven. Therefore the world was made by Him, and the world knew Him not.

12. He came unto His own,— because all these things were made by Him—and His own received Him not. Who are they? The men whom He made. The Jews whom He at the first made to be above all nations. Because other nations worshipped idols and served demons; but that people was born of the seed of Abraham, and in an eminent sense His own, because kindred through that flesh which He deigned to assume. He came unto His own, and His own received Him not. Did they not receive Him at all? Did no one receive Him? Was there no one saved? For no one shall be saved unless he who shall have received the coming Christ.

13. But John adds: As many as received Him. What did He afford to them? Great benevolence! Great mercy! He was born the only Son of God, and was unwilling to remain alone. Many men, when they have not sons, in advanced age adopt a son, and thus obtain by an exercise of will what nature has denied to them: this men do. But if any one have an only son, he rejoices the more in him; because he alone will possess everything, and he will not have any one to divide with him the inheritance, so that he should be poorer. Not so God: that same only Son whom He had begotten, and by whom He created all things, He sent into this world that He might not be alone, but might have adopted brethren. For we were not born of God in the manner in which the Only-begotten was born of Him, but were adopted by His grace. For He, the Only-begotten, came to loose the sins in which we were entangled, and whose burden hindered our adoption: those whom He wished to make brethren to Himself, He Himself loosed, and made joint-heirs. For so says the apostle, But if a son, then an heir through God. And again, Heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ. He did not fear to have joint-heirs, because His heritage does not become narrow if many are possessors. Those very persons, He being possessor, become His inheritance, and He in turn becomes their inheritance. Hear in what manner they become His inheritance: The Lord has said unto me, You are my Son, this day have I begotten You. Ask of me, and I will give You the nations for Your inheritance. Hear in what manner He becomes their inheritance. He says in the Psalms: The Lord is the portion of mine inheritance, and of my cup. Let us possess Him, and let Him possess us: let Him possess us as Lord; let us possess Him as salvation, let us possess Him as light. What then did He give to them who received Him? To them He gave power to become sons of God, even to them that believe in His name; that they may cling to the wood and cross the sea.

14. And how are they born? Because they become sons of God and brethren of Christ, they are certainly born. For if they are not born, how can they be sons? But the sons of men are born of flesh and blood, and of the will of man, and of the embrace of wedlock. But in what manner are they born? Who not of bloods, as if of male and female. Bloods is not Latin; but because it is plural in Greek, the interpreter preferred so to express it, and to speak bad Latin according to the grammarian that he might make the matter plain to the understanding of the weak among his hearers. For if he had said blood in the singular number, he would not have explained what he desired; for men are born of the bloods of male and female. Let us say so, then, and not fear the ferule of grammarians, so long as we reach the solid and certain truth. He who understands it and blames it, is thankless for his having understood. Not of bloods, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man. The apostle puts flesh for woman; because, when she was made of his rib, Adam said, This is now bone of my bone, and flesh of my flesh. Genesis 2:23 And the apostle says, He that loves his wife loves himself; for no one ever hated his own flesh. Ephesians 5:28-29 Flesh, then, is put for woman, in the same manner that spirit is sometimes put for husband. Wherefore? Because the one rules, the other is ruled; the one ought to command, the other to serve. For where the flesh commands and the spirit serves, the house is turned the wrong way. What can be worse than a house where the woman has the mastery over the man? But that house is rightly ordered where the man commands and the woman obeys. In like manner that man is rightly ordered where the spirit commands and the flesh serves.

15. These, then, were born not of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. But that men might be born of God, God was first born of them. For Christ is God, and Christ was born of men. It was only a mother, indeed, that He sought upon earth; because He had already a Father in heaven: He by whom we were to be created was born of God, and He by whom we were to be re-created was born of a woman. Marvel not, then, O man, that you are made a son by grace, that you are born of God according to His Word. The Word Himself first chose to be born of man, that you might be born of God unto salvation, and say to yourself, Not without reason did God wish to be born of man, but because He counted me of some importance, that He might make me immortal, and for me be born as a mortal man. When, therefore, he had said, born of God, lest we should, as it were, be filled with amazement and trembling at such grace, at grace so great as to exceed belief that men are born of God, as if assuring you, he says, And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us. Why, then, do you marvel that men are born of God? Consider God Himself born of men: And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us.
16. But because the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, by His very nativity he made an eye-salve to cleanse the eyes of our heart, and to enable us to see His majesty by means of His humility. Therefore the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us: He healed our eyes; and what follows? And we beheld His glory. His glory can no one see unless healed by the humility of His flesh. Wherefore were we not able to see? Consider, then, dearly beloved, and see what I say. There had dashed into man's eye, as it were, dust, earth; it had wounded the eye, and it could not see the light: that wounded eye is anointed; by earth it was wounded, and earth is applied to it for healing. For all eye-salves and medicines are derived from the earth alone. By dust you were blinded, and by dust you are healed: flesh, then, had wounded you, flesh heals you. The soul had become carnal by consenting to the affections of the flesh; thus had the eye of the heart been blinded. The Word was made flesh: that Physician made for you an eye-salve. And as He thus came by flesh to extinguish the vices of the flesh, and by death to slay death; therefore did this take place in you, that, as the Word became flesh, you may be able to say, And we beheld His glory. What sort of glory? Such as He became as Son of man? That was His humility, not His glory. But to what is the sight of man brought when cured by means of flesh? We beheld His glory, the glory as of the Only-begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth. Of grace and truth we shall speak more fully in another place in this same Gospel, if the Lord vouchsafe us opportunity. Let these things suffice for the present, and be ye edified in Christ: be ye comforted in faith, and watch in good works, and see that you do not depart from the wood by which you may cross the sea.

[AD 430] Augustine of Hippo on John 1:6

Christ obviously neither came nor departed according to his Godhead since he is present everywhere and is contained in no place. But how did he come? He appeared as a man.Therefore, because he was such a man, albeit that God lay hidden in him, there was sent before him a great man whose testimony would confirm that Christ was more than man. And who is this? “He was a man.”

Source: TRACTATES ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 2.4-5

[AD 430] Augustine of Hippo on John 1:6-8

(Tr. ii. c. 2) What is said above, refers to the Divinity of Christ. He came to us in the form of man, but man in such sense, as that the Godhead was concealed within Him. And therefore there was sent before a great man, to declare by his witness that He was more than man. And who was this? He was a man.

(Tr. ii) And how could he declare the truth concerning God, unless he were sent from God.

(Tr. ii) What was he called? whose name was John?

(Tr. ii. c. 6) Wherefore came he? The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light.

Source: Catena Aurea by Aquinas

[AD 444] Cyril of Alexandria on John 1:6

Having before Explained about God the Word, and most accurately gone through the things whereby He is shown to be by Nature Son of God the Father, he fortifies their faith in what they had already heard by his words. And since (according to what was said by God through Moses), At the mouth of two and three witnesses shall every word be established, wisely does he bring in addition to himself the blessed Baptist, and introduces him along with himself a most noteworthy witness. For he did not suppose that he ought, even if of gravest weight, to demand of the readers in his book concerning our Saviour credence above that of the law, and that they should believe him by himself when declaring things above our understanding and sense.

Therefore the blessed Evangelist himself testifies that The Word was in the beginning and the Word was God and was in the beginning with God and that all things were made by Him, and He was in the things made as Life, and that the Life was the Light of men, that by all these he might show that the Son is by Nature God. And the Divine Baptist too testifies in addition to him, crying aloud, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make straight the paths of our God. For soothly one will say that He is Very God, in Whom is by Nature inherent the dignity of lordship and it accrues not to any other rightly and truly, since to us there is one God the Father, and one Lord Jesus Christ, as Paul saith; and though there be many called gods by grace and lords both in heaven and earth, yet the Son is One with the Father Very God.

Therefore, most noteworthy is the pair of holy witnesses, and credence no longer capable of blame is due to the things said, both as having received the fulness of the law, and supported by the notability of the persons. For the blessed Evangelist then to say ought concerning himself, and to take hold of his own praises, were in truth burdensome and moreover ill-instructed. For he would rightly have heard, Thou bearest record of thyself, thy record is not true. Therefore he commits to those who know him to form their opinion of him, and goes to his namesake, doing well in this too, and says that he was sent by God. For it behoved him to show that not of his own accord nor with self-invited zeal does the holy Baptist come to his testimony respecting our Saviour, but yielding to the commands from above, and ministering to the Divine Will of the Father. Wherefore he says, There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.

But we must notice how unerringly and fitly he expressed himself as to each, and correspondently to the nature of the things indicated. For in the case of God the Word, was is fitly introduced indicating every way His Eternity, and His being more ancient than all beginning that is in time, and removing the idea of His having been created. For that which always is, how can it be conceived of as originate? But of the blessed Baptist, befittingly does he say, There was a man sent from God, as of a man having an originate nature. And very unerringly does the Evangelist herein seem to me not merely to say that There was, but by adding the word a man, to overthrow the most unadvised surmise of some.

For already was there a report bruited of many, commonly saying that the holy Baptist was not really a man by nature but one of the holy angels in heaven, making use of human body and sent by God to preach. And the plea for this surmise they found in its being said by God, Behold I send, My messenger before Thy Face, which shall prepare Thy way; before Thee. But they err from the truth who imagine thus, not considering that the name of Angel is indicative of ministry rather than of essence, even as in the history of the blessed Job messengers 6 one after the other run to announce . his manifold sufferings and ministering to those incurable afflictions. Something like this does the most wise Paul himself define respecting the holy angels, writing thus: Are l they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation?

John the blessed Baptist then is called an angel by the mouth of the Lord, not as being actually by nature an angel, but as sent to announce and crying aloud, Prepare ye the way of the Lord. Very profitably does he declare moreover that the angel was sent by God, showing that his witness is most sure. For he that was sent by God to preach, would not utter anything in his teaching that was not wholly according to the will of Him Who put the mission on him. True therefore is the witness as being God-taught. For the most wise Paul also telling us that he was sent by Jesus Christ, affirmed that he learned the power of the mystery not of any other, but by revelation of Him Who sent him, signifying the revelation in sum so to say and briefly, in saying that he was sent by Jesus Christ. Hence the being God-taught wholly follows on being sent by God. And that freedom from lying is wholly the aim of the ministers of the truth is undoubted.

The man's name he says was John. It needed that he who was sent should be recognized by the mark of the name, which introduces, as I suppose, great authenticity to what is said. For an angel (namely Gabriel that stand in the presence of God, as himself says) when he declared to Zacharias the good tidings of his birth of Elizabeth, added this to what he said, namely that his name shall be John. It is I suppose clear and confessed by all that he was so named of the angel according to the Divine purpose and appointment. How then will not he who was crowned by God with so great honour be conceived of as above all praise? Wherefore the mention of his name is profitably and necessarily brought in.

But since the Evangelist has added that the holy Baptist was sent by God for a witness that all men through him might believe, we will further say when our opponents fall foul and say, "Why did not all believe the God-sent? how came he who was fore-appointed by the decree from above to be powerless to persuade any?"----It is meet, sirs, that we should not blame John for want of zeal herein, but should exclaim against the obstinacy of those who disbelieved. For so far as pertains to the aim of the herald, and the mode of his apostolate from above, none would have been found imparticipate in the teaching, nor would have remained in unbelief: but since there was diversity of disposition in the hearers and each has power over his own free-choice, some receiving not the faith missed what was profitable. Wherefore we must say to them (as it is in the prophet), He that heareth, let him hear; and he that forbeareth, let him forbear.

[AD 735] Bede on John 1:6-8

(Bed. in loc.) He saith not, that all men should believe in him; for, cursed be the man that trusteth in man; (Jer. 17:5) but, that all men through him might believe; i. e. by his testimony believe in the Light.

Source: Catena Aurea by Aquinas

[AD 804] Alcuin of York on John 1:6-8

That is, the grace of God, or one in whom is grace, who by his testimony first made known to the world the grace of the New Testament, that is, Christ. Or John may be taken to mean, to whom it is given: because that through the grace of God, to him it was given, not only to herald, but also to baptize the King of kings.

Source: Catena Aurea by Aquinas

[AD 1107] Theophylact of Ohrid on John 1:6

After the Evangelist has declared to us the existence of God the Word from before the ages, and because he is about to speak of the Word becoming flesh, he inserts here an account of the Forerunner. Since John is the Forerunner of the Lord, is it not fitting that an account of the Forerunnerâ€™s nativity should precede that of the Lordâ€™s nativity in the flesh? The Evangelist says of the Forerunner that there was a man sent from God. False prophets are not from God. When you hear that he was sent from God, do not think that the Evangelist is speaking of anything individual or human. Here all is divine. This is why John is also called an "angel," for the virtue of an angel is that he speaks nothing of himself. But when you hear him called an "angel," do not think that he was an angel by nature, or that he came down from heaven. Rather, he is called an angel because of his work and ministry: to be a servant of the preaching and to announce the Lord. Therefore the Evangelist himself refutes the opinion of many who suspected that John was an angel by nature, when he says, There was a man sent from God.

[AD 1107] Theophylact of Ohrid on John 1:6-8

Not an Angel, as many have held. The Evangelist here refutes such a notion.

Though some however might not believe, he is not accountable for them. When a man shuts himself up in a dark room, so as to receive no light from the sun's rays, he is the cause of the deprivation, not the sun. In like manner John was sent, that all men might believe; but if no such result followed, he is not the cause of the failure.

But it will be said, that we do not allow John or any of the saints to be or ever to have been light. The difference is this: If we call any of the saints light, we put light without the article. So if asked whether John is light, without the article, thou mayest allow without hesitation that he is: if with the article, thou allow it not. For he is not very, original, light, but is only called so, on account of his partaking of the light, which cometh from the true Light.

Source: Catena Aurea by Aquinas

[AD 220] Tertullian on John 1:7

From the Epistle also of John they forthwith cull (a proof). It is said: "The blood of His Son purifieth us utterly from every sin." Always then, and in every form, we will sin, if always and from every sin He utterly purifies us; or else, if not always, not again after believing; and if not from sin, not again from fornication.

Source: On Modesty

[AD 253] Origen of Alexandria on John 1:7

Some try to undo the testimonies of the prophets to Christ by saying that the Son of God had no need of such witnesses.… To this we may reply that where there are a number of reasons to make people believe, persons are often impressed by one kind of proof and not by another.And with respect to the doctrine of the incarnation, it is certain that some have been forced by the prophetical writings into an admiration of Christ by the fact of so many prophets having, before his advent, fixed the place of his birth [and by other proofs of the same kind].…
It is to be remembered too, that, though the display of miraculous powers might stimulate the faith of those who lived in the same age with Christ, they might, in the lapse of time, fail to do so; as some of them might even get to be regarded as fabulous. Prophecy and miracles together are more convincing than simply past miracles by themselves.… We must remember too that people receive honor themselves from the witness that they bear to God.…
He, therefore, who maintains that there is no need for the prophetic witness to Christ deprives the choir of prophets of their greatest gift. For what would prophecy, which is inspired by the Holy Spirit, have that is so great, if one exclude from it those matters related to the dispensation of our Lord?… John, too, therefore came to bear witness concerning the light.

Source: COMMENTARY ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 2.199, 202-4, 206, 208, 212

[AD 407] John Chrysostom on John 1:7

What is this, perhaps one may say, the servant bear witness to his Master? When then you see Him not only witnessed to by His servant, but even coming to him, and with Jews baptized by him, will you not be still more astonished and perplexed? Yet you ought not to be troubled nor confused, but amazed at such unspeakable goodness. Though if any still continue bewildered and confused, He will say to such an one what He said to John, Suffer it to be so now, for thus it becomes us to fulfill all righteousness Matthew 3:15; and, if any be still further troubled, again He will say to him too what he said to the Jews, But I receive not testimony from man. John 5:34 If now he needs not this witness, why was John sent from God? Not as though He required his testimony— this were extremest blasphemy. Why then? John himself informs us, when he says,

That all men through him might believe.

And Christ also, after having said that I receive not testimony from man John 5:34, in order that He may not seem to the foolish to clash with Himself, by declaring at one time There is another that bears witness of Me and I know that his witness is true John 5:32 (for He pointed to John;) and at another, I receive not testimony from man John 5:34; He immediately adds the solution of the doubt, But these things I say for your own sake, that you might be saved. As though He had said, that I am God, and the really-Begotten Son of God, and am of that Simple and Blessed Essence, I need none to witness to Me; and even though none would do so, yet am not I by this anything diminished in My Essence; but because I care for the salvation of the many, I have descended to such humility as to commit the witness of Me to a man. For by reason of the groveling nature and infirmity of the Jews, the faith in Him would in this way be more easily received, and more palatable. As then He clothed Himself with flesh, that he might not, by encountering men with the unveiled Godhead, destroy them all; so He sent forth a man for His herald, that those who heard might at the hearing of a kindred voice approach more readily. For (to prove) that He had no need of that (herald's) testimony, it would have sufficed that He should only have shown Himself who He was in His unveiled Essence, and have confounded them all. But this He did not for the reason I have before mentioned. He would have annihilated all, since none could have endured the encounter of that unapproachable light. Wherefore, as I said, He put on flesh, and entrusted the witness (of Himself) to one of our fellow-servants, since He arranged all for the salvation of men, looking not only to His own honor, but also to what might be readily received by, and be profitable to, His hearers. Which He glanced at when He said, These things I say for your sake, that you might be saved. John 5:34 And the Evangelist using the same language as his Master, after saying, to bear witness of that Light, adds,

That all men through Him might believe. All but saying, Think not that the reason why John the Baptist came to bear witness, was that he might add anything to the trustworthiness of his Master. No; (He came,) that by his means beings of his own class might believe. For it is clear from what follows, that he used this expression in his anxiety to remove this suspicion beforehand, since he adds,

[AD 407] John Chrysostom on John 1:7

He could have proven that he had no need of that [herald’s] testimony by showing himself in his unveiled essence, had he so chosen, and that would have confounded them all. But he did not do this because he would have annihilated everybody since no one could have endured the encounter of that unapproachable light. This is why he put on flesh and entrusted the witness [of himself] to one of our fellow servants, since everything he did was for the salvation of men and women, looking not only to his own honor but also to what might be more readily received by and profitable to his hearers.

Source: HOMILIES ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 6.1

[AD 444] Cyril of Alexandria on John 1:7

The word This is full of declaration of virtue and praise of person. For he that was sent, he says, from God, he that with reason struck with astonishment the whole of Judaea, by the gravity of his life and its marvellous exercise in virtue, he that is fore-announced by the voice of the holy Prophets: called by Isaiah, The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, and by the blessed David, a lamp fore-ordained for Christ; This man came for a witness to hear witness of the Light. He here calls God the Word Light, and shows that He is One and strictly the very actual Light, with Whom there is by nature nought else that has the property of illumining, and that is not lacking light. Therefore foreign and, so to say, of other nature than the creature is the Word of God, since verily and truly is He strictly Light, the creature participate of light. He then that is unclassed with things made, and conceived of therefore as being of other nature than they, how will He be originate, rather how will He not be within the limits of Deity and replete with the Good Nature of Him who begat Him?

[AD 444] Cyril of Alexandria on John 1:7

Since, according to what was said by God through Moses, “At the mouth of two and three witnesses shall every word be established,” wisely does [John the Evangelist] bring in addition to himself the blessed Baptist.… For he did not suppose that he ought, even if of gravest weight, to demand of the readers in his book concerning our Savior credence above that of the law, and that they should believe him by himself when declaring things above our understanding and sense.

Source: COMMENTARY ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 1.7

[AD 1107] Theophylact of Ohrid on John 1:7

This man was sent by God in order to bear witness of the Light. Lest anyone imagine that the Only-begotten was in need of this witness because He Himself lacked in something, the Evangelist immediately follows his statement, that John came to bear witness to the Son of God, with the reason, namely, that all men through him might believe. Did all men in fact believe through him? No. In what sense, then, did the Evangelist say, that all men ...might believe? As much as it was his part to do, John gave witness in order to draw all men to the Light; if some did not believe, he is not to blame. The sun rises each day for the purpose of giving light to all. If a man shuts himself up in a gloomy dwelling and does not enjoy the sunâ€™s rays, is the sun at fault? So it is here. John was sent so that all might believe. It is not his fault that it turned out otherwise.

[AD 220] Tertullian on John 1:8

In this way all are primitive, and all are apostolic, whilst they are all proved to be one, in (unbroken) unity, by their peaceful communion, and title of brotherhood, and bond of hospitality,-privileges which no other rule directs than the one tradition of the selfsame mystery.

Source: The Prescription Against Heretics

[AD 220] Tertullian on John 1:8

If we confess our sins, faithful and just is He to remit them to us, and utterly purify us from every unrighteousness." Does he say "from impurity? "(No): or else, if that is so, then (He "utterly purifies" us) from "idolatry" too.

Source: On Modesty

[AD 253] Origen of Alexandria on John 1:8

The Baptist’s leaping for joy in the womb of Elizabeth at Mary’s greeting was a testimony about Christ. He was testifying to the divinity of Christ’s conception and birth. For what indeed is John, except everywhere a witness and forerunner of Jesus? He precedes his birth and dies a little before the death of the Son of God, that, by appearing before the Christ not only to those in birth but also those awaiting the freedom from death through Christ, he might everywhere prepare for the Lord a prepared people.…Now since there was the beginning in which the Word was … and since the Word also existed, and life was made in him, and the life was the light of people … why then did he not come “to give testimony of the life,” or “to give testimony of the Word,” or “of the beginning,” or of any other aspect of the Christ whatsoever? Consider whether it is not [because] “the people who sat in darkness have seen a great light” and because “the light shines in the darkness” and is not overcome by it. Those who are in darkness, that is, men and women, need light. For if the light “shines in the darkness”—there is no activity of darkness at all there—we shall share in other aspects of the Christ in which we do not now participate.

Source: COMMENTARY ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 2.224-27

[AD 258] Cyprian on John 1:8

After this we also entreat for our sins, saying, "And forgive us our debts, as we also forgive our debtors." After the supply of food, pardon of sin is also asked for, that he who is fed by God may live in God, and that not only the present and temporal life may be provided for, but the eternal also, to which we may come if our sins are forgiven; and these the Lord calls debts, as He says in His Gospel, "I forgave thee all that debt, because thou desiredst me." And how necessarily, how providently and salutarily, are we admonished that we are sinners, since we are compelled to entreat for our sins, and while pardon is asked for from God, the soul recalls its own consciousness of sin! Lest any one should flatter himself that he is innocent, and by exalting himself should more deeply perish, he is instructed and taught that he sins daily, in that he is bidden to entreat daily for his sins. Thus, moreover, John also in his epistle warns us, and says, "If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us; but if we confess our sins, the Lord is faithful and just to forgive us our sins." In his epistle he has combined both, that we should entreat for our sins, and that we should obtain pardon when we ask. Therefore he said that the Lord was faithful to forgive sins, keeping the faith of His promise; because He who taught us to pray for our debts and sins, has promised that His fatherly mercy and pardon shall follow.

Source: Treatise IV. On the Lord's Prayer.

[AD 258] Cyprian on John 1:8

Let us then acknowledge, beloved brethren, the wholesome gift of the divine mercy; and let us, who cannot be without some wound of conscience, heal our wounds by the spiritual remedies for the cleansing and purging of our sins. Nor let any one so flatter himself with the notion of a pure and immaculate heart, as, in dependence on his own innocence, to think that the medicine needs not to be applied to his wounds; since it is written, "Who shall boast that he hath a clean heart, or who shall boast that he is pure from sins? " And again, in his epistle, John lays it down, and says, "If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us." But if no one can be without sin, and whoever should say that he is without fault is either proud or foolish, how needful, how kind is the divine mercy, which, knowing that there are still found some wounds in those that have been healed, even after their healing, has given wholesome remedies for the curing and healing of their wounds anew!

Source: Treatise VIII On Works and Alms

[AD 258] Cyprian on John 1:8

That no one is without filth and without sin. In Job: "For who is pure from filth? Not one; even if his life be of one day on the earth." Also in the fiftieth Psalm: "Behold, I was conceived in iniquities, and in sins hath my mother conceived me." Also in the Epistle of John: "If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us."

Source: Treatise XII. Three Books of Testimonies Against the Jews.

[AD 407] John Chrysostom on John 1:8

Now if he did not introduce this as setting himself against this suspicion, then the expression is absolutely superfluous, and tautology rather than elucidation of his teaching. For why, after having said that he was sent to bear witness of that Light, does he again say, He was not that Light? (He says it,) not loosely or without reason; but, because, for the most part, among ourselves, the person witnessing is held to be greater, and generally more trustworthy than the person witnessed of; therefore, that none might suspect this in the case of John, at once from the very beginning he removes this evil suspicion, and having torn it up by the roots, shows who this is that bears witness, and who is He who is witnessed of, and what an interval there is between the witnessed of, and the bearer of witness. And after having done this, and shown His incomparable superiority, he afterwards proceeds fearlessly to the narrative which remains; and after carefully removing whatever strange (ideas) might secretly harbor in the minds of the simpler sort, so instills into all easily and without impediment the word of doctrine in its proper order.

Let us pray then, that henceforth with the revelation of these thoughts and rightness of doctrine, we may have also a pure life and bright conversation, since these things profit nothing unless good works be present with us. For though we have all faith and all knowledge of the Scriptures, yet if we be naked and destitute of the protection derived from (holy) living, there is nothing to hinder us from being hurried into the fire of hell, and burning for ever in the unquenchable flame. For as they who have done good shall rise to life everlasting, so they who have dared the contrary shall rise to everlasting punishment, which never has an end. Let us then manifest all eagerness not to mar the gain which accrues to us from a right faith by the vileness of our actions, but becoming well-pleasing to Him by these also, boldly to look on Christ. No happiness can be equal to this. And may it come to pass, that we all having obtained what has been mentioned, may do all to the glory of God; to whom, with the Only-Begotten Son and the Holy Ghost, be glory for ever and ever. Amen.

[AD 430] Augustine of Hippo on John 1:8

How right it was for the Lord to call [John] a lamp. This is what the Lord said about John: “He was a burning and a shining lamp, and you were willing for a time to exult in his light.” What, though, does John the Evangelist say about him? “There was a man sent by God, whose name was John; this man came for witness, to bear witness about the light; that man was not the light.” Who? John the Baptist. Who says this? John the Evangelist. “That man was not the light.” You say “that man was not the light,” while the light itself says about him, “That man was a burning and a shining lamp? “But I know,” he says, “what sort of light I am talking about; a light, I am well aware, in comparison with which a lamp is not a light.” Listen to what comes next: “That was the true light that enlightens everyone coming into this world.” John does not enlighten every person; Christ does. And John recognized himself as a lamp, in order not to be blown out by the wind of pride. A lamp can both be lit and be put out. The word of God cannot be put out; a lamp always can.

Source: SERMON 289.4

[AD 444] Cyril of Alexandria on John 1:8

The Baptist having esteemed desert-abodes above the haunts of the cities, and having shown forth an unwonted persistence in exercise of virtue, and having mounted to the very summit of the righteousness attainable by man, was most rightly wondered at, and even by some imagined to be Christ Himself. And indeed the rulers of the Jews led by his achievements in virtue to some such notion, send some to him bidding them to inquire if he be the Christ. The blessed Evangelist then not ignorant of the things that were by many bruited of him, of necessity puts, He was not the Light, that he might both uproot the error as to this, and again build up some weight of credence to him who was sent from God for a witness. For how is he not eminent exceedingly, how is he not every way worthy of marvel, who is so clad with great virtue and so illustrious in righteousness as to imitate Christ Himself, and by the choice beauty of his piety, to be even imagined to be the Light Itself?

He was not then, says he, the Light, but sent to bear witness of the Light. In saying the Light, with the addition of the article, he shows that it is really one: for so it is in truth. For that both the blessed Baptist and each of the other saints, may be rightly called light we will not deny, seeing that it is said of them by our Saviour, Ye are the light of the world. And again it is said of the holy Baptist, I have ordained a lamp for My Christ, and, He was a burning and a shining light, and ye were willing for a season to rejoice in his light. But even though the saints be light, and the Baptist a lamp, we are not ignorant of the grace that was given them and of their supply from the Light. For neither is the light in the lamp its own, nor the illumination in the saints, but they are rendered bright and lightsome by the enlightening of the Truth and are lights in the world, holding forth the word of life. And what is the Life, whose word they holding forth are called light, save surely the Only-Begotten, Who saith, I am the Life? Therefore, One of a truth is That Which is verily Light, lighting, not enlightened: and by participation of the One, whatever is called light, will be so deemed of by imitation of It.

[AD 1107] Theophylact of Ohrid on John 1:8

It often occurs that the man who gives testimony is greater than the one of whom he testifies. Therefore, to prevent the evil thought that John, in bearing witness to Christ, was greater than Christ, the Evangelist says, He was not that Light. But could we not call John, or any one of the saints, a light? Yes, we may call every saint a light. But we cannot call them the Light, with the definite article. If someone says to you, "Surely John is a light?" agree with him. But if he says, "Surely John is the Light," say no. For he is not the very Light Itself, but a light by participation, which derives its brightness from the true Light.

[AD 9999] Pseudo-Athanasius on John 1:8

It follows that the Word is the Son. But if the Son is the Light that has come into the world, beyond all dispute the world was made by the Son. For in the beginning of the Gospel, the Evangelist, speaking of John the Baptist, says, “He was not that Light, but that he might bear witness concerning that Light.” For Christ himself was, as we have said before, the true Light that enlightens everyone that comes into the world. For if “he was in the world, and the world was made by him,” of necessity he is the Word of God, concerning whom also the Evangelist witnesses that all things were made by him. For either they will be compelled to speak of two worlds, that the one may have come into being by the Son and the other by the Word, or, if the world is one and the creation one, it follows that Son and Word are one and the same before all creation, for by him it came into being.

Source: FOURTH DISCOURSE AGAINST THE ARIANS 19

[AD 215] Clement of Alexandria on John 1:9

He is so lovely, as to be alone loved by us, whose hearts are set on the true beauty, for "He was the true light."

Source: Clement of Alexandria Stromata Book II

[AD 220] Tertullian on John 1:9

Immediately there appears the Word, "that true light, which lighteth man on his coming into the world," and through Him also came light upon the world.

Source: Against Praxeas

[AD 220] Tertullian on John 1:9

But we, with but as poor a measure of understanding as of faith, are able to determine that that baptism was divine indeed, (yet in respect of the command, not in respect of efficacy too, in that we read that John was sent by the lord to perform this duty, ) but human in its nature: for it conveyed nothing celestial, but it fore-ministered to things celestial; being, to wit, appointed over repentance, which is in man's power. In fact, the doctors of the law and the Pharisees, who were unwilling to "believe," did not "repent" either.

Source: On Baptism

[AD 220] Tertullian on John 1:9

For see yet again: "If we say," he says, "that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His word is not in us." All the more fully: "Little children, these things have I written to you, lest ye sin; and if ye shall have sinned, an Advocate we have with God the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; and, He is the propitiation for our sins.

Source: On Modesty

[AD 235] Hippolytus of Rome on John 1:9

But if any one, he says, is blind from birth, and has never beheld the true light, "which lighteneth every man that cometh into the world," by us let him recover his sight, and behold, as it were, through some paradise planted with every description of tree, and supplied with abundance of fruits, water coursing its way through all the trees and fruits; and he will see that from one and the same water the olive chooses for itself and draws the oil, and the vine the wine; and (so is it with) the rest of plants, according to each genus. That Man, however, he says, is of no reputation in the world, but of illustrious fame in heaven, being betrayed by those who are ignorant (of his perfections) to those who know him not, being accounted as a drop from a cask. We, however, he says, are spiritual, who, from the life-giving water of Euphrates, which flows through the midst of Babylon, choose our own peculiar quality as we pass through the true gate, which is the blessed Jesus. And of all men, we Christians alone are those who in the third gate celebrate the mystery, and are anointed there with the unspeakable chrism from a horn, as David (was anointed), not from an earthen vessel, he says, as (was) Saul, who held converse with the evil demon of carnal concupiscence.

Source: Hippolytus Refutation of All Heresies Book V

[AD 235] Hippolytus of Rome on John 1:9

All things, therefore whatsoever it is possible to declare, and whatever, being not as yet discovered, one must omit, were likely to receive adaptation to the world which was about to be generated from the Seed. And this (Seed), at the requisite seasons, increases in bulk in a peculiar manner, according to accession, as through the instrumentality of a Deity so great, and of this description. (But this Deity) the creature can neither express nor grasp by perception. (Now, all these things) were inherent, treasured in the Seed, as we afterwards observe in a new-born child the growth of teeth, and paternal substance, and intellect, and everything which, though previously having no existence, accrues unto a man, growing little by little, from a youthful period of life. But since it would be absurd to say that any projection of a non-existent God became anything non-existent (for Basilides altogether sirens and dreads the Substances of things generated in the way of projection for, (he asks,) of what sort of projection is there a necessity, or of what sort of matter must we assume the previous existence, in order that God should construct a world, as the spider his web; or (as) a mortal man, for the purpose of working it, takes a (piece of) brass or of wood, or some other of the parts of matter?),-(projection, I say, being out of the question,) certainly, says (Basilides), God spoke the word, and it was carried into effect. And this, as these men assert, is that which has been stated by Moses: "Let there be light, and there was light." Whence he says, came the light? From nothing. For it has not been written, he says, whence, but this only, (that it came) from the voice of him who speaks the word. And he who speaks the word, he says, was non-existent; nor was that existent which was being produced. The seed of the cosmical system was generated, he says, from nonentities; (and I mean by the seed,) the word which was spoken, "Let there be light." And this, he says, is that which has been stated in the Gospels: "He was the true light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world." He derives his originating principles from that Seed, and obtains from the same source his illuminating power. This is that seed which has in itself the entire conglomeration of germs. And Aristotle affirms this to be genius, and it is distributed by him into infinite species; just as from animal, which is non-existent, we sever ox, horse, (and) man. When, therefore, the cosmical Seed becomes the basis (for a subsequent development), those (heretics) assert, (to quote Basilides' own words:) "Whatsoever I affirm," he says, "to have been made after these, ask no question as to whence. For (the Seed) had all seeds treasured and reposing in itself, just as non-existent entities, and which were designed to be produced by a non-existent Deity."

Source: Hippolytus Refutation of All Heresies Book 7

[AD 253] Origen of Alexandria on John 1:9

(Hom. 2, in div. loc.) Or thus: We must not understand the words, lighteneth every man that cometh into the world, of the growth from hidden seeds to organized bodies, but of the entrance into the invisible world, by the spiritual regeneration and grace, which is given in Baptism. Those then the true Light lighteneth, who come into the world of goodness, not those who rush into the world of sin.

Source: Catena Aurea by Aquinas

[AD 311] Methodius of Olympus on John 1:9

But Methodius: The Holy Spirit, who of God is given to all men, and of whom Solomon said, "For Thine incorruptible Spirit is in all things"

Source: Other Fragments of Methodius

[AD 325] Lucius Caecilius Firmianus Lactantius on John 1:9

The fountain of God, most abundant and most full, is open to all; and this heavenly light rises for all,

[AD 380] Apostolic Constitutions on John 1:9

For you are translated from your former vain and tedious mode of life and have contemned the lifeless idols, and despised the demons, which are in darkness, and have run to the "true light," [John 1:9] and by it have "known the one and only true God and Father," [John 17:3] and so are owned to be heirs of His kingdom. For since you have "been baptized into the Lord's death," [Romans 6:3] and into His resurrection, as "new-born babes," [1 Peter 2:2] you ought to be wholly free from all sinful actions; "for you are not your own, but His that bought you" [1 Corinthians 6:19-20] with His own blood.

Source: Apostolic Constitutions (Book V), Section 3, XVI

[AD 407] John Chrysostom on John 1:9

(Hom. in Joan. vii. [vi.] 1) Or thus; Having said above that John had come, and was sent, to bear witness of the Light, lest any from the recent coming of the witness, should infer the same of Him who is witnessed to, the Evangelist takes us back to that existence which is beyond all beginning, saying, That was the true Light.

(Hom. viii. c. 2) Where are those too, who deny Him to be very God? We see here that He is called very Light. But if He lighteneth every man that cometh into the world, how is it that so many have gone on without light? For all have not known the worship of Christ. The answer is: He only enlighteneth every man, so far as pertains to Him. If men shut their eyes, and will not receive the rays of this light, their darkness arises not from the fault of the light, but from their own wickedness, inasmuch as they voluntarily deprive themselves of the gift of grace. For grace is poured out upon all; and they, who will not enjoy the gift, may impute it to their own blindness.

Source: Catena Aurea by Aquinas

[AD 407] John Chrysostom on John 1:9

1. The reason, O children greatly beloved, why we entertain you portion by portion with the thoughts taken from the Scriptures, and do not at once pour all forth to you, is, that the retaining what is successively set before you may be easy. For even in building, one who before the first stones are settled lays on others, constructs a rotten wall altogether, and easily thrown down: while one who waits that the mortar may first get hard, and so adds what remains little by little, finishes the whole house firmly, and makes it strong, not one to last for a short time, or easily to fall to pieces. These builders we imitate, and in like manner build up your souls. For we fear lest, while the first foundation is but newly laid, the addition of the succeeding speculations may do harm to the former, through the insufficiency of the intellect to contain them all at once.

What now is it that has been read to us today?

That was the true Light, which lights every man that comes into the world. For since above in speaking of John he said, that he came to bear witness of that Light; and that he was sent in these our days; lest any one at hearing this should, on account of the recent coming of the witness, conceive some like suspicion concerning Him, who is witnessed of, he has carried up the imagination, and transported it to that existence which is before all beginning, which has neither end nor commencement.

And how is it possible, says one, that being a Son, He should possess this (nature)? We are speaking of God, and do you ask how? And do you not fear nor shudder? Yet should any one ask you, How should our souls and bodies have endless life in the world to come? you will laugh at the question, on the ground that it does not belong to the intellect of man to search into such questions, but that he ought only to believe, and not to be over-curious on the subject mentioned, since he has a sufficient proof of the saying, in the power of Him who spoke it. And if we say, that He, who created our souls and bodies, and who incomparably excels all created things, is without beginning, will you require us to say How? Who could assert this to be the act of a well-ordered soul, or of sound reason? You have heard that That was the true Light: why are you vainly and rashly striving to overshoot by force of reasoning this Life which is unlimited? You cannot do it. Why seek what may not be sought? Why be curious about what is incomprehensible? Why search what is unsearchable? Gaze upon the very source of the sunbeams. You cannot; yet you are neither vexed nor impatient at your weakness; how then have you become so daring and headlong in greater matters? The son of thunder, John who sounds the spiritual trumpet, when he had heard from the Spirit the was, enquired no farther. And are you, who share not in his grace, but speak from your own wretched reasonings, ambitious to exceed the measure of his knowledge? Then for this very reason you will never be able even to reach to the measure of his knowledge. For this is the craft of the devil: he leads away those who obey him from the limits assigned by God, as though to things much greater: but when, having enticed us by these hopes, he has cast us out of the grace of God, he not only gives nothing more, (how can he, devil as he is?) but does not even allow us to return again to our former situation, where we dwelt safely and surely, but leads us about in all directions wandering and not having any standing ground. So he caused the first created man to be banished from the abode of Paradise. Having puffed him up with the expectation of greater knowledge and honor, he expelled him from what he already possessed in security. For he not only did not become like a god as (the devil) promised him, but even fell beneath the dominion of death; having not only gained no further advantage by eating of the tree, but having lost no small portion of the knowledge which he possessed, through hope of greater knowledge. For the sense of shame, and the desire to hide himself because of his nakedness, then came upon him, who before the cheat was superior to all such shame; and this very seeing himself to be naked, and the need for the future of the covering of garments, and many other infirmities, became thenceforth natural to him. That this be not our case, let us obey God, continue in His commandments, and not be busy about anything beyond them, that we may not be cast out from the good things already given us. Thus they have fared (of whom we speak). For seeking to find a beginning of the Life which has no beginning, they lost what they might have retained. They found not what they sought, (this is impossible,) and they fell away from the true faith concerning the Only-Begotten.

Let us not then remove the eternal bounds which our fathers set, but let us ever yield to the laws of the Spirit; and when we hear that That was the true Light, let us seek to discover nothing more. For it is not possible to pass beyond this saying. Had His generation been like that of a man, needs must there have been an interval between the begetter and the begotten; but since it is in a manner ineffable and becoming God, give up the before and the after, for these are the names of points in time, but the Son is the Creator even of all ages.

2. Then, says one, He is not Father, but brother. What need, pray? If we had asserted that the Father and the Son were from a different root, you might have then spoken this well. But, if we flee this impiety, and say the Father, besides being without beginning, is Unbegotten also, while the Son, though without beginning, is Begotten of the Father, what kind of need that as a consequence of this idea, that unholy assertion should be introduced? None at all. For He is an Effulgence: but an effulgence is included in the idea of the nature whose effulgence it is. For this reason Paul has called Him so, that you may imagine no interval between the Father and the Son. Hebrews 1:3 This expression therefore is declaratory of the point; but the following part of the proof quoted, corrects an erroneous opinion which might beset simple men. For, says the Apostle, do not, because you have heard that he is an Effulgence, suppose that He is deprived of His proper person; this is impious, and belongs to the madness of the Sabellians, and of Marcellus' followers. We say not so, but that He is also in His proper Person. And for this reason, after having called Him Effulgence, Paul has added that He is the express image of His Person Hebrews 1:3, in order to make evident His proper Personality, and that He belongs to the same Essence of which He is also the express image. For, as I before said, it is not sufficient by a single expression to set before men the doctrines concerning God, but it is desirable that we bring many together, and choose from each what is suitable. So shall we be able to attain to a worthy telling of His glory, worthy, I mean, as regards our power; for if any should deem himself able to speak words suitable to His essential worthiness, and be ambitious to do so, saying, that he knows God as God knows Himself, he it is who is most ignorant of God.

Knowing therefore this, let us continue steadfastly to hold what they have delivered unto us, which from the beginning were eye-witnesses, and ministers of the word. Luke 1:2 And let us not be curious beyond: for two evils will attend those who are sick of this disease, (curiosity,) the wearying themselves in vain by seeking what it is impossible to find, and the provoking God by their endeavors to overturn the bounds set by Him. Now what anger this excites, it needs not that you who know should learn from us. Abstaining therefore from their madness, let us tremble at His words, that He may continually build us up. For, upon whom shall I look Isaiah 66:2, Septuagint, says He, but upon the lowly, and quiet, and who fears my words? Let us then leave this pernicious curiosity, and bruise our hearts, let us mourn for our sins as Christ commanded, let us be pricked at heart for our transgressions, let us reckon up exactly all the wicked deeds, which in time past we have dared, and let us earnestly strive to wipe them off in all kinds of ways.

Now to this end God has opened to us many ways. For, Tell you first, says He, your sins, that you may be justified Isaiah 43:26 ; and again, I said, I have declared mine iniquity unto You, and You have taken away the unrighteousness of my heart Psalm 32:5, Septuagint; since a continual accusation and remembrance of sins contributes not a little to lessen their magnitude. But there is another more prevailing way than this; to bear malice against none of those who have offended against us, to forgive their trespasses to all those who have trespassed against us. Will you learn a third? Hear Daniel, saying, Redeem your sins by almsdeeds, and your iniquities by showing mercy to the poor. Daniel 4:27, Septuagint And there is another besides this; constancy in prayer, and persevering attendance on the intercessions made with God. In like manner fasting brings to us some, and that not small comfort and release from sins committed, provided it be attended with kindness to others, and quenches the vehemence of the wrath of God. 1 Timothy 2:1 For water will quench a blazing fire, and by almsdeeds sins are purged away. Sirach 3:30, Septuagint

Let us then travel along all these ways; for if we give ourselves wholly to these employments, if on them we spend our time, not only shall we wash off our bygone transgressions, but shall gain very great profit for the future. For we shall not allow the devil to assault us with leisure either for slothful living, or for pernicious curiosity, since by these among other means, and in consequence of these, he leads us to foolish questions and hurtful disputations, from seeing us at leisure, and idle, and taking no forethought for excellency of living. But let us block up this approach against him, let us watch, let us be sober, that having in this short time toiled a little, we may obtain eternal goods in endless ages, by the grace and lovingkindness of our Lord Jesus Christ; by whom and with whom to the Father and the Holy Ghost, be glory for ever and ever. Amen.

[AD 407] John Chrysostom on John 1:9

1. Nothing hinders us from handling today also the same words, since before we were prevented by the setting forth of doctrines, from considering all that was read. Where now are those who deny that He is true God? For here He is called the true Light John 14:6, and elsewhere very Truth and very Life. That saying we will discuss more clearly when we come to the place; but at present we must for a while be speaking to your Charity of that other matter.

If He lights every man that comes into the world, how is it that so many continue unenlightened? For not all have known the majesty of Christ. How then does He light every man? He lights all as far as in Him lies. But if some, wilfully closing the eyes of their mind, would not receive the rays of that Light, their darkness arises not from the nature of the Light, but from their own wickedness, who willfully deprive themselves of the gift. For the grace is shed forth upon all, turning itself back neither from Jew, nor Greek, nor Barbarian, nor Scythian, nor free, nor bond, nor male, nor female, nor old, nor young, but admitting all alike, and inviting with an equal regard. And those who are not willing to enjoy this gift, ought in justice to impute their blindness to themselves; for if when the gate is opened to all, and there is none to hinder, any being willfully evil remain without, they perish through none other, but only through their own wickedness.

[AD 407] John Chrysostom on John 1:9

If he “enlightens everyone that comes into the world,” how is it that so many continue unenlightened? For not all have known the majesty of Christ. How then does he “enlighten everyone”? He enlightens all who live in him. But if some, willfully closing the eyes of their mind, would not receive the rays of that light, their darkness arises not from the nature of the light but from their own wickedness as they willfully deprive themselves of the gift. For the grace is shed forth upon all, turning its back on no one … but admitting all alike and inviting all equally. And those who are not willing to enjoy this gift ought in justice to impute their blindness to themselves. For if when the gate is opened to all and there is none to hinder, any who are willfully evil remain outside. They perish through no one else but their own wickedness.

Source: HOMILIES ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 8.1

[AD 430] Augustine of Hippo on John 1:9

(in Joan. Tr. ii) What Light it is to which John bears witness, he shows himself, saying, That was the true Light.

(Tract. ii. in Joh. §. 7) Wherefore is there added, true? Because man enlightened is called light, but the true Light is that which lightens. For our eyes are called lights, and yet, without a lamp at night, or the sun by day, these lights are open to no purpose. Wherefore he adds: which lighteneth every man: but if every man, then John himself. He Himself then enlightened the person, by whom He wished Himself to be pointed out. And just as we may often, from the reflexion of the sun's rays on some object, know the sun to be risen, though we cannot look at the sun itself; as even feeble eyes can look at an illuminated wall, or some object of that kind: even so, those to whom Christ came, being too weak to behold Him, He threw His rays upon John; John confessed the illumination, and so the Illuminator Himself was discovered. It is said, that cometh into the world. Had man not departed from Him, he had not had to be enlightened; but therefore is he to be here enlightened, because he departed thence, when he might have been enlightened.

(de Pecc. Mer. et Remiss. i. c. xxv) Or the words, lighteneth every man, may be understood to mean, not that there is no one who is not enlightened, but that no one is enlightened except by Him.

Source: Catena Aurea by Aquinas

[AD 430] Augustine of Hippo on John 1:9

But the apostles too, my brothers and sisters, are lamps for the day. Do not imagine that John alone is a lamp and that the apostles are not. The Lord said to them, “You are the light of the world.” And in case they should suppose they were light of the same sort as the light about which it is said, “That was the true light, which enlightens everyone coming into this world,” he went on immediately to teach them this true light. After saying, “You are the light of the world,” he added, “Nobody lights a lamp and puts it under the bushel.” In calling you light, I meant you are a lamp; do not jump about for joy in your pride, in case its little flame gets blown out. I am not placing you under a bushel; but in order to shine, you shall be on the lampstand.Listen to the lampstand; be lamps, and you shall have a lampstand. The cross of Christ is a great lampstand. Whoever wishes to shine must not be ashamed of this wooden lampstand.

Source: SERMON 289.6

[AD 444] Cyril of Alexandria on John 1:9

CHAPTER VIII. That the Son of God alone is Very Light, the creature not at all, being participate of Light, as originate.

That was the true Light.

The Divine Evangelist again profitably recapitulates what has been said, and clearly marks off That Which is in truth the Light, the Only-Begotten, from those that are not so, namely things originate: he severs clearly That Which is by nature from them which are by grace, That Which is partaken of from those which are participate of it, That Which ministereth Itself to those who lack from those who are in enjoyment of Its largess. And if the Son is Very Light, nought save He is in truth Light, nor hath of its own in potential the being called and being Light, nor yet will things originate produce this as fruit of their own nature; but just as from not being they are, so from not being Light will they mount up to being light, and by receiving the beams of the Very Light, and irradiated by the participation of the Divine Nature, will they in imitation of It alike be called and be light.

And the Word of God is Essentially Light, not being so of grace by participation, nor having this dignity as an accident in Himself, nor yet imported, as grace, but the unchangeable and immutable good of the Uncreated Nature, passing through from the Father into the Heir of His Essence. But the creature, not so will it bear about it the being light, but as not having it receives, as darkness it is illumined, it has, as an accruing grace, the dignity from the love to man of Him Who giveth it. Hence the One is Very Light, the other not at all. So great therefore being the difference |76 between, and so great a notion severing off, the Son of God from the creature in respect to sameness of nature, how must one not and with reason deem that they are foolish, yea rather outside of all good understanding, who say that He is originate, and rank with things made the Creator of all, not seeing, as seems to me, how great impiety their daring will risk, not knowing either what they say nor whereof they affirm.

For that to those who are used to test more accurately the truth in the words before us, the Only-Begotten, that is, the True Light, will be shown to be in no way originate or made, or in any thing at all con-natural with the creature, one may on all sides see and that very easily, and not least through the thoughts that are in order subjoined, collected for the consideration of what is before us.

Thoughts or syllogisms whereby one may learn that the Son Alone is Very Light, the creature not at all; hence neither is He connatural therewith.

If the Son being the Brightness of the glory of God the Father, is therefore Very Light, He will not be connatural with the creature, that the creature too be not conceived of as the brightness of the glory of God the Father, having in potential the being by nature this which the Son is.

Another. If the whole creation have the power of being Very Light, why is this attributed to the Son Alone? For one ought I suppose by reason of equality to give to things made also the title of being the Very Light. But no one of things originate will this befit, but it will be predicated of the Alone Essence of the Son. Of right therefore and truly will it rest on Him, on created things not at all. How then will He be connatural with the creation, and not rather belong to what is above the creation, as being above it with the Father?

Another. If that which is not in truth light be not the same as the in truth Light (for the enunciation of either has somewhat of diversity), and the Son be called Very Light, and be so of a truth: the creature will therefore not be Very Light. Hence neither are things thus severed from one another connatural.

Another. If not only the Only-Begotten be the Very Light, but the creature too possesseth the being very light, wherefore does He light every man that cometh into the world? For since the originate nature too possesseth this of its own, the being lightened by the Son were superfluous. Yet verily doth He light, all we are partakers of Him. Not therefore the same in regard to quality of essence, are the Son and the creature: as neither with the participator that whereof it is participate.

Another. If not only to the Son by Nature accrues the being Very Light, but the creature too have it, clearly of superfluity as I think will the Psalmist say to some, Look unto Him and be ye lightened. For that which is wholly of a truth light, will not become light by participation of some other, neither will it be illumined by enlightenment from other, but rather will be endowed with perfect purity from its own nature. But we see that man lacks light, being of created nature; and true is the Psalmist crying aloud as to the Word of God, For Thou wilt light my candle, the Lord my God will enlighten my darkness. Not then of a truth light are we, but rather participate of the Word that lighteth, and alien by nature from the Very Light, which is the Son.

Another of the same. If the mind of man is called a candle, as it is sung in the Psalms, For Thou wilt light my candle, how shall we be of a truth light? for to the candle the light is imported and given. And if the Only-Begotten Alone lights the darkness that is in us, how is not He rather of a truth light, we not at all? But if this be true, how can He be connatural with the creature, Who is so far above it?

Another. If to be very light can accrue to the creature, even as to the Son, man will be very light, as being a portion of it. To whom then did God the Father promise by the holy Prophets saying, But unto you that fear My Name shall the Sun of Righteousness arise? For whatever need of the Sun to illumine it had the of a truth light? Yet did God the Father promise to give it us as being in need, and we have received it and are lighted. Other then than we and the creature in regard to identity of essence is the Only-Begotten, being Very Light and able to lighten things that need light.

Another. If not the Son Alone is Very Light, but the creature too possess this, it will be consequently in us too. What then induced the saints to cry aloud to God, O send out Thy Light and Thy Truth? Wherein thinking to help us thereby did they oftentimes send forth, tell me, those words? For if they knew that man is in need of light and that he lacks this addition from another, how will any say with truth, that he too is Very Light? but if he needed not the lighting word, why to no purpose did they call on Him Who could in no wise aid them? But one cannot say that the mind of the saints failed of the truth, and God the Father Himself sends the Son as to those who lack light. Other therefore by Nature in respect of the creature is the Only-Begotten, as lighting things that lack Light.

Another. If we say that the creature lacks light, and that the Only-Begotten lightens it, the creature does not bring itself to the Light; hence neither is it Very Light as the Son is.

Another. If that which is by nature and truth light does not admit of darkness, and the Only-Begotten is Very Light, and the creature likewise Very Light, why does the Scripture say of the Son, The darkness comprehended it not: but of us Paul saith, In whom the god of this world hath blinded the eyes of them which believe not? and again the Saviour Himself, While ye have the light, walk in the light, lest darkness come upon you. For it is I suppose clear to all, that unless it were possible for some of us to be apprehended by the darkness, our Saviour would not have said ought of this. How then will any longer be the same in nature the Only-Begotten and the creature, the Unchangeable with the changing, He Who may not suffer ought that injures with the darkened and that can acquire lighting, as something, that is, accruing to it, and not inherent in it by nature?

Another. If the Only-Begotten be not Alone Very Light, but the creature have it too, as connatural with Him, how |79 cry we aloud to God the Father, In Thy Light shall we see light? For if we be very light, how shall we be enlightened in another? But if we as needing light from without us say this, we clearly are not in truth light. Hence neither are we connatural with the Word Who is by Nature so far above us.

Another expository. Our Lord Jesus Christ is found to say in the Gospel, And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light. But if the Only-Begotten is the Very Light, and the creature is capable of being likewise very light: how cometh He in order to lighten it, and it loved darkness? How at all cometh it not to the light, if itself be the very light? For things that pertain to any by nature have their possession inherent: things that are eligible of the will, have not that inherence: as for example;----not of one's own will does one attain to being a rational man; for one has it by nature: but one will have it of one's own will to be bad or good, and will likewise of one's own power love righteousness or the reverse. If the creature is by nature the light (for this is the meaning of very), how cometh it not to the light? or how loveth it the darkness, as though it possessed not by nature the being very light, but made through choice rather its inclination to the better or the worse?

Either therefore let our opponents dare to say that the endowments above those of the creature are not naturally inherent in the Son, that they may be convicted of more naked blasphemy and may hear from all, The Lord shall cut off all deceitful lips, and the tongue that speaketh proud things, or if they surely confess that these goods are in Him Essentially, let them not connect with Him in unity of nature, the nature that is not so, as we have just shewn.

Another. If the Word of God be not Alone the Very Light, but the creature too possess the being very light, as He does, why does He say, I am the light of the world? or how shall we endure one to despoil our nature of its most |80 excellent prerogative, if it is any way possible that we too should be very light, the originate nature likewise possessing this? But if the Only-Begotten says truly, I am the Light of the world, by participation it is plain with Him, and no otherwise, will the creature be light. If so, it is not connatural with Him.

Another. If the Son be not Alone in truth Light, but this exist in things originate also:----what shall we say, when the most wise Paul writes to us, But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people, that ye should show forth the praises of Him Who hath called you out of darkness into His marvellous Light? For what kind of darkness at all is there in us, or in what darkness were we, being ourselves also the in truth light? how have we been called unto the light, who are not in darkness? But neither does the herald of truth speak untrulySvho was bold to say, Do ye seek a proof of Christ speaking in me? and we are called into His marvellous Light, as from darkness that is, and no otherwise. But if this be true, the creature is not of a truth light, but the Son is alone truly and strictly Light, and things originate are so by participation of Him, and therefore they are not connatural with Him.

Others with citation of utterances, gathering the readers by simpler thoughts to the confession that the Son of God Alone is the Very Light, the nature of things originate lighted by largess from Him, not possessing the being light essentially as He is.

The Psalmist says, The light of Thy Countenance was impressed upon us, O Lord. And what is the Countenance of God the Father Whose Light has been impressed upon us? Is it not surely the Only-Begotten Son of God, the Express Image, and Which therefore says, He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father? But it was impressed on us, making us of like form with Himself and engraving the illumination which is through His own Spirit as a Divine Image upon those who believe on Him, that they too may now be called as He both gods and sons of God. But if ought of things originate were the very light, how was it impressed upon us? For the Light shineth in darkness, according to the unlying voice of the Spirit-clad. For how will light be manifest in light?

Another. The Psalmist says, Light sprang up for the righteous. If to him who hath and lacketh not, it is superfluous. But if the Light springeth up as to one who hath it not, the Only-Begotten Alone is Light, the creature participate of Light and therefore alien-in-nature.

Another. The Psalmist says, For they got not the land in possession with their own sword, neither did their own arm save them: but Thy Right Hand and Thine Arm and the Light of Thy Countenance. The light of the countenance of God the Father he here calls His revelation from the Son through the Spirit, and His conducting thereof unto all things that are, which alone was what saved Israel and liberated them from the tyranny of the Egyptians. If then not the Only-Begotten Alone be the very light, but an equal dignity be inherent in the creature too, why were these of whom he speaks not saved by their own light, but are set forth as supplied by additions from an alien and needless light? But it is clear that the Only Begotten shone forth as on those lacking Light. Hence is He (and that alone) the Very Light, and the creature borrows of Him the grace. If so, how will it any longer be connatural with Him?

Another. The Psalmist says, Blessed is the people that know the joyful sound: they shall walk, O Lord, in the Light of Thy Countenance. Why shall not they too walk rather in their own light? why, tell me, do they gathering illumination from another, hardly attain for themselves salvation, if they too are in truth light, as is the Countenance of God the Father, that is, the Son? But it is I suppose plain to every one from this too, that the Word bestoweth illumination on the creature, as lacking it, it is saved by receiving what it has not. How then are the Only-Begotten and the things made through Him any longer the same in essence?

Another. The Psalmist says, Unto the upright He hath sent forth light in the darkness. How was the upright in darkness at all, being himself too very light, if the nature of things originate have this, just as the Only-Begotten? But if the Light is sent to the upright as not having it, we shall not need many words; for the very nature of things will proclaim aloud that not the same in essence is the needy with the Perfect, the Bestower out of abundance with the lacking.

Another. Arise, shine, O Jerusalem: for thy Light is come, and the glory of the Lord is risen upon thee. If the nature of things originate have light from its own resources, and this be strictly what we say that the Only-Begotten is in regard of being Very Light, how did Jerusalem lack one to light her? But since she receives illumination as a grace, Very Light Alone is the Son Who lights her and gives her what she has not. If so, how is He not wholly Other by Nature than she?

Another. Behold I have given Thee for a covenant of the people, for a light of the Gentiles. For how should the rational creature that is on earth at all need light, if to be very light is inherent in it by nature? For God the Father gives His Own Son to it as having it not already: and it receiving Him proclaims by the very nature of the thing, both the poverty of its own nature and the Rich Dignity of Him Who lights it.

Another. O house of Jacob, come ye and let us walk in the light of the Lord. Why do these not rather walk in their own light, but the Only-Begotten holds forth light to them, implanting in them the own good of His Essence? But trusting not in what is their own, do they borrow what is another's: as not having therefore, they know how to do this.

Another. The Saviour saith, I am the Light of the world: he that followeth Me shall not walk in darkness but shall have the Light of life. Let the creature too dare to utter such a word, if it too be by nature light. But if it shrink back from the word, it will also flee the thing itself, confessing the true Light, that is, the Son.

Another. The Lord saith, While ye have light, believe in the Light, that ye may be the children of light. Would they who were by nature light, by not believing, lose the light? if it be indeed any way possible for the originate essence to be the very light. And how could this be? For not as to things that of essence accrue to any does the loss of them at all happen through negligence, but as to things whereof the will works the possession, and that can accrue and depart without the damage of the subject. As for example, a man is rational by nature, a ship-builder by will, or infirm in body by accident. He cannot at all become irrational; he may lose his ship-building experience, if for example he be negligent, and he may drive away what befalls him of sickness, hastening to improvement through medicine. Therefore things that accrue to any essentially have their position radical. If then the nature of things originate can at all be the very light, how do they who will not believe lose the light, or how will they who believe become children of light? For if they too are by nature the light, they are called children of themselves. And what is the reward to them that believe? for they who do not receive the faith are rather their own children. From such considerations inferring the truth, we shall say that the Only Begotten is Alone the Very Light, the creature lacking light and hence other in nature.

Another. Jesus then said unto them, Yet a little while is the light with you: walk while ye have the light, lest darkness come upon you. To this too you may apply well the argument used above. For that which is by nature light, will never be apprehended by darkness.

Another. John saith, He that saith he is in the light and hateth his brother is in darkness even until now. Of choice then is the light in us, and of will rather than of essence accrues it to things originate, if he that hateth his brother is in darkness. But the Only-Begotten is Light by Nature, for He hath not the dignity as the fruit of choice. Hence neither is He connatural to things originate Who is so far above them.

Another akin to this. He that loveth his brother abideth in the light. Love imparteth to things originate what they have not, Light that is, but the Only-Begotten is Light: Other therefore is He than they in whom through love He is.

[AD 444] Cyril of Alexandria on John 1:9

The rational portion of the creation, being enlightened, enlightens by sharing ideas from one mind as they are poured into another. Such enlightenment will rightly be called teaching rather than revelation. But the Word of God “enlightens everyone that comes into the world,” not after the manner of teaching, as the angels, for example, or people, but rather, as God after the mode of creation, he engrafts in each of those that are called into being the seed of wisdom or of divine knowledge and implants a root of understanding. In this way, he renders the living creature rational, allowing it to participate in his own nature and sending into the mind, as it were, certain luminous vapors of the unutterable brightness in a way and mode that only he himself knows. For one may not, I think, say too much on these subjects. Therefore our forefather Adam too is seen to have attained wisdom not in time, as we, but right away from the first beginnings of his being he appears perfect in understanding, preserving in himself the illumination given of God to his nature as yet untroubled and pure and holding the dignity of his nature unadulterated.The Son therefore lights after the manner of creation, as being himself the very Light. And by participation with the Light the creature shines forth and is therefore called and is light. The creature mounts up to what is above its nature by the kindness of him who glorified it and who crowns it with diverse honors. And so each one of those who have been honored may with good reason come forward and lift up prayers of thanksgiving.… For truly does the Lord commit acts of mercy, rendering those that are little and a mere nothing according to their own nature, great and worthy to be marveled at through his goodness toward them, even as he has, as God, willed to adorn us ungrudgingly with his own goods. And so he calls us gods and light. In fact, what good things are there that he does not call us?

Source: COMMENTARY ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 1.9

[AD 604] Gregory the Dialogist on John 1:9

Thou who art the true light that lighteneth every man that cometh into the world;

[AD 735] Bede on John 1:9

Including both natural and divine wisdom; for as no one can exist of himself, so no one can be wise of himself.

Source: Catena Aurea by Aquinas

[AD 1107] Theophylact of Ohrid on John 1:9

But it will be said, that we do not allow John or any of the saints to be or ever to have been light. The difference is this: If we call any of the saints light, we put light without the article. So if asked whether John is light, without the article, thou mayest allow without hesitation that he is: if with the article, thou allow it not. For he is not very, original, light, but is only called so, on account of his partaking of the light, which cometh from the true Light.

(in loc.) Let the Manichean blush, who pronounces us the creatures of a dark and malignant creator: for we should never be enlightened, were we not the children of the true Light.

(in loc.) Or thus: The intellect which is given in us for our direction, and which is called natural reason, is said here to be a light given us by God. But some by the ill use of their reason have darkened themselves.

Source: Catena Aurea by Aquinas

[AD 1107] Theophylact of Ohrid on John 1:9

The Evangelist is about to speak of the divine economy of the Incarnation of the Only-begotten, Who came unto His own and became flesh. So that no one would think that the Word did not exist before He took flesh, the Evangelist leads our mind upwards to that existence which is beyond every beginning, and says, "He was, even before He took flesh, the true Light." By this means he refutes the heresy of Photinus and Paul of Samosata, who taught that the Word began to exist when He was born of Mary, and before this, was not. And you also, O Arian, who say that the Son of God is not true God, listen to what the Evangelist calls Him: the true Light. And you, O Manichee, who say that we are the creations of an evil demiurge, listen: the true Light â€¦enlighteneth every man. If the evil demiurge is darkness, how could he enlighten anyone? Therefore, we are the creations of the true Light. How, you might ask, can He enlighten every man, when we see some who are in darkness? As far as it is His part to do, He enlightens all. Tell me, are we not all endowed with reason? Do we not all by nature know right from wrong? Do we not all have the power to comprehend the Creator from His creation? Therefore, the logos which has been given to us, which teaches us by nature and which is also called the natural law, may be called "light" which is given to us by God. If some make poor use of this logos, they darken themselves. But some have answered the question in this manner: the Lord enlighteneth every man that cometh into the world. That is to say, He enlightens those who have come to a better condition, and who strive to put in order and adorn their own soul and not to leave it disordered and ugly.

[AD 202] Irenaeus on John 1:10

And John, the disciple of the Lord, has intensified their condemnation, when he desires us not even to address to them the salutation of "good-speed; "for, says he, "He that bids them be of good-speed is a partaker with their evil deeds; ".
John, however, does himself put this matter beyond all controversy on our part, when he says, "He was in this world, and the world was made by Him, and the world knew Him not. He came unto His own .
However, as many as did receive Him, to these gave He power to become the sons of God, to those that believe in His name."

Source: Against Heresies Book I

[AD 235] Hippolytus of Rome on John 1:10

Source: Hippolytus Dogmatical and Historical Fragments

[AD 253] Origen of Alexandria on John 1:10

(Hom. 2 in div. loc.) For as, when a person leaves off speaking, his voice ceases to be, and vanishes; so if the Heavenly Father should cease to speak His Word, the effect of that Word, i. e. the universe which is created in the Word, shall cease to exist.

Source: Catena Aurea by Aquinas

[AD 407] John Chrysostom on John 1:10

(Hom. in Joan. viii. c. 1) And again, because He was in the world, but not coeval with the world, for this cause he introduced the words, and the world was made by Him: thus taking you back again to the eternal existence of the Only-Begotten. For when we are told that the whole of creation was made by Him, we must be very dull not to acknowledge that the Maker existed before the work.

(Hom. viii. c. 8. 56.) But they who were the friends of God, knew Him even before His presence in the body; whence Christ saith below, Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day. When the Gentiles then interrupt us with the question, Why has He come in these last times to work our salvation, having neglected us so long? we reply, that He was in the world before, superintending what He had made, and was known to all who were worthy of Him; and that, if the world knew Him not, those of whom the world was not worthy knew Him. The reason follows, why the world knew Him not. The Evangelist calls those men the world, who are tied to the world, and savour of worldly things; for there is nothing that disturbs the mind so much, as this melting with the love of present things.

Source: Catena Aurea by Aquinas

[AD 407] John Chrysostom on John 1:10

But not as of equal duration with the world. Away with the thought. Wherefore he adds, And the world was made by Him; thus leading you up again to the eternal existence of the Only-Begotten. For he who has heard that this universe is His work, though he be very dull, though he be a hater, though he be an enemy of the glory of God, will certainly, willing or unwilling, be forced to confess that the maker is before his works. Whence wonder always comes over me at the madness of Paul of Samosata, who dared to look in the face so manifest a truth, and voluntarily threw himself down the precipice. For he erred not ignorantly but with full knowledge, being in the same case as the Jews. For as they, looking to men, gave up sound faith, knowing that he was the only-begotten Son of God, but not confessing Him, because of their rulers, lest they should be cast out of the synagogue; so it is said that he, to gratify a certain woman, sold his own salvation. A powerful thing, powerful indeed, is the tyranny of vainglory; it is able to make blind the eyes even of the wise, except they be sober; for if the taking of gifts can effect this, much more will the yet more violent feeling of this passion. Wherefore Jesus said to the Jews, How can you believe, which receive honor one of another, and seek not the honor that comes from God only? John 5:44

And the world knew Him not. By the world he here means the multitude, which is corrupt, and closely attached to earthly things, the common turbulent, silly people. For the friends and favorites of God all knew Him, even before His coming in the flesh. Concerning the Patriarch Christ Himself speaks by name, that your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it, and was glad. John 8:56 And concerning David, confuting the Jews He said, How then does David in spirit call Him Lord, saying, the Lord said unto my Lord, Sit on My right hand. Matthew 22:43; Mark 12:36; Luke 20:42 And in many places, disputing with them, He mentions Moses; and the Apostle (mentions) the rest of the prophets; for Peter declares, that all the prophets from Samuel knew Him, and proclaimed beforehand His coming afar off, when he says, All the prophets from Samuel and those that follow after, as many as have spoken, have likewise foretold of these days. Acts 3:24 But Jacob and his father, as well as his grandfather, He both appeared to and talked with, and promised that He would give them many and great blessings, which also He brought to pass.

How then, says one, did He say Himself, 'Many prophets have desired to see those things which you see, and have not seen them; and to hear those things which you hear, and have not heard them'? Luke 10:24 Did they then not share in the knowledge of Him? Surely they did; and I will endeavor to make this plain from this very saying, by which some think that they are deprived of it. For many, He says, have desired to see the things which you see. So that they knew that He would come [to men] from heaven, and would live and teach as He lived and taught; for had they not known, they could have not desired, since no one can conceive desire for things of which he has no idea; therefore they knew the Son of Man, and that He would come among men. What then are the things which they did not hear? What those which they did not know? The things which you now see and hear. For if they did hear His voice and did see Him, it was not in the Flesh, not among men; nor when He was living so familiarly, and conversing so frankly with them. And indeed He to show this said not simply, to see Me: but what? the things which you see; nor to hear Me: but what? the things which you hear. So that if they did not behold His coming in the Flesh, still they knew that it would be, and they desired it, and believed on Him without having seen Him in the Flesh.

When therefore the Greeks bring charges such as these against us, and say; What then did Christ in former time, that He did not look upon the race of men? And for what possible reason did He come at last to assist in our salvation, after neglecting us so long? we will reply, that before this He was in the world, and took thought for His works, and was known to all who were worthy. But if you should say, that, because all did not then know Him, because He was only known by those noble and excellent persons, therefore He was not acknowledged; at this rate you will not allow that He is -->worshipped--> even now, since even now all men do not know Him. But as at present no one, because of those who do not know Him, would refuse credit to those who do, so as regards former times, we must not doubt that He was known to many, or rather to all of those noble and admirable persons.

2. And if any one say, Why did not all men give heed to Him? Nor all worship Him, but the just only? I also will ask, why even now do not all men know him? But why do I speak of Christ, when not all men knew His Father then, or know Him now? For some say, that all things are borne along by chance, while others commit the providence of the universe to devils. Others invent another God besides Him, and some blasphemously assert, that His is an opposing power, and think that His laws are the laws of a wicked dæmon. What then? Shall we say that He is not God because there are some who say so? And shall we confess Him to be evil? For there are some who even so blaspheme Him. Away with such mental wandering, such utter insanity. If we should delineate doctrines according to the judgment of madmen, there is nothing to hinder us from being mad ourselves with most grievous madness. No one will assert, looking to those who have weak vision, that the sun is injurious to the eyes, but he will say that it is fitted to give light, drawing his judgments from persons in health. And no one will call honey bitter, because it seems so to the sense of the sick. And will any, from the imaginations of men diseased (in mind) decide that God either is not, or is evil; or that He sometimes indeed exerts His Providence, sometimes does not so at all? Who can say that such men are of sound mind, or deny that they are beside themselves, delirious, utterly mad?

The world, he says, knew Him not; but they of whom the world was not worthy knew Him. And having spoken of those who knew Him not, he in a short time puts the cause of their ignorance; for he does not absolutely say, that no one knew Him, but that the world knew him not; that is, those persons who are as it were nailed to the world alone, and who mind the things of the world. For so Christ was wont to call them; as when He says, O Holy Father, the world has not known You. Luke 17:25 The world then was ignorant, not only of Him, but also of His Father, as we have said; for nothing so darkens the mind as to be closely attached to present things.

Knowing therefore this, remove yourselves from the world, and tear yourselves as much as possible from carnal things, for the loss which comes to you from these lies not in common matters, but in what is the chief of goods. For it is not possible for the man who clings strongly to the things of the present life really to lay hold on those in heaven, but he who is earnest about the one must needs lose the other. You cannot, He says, serve God and Mammon Matthew 6:24, for you must hold to the one and hate the other. And this too the very experience of the things proclaims aloud. Those, for instance, who deride the lust of money, are especially the persons who love God as they ought, just as those who respect that sovereignty (of Mammon), are the men who above all others have the slackest love for Him. For the soul when made captive once for all by covetousness, will not easily or readily refuse doing or saying any of the things which anger God, as being the slave of another master, and one who gives all his commands in direct opposition to God. Return then at length to your sober senses, and rouse yourselves, and calling to mind whose servants we are, let us love His kingdom only; let us weep, let us wail for the times past in which we were servants of Mammon; let us cast off once for all his yoke so intolerable, so heavy, and continue to bear the light and easy yoke of Christ. For He lays no such commands upon us as Mammon does. Mammon bids us be enemies to all men, but Christ, on the contrary, to embrace and to love all. The one having nailed us to the clay and the brickmaking, (for gold is this,) allows us not even at night to take breath a little; the other releases us from this excessive and insensate care, and bids us gather treasures in heaven, not by injustice towards others, but by our own righteousness. The one after our many toils and sufferings is not able to assist us when we are punished in that place and suffer because of his laws, nay, he increases the flame; the other, though He command us to give but a cup of cold water, never allows us to lose our reward and recompense even for this, but repays us with great abundance. How then is it not extremest folly to slight a rule so mild, so full of all good things, and to serve a thankless, ungrateful tyrant, and one who neither in this world nor in the world to come is able to help those who obey and give heed to him. Nor is this the only dreadful thing, nor is this only the penalty, that he does not defend them when they are being punished; but that besides this, he, as I before said, surrounds those who obey him with ten thousand evils. For of those who are punished in that place, one may see that the greater part are punished for this cause, that they were slaves to money, that they loved gold, and would not assist those who needed. That we be not in this case, let us scatter, let us give to the poor, let us deliver our souls from hurtful cares in this world, and from the vengeance, which because of these things is appointed for us in that place. Let us store up righteousness in the heavens. Instead of riches upon earth, let us collect treasures impregnable, treasures which can accompany us on our journey to heaven, which can assist us in our peril, and make the Judge propitious at that hour. Whom may we all have gracious unto us, both now and at that day, and enjoy with much confidence the good things prepared in the heavens for those who love Him as they ought, through the grace and lovingkindness of our Lord Jesus Christ, with whom, to the Father and the Holy Ghost, be glory, now and ever, and world without end. Amen.

[AD 407] John Chrysostom on John 1:10

“He was in the world,” but not as though he was of equal duration with the world. Away with such an idea! This is why he adds, “And the world was made by him.” In this way, John leads you up again to the eternal existence of the Only Begotten. For anyone who has heard that this universe is his work, even if he is not very smart or despises the glory of God, will certainly (whether he wants to or not) be forced to confess that the maker comes before his works.

Source: HOMILIES ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 8.1

[AD 430] Augustine of Hippo on John 1:10

(Tr. in Joan. ii. c. 8) The Light which lighteneth every man that cometh into the world, came here in the flesh; because while He was here in His Divinity alone, the foolish, blind, and un-righteous could not discern Him; those of whom it is said above, The darkness comprehended it not. Hence the text; He was in the world.

(Tr. ii. c. 10) You must not suppose, however, that He was in the world in the same sense in which the earth, cattle, men, are in the world; but in the sense in which an artificer controls his own work; whence the text, And the world was made by Him. Nor again did He make it after the manner of an artificer; for whereas an artificer is external to what he fabricates, God pervades the world, carrying on the work of creation in every part, and never absent from any part: by the presence of His Majesty He both makes and controls what is made. Thus He was in the world, as He by Whom the world was made.

(Tr. in Joan. ii. c. 11) But what meaneth this, The world was made by Him? The earth, sky, and sea, and all that are therein, are called the world. But in another sense, the lovers of the world are called the world, of whom he says, And the world knew Him not. For did the sky, or Angels, not know their Creator, Whom the very devils confess, Whom the whole universe has borne witness to? Who then did not know Him? Those who, from their love of the world, are called the world; for such live in heart in the world, while those who do not love it, have their body in the world, but their heart in heaven; as saith the Apostle, our conversation is in heaven. (Phil. 3:20) By their love of the world, such men merit being called by the name of the place where they live. And just as in speaking of a bad house, or good house, we do not mean praise or blame to the walls, but to the inhabitants; so when we talk of the world, we mean those who live there in the love of it.

Source: Catena Aurea by Aquinas

[AD 430] Augustine of Hippo on John 1:10

He is said to have come to us, not by traveling through space but by appearing to mortals in human flesh. He came, then, to that place where he already was, because he was in the world and the world was made by him. But, because of their eagerness to enjoy the creature in place of the Creator, people have been conformed to this world and have been fittingly called “the world.” Consequently, they did not know wisdom, and, therefore, the Evangelist said, “the world knew him not.”

Source: CHRISTIAN INSTRUCTION 1.12

[AD 430] Augustine of Hippo on John 1:10

Which world was made through him that did not know him? I mean, it wasn’t the world that was through him that did not know him. What is the world that was made through him? Heaven and earth. How can it be that the heavens did not know him, when during his passion the sun was darkened? How that the earth did not know him, seeing that it quaked as he hung there? But “the world did not know him,” the world whose prince is the one of whom it is said, “Behold, the prince of this world is coming, and in me he can find nothing.” Bad people are called “the world,” unbelievers are called “the world.” They got the name from the thing they love. By loving God, we are made into gods. So by loving the world we are called “the world.”

Source: SERMON 121.1

[AD 444] Cyril of Alexandria on John 1:10

And the world knew Him not.

The bearer of the Spirit is watchful and hastens to forestall the sophistry of some; and you may marvel again at the reasoning in his thoughts. He named the Son Very Light, and affirmed that He lighteth every man that cometh into the world, and besides says that He was in the world and the world was made through Him.

But one of our opponents might forthwith say, "If the Word, sirs, were light and if it lighted the heart of every man, unto Divine knowledge that is and unto the under-standing that befits man, and if it were always in the world and were Himself its Maker, how came He to be unknown even during so long periods? He therefore was not lighting nor yet was He at all the Light."

These things the Divine meets with some warmth saying The world knew Him not: not on His own account was He unknown, says he; but let the world blame its own weakness. For the Son lighteth, the creature blunts the grace. It had imparted to it sight to conceive of Him Who is God by Nature, and it squandered the gift, it made things made the limit of its contemplation, it shrank from going further, it buried the illumination under its negligence, it neglected the gift which that it might not befall him Paul commands his disciple to watch. Nought then to the light is the ill of the enlightened. For as the light of the sun rises upon all, but the blind is nothing profited, yet we do not therefore reasonably blame the sun's ray, but rather find fault with the disease of the sight (for the one was lighting, the other received not the lighting): so (I deem) ought we to conceive of the Only-Begotten also, that He is Very Light. But the god of this world, as Paul too saith, hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the knowledge of God should shine among them. We say then that the man was subjected to blindness herein, not that he reached a total deprivation of light (for the God-given understanding is surely preserved in his nature) but that he was quenching it with his more foolish manner of life and that by turning aside to the worse he was wasting and melting away the measure of the grace. Wherefore the most wise Psalmist too when representing to us the character of such an one, then indeed (and rightly) begs to be enlightened, saying to God, Open Thou mine eyes that I may behold wondrous things out of Thy law. For He gave them the law to be their help, which re-kindled in us the Divine Light and purged away like a sort of humour from the eyes of the heart the darkness which came upon them from the ancient unlearning.

The world then is under the charge of unthankfulness alike and want of perception in this matter, both as ignorant of its own Creator, and showing forth no good fruit from being lighted, that that again may be manifestly true of it, which was sung by prophet's voice of the children of Israel, I looked that it should bring forth grapes, but it brought forth thorns. For the fruit of being enlightened is verily the true apprehension of the Only Begotten, hanging like a grape-bunch from the vine branch, I mean man's understanding, and not on the contrary the uncounsel that leads to polytheistic error, like the sharp briar rising up within us and wounding to death our mind with its deceits.

[AD 444] Cyril of Alexandria on John 1:10

And the world was made by Him.

The Evangelist in these words needfully indicates that the world was made through the Very Light, that is, the Only-Begotten. For although, having called Him most distinctly Word at the beginning, he affirmed that all things were made through Him, and that without Him nothing was brought into being, and demonstrated thereby that He was their Maker and Creator: yet it was necessary now most particularly to take this up again anew, that no room of error and perdition might be left to those who are wont to pervert the uprightness of the Divine dogmas. For when he said of the Light that it was in the world, that no one wresting the saying to senseless conceptions, should make the Light connumerate with the visible portions of the universe (as sun and moon and stars for example are in the world, but as parts of the universe, and as limbs of one body), profitably and of necessity does the Evangelist introduce the Only-Begotten as Fashioner and Artificer of the whole universe, and thereby again fully stablishes us and leads us into an unerring and right apprehension of the truth. For who would be so silly or have such great folly in his mind, as not to conceive that wholly other than the universe is He through Whom it is said to have been made, and to put the creature in its own place, to sever off the Creator in reasoning and to conceive that His Nature is Divine? For the thing made must needs be other in nature than the Maker, that maker and made appear not the same.

For if they be conceived of as the same, without any inherent distinction as to the mode of being, the made will mount up to the nature of the Maker, the Creator descend to that of the creatures, and will no longer have Alone the power of bringing into being, but this will be found to exist in potential in things made also, if nothing at all severs them from being consubstantial with God: and so at length the creature will be its own creator and the Evangelist will endow the Only-Begotten with a mere title of honour when he says that He was in the world, and the world, was made by Him. But he knows that the Creator of all things is One in Nature. Not as the same then will made and Maker, God and creature be conceived of by those who know how to believe aright, but the one will be subject as a bondman, acknowledging the limit of its own nature: the Son will reign over it, having Alone with the Father the power both to call things which he not as though they were and by His ineffable Power to bring that which is not yet into being.

But that the Son being by Nature God, is wholly Other than the creature, we having already sufficiently gone through in the Discourse of the Holy Trinity, will say nothing more here. But we will add this for profit, that in saying that the world was made through Him he brings us up to the thought of the Father, and with the "Through Whom" brings in also the "Of Whom." For all things are from the Father through the Son in the Holy Ghost.

[AD 444] Cyril of Alexandria on John 1:10

What does he say next? That He was in the world. Profitably does the Divine add this also, introducing thereby a thought most needful for us. For when he said, He was the Very Light which lighteth every man coming into the world, and it was not wholly clear to the hearers, whether it meant that the Light lighteth every man that cometh into the world, or that the Very Light itself, passing as from some other place into the world, maketh its illumination of all men: needs does the Spirit-bearer reveal to us the truth and interpret the force of his own words, saying straightway of the Light, that He was in the world: that hence you might understand the words coming into the world of man, and that it might be predicated rather of the enlightened nature, as being called out of not being into being. For like a |88 certain place seen in thought is the not being to things originate, whence in a sort of way passing into being, it takes at length another place, that namely of being. Hence more properly and fitly will the nature of man admit of itself that it was lighted immediately from the first periods, and that it received understanding coincident and co-fashioned with its being from the Light Which is in the world, that is the Only-Begotten, Who fills all things with the unspeakable light of the God-head, and is present with the angels in Heaven, is with those on the earth, leaves not even Hellitself empty of His God-head, and everywhere abiding with all removes from none, so that with reason does the most wise Psalmist marvelling thereat say: Whither shall I go from Thy Spirit? or whither shall I flee from Thy Presence? If I ascend up into Heaven, Thou art there: if I make my bed in Hell, behold Thou art there. If I take the wings of the morning and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea, even there shall Thy Hand lead me, and Thy Right Hand shall hold me. For the Divine Hand graspeth every place and all creation, holding together into being things made and drawing together unto life things lacking life, and implanting the spiritual light in things recipient of understanding. Yet It is not in place, as we have already said, nor does it endure motion of place (for this is the property of bodies), but rather fulfils all things as God.

But perhaps some one will say to this, What then do we say, good sir, when any brings forward to us Christ saying, I am come a light into the world? what when the Psalmist speaks, O send out Thy Light and Thy Truth 1 For lo here He Himself clearly says that He is come into the world, as not being in it, that is: and the Psalmist again was entreating that He Who was not yet present should be sent, according, that is, to the meaning of the words, and its declaration of His being sent to us.

To this we say, that the Divine having clad the Only-Begotten with God-befitting dignity says that He is ever and unceasingly in the world, as Life by Nature, as Light by Essence, fulfilling the creation as God, not circumscript |89 by place, not meted by intervals, not comprehended by quantity, neither compassed at all by ought, nor needing to pass from one place to another, but in all He dwells, none He forsakes: yet he asserted that He came in the world (although present therein) by the Incarnation. For He showed Himself upon earth and conversed with men with flesh, making His Presence in the world more manifest thereby, and He Who was aforetime comprehended by idea, seen at length by the very eyes of the body also, implanted in us a grosser so to speak perception of the knowledge of God, made known by wonders and mighty deeds. And the Psalmist entreats that the Word of God may be sent to us to enlighten the world, in no other way as seems to me, but in this. But I think that the studious should consider this again, that keener is the mind than all speech, sharper the motion of the understanding than the tongue. Hence as far as pertains to the delicacy of the mind and its subtil motion, we behold the varied beauty of the Divine Nature: but we utter the things respecting it in more human wise and in the speech that belongs to us, the tongue not being able to stretch forth unto the measure of the truth. Wherefore Paul too, the steward of the Mysteries of the Saviour, used to ask of God utterance to open his mouth. Nought then will the poverty of our language hurt the Natural Dignities of the Only-Begotten, but what belongs to Him will be conceived of after a Divine sort, but will be uttered as matter of necessity in more human wise, both by Him for our sakes and by the Saints of Him according to the measure of our nature.

It were then, it seems, not amiss to be content with what has been already said in explanation of the words before us. Yet since I deem that the pen that ministers to the Divine doctrines should be above sloth, come let us bringing forward the lection again examine more exactly how the words coming into the world predicated of man, as is fit, should be understood. For the light was in the world, as the Evangelist also himself testified to us, and we have maintained that it was not the Light that cometh into the world but rather the man |90 who is being lighted. Some therefore say, belching forth of their own heart and not out of the mouth of the Lord, as it is "written, that the souls of men were pre-existent in Heaven before the fashioning of their bodies, passing long time in un-embodied bliss, and enjoying more purely the true Good. But when the sate of better things came into them and, declining at length to the worser, they sank to strange thoughts and desires, the Creator justly displeased sends them forth into the world, and entangled them with bodies of earth compelling them to be burdened therewith, and having shut them as it were in some cave of strange pleasures, decreed to instruct them by the very trial itself, how bitter it is to be carried away to the worser, and to make no account of what is good. And in proof of this most ridiculous fable of theirs, they wrest first of all this that is now before us: He was the Very Light Which lighteth every man coming into the world, and, besides, certain other things of the Divine Scripture, such as, Before I was afflicted I went astray, and moreover not ashamed of such foolish prating say, Lo the soul says that before its humiliation, that is, its embodiment, it transgressed and that therefore it was justly afflicted, brought in bondage to death and corruption, even as Paul too stileth the body saying O wretched man that I am I who shall deliver me from, the body of this death? But if the soul, he says, goeth astray before it was afflicted, it also cometh into the world, as having that is a previous being (for how could it sin at at all if it existed not yet?); and cometh into the world, setting out that is from some quarter. Such things as these they stringing against the doctrines of the Church and heaping up the trash of their empty expositions in the ears of the of the faithful will rightly hear, Woe unto the foolish prophets that follow their own spirit and have seen nothing! For visions in truth, and auguries by birds and prophecies of their own heart they setting against the words spoken by the Spirit, do not perceive to how great absurdity their device will run; as the Psalmist says unto God, Thou, Thou art to be feared: and who may stand in Thy Sight when once Thou art angry?

But that it is most exceedingly absurd to suppose that the soul pre-exists, and to think that for elder transgressions it was sent down into bodies of earth, we shall endeavour to prove according to our ability by the subjoined considerations, knowing what is written, Give instruction to a wise man, and he will be yet wiser: teach a just man, and he will increase in learning.

Thoughts or considerations of a complex kind in the way of demonstration.

1. If the soul of man have existence prior to the formation of the body, and, declining to evil according to the surmises of some, has for punishment of its transgression a descent into flesh, how, tell me, does the Evangelist say that it is lighted on coming into the world? For this I suppose is honour and the addition of fair gifts. But not by being honoured is one punished, nor yet chastised by being made recipient of the Divine good things, but by meeting with what is of the wrath of the punisher. But since man on his coming into the world is not in this condition, but on the contrary is even lighted, it is I suppose clear that he that is honoured with flesh has not his embodiment for a punishment.

2. Another. If before the body the soul were a mind yet pure, living in bliss, and by turning aside to ill fell, and therefore came to be in flesh, how is it lighted on its entry into the world? For one must needs say that it was destitute of light before it came: if so, how any longer was that pure mind which had then scarce a beginning of being lighted, when it came into the world, and not without flesh?

3. Another. If the soul of man existed before the body; and the mind therefore existed yet pure, attached more properly to the desire of good things, but from turning aside to the worser is sent into earthly body, and being therein, no longer rejects the will to transgress, how is it not wronged, not then specially entrusted with the doing of this, when it existed with a greater aptness for virtue, not as yet in bondage to the ills that proceed from the body, but when it had come into the turbid waters of sin, then out of season compelled to do this? But the Divinity will not miss of the befitting time, nor that injure to Whose Nature doing injury belongeth not. In season then and rightly do we refuse sin when in the flesh, having this season alone of being, in which with bodies we come into the world, leaving the former not being, as though a certain place, and from it passing into a beginning of being.

4. Another. What reason is there, I would fain ask them, in the soul that sinned prior to the body being sent into the body, that it might learn by experience the disgrace of its own lusts? For they are not ashamed to set forth this too, although it ought rather to have been withdrawn from the very imagination of its ills, not thrust down to the very depth of base pleasures. For this rather than the other were a mode of healing. If then it has the embodiment an increase of its disease in order that it may revel in the pleasures of the body, one would not praise the Corrector, injuring that which was sick by the very means whereby He thought to advantage it. But if it has it in order that it may cease from its passions, how is it possible that it having fallen into the very depth of lust should arise, and not rather have spurned the very beginning of the disease, while it was free from that which dragged it down into sin?

5. Another. If the soul in pre-existence transgressed and was for this reason entangled with flesh and blood, receiving this in the nature of punishment, how is it not the duty of them who believe in Christ and who received thereby the remission of sin, to go forthwith out of their bodies and to cast away that which is put about them as a punishment? How, tell me, does the soul of man have perfect remission while yet bearing about it the method of its punishment? But we see that they who believe are so far from wishing to be freed from their bodies, that together with their confessions in Christ they declare the resurrection of the flesh. No method of punishment then will that be which is honoured even with the confession of the faith, witnessing, through its return back to life, to the Divine Power of the Saviour the being able to do all things easily.

6. Another. If the soul pre-existing according to them sinned and was for this reason entangled with flesh, why does the Law order the graver offences to be honoured with death, and suffer him who has committed no crime to live? For I suppose that it would rather have been right to let those who are guilty of the basest ill linger long in their bodies, that they might be the more heavily punished, and to let those who had committed no crime free from their bodies, if the embodiment ranks as a punishment. But on the contrary, the murderer is punished with death, the righteous man suffers nothing in his body. The embodiment does not therefore belong to punishment.

7. Another. If souls were embodied for previous sins, and the nature of the body were invented as a species of punishment for them, how did the Saviour profit us by abolishing death? how was not rather decay a mercy, destroying that which punished us, and putting an end to the wrath against us? Hence one might rather say that it were meeter to give thanks to decay than on the contrary to Him Who laid on us endless infliction through the resurrection of the dead. And yet we give thanks as freed from death and decay through Christ. Hence embodiment is not of the nature of punishment to the soul of man.

8. Another from the same idea. If the souls of men were entangled with earthly bodies in satisfaction of elder transgressions, what thank tell me shall we acknowledge to God Who promises us the Resurrection? For this is clearly a renewal of punishment and a building up of what hurts us, if a long punishment is clearly bitter to every one. It is then hard that bodies should rise which have an office of punishment to their wretched souls. And yet nature has from Christ, as a gift renewing it unto joy, the resurrection. The embodiment is not therefore of the nature of punishment.

9. Another. The Prophetic word appears as publishing to us some great and long desired-feast. For, says it, the |94 dead shall arise, and they that be in the tombs shall be raised. But if the embodiment were indeed of the nature of punishment to the wretched souls of men, how would not the Prophet rather sorrow when proclaiming these things as from God? How will that proclamation be in any way good which brings us the duration of what vexes us? For he should rather have said, if he wished to rejoice those who had received bodies by reason of sin, The dead shall not arise, and the nature of the flesh shall perish. But on the contrary he rejoices them saying that there shall be a resurrection of bodies by the will of God. How then can the body wherein both ourselves rejoice and God is well pleased be (according to the uncounsel of some) of the nature of a punishment?

10. Another. God, in blessing the blessed Abraham promised that his seed should be as the multitude innumerable of the stars. If it be true that the soul sinning before the body is sent down to earth and flesh to be punished, God promised to the righteous man, an ignoble multitude of condemned, runagates from good, and not a seed participant of blessing. But God says this as a blessing to Abraham: hence the origin of bodies is freed from all accusal.

11. Another. The race of the Israelites spread forth into a multitude great and innumerable. And indeed justly marvellous at this does the hierophant Moses pray saying to them, And behold ye are this day as the stars of heaven for multitude: the Lord God of your fathers make you a thousand times so many more as ye are. But if it were punishment to the souls of men to be in the world with bodies, and they must needs so be, and not bare of them, Moses' saying will be found to be verily a curse, not a blessing. But it is not so, it was made as a blessing: the embodiment therefore is not of the nature of punishment.

12. Another. To those who attempt to ask amiss God endures not to give. And an unlying witness to us will be the disciple of the Saviour, saying, Ye ash and receive not, because ye ash amiss. If then it were a punishment to a soul to be embodied, how would not one with reason say that Hannah the wife of Elkanah missed widely of what was |95 fit, when she so instantly poured her prayer unto God and asked for a man child. For she was asking for the downfall of a soul and its descent into a body. How then came God to give her the holy Samuel as her son, if it were wholly of necessity that a soul should sin, in order that so, entangled with a body, it might fulfil the woman's request. And yet God gave, to Whom it is inherent to give only good things and, by readily assenting to her, He frees her request from all blame. Hence embodiment is not a result of sin, nor yet of the nature of punishment as some say.

13. Another. If the body has been given as a punishment to the soul of man, what induced Hezekiah the king of Jerusalem, although good and wise, to deprecate not without bitter tears the death of the body, and to shrink from putting off the instrument of his punishment, and to beseech that he might be honoured with an increase of years, although he surely ought, if he were really good, not to have deprecated death, but to have thought it a burden to be entangled with a body and to have acknowledged this rather than the other as a favour. And how did God promise him as a favour saying, Behold I will add unto thy days fifteen years, albeit the promise was an addition of punishment, not a mode of kindness, if these set forth the truth? Yet the promise from above was a gift and the addition a kindness. Hence the embodiment is not a punishment to souls.

14. Another. If the body is given to the soul of man in the light of punishment, what favour did God repay to the Eunuch who brought up Jeremiah out of the dungeon, saying, I will give thy life for a prey and will save thee from the Chaldeans? For He should rather have let him die that He might also honour him, releasing him from the prison and punishment. What tell me did He give to the young men of Israel, in delivering them from the flame and from the cruelty of the Babylonians? why did He rescue the wise Daniel from the cruelty of the lions? But verily He doeth these things in kindness and is glorified because of them. The dwelling in the flesh is not then of the nature of |96 punishment, in order that honour and punishment at God's hands may not be one and the same.

15. Another. Paul teaching us that there shall be in due time an investigation before the Divine Judgment-seat of each man's life says, For we must all appear before the judgement-seat of Christ, that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he done, whether it be good or bad. But if it be only for the things done in the body that a man either receiveth punishment at the hands of the Judge, or is accounted worthy of befitting reward, and no mention is made of prior sins, nor any charge previous to his birth gone into: how had the soul any pre-existence, or how was it humbled in consequence of sin, as some say, seeing that its time with flesh is alone marked out, for that the things alone that were done in it are gone into?

16. Another. If souls were embodied on account of previous sins, how does Paul write to us saying, Present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God? For if in the nature of punishment they were given to our wretched souls, how should we present then for an odour of a sweet smell to God? how will that be acceptable through which we received our sentence? or what kind of virtue at all will that admit of, whose nature is punishment, and root sin?

17. Another. showing that corruption is extended against the whole nature of man, because of the transgression in Adam, Paul saith, Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression. How then does he say that death reigned even over them that had not sinned, if the mortal body were given us in consequence of former sins? For where at all are they that have not sinned, if the embodiment be the punishment of faults, and our being in this life with our body is a pre-existing charge against us? Unlearned then is the proposition of our opponents.

18. Another. The Disciples once made enquiry of our Saviour concerning one born blind, and said, Master who did sin, this man or his parents, that he was born blind? For since it is written in the prophetic Scriptures, of God, that |97 He visits the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, the disciples began to imagine that such was the case with this man. What then does Christ say to this? Verily I say to you, neither hath this man sinned nor his parents, but that the works of God should be made manifest in him. How then does He exempt them from sin, although not free from blame as to their lives? for being men, they were surely liable also to faults. But it is manifest and clear that the discourse pertains to the period prior to birth, during which they not yet existing, neither had they sinned, that Christ may be true.

19. Another. The blessed Prophet Isaiah explaining the reason of the earth being made says, He created it not in vain, He formed it to be inhabited. But it was altogether right that the earth should be inhabited, not filled with bare spirits, nor with fleshless and unclad souls, but with bodies suitable to it. Was it then Divine Counsel that wrought that souls should sin, in order that the nature of bodies should also come into being, and thus at length the earth be shown to have been created not in vain? But this is absurd; the other therefore has the better.

20. Another. Wisdom the Artificer of all things says of herself in the book of Proverbs I was she in whom He rejoiced, the Creator of all that is, and I daily rejoiced always before Him when He rejoiced in having consummated the world and took delight in the sons of men. When then on His completion of the world, God rejoices exceedingly in the forming of man, how will he not be bereft of all sense who subjects the soul to previous sins and says that it was therefore embodied, and was punished after this fashion? For will not God be the maker of a prison rather than a world? will He not be delighting contrary to reason in those who are undergoing punishment? And how will He be Good who delights in things so absurd? But verily He is Good and therefore the Maker of things good: the embodiment will not therefore be of the nature of punishment.

21. Another. If the soul of man by its entanglement with flesh pays the penalty of transgressions prior to its birth in the world, and the body occupies the position of a punishment to it, why was the Flood brought in upon the world of the ungodly, and Noah being upright was preserved and has this recompense of his faith from God? For ought not rather those who had sinned exceedingly to have lingered longer time in the body that they might be punished also more severely, and the good to have been set free from their bonds of flesh and received the release from the body as the recompense of their piety toward God? But I suppose that the Creator of all being Righteous lays on each rank the sentence due to it. Since then He being Righteous punishes the ungodly with the death of the body, gladdens again the righteous with life together with the body: bodies are no punishment to the souls of men, that God be not unrighteous, punishing the ungodly with favour, honouring again the righteous with punishment.

22. Another. If to pay the penalty of previous offences the soul has descended into flesh and body, how did the Saviour love Lazarus, raising him, and compelling him. who was once set free from his bands to return to them again? But Christ did it helping him and as a friend did He honour the dead by raising him from the dead. To no purpose then is the proposition of the opponents.

23. Another. If, as those in their nonsense say, the body was given to the soul in the light of a punishment, devised on account of former sin of its, it was sin that brought in the nature of human bodies. But again also death entered by sin: sin therefore clearly appears arming itself against itself, undoing the beginning by what follows, and Satan is therefore divided against himself, how then shall his kingdom stand? as our Saviour saith. But verily so to think is incredible: the contrary therefore is true.

24. Another. God created all things in incorruption and He made not death, but through envy of the devil came death into the world. But if it be true, that the body was given in nature of punishment to the soul of man, why, sirs, should we accuse the envy of the devil for bringing in to us the termination of wretchedness and destroying the body which is our punishment? And for what in the world do we offer thanks to the Saviour for having again bound us to the flesh through the resurrection? yet we do indeed give thanks, and the envy of the devil has vexed our nature, procuring corruption to our bodies. No mode of punishment then is the body nor yet is it the wages of our former sin.

[AD 662] Maximus the Confessor on John 1:10

[The incarnation of the Logos] is the blessed end on account of which everything was created. This is the divine purpose, which was thought of before the beginning of creation and which we call an intended fulfillment. All creation exists on account of this fulfillment, and yet the fulfillment itself exists because of nothing that was created. Since God had this end in full view, he produced the natures of things. This is truly the fulfillment of providence and of planning. Through this there is a recapitulation to God of those created by him. This is the mystery circumscribing all ages, the awesome plan of God, superinfinite and infinitely preexisting the ages. The Messenger, who is in essence himself the Word of God, became man on account of this fulfillment. And it may be said that it was he himself who restored the manifest innermost depths of the goodness handed down by the Father; and he revealed the fulfillment in himself, by which creation has won the beginning of true existence. For on account of Christ, that is to say, the mystery concerning Christ, all time and that which is in time have found the beginning and the end of their existence in Christ. For before time there was secretly purposed a union of the ages, of the determined and the Indeterminate, of the measurable and the Immeasurable, of the finite and Infinity, of the creation and the Creator, of motion and rest—a union that was made manifest in Christ during these last times.

Source: QUESTIONS TO THALASSIUM 60

[AD 735] Bede on John 1:10

The eternal Son of God who was in the world and through whom the world was made has come for a time into the world and for no other reason than our salvation, that is, that he might give us the understanding to perceive the true God. For no one was able to come to life without perception of the divinity; no one was able to perceive God unless he himself taught us.

Source: Commentary on the Catholic Epistles, 1 John 5.20

[AD 1107] Theophylact of Ohrid on John 1:10

(in loc.) Or thus: The intellect which is given in us for our direction, and which is called natural reason, is said here to be a light given us by God. But some by the ill use of their reason have darkened themselves.

(in loc.) Here he overthrows at once the insane notion of the Manichæano, who says that the world is the work of a malignant creature, and the opinion of the Arian, that the Son of God is a creature.

Source: Catena Aurea by Aquinas

[AD 1107] Theophylact of Ohrid on John 1:10

He was in the world, being God, Who is everywhere present. It may also be said that He is in the world, because of His providence, care, and sustenance of the world. "But I should not stop at saying that He was in the world," declares the Evangelist, "when the world would not even exist if He Himself had not made it." At every point the Evangelist shows the Word to be the Creator. Thus he dispels the ravings of the Manichee, who claims that an evil demiurge produced the universe; he refutes the Arian, who says that the Son of God is Himself a created thing; and at the same time he leads all men to confess the Maker, and to worship the Creator, not created things. The Evangelist says, And the world knew Him not, meaning, the spiritually coarse people who are attached to the things of this world. World means, first of all, the whole universe, as in the line above, the world was made by Him. It also means those who think in a worldly manner, as it does here when he says, And the world knew Him not, that is to say, earthly men knew Him not, for all the saints and the prophets perceived who He was.

[AD 220] Tertullian on John 1:11

And if I glance around at their examples-(examples) of some David heaping up marriages for himself even through sanguinary means, of some Solomon rich in wives as well as in other riches-you are bidden to "follow the better things; " and you have withal Joseph but once wedded, and on this score I venture to say better than his father; you have Moses, the intimate eye-witness of God; you have Aaron the chief priest.

Source: On Monogamy

[AD 258] Cyprian on John 1:11

But what matters of deep moment are contained in the Lord's prayer! How many and! How great, briefly collected in the words, but spiritually abundant in virtue! so that there is absolutely nothing passed over that is not comprehended in these our prayers and petitions, as in a compendium of heavenly doctrine. "After this manner," says He, "pray ye: Our Father, which art in heaven." The new man, born again and restored to his God by His grace, says "Father," in the first place because he has now begun to be a son. "He came," He says, "to His own, and His own received Him not. But as many as received Him, to them gave He power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe in His name." The man, therefore, who has believed in His name, and has become God's son, ought from this point to begin both to give thanks and to profess himself God's son, by declaring that God is his Father in heaven; and also to bear witness, among the very first words of his new birth, that he has renounced an earthly and carnal father, and that he has begun to know as well as to have as a father Him only who is in heaven, as it is written: "They who say unto their father and their mother, I have not known thee, and who have not acknowledged their own children these have observed Thy precepts and have kept Thy covenant. Also the Lord in His Gospel has bidden us to call "no man our father upon earth, because there is to us one Father, who is in heaven." And to the disciple who had made mention of his dead father, He replied, "Let the dead bury their dead; " for he had said that his father was dead, while the Father of believers is living.

Source: Treatise IV On the Lord's Prayer

[AD 258] Cyprian on John 1:11

That it was previously foretold that they would neither know the Lord, nor understand, nor receive Him. In Isaiah: "Hear, O heaven, and give ear, O earth: for the Lord hath spoken; I have begotten and brought up children, but they have rejected me. The ox knoweth his owner, and the ass his master's crib: but Israel hath not known me, and my people hath not perceived me. Ah sinful nation, a people filled with sins, a wicked seed, corrupting children: ye have forsaken the Lord, and have sent that Holy One of Israel into anger." In the same also the Lord says: "Go and tell this people, Ye shall hear with the ear, and shall not understand; and seeing, ye shall see, and shall not perceive. For the heart of this people hath waxed gross, and they hardly hear with their ears, and they have shut up their eyes, lest haply they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and should return, and I should heal them." Also in Jeremiah the Lord says: "They have forsaken me, the fountain of living water, and have dug for themselves worn-out cisterns, which could not hold water." Moreover, in the same: "Behold, the word of the Lord has become unto them a reproach, and they do not wish for it." Again in the same the Lord says: "The kite knoweth his time, the turtle, and the swallow; the sparrows of the field keep the time of their coining in; but my people doth not know the judgment of the Lord. How say ye, We are wise, and the law of the Lord is with us? The false measurement has been made vain; the scribes are confounded the wise men have trembled, and been taken, because they have rejected the word of the Lord." In Solomon also: "Evil men seek me, and shall not find me; for they held wisdom in hatred and did not receive the word of the Lord." Also in the twenty-seventh Psalm: "Render to them their deserving, because they have not perceived in the works of the Lord." Also in the eighty-first Psalm: "They have not known, neither have they understood; they shall walk on in darkness." In the Gospel, too, according to John: "He came unto His own, and His own received Him not. As many as received Him, to them gave He power to become the sons of God who believe on His name."

Source: Treatise XII. Three Books of Testimonies Against the Jews.

[AD 407] John Chrysostom on John 1:11

1. If you remember our former reflections, we shall the more zealously proceed with the building up of what remains, as doing so for great gain. For so will our discourse be more intelligible to you who remember what has been already said, and we shall not need much labor, because you are able through your great love of learning to see more clearly into what remains. The man who is always losing what is given to him will always need a teacher, and will never know anything; but he who retains what he has received, and so receives in addition what remains, will quickly be a teacher instead of a learner, and useful not only to himself, but to all others also; as, conjecturing from their great readiness to hear, I anticipate that this assembly will specially be. Come then, let us lay up in your souls, as in a safe treasury, the Lord's money, and unfold, as far as the grace of the Spirit may afford us power, the words this day set before us.

He (St. John) had said, speaking of the old times, that the world knew him not John 1:10; afterwards he comes down in his narrative to the times of the proclamation (of the Gospel), and says, He came to His own, and His own received Him not, now calling the Jews His own, as His peculiar people, or perhaps even all mankind, as created by Him. And as above, when perplexed at the folly of the many, and ashamed of our common nature, he said that the world by Him was made, and having been made, did not recognize its Maker; so here again, being troubled beyond bearing at the stupidity of the Jews and the many, he sets forth the charge in a yet more striking manner, saying, that His own received Him not, and that too when He came to them. And not only he, but the prophets also, wondering, said the very same, as did afterwards Paul, amazed at the very same things. Thus did the prophets cry aloud in the person of Christ, saying, A people whom I have not known, have served Me; as soon as they heard Me, they obeyed Me; the strange children have dealt falsely with Me. The strange children have waxed aged, and have halted from their paths. Psalm 18:43-45, Septuagint And again, They to whom it had not been told concerning Him, shall see, and they which had not heard, shall understand. And, I was found of them that sought Me not Isaiah 52:15; I was made manifest unto them that asked not after me. Isaiah 45:1, as quoted in Romans 10:20 And Paul, in his Epistles to the Romans, has said, What then? Israel has not obtained that which he seeks for: but the election has obtained it. Romans 11:7 And again; What shall we say then? That the Gentiles which followed not after righteousness, have attained unto righteousness: but Israel which followed after the law of righteousness, has not attained to the law of righteousness. Romans 9:30

For it is a thing indeed worthy of our amazement, how they who were nurtured in (knowledge of) the prophetical books, who heard Moses every day telling them ten thousand things concerning the coming of the Christ, and the other prophets afterwards, who moreover themselves beheld Christ Himself daily working miracles among them, giving up His time to them alone, neither as yet allowing His disciples to depart into the way of the Gentiles, or to enter into a city of Samaritans, nor doing so Himself, but everywhere declaring that He was sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel Matthew 10:5: how, (I say), while they saw the signs, and heard the Prophets, and had Christ Himself continually putting them in remembrance, they yet made themselves once for all so blind and dull, as by none of these things to be brought to faith in Christ. Matthew 15:24 While they of the Gentiles, who had enjoyed none of these things, who had never heard the oracles of God, not, as one may say, so much as in a dream, but ever ranging among the fables of madmen, (for heathen philosophy is this,) having ever in their hands the sillinesses of their poets, nailed to stocks and stones, and neither in doctrines nor in conversation possessing anything good or sound. (For their way of life was more impure and more accursed than their doctrine. As was likely; for when they saw their gods delighting in all wickedness, -->worshipped--> by shameful words, and more shameful deeds, reckoning this festivity and praise, and moreover honored by foul murders, and child-slaughters, how should not they emulate these things?) Still, fallen as they were as low as the very depth of wickedness, on a sudden, as by the agency of some machine, they have appeared to us shining from on high, and from the very summit of heaven.

How then and whence came it to pass? Hear Paul telling you. For that blessed person searching exactly into these things, ceased not until he had found the cause, and had declared it to all others. What then is it? And whence came such blindness upon the Jews? Hear him who was entrusted with this stewardship declare. What then does he say in resolving this doubt of the many? 1 Corinthians 9:17 For they, says he, being ignorant of God's righteousness and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God. Romans 10:3 Wherefore they have suffered this. And again, explaining the same matter in other terms, he says, What shall we say then? That the Gentiles which followed not after righteousness, have attained unto righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith; but Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, has not attained to the law of righteousness. Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith. For they stumbled at that stumbling stone. Romans 9:30-32 His meaning is this: These men's unbelief has been the cause of their misfortunes, and their haughtiness was parent of their unbelief. For when having before enjoyed greater privileges than the heathen, through having received the law, through knowing God, and the rest which Paul enumerates, they after the coming of Christ saw the heathen and themselves called on equal terms through faith, and after faith received one of the circumcision in nothing preferred to the Gentile, they came to envy and were stung by their haughtiness, and could not endure the unspeakable and exceeding lovingkindness of the Lord. So this has happened to them from nothing else but pride, and wickedness, and unkindness.

2. For in what, O most foolish of men, are you injured by the care bestowed on others? How are your blessings made less through having others to share the same? But of a truth wickedness is blind, and cannot readily perceive anything that it ought. Being therefore stung by the prospect of having others to share the same confidence, they thrust a sword against themselves, and cast themselves out from the lovingkindness of God. And with good reason. For He says, Friend, I do you no wrong, I will give to 'these also' even as unto you. Matthew 20:14 Or rather, these Jews are not deserving even of these words. For the man in the parable if he was discontented, could yet speak of the labors and weariness, the heat and sweat, of a whole day. But what could these men have to tell? Nothing like this, but slothfulness and profligacy and ten thousand evil things of which all the prophets continued ever to accuse them, and by which they like the Gentiles had offended against God. And Paul declaring this says, For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God: being justified freely by His grace. Romans 10:12; Romans 3:22-24 And on this head he treats profitably and very wisely throughout that Epistle. But in a former part of it he proves that they are worthy of still greater punishment. For as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law Romans 2:12; that is to say, more severely, as having for their accuser the law as well as nature. And not for this only, but for that they have been the cause that God is blasphemed among the Gentiles: My Name, He says, is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you. Romans 2:24; Isaiah 52:5

Since now this it was that stung them most, (for the thing appeared incredible even to those of the circumcision who believed, and therefore they brought it as a charge against Peter, when he had come up to them from Cesarea, that he went in to men uncircumcised, and did eat with them Acts 11:3; and after that they had learned the dispensation of God, even so still they wondered how on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost Acts 10:45: showing by their astonishment that they could never have expected so incredible a thing,) since then he knew that this touched them nearest, see how he has emptied their pride and relaxed their highly swelling insolence. For after having discoursed on the case of the heathen, and shown that they had not from any quarter any excuse, or hope of salvation, and after having definitely charged them both with the perversion of their doctrines and the uncleanness of their lives, he shifts his argument to the Jews; and after recounting all the expressions of the Prophet, in which he had said that they were polluted, treacherous, hypocritical persons, and had altogether become unprofitable, that there was none among them that seeks after God, that they had all gone out of the way Romans 3:12, and the like, he adds, Now we know that what things soever the law says, it says to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. Romans 3:19 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God. Romans 3:23

Why then exaltest you yourself, O Jew? Why are you high minded? For your mouth also is stopped, your boldness also is taken away, you also with all the world have become guilty, and, like others, are placed in need of being justified freely. You ought surely even if you had stood upright and had had great boldness with God, not even so to have envied those who should be pitied and saved through His lovingkindness. This is the extreme of wickedness, to pine at the blessings of others; especially when this was to be effected without any loss of yours. If indeed the salvation of others had been prejudicial to your advantages, your grieving might have been reasonable; though not even then would it have been so to one who had learned true wisdom. But if your reward is not increased by the punishment of another, nor diminished by his welfare, why do you bewail yourself because that other is freely saved? As I said, you ought not, even were thou (one) of the approved, to be pained at the salvation which comes to the Gentiles through grace. But when you, who are guilty before your Lord of the same things as they, and have yourself offended, are displeased at the good of others, and think great things, as if you alone ought to be partaker of the grace, you are guilty not only of envy and insolence, but of extreme folly, and may be liable to all the severest torments; for you have planted within yourself the root of all evils, pride.

Wherefore a wise man has said, Pride is the beginning of sin Sirach 10:13: that is, its root, its source, its mother. By this the first created was banished from that happy abode: by this the devil who deceived him had fallen from that height of dignity; from which that accursed one, knowing that the nature of the sin was sufficient to cast down even from heaven itself, came this way when he labored to bring down Adam from such high honor. For having puffed him up with the promise that he should be as a God, so he broke him down, and cast him down into the very gulfs of hell. Because nothing so alienates men from the lovingkindness of God, and gives them over to the fire of the pit, as the tyranny of pride. For when this is present with us, our whole life becomes impure, even though we fulfill temperance, chastity, fasting, prayer, almsgiving, anything. For, Every one, says the wise man, that is proud in heart is an abomination to the Lord. Proverbs 16:5 Let us then restrain this swelling of the soul, let us cut up by the roots this lump of pride, if at least we would wish to be clean, and to escape the punishment appointed for the devil. For that the proud must fall under the same punishment as that (wicked) one, hear Paul declare; Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride, he fall into the judgment, and the snare of the devil. What is the judgment? He means, into the same condemnation, the same punishment. How then does he say, that a man may avoid this dreadful thing? By reflecting upon his own nature, upon the number of his sins, upon the greatness of the torments in that place, upon the transitory nature of the things which seem bright in this world, differing in nothing from grass, and more fading than the flowers of spring. If we continually stir within ourselves these considerations, and keep in mind those who have walked most upright, the devil, though he strive ten thousand ways, will not be able to lift us up, nor even to trip us at all. May the God who is the God of the humble, the good and merciful God, grant both to you and me a broken and humbled heart, so shall we be enabled easily to order the rest aright, to the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom and with whom, to the Father and the Holy Ghost, be glory forever and ever. Amen.

[AD 407] John Chrysostom on John 1:11

1. Beloved, God being loving towards man and beneficent, does and contrives all things in order that we may shine in virtue, and as desiring that we be well approved by Him. And to this end He draws no one by force or compulsion: but by persuasion and benefits He draws all that will, and wins them to Himself. Wherefore when He came, some received Him, and others received Him not. For He will have no unwilling, no forced domestic, but all of their own will and choice, and grateful to Him for their service. Men, as needing the ministry of servants, keep many in that state even against their will, by the law of ownership; but God, being without wants, and not standing in need of anything of ours, but doing all only for our salvation makes us absolute in this matter, and therefore lays neither force nor compulsion on any of those who are unwilling. For He looks only to our advantage: and to be drawn unwilling to a service like this is the same as not serving at all.

Why then, says one, does He punish those who will not listen to Him, and why has He threatened hell to those who endure not His commands? Because, being Good exceedingly, He cares even for those who obey Him not, and withdraws not from them who start back and flee from Him. But when we had rejected the first way of His beneficence, and had refused to come by the path of persuasion and kind treatment, then He brought in upon us the other way, that of correction and punishments; most bitter indeed, but still necessary, when the former is disregarded. Now lawgivers also appoint many and grievous penalties against offenders, and yet we feel no aversion to them for this; we even honor them the more on account of the punishments they have enacted, and because though not needing a single thing that we have, and often not knowing who they should be that should enjoy the help afforded by their written laws, they still took care for the good ordering of our lives, rewarding those who live virtuously, and checking by punishments the intemperate, and those who would mar the repose of others. And if we admire and love these men, ought we not much more to marvel at and love God on account of His so great care? For the difference between their and His forethought regarding us is infinite. Unspeakable of a truth are the riches of the goodness of God, and passing all excess. Consider; He came to His own, not for His personal need, (for, as I said, the Divinity is without wants,) but to do good unto His own people. Yet not even so did His own receive Him, when He came to His own for their advantage, but repelled Him, and not this only, but they even cast Him out of the vineyard, and slew Him. Yet not for this even did He shut them out from repentance, but granted them, if they had been willing, after such wickedness as this, to wash off all their transgressions by faith in Him, and to be made equal to those who had done no such thing, but are His special friends. And that I say not this at random, or for persuasion's sake, all the history of the blessed Paul loudly declares. For when he, who after the Cross persecuted Christ, and had stoned His martyr Stephen by those many hands, repented, and condemned his former sins, and ran to Him whom he had persecuted, He immediately enrolled him among His friends, and the chiefest of them, having appointed him a herald and teacher of all the world, who had been a blasphemer, and persecutor, and injurious. 1 Timothy 1:13 Even as he rejoicing at the lovingkindness of God, has proclaimed aloud, and has not been ashamed, but having recorded in his writings, as on a pillar, the deeds formerly dared by him, has exhibited them to all; thinking it better that his former life should be placarded in sight of all, so that the greatness of the free gift of God might appear, than that he should obscure His ineffable and indescribable lovingkindness by hesitating to parade before all men his own error. Wherefore continually he treats of his persecution, his plottings, his wars against the Church, at one time saying, I am not meet to be called an Apostle, because I persecuted the Church of God 1 Corinthians 15:9; at another, Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am chief. 1 Timothy 1:15 And again, You have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews' religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it. Galatians 1:13

2. For making as it were a kind of return to Christ for His longsuffering towards him, by showing who it was, what a hater and enemy that He saved, he declared with much openness the warfare which at the first with all zeal he warred against Christ; and with this he holds forth good hopes to those who despaired of their condition. For he says, that Christ accepted him, in order that in him first He might show forth all longsuffering 1 Timothy 1:16, and the abundant riches of His goodness, for a pattern to them that should hereafter believe in Him to life everlasting. Because the things which they had dared were too great for any pardon which the Evangelist declaring, said,

He came to His own, and His own received Him not. Whence came He, who fills all things, and who is everywhere present? What place did He empty of His presence, who holds and grasps all things in His hand? He exchanged not one place for another; how should He? But by His coming down to us He effected this. For since, though being in the world, He did not seem to be there, because He was not yet known, but afterwards manifested Himself by deigning to take upon Him our flesh, he (St. John) calls this manifestation and descent a coming. One might wonder at the disciple who is not ashamed of the dishonor of his Teacher, but even records the insolence which was used towards Him: yet this is no small proof of his truth-loving disposition. And besides, he who feels shame should feel it for those who have offered an insult, not for the person outraged. Indeed He by this very thing shone the brighter, as taking, even after the insult, so much care for those who had offered it; while they appeared ungrateful and accursed in the eyes of all men, for having rejected Him who came to bring them so great goods, as hateful to them, and an enemy. And not only in this were they hurt, but also in not obtaining what they obtained who received Him. What did these obtain?

[AD 407] John Chrysostom on John 1:11

Speaking of the ancient times, [John] had said that “the world knew him not.” Afterwards, he comes down in his narrative to the times of the proclamation [of the gospel] and says, “He came to his own, and his own did not receive him,” now calling the Jews “his own,” as his particular people, or perhaps even all humankind, as created by him. And as above, when perplexed at the folly of the many and ashamed of our common [fallen human] nature, [John] said that “the world was made by him,” and having been made, did not recognize its Maker. So here again, being troubled beyond what he could bear … he makes his accusation in an even more striking manner, saying, “His own did not receive him,” even when “he came to them.”

Source: HOMILIES ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 9.1

[AD 407] John Chrysostom on John 1:11-13

(Hom. viii. c. 8. 56.) But they who were the friends of God, knew Him even before His presence in the body; whence Christ saith below, Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day. When the Gentiles then interrupt us with the question, Why has He come in these last times to work our salvation, having neglected us so long? we reply, that He was in the world before, superintending what He had made, and was known to all who were worthy of Him; and that, if the world knew Him not, those of whom the world was not worthy knew Him. The reason follows, why the world knew Him not. The Evangelist calls those men the world, who are tied to the world, and savour of worldly things; for there is nothing that disturbs the mind so much, as this melting with the love of present things.

(Hom. in Joan. ix. 1) When He said that the world knew Him not, he referred to the times of the old dispensation, but what follows has reference to the time of his preaching; He came unto his own.

(Hom. x. [ix.] 2) He came then unto His own, not for His own good, but for the good of others. But whence did He Who fills all things, and is every where present, come? He came out of condescension to us, though in reality He had been in the world all along. But the world not seeing Him, because it knew Him not, He deigned to put on flesh. And this manifestation and condescension is called His advent. But the merciful God so contrives His dispensations, that we may shine forth in proportion to our goodness, and therefore He will not compel, but invites men, by persuasion and kindness, to come of their own accord: and so, when He came, some received Him, and others received Him not. He desires not an unwilling and forced service; for no one who comes unwillingly devotes himself wholly to Him. Whence what follows, And his own received him not. (Hom. ix. [viii.] 1). He here calls the Jews His own, as being his peculiar people; as indeed are all men in some sense, being made by Him. And as above, to the shame of our common nature, he said, that the world which was made by Him, knew not its Maker: so here again, indignant at the ingratitude of the Jews, he brings a heavier charge, viz. that His own received Him not.

(Hom. in Joan. x. [ix.] 2) Whether they be bond or free, Greek or Barbarian, wise or unwise, women or men, the young or the aged, all are made meet for the honour, which the Evangelist now proceeds to mention. To them gave He power to become the sons of God.

(Hom. x. [ix.] 2) He saith not that He made them the sons of God, but gave them power to become the sons of God: showing that there is need of much care, to preserve the image, which is formed by our adoption in Baptism, untarnished: and showing at the same time also that no one can take this power from us, except we rob ourselves of it. Now, if the delegates of worldly governments have often nearly as much power as those governments themselves, much more is this the case with us, who derive our dignity from God. But at the same time the Evangelist wishes to show that this grace comes to us of our own will and endeavour: that, in short, the operation of grace being supposed, it is in the power of our free will to make us the sons of God.

(Hom. x. 2) And because in the matter of these ineffable benefits, the giving of grace belongs to God, but the extending of faith to man, He subjoins, even to those who believe on his name. Why then declarest thou not, John, the punishment of those who received Him not? Is it because there is no greater punishment than that, when the power of becoming the sons of God is offered to men, they should not become such, but voluntarily deprive themselves of the dignity? But besides this, inextinguishable fire awaits all such, as will appear clearly farther on.

(Hom. x. [ix.] 3) The Evangelist makes this declaration, that being taught the vileness and inferiority of our former birth, which is through blood, and the will of the flesh, and understanding the loftiness and nobleness of the second, which is through grace, we might hence receive great knowledge, worthy of being bestowed by him who begat us, and after this show forth much zeal.

Source: Catena Aurea by Aquinas

[AD 430] Augustine of Hippo on John 1:11-13

(in Joan. Tr. i) Because all things were made by Him.

(Tr. in Joan. ii. 12) But if none at all received, none will be saved. For no one will he saved, but he who received Christ at His coming; and therefore he adds, As many as received Him.

(Tr. ii. 13) O amazing goodness! He was born the Only Son, yet would not remain so; but grudged not to admit joint heirs to His inheritance. Nor was this narrowed by many partaking of it.

(Tr. ii. 14) To be made then the sons of God, and brothers of Christ, they must of course be born; for if they are not born, how can they be sons? Now the sons of men are born of flesh and blood, and the will of man, and the embrace of wedlock; but how these are born, the next words declare: Not of bloods1; that is, the male's and the female's. Bloods is not correct Latin, but as it is plural in the Greek, the translator preferred to put it so, though it be not strictly grammatical, at the same time explaining the word in order not to offend the weakness of one's hearers.

(Tr. ii. 14) In that which follows, Nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, the flesh is put for the female; because, when she was made out of the rib, Adam said, This is now bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh. (Gen. 2:23) The flesh therefore is put for the wife, as the spirit sometimes is for the husband; because that the one ought to govern, the other to obey. For what is there worse than an house, where the woman hath rule over the man? But these that we speak of are born neither of the will of the flesh, nor the will of man, but of God.

Source: Catena Aurea by Aquinas

[AD 444] Cyril of Alexandria on John 1:11

The Evangelist pursues his plea that the world did not know its illuminator, that is, the Only Begotten, and from the worse sin of the children of Israel, he hurries to clench the charges against the Gentiles and shows the disease of ignorance alike and unbelief that lay upon the whole world.… For it was not surprising that the world did not know the Only Begotten, he says, seeing that it had left the understanding that befits humanity and was ignorant that it is and was made in honor, being compared with the beasts that perish, as the divine psalmist also said. It also was not surprising that the very people who, above all, were supposed to belong to him rejected him when he was present in the flesh. They would not receive him when he came among them for a salvation that was offered to all, rewarding their faith with the kingdom of heaven. But observe how exact his language is about these things. For he accuses the world of having no idea of the one who enlightens it, elaborating for it a pardon so to speak just on this account and preparing beforehand reasonable causes for the grace given to it. But of those of Israel who were considered among those especially belonging to him, he says they “received him not.” For it would not have been true to say “knew him not,” when the older law had preached about him and the prophets who came after led them by the hand to the apprehension of the truth.…For the world, or the Gentiles, having lost their relation … with God through their downfall into evil, also lost the knowledge of him who enlightens them. But the others, who were rich in knowledge through the law and called to a governance pleasing to God, were at length voluntarily falling away from it, not receiving the Word of God who was already known to them and who came among them as to his own. For the whole world is God’s own, in regard to its creation, and its very existence comes from him and through him. But Israel will more rightly be called his own and will gain the glory both because of the election of the holy patriarchs and because he [i.e., Israel] was named the beginning and the firstborn of the children of God. For “Israel is my son, my firstborn,” says God somewhere to Moses.… But when [Christ] was not received, he transfers the grace to the Gentiles. And the world, which knew him not at the beginning, is enlightened through repentance and faith, whereas Israel returns to the darkness it came from.

Source: COMMENTARY ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 1.9

[AD 735] Bede on John 1:11-13

It should be understood that in holy Scripture, blood in the plural number, has the signification of sin: thus in the Psalms Deliver me from blood-guiltinessp. (Ps. 51:14).

The carnal birth of men derives its origin from the embrace of wedlock, but the spiritual is dispensed by the grace of the Holy Spirit.

Source: Catena Aurea by Aquinas

[AD 1107] Theophylact of Ohrid on John 1:11

Here the Evangelist clearly begins his account of the divine economy of the Incarnation. The whole thread of what he says is this: the true Light was already in the world without flesh, and was not recognized. Then He came in the flesh unto His own. By His own you may understand either the whole world, or the Jews, whom He had chosen as the line of His inheritance, His portion, and His own possession. And His own received Him not, neither the Jews, nor the rest of mankind, who had been created by Him. Here the Evangelist bewails manâ€™s madness, and marvels at the Masterâ€™s love for mankind. Although they are His very own, not all received Him. For the Lord draws no one to Himself by force, but by a manâ€™s own will and choice.

[AD 1107] Theophylact of Ohrid on John 1:11-13

By his own, understand either the world, or Judæa, which He had chosen for His inheritance.

Or the meaning is, that the most perfect sonship will only be attained at the resurrection, as saith the Apostle, Waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body. (Rom. 8:23) He therefore gave us the power to become the sons of God, i. e. the power of obtaining this grace at some future time.

Source: Catena Aurea by Aquinas

[AD 215] Clement of Alexandria on John 1:12

It is not the poor simply, but those that have wished to become poor for righteousness' sake, that He pronounces blessed-those who have despised the honours of this world in order to attain "the good; "likewise also those who, through chastity, have become comely in person and character, and those who are of noble birth, and honourable, having through righteousness attained to adoption, and therefore "have received power to become the sons of God"

Source: Clement of Alexandria Stromata Book IV

[AD 220] Tertullian on John 1:12

The prayer begins with a testimony to God, and with the reward of faith, when we say, "Our Father who art in the heavens; "for (in so saying), we at once pray to God, and commend faith, whose reward this appellation is. It is written, "To them who believed on Him He gave power to be called sons of God." However, our Lord very frequently proclaimed God as a Father to us; nay, even gave a precept "that we call no one on earth father, but the Father whom we have in the heavens: and so, in thus praying, we are likewise obeying the precept.

Source: On Prayer

[AD 373] Athanasius of Alexandria on John 1:12

Yet the love of God for humanity is such that by grace He becomes Father of those in relation to whom he had previously only been Maker. He becomes their Father when created beings receive ‘into their hearts the Spirit of the Son crying out, ‘Abba, Father’ [Gal 4.6]., as the apostle says. These are the ones who, by receiving the Word, receive authority from him ‘to become the children of God’ [John 1.12]. Being creatures by nature, they would not become ‘sons’ except by receiving the Spirit of the natural and true Son. So it was in order to bring this about and to make humanity receptive of divinity that ‘The Word became flesh’ (John 1.14)… Accordingly, the Father calls ‘sons’ those in whom He sees His own Son and He says, ‘I begot’ since ‘begetting’ signifies ‘sons’ while ‘making’ is indicative of the works. Therefore we are not begotten first but made [created], for it is written, ‘Let us make humanity’ (Gen 1.26). But when we later receive the grace of The Spirit, we are henceforth said to also be begotten. - "Against the Arians, 2.59"

[AD 379] Basil of Caesarea on John 1:12

When the soul has been clothed with the Son of God, it becomes worthy of the final and perfect stage and is baptized in the name of the Father himself of our Lord Jesus Christ, who, according to the testimony of John, gave the power to be made the sons of God.

Source: CONCERNING BAPTISM 1.2

[AD 407] John Chrysostom on John 1:12

Why then, O blessed one, do you not also tell us the punishment of them who received Him not? You have said that they were 'His own,' and that when 'He came to His own, they received Him not'; but what they shall suffer for this, what punishment they shall undergo, you have not gone on to add. Yet so you would the more have terrified them, and have softened the hardness of their insanity by threatening. Wherefore then have you been silent? And what other punishment, he would say, can be greater than this, that when power is offered them to become sons of God, they do not become so, but willingly deprive themselves of such nobility and honor as this? Although their punishment shall not even stop at this point, that they gain no good, but moreover the unquenchable fire shall receive them, as in going on he has more plainly revealed. But for the present he speaks of the unutterable goods of those who received Him, and sets these words in brief before us, saying, As many as received Him, to them gave He power to become sons of God. Whether bond or free, whether Greeks or barbarians or Scythians, unlearned or learned, female or male, children or old men, in honor or dishonor, rich or poor, rulers or private persons, all, He says, are deemed worthy the same privilege; for faith and the grace of the Spirit, removing the inequality caused by worldly things, has moulded all to one fashion, and stamped them with one impress, the King's. What can equal this lovingkindness? A king, who is framed of the same clay with us, does not deign to enrol among the royal host his fellow-servants, who share the same nature with himself, and in character often are better than he, if they chance to be slaves; but the Only-Begotten Son of God did not disdain to reckon among the company of His children both publicans, sorcerers, and slaves, nay, men of less repute and greater poverty than these, maimed in body, and suffering from ten thousand ills. Such is the power of faith in Him, such the excess of His grace. And as the element of fire, when it meets with ore from the mine, straightway of earth makes it gold, even so and much more Baptism makes those who are washed to be of gold instead of clay; the Spirit at that time falling like fire into our souls, burning up the image of the earthy 1 Corinthians 15:49, and producing the image of the heavenly, fresh coined, bright and glittering, as from the furnace-mould.

Why then did he say not that He made them sons of God, but that He gave them power to become sons of God? To show that we need much zeal to keep the image of sonship impressed on us at Baptism, all through without spot or soil ; and at the same time to show that no one shall be able to take this power from us, unless we are the first to deprive ourselves of it. For if among men, those who have received the absolute control of any matters have nearly as much power as those who gave them the charge; much more shall we, who have obtained such honor from God, be, if we do noth ing unworthy of this power, stronger than all; because He who put this honor in our hands is greater and better than all. At the same time too he wishes to show, that not even does grace come upon man irrespectively, but upon those who desire and take pains for it. For it lies in the power of these to become (His) children since if they do not themselves first make the choice, the gift does not come upon them, nor have any effect.

3. Having therefore everywhere excluded compulsion and pointing to (man's) voluntary choice and free power, he has said the same now. For even in these mystical blessings, it is, on the one hand, God's part, to give the grace, on the other, man's to supply faith; and in after time there needs for what remains much earnestness. In order to preserve our purity, it is not sufficient for us merely to have been baptized and to have believed, but we must if we will continually enjoy this brightness, display a life worthy of it. This then is God's work in us. To have been born the mystical Birth, and to have been cleansed from all our former sins, comes from Baptism; but to remain for the future pure, never again after this to admit any stain belongs to our own power and diligence. And this is the reason why he reminds us of the manner of the birth, and by comparison with fleshly pangs shows its excellence, when he says,

[AD 407] John Chrysostom on John 1:12

Why, then, did he not say that “he made them sons of God,” instead of “he gave them power to become sons of God”? He did so to show how much zeal is needed to keep the image of sonship that was impressed on us at baptism and to keep it all the way through without spot or soiling. At the same time, he also wanted to show that no one will be able to take this power from us, unless we first deprive ourselves of it.… For even in these mystical blessings, it is, on the one hand, God’s part, to give the grace, on the other, a person’s to supply faith. What follows needs much perseverance. In order to preserve our purity, it is not sufficient for us merely to have been baptized and to have believed; we must display a life worthy of it if we want to continually enjoy this brightness. This then is God’s work in us.

Source: HOMILIES ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 10.2-3

[AD 428] Theodore of Mopsuestia on John 1:12

For those, he says, who received him, their reception was not useless. He gave them something great and excellent; certainly, insofar as it is possible, he made them equal in honor by giving them the gift of sonship. They take advantage of that grace not by being reborn in the body according to the natural order of generation. Rather, they are given birth by divine power through a certain similarity and relationship with him.

Source: COMMENTARY ON JOHN 1.1.12

[AD 430] Augustine of Hippo on John 1:12

John adds, “As many as received him.” What did he afford to them? Great benevolence! Great mercy! He was born the only Son of God and was unwilling to remain alone. Many, when they do not have sons, in advanced age adopt a son. In this way they obtain by an exercise of will what nature has denied to them. This is what people do. But if any one has an only son, that person rejoices the more in him, because he alone will possess everything, and he will not have anyone to divide with him the inheritance, so that he should be poorer. This is not how God does things. That same only Son whom he had begotten, and by whom he created all things, is the one he sent into this world so that he might not be alone but might have adopted brothers and sisters. For we were not born of God in the manner in which the Only Begotten was born of him, but we were adopted by his grace. For he, the Only Begotten, came to loose the sins in which we were entangled and whose burden hindered our adoption. Those whom he wished to make his brothers and sisters are the ones he himself freed and made joint heirs.… He was not afraid of having joint heirs, because his inheritance does not become less if its possessors are many. Those very persons, since he is the possessor, become his inheritance, and he in turn becomes their inheritance. … Let us possess him, and let him possess us. Let him possess us as Lord; let us possess him as salvation, let us possess him as light. What then did he give to them who received him? “To them he gave power to become sons of God, even to them that believe on his name,” that they may cling to the wood and cross the sea.

Source: TRACTATES ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 2.13

[AD 430] Augustine of Hippo on John 1:12

When any person … is … considered to be among the children of God, such an achievement must not be considered to have been accomplished by their ability alone. This ability they have received through the grace of God, because they did not possess it in a nature that had become corrupted and depraved.

Source: ON NATURE AND GRACE 64.77

[AD 430] Augustine of Hippo on John 1:12

I mean, you are not being told not to be a human, in the sense that you are to be a beast, but rather that you are to be among those to whom “he gave the right to become children of God.” God, you see, wants to make you a god; not by nature, of course, like the one whom he begot; but by his gift and by adoption. For just as he through being humbled31 came to share your mortality; so through lifting you up he brings you to share his immortality.

Source: SERMON 166.4

[AD 430] Augustine of Hippo on John 1:12

Now turn your attention to the doctor of our salvation who has come to us, our Lord Jesus Christ. He found us blind of heart, he promised us a light that “eye has not seen nor ear heard, nor has it come up into the heart of [a] man.” This is what the angels see, what they enjoy. I mean, just as healthy people see what the blind do not see, so angels see what people do not see. Why doesn’t [a] man see it? Because he still wants to be “man.” So let man [humankind] himself start getting cured, so that from being “man” he may be numbered among the sons of God, because “he gave them the right to become children of God,” that is, he gave them the right to be cured, to have the mistiness of heart wiped away, because “blessed are the pure in heart, because it is they who shall see God.”

Source: SERMON 360B.15

[AD 444] Cyril of Alexandria on John 1:12

A right judgement verily and worthy of God! The firstborn, Israel, is cast out; for he would not abide in ownness |104 with God, nor did lie receive the Son, Who came among His own, he rejected the Bestower of Nobility, he thrust away the Giver of Grace: the Gentiles received Him by faith. Therefore will Israel with reason receive the wages of their folly, they will mourn the loss of good things, they will receive the bitter fruit of their own ill-counsel, bereft of the sonship; and the Gentiles will delight them selves in the good things that are through faith, they shall find the bright rewards of their obedience and shall be planted out in his place. For they shall be cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and be grafted contrary to nature into a good olive tree. And Israel shall hear, Ah sinful nation, a people laden with iniquity, a seed of evildoers, children that are corrupters, they have forsaken the Lord, they have provoked the Holy One of Israel unto anger: but one of Christ's disciples shall say to the Gentiles, But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people, that ye should show forth the praises of Him Who hath called you out of darkness into His marvellous Light. For since they received the Son through faith, they receive the power to be ranked among the sons of God. For the Son gives what is His alone and specially and of nature to be in their power, setting it forth as common, making this a sort of image of the love for man that is inherent to Him, and of His love for the world. For in none other way could we who bore the image of the earthy escape corruption, unless the beauty of the image of the heavenly were impressed upon us, through our being called to sonship. For being partakers of Him through the Spirit, we were sealed unto likeness with Him and mount up to the primal character of the Image after which the Divine Scripture says we were made. For thus hardly recovering the pristine beauty of our nature, and re-formed unto that Divine Nature, shall we be superior to the ills that have befallen us through the transgression. Therefore we mount up unto dignity above our nature for Christ's sake, and we too shall be sons of God, not like Him in exactitude, but by grace in imitation of Him. For He is Very Son, existing from the Father; we adopted by His Kindness, through grace receiving I have said, Ye are gods and all of you are children of the Most High. For the created and subject nature is called to what is above nature by the mere nod and will of the Father: but the Son and God and Lord will not possess this being God and Son, by the will of God the Father, nor in that He wills it only, but beaming forth of the Very Essence of the Father, He receives to Himself by Nature what is Its own Good. And again He is clearly seen to be Very Son, proved by comparison with ourselves. For since that which is by Nature has another mode of being from that which is by adoption, and that which is in truth from that which is by imitation, and we are called sons of God by adoption and imitation: hence He is Son by Nature and in truth, to Whom we made sons too are compared, gaining the good by grace instead of by natural endowments.

[AD 458] Theodoret of Cyrus on John 1:12

“I have said, ‘You are gods and all sons of the most high, but as human beings you die.’ ” He says this to those who did not accept the gift of adoption22 but who dishonor the taking of flesh through the pure birth of the Word of God, deprive humanity of the ascent to God and show ingratitude to God’s Word who was made flesh for them. For this is why the Word became a human being and the Son of God became a Son of man: that the human being, by embracing the Word and receiving adoption, might become a son of God.

Source: DIALOGUE 1.20

[AD 749] John Damascene on John 1:12

The saints must be honored as friends of Christ and children and heirs of God.… “Therefore they are no longer servants, but children: and if children, heirs also, heirs indeed of God and joint heirs with Christ.”

Source: ORTHODOX FAITH 4.15

[AD 1107] Theophylact of Ohrid on John 1:12

Whether slaves or free, children or elders, barbarians or Greeks, as many as received Him, to them gave He power to become sons of God. Who were they who received Him? Those who believed in His name. Those who received the Word and the true Light received and accepted Him through faith. Why did the Evangelist not say that He made them sons of God, but instead that He gave them power to become sons of God? Listen, and I will tell you. To guard the purity of the soul and body, it is not enough to be baptized. We must also exercise much zeal and effort to preserve unspotted the image of adoption imprinted on us in Baptism. Therefore, many who have received the grace of adoption through Baptism were lazy and in the end did not become sons of God. One might add this as well, that many receive Him through faith alone, such as those whom we call the catechumens, but have not yet become sons of God. Yet they indeed have the power to become sons of God if they choose to be baptized and to be counted worthy of this grace, that is, adoption as sons. Furthermore, even if we receive the grace of adoption through Baptism, we will receive the completion and perfection of this grace only in the resurrection, and we hope to receive at that time the fullness of adoption. As Paul says, Even we are waiting for the adoption. [Rm. 8:23] For all these reasons, then, the Evangelist did not say, "As many as received Him, He made them sons of God," but instead, to them gave He power to become sons of God, that is, to receive this grace in the age to come.

[AD 108] Ignatius of Antioch on John 1:13

If any one confesses Christ Jesus the Lord, but denies the God of the law and of the prophets, saying that the Father of Christ is not the Maker of heaven and earth, he has not continued in the truth any more than his father the devil, and is a disciple of Simon Magus, not of the Holy Spirit. If any one says there is one God, and also confesses Christ Jesus, but thinks the Lord to be a mere man, and not the only-begotten God, and Wisdom, and the Word of God, and deems Him to consist merely of a soul and body, such an one is a serpent, that preaches deceit and error for the destruction of men. And such a man is poor in understanding, even as by name he is an Ebionite.

Source: Epistle of Ignatius to the Philadelphians

[AD 202] Irenaeus on John 1:13

Was on this wise; "and that He is Emmanuel, lest perchance we might consider Him as a mere man: for "not by the will of the flesh nor by the will of man, but by the will of God was the Word made flesh; ".
knows Him, so that he understands that He who "was not born either by the will of the flesh, or by the will of man".
), not by the will of the flesh, nor by the will of man, but by the good pleasure of the Father.
Those therefore who did not receive Him did not receive life. "But to as many as received Him, to them gave He power to become the sons of God."

Source: Against Heresies Book III

[AD 215] Clement of Alexandria on John 1:13

For not only must the idols which he formerly held as gods, but the works also of his former life, be abandoned by him who has been "born again, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh"

Source: Clement of Alexandria Stromata Book II

[AD 220] Tertullian on John 1:13

What, then, is the meaning of this passage, "Born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God? " I shall make more use of this passage after I have confuted those who have tampered with it.

Source: On the Flesh of Christ

[AD 220] Tertullian on John 1:13

" And when in another passage he says, in like manner, "Before me there was no God," he strikes at those inexplicable genealogies of the Valentinian ¦ons. Again, there is an answer to Ebion in the Scripture: "Born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

Source: On the Flesh of Christ

[AD 386] Cyril of Jerusalem on John 1:13

The Father, being very God, begot the Son like himself, very God; not as teachers beget disciples, not as Paul says to some, “I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel.” For in this case [Paul is speaking about] he who was not a son by nature becoming a son by discipleship. But in the former case [of Jesus], he was a son by nature, a true son—not as you, who are to be illuminated, are now becoming sons of God: for you also become sons but [do so] by adoption of grace, [not by nature].

Source: Catechetical Lecture 11:9

[AD 407] John Chrysostom on John 1:13

This he has done, in order that, considering the vileness, and lowness of the first birth, which is of blood, and the will of the flesh, and perceiving the highness and nobleness of the second, which is by grace, we may form from thence some great opinion of it, and one worthy of the gift of Him who has begotten us, and for the future exhibit much earnestness.

For there is no small fear, lest, having sometime defiled that beautiful robe by our after sloth and transgressions, we be cast out from the inner room and bridal chamber, like the five foolish virgins, or him who had not on a wedding garment. Matthew 25; Matthew 22 He too was one of the guests, for he had been invited; but because, after the invitation and so great an honor, he behaved with insolence towards Him who had invited him, hear what punishment he suffers, how pitiable, fit subject for many tears. For when he comes to partake of that splendid table, not only is he forbidden the least, but bound hand and foot alike, is carried into outer darkness, to undergo eternal and endless wailing and gnashing of teeth. Therefore, beloved, let not us either expect that faith is sufficient to us for salvation; for if we do not show forth a pure life, but come clothed with garments unworthy of this blessed calling, nothing hinders us from suffering the same as that wretched one. It is strange that He, who is God and King, is not ashamed of men who are vile, beggars, and of no repute, but brings even them of the cross ways to that table; while we manifest so much insensibility, as not even to be made better by so great an honor, but even after the call remain in our old wickedness, insolently abusing the unspeakable lovingkindness of Him who has called us. For it was not for this that He called us to the spiritual and awful communion of His mysteries, that we should enter with our former wickedness; but that, putting off our filthiness, we should change our raiment to such as becomes those who are entertained in palaces. But if we will not act worthily of that calling this no longer rests with Him who has honored us, but with ourselves; it is not He that casts us out from that admirable company of guests, but we cast out ourselves.

He has done all His part. He has made the marriage, He has provided the table, He has sent men to call us, has received us when we came, and honored us with all other honor; but we, when we have offered insult to Him, to the company, and to the wedding, by our filthy garments, that is, our impure actions, are then with good cause cast out. It is to honor the marriage and the guests, that He drives off those bold and shameless persons; for were He to suffer those clothed in such a garment, He would seem to be offering insult to the rest. But may it never be that one, either of us or of other, find this of Him who has called us! For to this end have all these things been written before they come to pass, that we, being sobered by the threats of the Scriptures, may not suffer this disgrace and punishment to go on to the deed, but stop it at the word only, and each with bright apparel come to that call; which may it come to pass that we all enjoy, through the grace and lovingkindness of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom and with whom, to the Father and the Holy Ghost, be glory for ever and ever. Amen.

[AD 430] Augustine of Hippo on John 1:13

And how do they become children of God? “Who are born not of blood, nor of the will of a man nor of the will of the flesh, but of God.” Pay close attention: these here have been born of God, having received power to become children of God. They have been born of God, not of blood, such as is the case with the first birth, the case with the birth in misery coming from miserable parents. But those who have been born of God, what was it that they were first born of? From a mixing of blood, from the blood of male and female, from a mingling of the flesh of male and female, that is what they were born of. But now, how is it they are born of God? The first birth was from male and female; the second birth is from God and the church.

Source: SERMON 121.4

[AD 430] Augustine of Hippo on John 1:13

These, then, “were born not of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.” But that human beings might be born of God, God was first born of them. For Christ is God, and Christ was born of men. It was only a mother, indeed, that he sought on earth because he already had a father in heaven. He by whom we were to be created was born of God, and he by whom we were to be recreated was born of a woman. Do not be amazed then that you are made a son or daughter by grace, do not be amazed that you are born of God according to his Word. The Word himself first chose to be born of man so that you might be born of God unto salvation. You can say to yourself, “God had a reason for wanting to be born of man, because he considered me as someone important, someone that he might make immortal, someone like me who was born as a mortal.” When, therefore, he said, “born of God,” in case we should, as it were, be filled with amazement and trembling at such grace—at grace so great as to exceed belief that people are born of God—as if assuring you, he says, “And the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us.” Why, then, do you marvel that people are born of God? Consider God himself born of men.

Source: TRACTATES ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 2.15

[AD 444] Cyril of Alexandria on John 1:13

They who, he says, have been called by faith in Christ to sonship with God put off the littleness of their own nature, adorned with the grace of him who honors them as with a splendid robe—they mount up to a dignity above nature. For no longer are they called children of flesh, but rather offspring of God by adoption.But note how extremely careful the blessed Evangelist is in his words. For since he was going to say that those who believe are begotten of God, he needs to exercise additional caution. He needs to do this in case anyone should suppose that they are in truth born of the essence of God the Father and arrive at an exact likeness with the Only Begotten. Or they might think that “from the womb before the Daystar I begat you” is something less appropriately said of the Son too. If they went down this path, the Son too, at length, would be brought down to the nature of creatures, even though he is said to be begotten of God. This is why he needs this additional caution. For when he had said that power was given to them to become sons of God from him who is by nature Son—and thus here for the first time introduces what is by adoption and grace—he avoids danger by adding afterwards they were begotten of God. He does this so that he might show the greatness of the grace that was conferred on them, gathering as it were into a kinship of nature38 that which was alien from God the Father and raising up its connection to the nobility of its Lord through his own heartwarming love for it.

Source: COMMENTARY ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 1.9

[AD 1107] Theophylact of Ohrid on John 1:13

He draws a comparison, as it were, between divine and human births, but he does so not to give us an unseemly reminder of the pangs of labor and delivery, but in order that we might recognize the ignoble and humble nature of fleshly childbirth and run towards divine grace. He says, Who were born, not of blood, that is, the blood in the womb of a woman, which nourishes and gives growth to the embryo. It is also said that the seed of the man first becomes blood, and then is formed into the flesh and the rest of the body of an infant. It was likely that some would say that believers in Christ are not born in a manner any different than that of Isaac. He, too, was not born of blood, for the blood in Sarahâ€™s womb had ceased to flow. Because some might think this, the Evangelist adds, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man. Even if Isaacâ€™s birth was not of blood, it was of the will of man; undoubtedly the man desired that a child be born to him from Sarah. Nor are believers in Christ born of the will of the flesh, as Samuel was born from Anna. We might say, then, that Isaac was born of the will of man and Samuel was born of the will of the flesh, that is, of the will of a woman, Anna. For this barren woman had longed for a child. And perhaps both sons were born of both these desires. If you wish to learn something more, listen: intercourse of the flesh sometimes occurs as a result of a natural ardor. It often happens that one has a more fervent disposition and is more easily moved to intercourse (this is what the Evangelist calls the will of the flesh). Intercourse of the flesh also occurs as a result of evil inclinations and dissolute appetites, when the urge for intercourse is uncontrollable. This the Evangelist calls the will of a man, when intercourse does not result from physical nature, but from the depravity of a man. Because sometimes the woman is inclined to intercourse, and sometimes the man, perhaps by the will of a man he indicates the burning desire of the man, and by the will of the flesh he indicates the desire of the woman. All this has been said for the sake of those who ask foolish questions. To speak of what is essential, one idea is clear: the lowly nature of childbirth in the flesh. Now, the Israelites too were called "sons of God." What more have we who believe in Christ than the Israelites who believed in the law? More beyond compare. The law, in every point, contained only the foreshadowing of things to come, and therefore did not grant the Israelites adoption as sons as their actual possession, but only in type and figure. But we who in truth have received the Spirit of God through Baptism cry out, Abba, Father. [Rom. 8:15; Gal. 4:6] Just as to them baptism was only a type and foreshadowing, so also their adoption as sons was a prefiguring of ours. They were called sons, but only as a foreshadowing of the true adoption as sons which we now have through Baptism.

[AD 108] Ignatius of Antioch on John 1:14

We have also as a Physician the Lord our God, Jesus the Christ, the only-begotten Son and Word, before time began, but who afterwards became also man, of Mary the virgin. For "the Word was made flesh." Being incorporeal, He was in the body; being impassible, He was in a passible body; being immortal, He was in a mortal body; being life, He became subject to corruption, that He might free our souls from death and corruption, and heal them, and might restore them to health, when they were diseased with ungodliness and wicked lusts.

Source: Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians

[AD 108] Ignatius of Antioch on John 1:14

Stop your ears, therefore, when any one speaks to you at variance with Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who was descended from David, and was also of Mary; who was truly begotten of God and of the Virgin, but not after the same manner. For indeed God and man are not the same. He truly assumed a body; for "the Word was made flesh," and lived upon earth without sin. For says He, "Which of you convicteth me of sin? " He did in reality both eat and drink. He was crucified and died under Pontius Pilate. He really, and not merely in appearance, was crucified, and died, in the sight of beings in heaven, and on earth, and under the earth.

Source: Epistle of Ignatius to the Trallians

[AD 108] Ignatius of Antioch on John 1:14

Now, He suffered all these things for us; and He suffered them really, and not in appearance only, even as also He truly rose again. But not, as some of the unbelievers, who are ashamed of the formation of man, and the cross, and death itself, affirm, that in appearance only, and not in truth, He took a body of the Virgin, and suffered only in appearance, forgetting, as they do, Him who said, "The Word was made flesh; " and again, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up; " and once more, "If I be lifted up from the earth, I will draw all men unto Me." The Word therefore did dwell in flesh, for "Wisdom built herself an house." The Word raised up again His own temple on the third day, when it had been destroyed by the Jews fighting against Christ. The Word, when His flesh was lifted up, after the manner of the brazen serpent in the wilderness, drew all men to Himself for their eternal salvation.

Source: Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans

[AD 108] Ignatius of Antioch on John 1:14

For there is but One that became incarnate, and that neither the Father nor the Paraclete, but the Son only, [who became so] not in appearance or imagination, but in reality. For "the Word became flesh." For "Wisdom builded for herself a house." And God the Word was born as man, with a body, of the Virgin, without any intercourse of man. For [it is written], "A virgin shall conceive in her womb, and bring forth a son." He was then truly born, truly grew up, truly ate and drank, was truly crucified, and died, and rose again. He who believes these things, as they really were, and as they really took place, is blessed. He who believeth them not is no less accursed than those who crucified the Lord. For the prince of this world rejoiceth when any one denies the cross, since he knows that the confession of the cross is his own destruction. For that is the trophy which has been raised up against his power, which when he sees, he shudders, and when he hears of, is afraid.

Source: Epistle of Ignatius to the Philippians

[AD 108] Ignatius of Antioch on John 1:14

For if the Lord were a mere man, possessed of a soul and body only, why dost thou mutilate and explain away His being born with the common nature of humanity? Why dost thou call the passion a mere appearance, as if it were any strange thing happening to a [mere] man? And why dost thou reckon the death of a mortal to be simply an imaginary death? But if, [on the other hand, ] He is both God and man, then why dost thou call it unlawful to style Him "the Lord of glory," who is by nature unchangeable? Why dost thou say that it is unlawful to declare of the Lawgiver who possesses a human soul, "The Word was made flesh," and was a perfect man, and not merely one dwelling in a man? But how came this magician into existence, who of old formed all nature that can be apprehended either by the senses or intellect, according to the will of the Father; and, when He became incarnate, healed every kind of disease and infirmity?

Source: Epistle of Ignatius to the Philippians

[AD 202] Irenaeus on John 1:14

He also styles Him Son, and Aletheia, and Zoe, and the "Word made flesh, whose glory "he says, "we beheld; and His glory was as that of the Only-begotten (given to Him by the Father), full of grace and truth.".
But salvation, as being flesh: for "the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us.".
For they say that he, the Lord and Creator of the plan of creation, by whom they hold that this world was made, was produced from the Mother; while the Gospel affirms plainly, that by the Word, which was in the beginning with God, all things were made, which Word, he says, "was made flesh, and dwelt among us.".
Therefore the Lord's disciple, pointing them all out as false witnesses, says, "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us.".
For to him all things are consistent: he has a full faith in one God Almighty, of whom are all things; and in the Son of God, Jesus Christ our Lord, by whom are all things, and in the dispensations connected with Him, by means of which the Son of God became man; and a firm belief in the Spirit of God, who furnishes us with a knowledge of the truth, and has set forth the dispensations of the Father and the Son, in virtue of which He dwells with every generation of men.
And again, showing the dispensation with regard to His human nature, John said: "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us."

Source: Against Heresies Book I

[AD 215] Clement of Alexandria on John 1:14

Let us then aim at the fulfilment of the commandments by the works of the Lord; for the Word Himself also, having openly become flesh.
"Now the Word issuing forth was the cause of creation; then also he generated himself, "when the Word had become flesh"

Source: Clement of Alexandria The Instructor Book I

[AD 220] Tertullian on John 1:14

Now, whatever may be the substance, since he mentions "the body of Christ," whom he immediately after states to have been "raised from the dead," none other body can be understood than that of the flesh, in respect of which the law was called (the law) of death.

Source: Against Marcion Book V

[AD 220] Tertullian on John 1:14

For as much, then, as the dispensation of God's purpose concerning His Son required that He should be born of a virgin, why should He not have received of the virgin the body which He bore from the virgin? Because, (forsooth) it is something else which He took from God, for "the Word "say they, "was made flesh." Now this very statement plainly shows what it was that was made flesh; nor can it possibly be that anything else than the Word was made flesh.

Source: On the Flesh of Christ

[AD 220] Tertullian on John 1:14

But by saying "made," he not only confirmed the statement, "The Word was made flesh," but he also asserted the reality of the flesh which was made of a virgin We shall have also the support of the Psalms on this point, not the "Psalms" indeed of Valentinus the apostate, and heretic, and Platonist, but the Psalms of David, the most illustrious saint and well-known prophet.

Source: On the Flesh of Christ

[AD 220] Tertullian on John 1:14

Constituting, therefore, His word as the life-giving principle, because that word is spirit and life, He likewise called His flesh by the same appellation; because, too, the Word had become flesh, we ought therefore to desire Him in order that we may have life, and to devour Him with the ear, and to ruminate on Him with the understanding, and to digest Him by faith.

Source: On the Resurrection of the Flesh

[AD 220] Tertullian on John 1:14

He, therefore, who became flesh was not the very same as He from whom the Word came. "His glory was beheld-the glory as of the only-begotten of the Father;" not, (observe, ) as of the Father.

Source: Against Praxeas

[AD 220] Tertullian on John 1:14

The Spirit of God in this passage must be the same as the Word. For just as, when John says, "The Word was made flesh," we understand the Spirit also in the mention of the Word: so here, too, we acknowledge the Word likewise in the name of the Spirit.

Source: Against Praxeas

[AD 220] Tertullian on John 1:14

But when the Word of God descended into flesh,-(flesh) not unsealed even by marriage,-and "the Word was made flesh," -(flesh) never to be unsealed by marriage,-which was to find its way to the tree not of incontinence, but of endurance; which was to taste from that tree not anything sweet, but something bitter; which was to pertain not to the infernal regions, but to heaven; which was to be precinct not with the leaves of lasciviousness, but the flowers of holiness; which was to impart to the waters its own purities-thenceforth, whatever flesh (is) "in Christ" has lost its pristine soils, is now a thing different, emerges in a new state, no longer (generated) of the slime of natural seed, nor of the grime of concupiscence, but of "pure water" and a "clean Spirit.

Source: On Modesty

[AD 220] Tertullian on John 1:14

"The Lord for the body: "yes; for "the Word was made flesh." "Moreover, God both raised up the Lord, and will raise up us through His own power; " on account, to wit, of the union of our body with Him.

Source: On Modesty

[AD 235] Hippolytus of Rome on John 1:14

Christ, he means, the wisdom and power of God the Father, hath builded His house, i.e., His nature in the flesh derived from the Virgin, even as he (John) hath said beforetime, "The Word became flesh, and dwelt among us." As likewise the wise prophet testifies: Wisdom that was before the world, and is the source of life, the infinite "Wisdom of God, hath builded her house" by a mother who knew no man,-to wit, as He assumed the temple of the body. "And hath raised her seven pillars; "that is, the fragrant grace of the all-holy Spirit, as Isaiah says: "And the seven spirits of God shall rest upon Him," But others say that the seven pillars are the seven divine orders which sustain the creation by His holy and inspired teaching; to wit, me prophets, the apostles, the martyrs, the hierarchs, the hermits, the saints, and the righteous. And the phrase, "She hath killed her beasts," denotes the prophets and martyrs who in every city and country are slain like sheep every day by the unbelieving, in behalf of the truth, and cry aloud, "For thy sake we are killed all the day long, we were counted as sheep for the slaughter." And again, "She hath mingled her wine" in the bowl, by which is meant, that the Saviour, uniting his Godhead, like pure wine, with the flesh in the Virgin, was born of her at once God and man without confusion of the one in the other. "And she hath furnished her table: "that denotes the promised knowledge of the Holy Trinity; it also refers to His honoured and undefiled body and blood, which day by day are administered and offered sacrificially at the spiritual divine table, as a memorial of that first and ever-memorable table of the spiritual divine supper. And again, "She bath sent forth her servants: "Wisdom, that is to say, has done so-Christ, to wit-summoning them with lofty announcement. "Whoso is simple, Let him turn to me," she says, alluding manifestly to the holy apostles, who traversed the whole world, and called the nations to the knowledge of Him in truth, with their lofty and divine preaching. And again, "And to those that want understanding she said"-that is, to those who have not yet obtained the power of the Holy Ghost-"Come, eat of my bread, and drink of the wine which I have mingled for you; "by which is meant, that He gave His divine flesh and honoured blood to us, to eat and to drink it for the remission of sins.

Source: Hippolytus Exegetical Fragments

[AD 253] Origen of Alexandria on John 1:14

(Hom. 2) Full of grace and truth. Of this the meaning is twofold. For it may be understood of the Humanity, and the Divinity of the Incarnate Word, so that the fulness of grace has reference to the Humanity, according to which Christ is the Head of the Church, and the first-born of every creature: for the greatest and original example of grace, by which man, with no preceding merits, is made God, is manifested primarily in Him. The fulness of the grace of Christ may also be understood of the Holy Spirit, whose sevenfold operation filled Christ's Humanity. (Is. 11:2) The fulness of truth applies to the Divinity ... But if you had rather understand the fulness of grace and truth of the New Testament, you may with propriety pronounce the fulness of the grace of the New Testament to be given by Christ, and the truth of the legal types to have been fulfilled in Him.

Source: Catena Aurea by Aquinas

[AD 300] Ammonius of Alexandria on John 1:14

How did we behold his glory? We beheld it through the star of the magi, the angels, the shepherds, Anna, Simeon, Gabriel, the miraculous birth of the Virgin, the voice of the Father who witnessed to him, the Spirit descending upon him and many other divine signs and healings.

Source: FRAGMENTS ON JOHN 25

[AD 367] Hilary of Poitiers on John 1:14

(x. de Trin. c. 21, 22) Some, however, who think God the Only-Begotten, God the Word, Who was in the beginning with God, not to be God substantially, but a Word sent forth, the Son being to God the Father, what a word is to one who utters it, these men, in order to disprove that the Word, being substantially God, and abiding in the form of God, was born the Man Christ, argue subtilly, that, whereas that Man (they say) derived His life rather from human origin than from the mystery of a spiritual conception, God the Word did not make Himself Man of the womb of the Virgin; but that the Word of God was in Jesus, as the spirit of prophecy in the Prophets. And they are accustomed to charge us with holding, that Christ was born a Man, notr of our body and soul; whereas we preach the Word made flesh, and after our likeness born Man, so that He Who is truly Son of God, was truly born Son of man; and that, as by His own act He took upon Him a body of the Virgin, so of Himself He took a soul also, which in no case is derived from man by mere parental origin. And seeing He, The Self-same, is the Son of man, how absurd were it, besides the Son of God, Who is the Word, to make Him another person besides, a sort of prophet, inspired by the Word of God; whereas our Lord Jesus Christ is both the Son of God, and the Son of man.

Source: Catena Aurea by Aquinas

[AD 367] Hilary of Poitiers on John 1:14

Some, however, who think God the Only-Begotten, God the Word, Who was in the beginning with God, not to be God substantially, but a Word sent forth, the Son being to God the Father, what a word is to one who utters it, these men, in order to disprove that the Word, being substantially God, and abiding in the form of God, was born the Man Christ, argue subtilely, that, whereas that Man (they say) derived His life rather from human origin than from the mystery of a spiritual conception, God the Word did not make Himself Man of the womb of the Virgin; but that the Word of God was in Jesus, as the spirit of prophecy in the Prophets. And they are accustomed to charge us with holding, that Christ was born a Man, not of our body and soul; whereas we preach the Word made flesh, and after our likeness born Man, so that He Who is truly Son of God, was truly born Son of man; and that, as by His own act He took upon Him a body of the Virgin, so of Himself He took a soul also, which in no case is derived from man by mere parental origin. And seeing He, The Self-same, is the Son of man, how absurd were it, besides the Son of God, Who is the Word, to make Him another person besides, a sort of prophet, inspired by the Word of God; whereas our Lord Jesus Christ is both the Son of God, and the Son of man.

[AD 367] Hilary of Poitiers on John 1:14

[The dignity of the Godhead is preserved] so that in the fact that the Word was made flesh, the Word, in becoming flesh, has not lost through being flesh what constituted the Word, nor has it become transformed into flesh, so as to cease to be the Word. But the Word was made flesh in order that the flesh might begin to be what the Word is.… God, knowing no change when made flesh, lost nothing of the prerogatives of his substance.

Source: ON THE COUNCILS 48

[AD 373] Athanasius of Alexandria on John 1:14

Yet the love of God for humanity is such that by grace He becomes Father of those in relation to whom he had previously only been Maker. He becomes their Father when created beings receive ‘into their hearts the Spirit of the Son crying out, ‘Abba, Father’ [Gal 4.6]., as the apostle says. These are the ones who, by receiving the Word, receive authority from him ‘to become the children of God’ (John 1.12). Being creatures by nature, they would not become ‘sons’ except by receiving the Spirit of the natural and true Son. So it was in order to bring this about and to make humanity receptive of divinity that ‘The Word became flesh’ [John 1.14]… Accordingly, the Father calls ‘sons’ those in whom He sees His own Son and He says, ‘I begot’ since ‘begetting’ signifies ‘sons’ while ‘making’ is indicative of the works. Therefore we are not begotten first but made [created], for it is written, ‘Let us make humanity’ (Gen 1.26). But when we later receive the grace of The Spirit, we are henceforth said to also be begotten. - "Against the Arians, 2.59"

[AD 373] Athanasius of Alexandria on John 1:14

For the Word perceived that death was the only way that the corruption of people could be undone. However, it was impossible for the Word to suffer death, being immortal and Son of the Father. Therefore, he takes to himself a body capable of death, so that such a body, by partaking of the Word who is above all, might be worthy to die in the stead of all, and might, because of the Word that had come to dwell in it, remain incorruptible. In this way, the corruption of all might be checked by the grace of the resurrection. By offering to death the body he himself had taken, as an offering and sacrifice free from any stain, he got rid of death for all his peers by offering an equivalent. For the Word of God, which by his very nature is over everything, by offering his own temple and bodily vessel for the life of all, satisfied the debt by his death. And thus he, the incorruptible Son of God, joined with all by a similar nature, naturally clothed all with incorruption by the promise of the resurrection. For the actual corruption in death no longer has a hold on humanity because of the Word which, by his one body, has come to dwell among them. It is similar to when a great king has entered into some large city and taken up residence in one of the houses there. That city is thus deemed worthy of high honor. No enemy or bandit any longer descends on it and subdues it. On the contrary, it finds itself entitled to total protection because the king has taken up his residence in a single house there: so, too, has it been with the Monarch of all. For now that he has come to our realm and taken up residence in one body among his peers, from this time forward the whole conspiracy of the enemy against humankind is checked, and the corruption of death, which before had prevailed against them, is done away with. For the human race would have gone to ruin if the Lord and Savior of all, the Son of God, had not come among us to meet the end of death.

Source: On the Incarnation of the Word 9.1-4

[AD 373] Athanasius of Alexandria on John 1:14

He was made man that we might be made god. He manifested himself by a body that we might receive a conception of the unseen Father. He endured the hubris of humanity that we might inherit incorruptibility. For on the one hand, he himself was in no way injured, being impassible and incorruptible and very Word and God; but on the other hand, in his own impassibility he maintained and preserved those human beings who were suffering and for whose sakes he endured all this.

Source: On the Incarnation of the Word 54.3

[AD 373] Ephrem the Syrian on John 1:14

Why did our Lord clothe himself with our flesh? So that this flesh might experience victory and that [humanity] might know and understand the gifts [of God]. For if God had been victorious without the flesh, what praise could one render him? Second, so that [our Lord] might show that, at the beginning, he experienced no jealousy toward him [who had wanted] to become God. For he in whom [our Lord] was abased is greater than he in whom he was dwelling when [Adam] was great and glorious. This is why [it is written], “I have said, ‘You shall be gods.’ ” Thus, the Word came and clothed itself with flesh, so that what cannot be grasped might be grasped through that which can be grasped, and that, through what cannot be grasped, the flesh would raise itself up against those who grasp it. For it was fitting that our Lord be the haven of all good things to whom [people] might be gathered together, the end of all mysteries toward whom they would hasten from everywhere, and the treasure of all the parables so that everyone, lifted up [as though] on wings, might rest in him alone.[See] the wisdom [of God], that in the fall of him who fell, there fell with him the One who was destined to raise him up. Because the body of Adam was in existence before his [evil] passions, [our Lord] did not assume the passions with which [Adam subsequently] clothed himself, since they were a kind of additional weakness to a healthy nature. Our Lord clothed himself therefore with a healthy nature that had lost its health, so that the original health of this nature might thereby be restored.

Source: COMMENTARY ON TATIAN’S DIATESSARON 1.1

[AD 373] Ephrem the Syrian on John 1:14

On this day on which the Lord of all came among servants, let the lords also bow down to their servants lovingly.On this day when the rich One was made poor for our sake, let the rich man also make the poor man a sharer at his table.
On this day a gift came out to us without our asking for it; let us then give alms to those who cry out and beg from us.…
This Lord of natures today was transformed contrary to his nature; it is not too difficult for us also to overthrow our evil will.
Bound is the body by its nature for it cannot grow larger or smaller; but powerful is the will for it may grow to all sizes.
Today the Deity imprinted itself on humanity, so that humanity might also be cut into the seal of Deity.

Source: HYMNS ON THE NATIVITY 1.93-99

[AD 373] Ephrem the Syrian on John 1:14

In his mercy he [our Lord] used our body, so that we might endure the sight of him and hear the sound of his voice, and so that we not suffer what the foremost disciples suffered on the mountain, when through his body his glory shone upon them. Sleep fell upon them, and they were rendered speechless and were astounded by his glory. … And this was so that we might learn why he was seen without glory, and why he came in a body. If indeed the apostles and foremost of the disciples saw his deity when it was not completely revealed, what would surely have happened to us if he had appeared to us openly, in the incorporeal glory of his deity?

Source: COMMENTARY ON TATIAN’S DIATESSARON 14.5

[AD 379] Basil of Caesarea on John 1:14

How can the Godhead be in the flesh? In the same way as fire can be in iron: not by moving from place to place but by the one imparting to the other its own properties. Fire does not speed toward iron, but without itself undergoing any change it causes the iron to share in its own natural attributes. The fire is not diminished, and yet it completely fills whatever shares in its nature. So is it also with God the Word. He did not relinquish his own nature, and yet “he dwelt among us.” He did not undergo any change, and yet “the Word became flesh.” Earth received him from heaven, yet heaven was not deserted by him who holds the universe in being.…Let us strive to comprehend the mystery. The reason God is in the flesh is to kill the death that lurks there. As diseases are cured by medicines assimilated by the body, and as darkness in a house is dispelled by the coming of light, so death, which held sway over human nature, is done away with by the coming of God. And as ice formed on water covers its surface as long as night and darkness last but melts under the warmth of the sun, so death reigned until the coming of Christ; but when the grace of God our Savior appeared and the Sun of justice rose, death was swallowed up in victory, unable to bear the presence of true life. How great is God’s goodness, how deep his love for us!

Source: HOMILY ON CHRIST’S ANCESTRY 2.6

[AD 386] Cyril of Jerusalem on John 1:14

The Father begot the Son, not as a human mind begets a word. For the mind is substantially existent in us, but the word when spoken is dispersed into the air and comes to an end. But we know Christ to have been begotten not as a word pronounced but as a Word substantially existing and living; not spoken by the lips and dispersed but begotten of the Father eternally and ineffably, in substance … sitting at God’s right hand; the Word understanding the Father’s will and creating all things at his bidding: the Word, which came down and went up; for the word of utterance when spoken does not come down, nor does it go up; the Word speaking and saying, “I speak of what I have seen with my Father,” the Word possessed of power and reigning over all things, for “all things have been delivered to him by my Father.”

Source: Catechetical Lecture 11:10

[AD 397] Ambrose of Milan on John 1:14

It is written, they say, “The Word was made flesh.” It is written. I do not deny it. But consider what follows, for there follows: “And dwelt among us,” that is, that word that took on flesh, this Word dwelt among us, that is, dwelt in human flesh, and so he is called Emmanuel, that is, “God with us.” So this statement, “The Word was made flesh,” stands for that which took place. He became man even as he said in Joel: “I will pour out of my spirit upon all flesh,” for the future pouring out of spiritual grace is promised not for irrational flesh but for humanity.

Source: ON THE SACRAMENT OF THE INCARNATION OF OUR LORD 6.59

[AD 400] Ignatius of Antioch on John 1:14

Source: Epistle of Pseudo-Ignatius to the Antiochians

[AD 407] John Chrysostom on John 1:14

(Hom. x. [ix.] 3) The Evangelist makes this declaration, that being taught the vileness and inferiority of our former birth, which is through blood, and the will of the flesh, and understanding the loftiness and nobleness of the second, which is through grace, we might hence receive great knowledge, worthy of being bestowed by him who begat us, and after this show forth much zeal.

(Hom. xi. [x.] 1) Or thus, After saying that they were born of God, who received Him, he sets forth the cause of this honour, viz. the Word being made flesh, God's own Son was made the son of man, that he might make the sons of men the sons of God. Now when thou hearest that the Word was made flesh, be not disturbed, for He did not change His substance into flesh, which it were indeed impious to suppose; but remaining what He was, took upon Him the form of a servant. But as there are some who say, that the whole of the incarnation was only in appearance, to refute such a blasphemy, he used the expression, was made, meaning to represent not a conversion of substance, but an assumption of real flesh. But if they say, God is omnipotent; why then could He not be changed into flesh? we reply, that a change from an unchangeable nature is a contradiction.

(Hom. in Joan. xi. [x.] 2) Lest from it being said, however, that the Word was made flesh, you should infer improperly a change of His incorruptible nature, he subjoins, And dwelt among us. For that which inhabits is not the same, but different from the habitation: different, I say, in nature; though as to union and conjunction, God the Word and the flesh are one, without confusion or extinction of substance.

(Hom. xii. [xi.] 1.) Having said that we are made the sons of God, and in no other way than because the Word was made flesh; he mentions another gift, And we saw His glory. Which glory we should not have seen, had He not, by His alliance with humanity, become visible to us. For if they could not endure to look on the glorified face of Moses, but there was need of a veil, how could soiled and earthly creatures, like ourselves, have borne the sight of undisguised Divinity, which is not vouchsafed even to the higher powers themselves.

(Hom. in Joan. xii. [xi.] 1.) He subjoins, As of the Only-Begotten of the Father: for many prophets, as Moses, Elijah, and others, workers of miracles, had been glorified, and Angels also who appeared unto men, shining with the brightness belonging to their nature; Cherubim and Seraphim too, who were seen in glorious array by the prophets. But the Evangelist withdrawing our minds from these, and raising them above all nature, and every preeminence of fellow servants, leads us up to the summit Himself; as if he said, Not of prophet, or of any other man, or of Angel, or Archangel, or any of the higher powers, is the glory which we beheld; but as that of the very Lord, very King, very and true Only-Begotten Son.

(Hom. xii. [xi.] 1) As if he said: We saw His glory, such as it was becoming and proper for the Only-Begotten and true Son to have. We have a form of speech, like it, derived from our seeing kings always splendidly robed. When the dignity of a man's carriage is beyond description, we say, In short, he went as a king. So too John says, We saw His glory, the glory as of the Only Begotten of the Father. For Angels, when they appeared, did every thing as servants who had a Lord, but He as the Lord appearing in humble form. Yet did all creatures recognise their Lord, the star calling the Magi, the Angels the shepherds, the child leaping in the womb acknowledged Him: yea the Father bore witness to Him from heaven, and the Paraclete descending upon Him: and the very universe itself shouted louder than any trumpet, that the King of heaven had come. For devils fled, diseases were healed, the graves gave up the dead, and souls were brought out of wickedness, to the utmost height of virtue. What shall one say of the wisdom of precepts, of the virtue of heavenly laws, of the excellent institution of the angelical life?

Source: Catena Aurea by Aquinas

[AD 407] John Chrysostom on John 1:14

Having declared that they who received him were “born of God” and had become “sons of God,” he adds the cause and reason of this unspeakable honor. It is that “the Word became flesh,” that the Master took on him the form of a servant. For he became Son of man, who was God’s own Son, in order that he might make the sons of men [humankind] to be children of God. For when the high associates with the low, it does not touch its own honor at all. Instead, it raises up the other from its excessive lowness. So it was with the Lord. By no means did he diminish his own nature by his condescension, but he raised us, who had always sat in disgrace and darkness, to unspeakable glory. Likewise, it may be that a king, conversing with interest and kindness with a poor person of lower social status, does not shame himself at all but makes the other illustrious and observed by all. Now, if, in the case of the extrinsic dignity of people, association with the humbler person in no way injures the more honorable one, then much less can it do so in the case of that simple and blessed essence that has nothing extrinsic or subject to growth or decay but has all good things immovable and fixed forever. So, when you hear that “the Word became flesh,” do not be disturbed or cast down, for that essence did not change to flesh—it is impiety to imagine this—but continuing what it is, it took the form of a servant on it.

Source: HOMILIES ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 11.1

[AD 407] John Chrysostom on John 1:14

For we admire him not only because of the miracles but also because of the sufferings. We admire the fact that he was nailed upon the cross, that he was scourged, that he was beaten, that he was spit on, that he received blows on the cheek from those to whom he had done good. For even of those very things that seem to be shameful, it is proper to repeat the same expression, since he himself called that action “glory.” For what then took place was [proof] not only of kindness and love but also of unspeakable power. At that time death was abolished, the curse was loosed, devils were shamed and led in triumph and made a show of, and the handwriting of our sins was nailed to the cross. And then, since these wonders were happening invisibly, others took place visibly, showing that he was truly the only begotten Son of God, the Lord of all creation. For while that blessed body hung on the tree, the sun turned away its rays, the whole earth was troubled and became dark, the graves were opened, the ground quaked, and an innumerable multitude of the dead leaped forth and went into the city. And while the stones of his tomb were fastened on the vault and the seals still on them, the dead arose, the crucified, the nail-pierced one, and having filled his eleven disciples with his mighty power, he sent them to people throughout all the world, to be the common healers of all their kind, to correct their way of living, to spread through every part of the earth the knowledge of their heavenly doctrines, to break down the tyranny of devils, to teach those great and ineffable blessings, to bring to us the glad tidings of the soul’s immortality and the eternal life of the body, and rewards that are beyond conception and shall never have an end.

Source: HOMILIES ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 12.3

[AD 410] Prudentius on John 1:14

Of the Father’s love begotten before the beginning of the world,
Called Alpha and Omega, himself both source and end
Of all that is, has been, and will exist in times to come.
He commanded and they were created, he spoke and they were made,
Earth, heavens, the depths of the sea—the triple structure of the universe—
And all that inhabits them beneath the lofty orbs of sun and moon.
He put on mortal body’s form and limbs vulnerable to death,
To prevent the destruction of the race sprung from the first creature
Whom a deadly law had plunged deep into hell.
O what a blessed birth was then, when a virgin in labor,
Having conceived by the Holy Spirit, brought forth our salvation,
And the child who is the world’s redeemer revealed his sacred face.
Let the heights of heaven sing, all you angels, sing,
Let all the powers everywhere sing in praise of God,
Let no tongue be silent, let every voice ring in harmony.
Look how the one who was foretold by seers in ages past
And pledged in the prophets’ reliable writings,
Shines forth, he who was promised long ago: let all things praise him.

Source: HYMNS FOR EVERY DAY 9.10-27

[AD 428] Theodore of Mopsuestia on John 1:14

In order to explain the word was, the Evangelist added kai eskēnōsen en hēmin, and “tabernacled in us,” that is, in this sense he became flesh: he lived in our nature. Evidently the words stand for “lived among us,” as also the apostle said about us human beings, “We who are still in this tabernacle groan,” where he called our body a tabernacle. He also writes elsewhere, “We know that if the earthly tabernacle we live in is destroyed.” It is well known that in Scripture usually the whole person is indicated by “flesh,” as in, “To you all flesh shall come.”

Source: COMMENTARY ON JOHN 1.1.14

[AD 428] Theodore of Mopsuestia on John 1:14

We did not agree to believe in him lightheartedly, [John says,] but accepted him as a true, only begotten Son because of those things that we saw. And the things we saw demonstrated the greatness of the one who appeared—they could belong to no one else except the Only Begotten who possesses perfect identity with the Father. And it is also true that the works that were made through him were full of true grace. He called grace truth in comparison with that of the Jews, in order to accuse the unbelievers, and he reveals his intention with the words that follow.He indicates grace with the name of truth, that is, the true grace, because Christ took on the ancient transgressions and gave salvation through the remission of sins. In addition he destroyed death, which reigned because of sin, and gave us a sound hope in the resurrection through our adoption as sons. He gave us hope not only in the word, like the Jews, but also regenerated in us the hope of resurrection by the works [of Christ] through the power of the Spirit. The symbol of resurrection is baptism, which confirms that death itself will never destroy us. For this reason he prepared for us the delights of the heavenly kingdom if we preserve pure in our actions the honor of the adoptive relationship given to us through baptism.

Source: COMMENTARY ON JOHN 1.1.14

[AD 430] Augustine of Hippo on John 1:14

(Tr. ii. 15) Having said, Born of God; to prevent surprise and trepidation at so great, so apparently incredible a grace, as that men should be born of God; to assure us, he says, And the Word was made flesh. Why marvellest thou then that men are born of God? Know that God Himself was born of man.

(de Trin. xv. c. 20. [xi.]) As our wordq becomes the bodily voice, by its assumption of that voice, as a means of developing itself externally; so the Word of God was made flesh, by assuming flesh, as a means of manifesting Itself to the world. And as our word is made voice, yet is not turned into voice; so the Word of God was made flesh, but never turned into flesh. It is by assuming another nature, not by consuming themselves in it, that our word is made voice, and the Word, flesh.

(con. Serm. Arian. c. 7. [9.]) If men are disturbed however by its being said that the Word was made flesh, without mention of a soul; let them know that the flesh is put for the whole man, the part for the whole, by a figure of speech; as in the Psalms, Unto thee shall all flesh come; (Ps. 65:2) and again in Romans, By the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified. (Rom. 3:20) In the same sense it is said here that the Word was made flesh; meaning that the Word was made man.

(in Joan. Tr. ii. c. 16) Or thus; in that the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us, His birth became a kind of ointment to anoint the eyes of our heart, that we might through His humanity discern His majesty; and therefore it follows, And we saw His glory. No one could see His glory, who was not healed by the humility of the flesh. For there had flown upon man's eye as it were dust from the earth: the eye had been diseased, and earth was sent to heal it again; the flesh had blinded thee, the flesh restores thee. The soul by consenting to carnal affections had become carnal; hence the eye of the mind had been blinded: then the physician made for thee ointment. He came in such wise, as that by the flesh He destroyed the corruption of the flesh. And thus the Word was made flesh, that thou mightest be able to say, We saw His glory.

Source: Catena Aurea by Aquinas

[AD 430] Augustine of Hippo on John 1:14

For just as our word in some way becomes a bodily sound by assuming that in which it may be manifested to the senses of people, so the Word of God was made flesh by assuming that in which he might also be manifested to the senses of people. And just as our word becomes a sound and is not changed into a sound, so the Word of God indeed becomes flesh, but far be it from us that is should be changed into flesh. For by assuming it, not by being consumed in it, this word of ours becomes a sound, and that Word became flesh.

Source: ON THE TRINITY 15.11.20

[AD 430] Augustine of Hippo on John 1:14

It is not right to say that any part was lacking in that human nature he put on, except that it was a human nature altogether free from any bond of sin.

Source: Enchiridion 10.34

[AD 430] Augustine of Hippo on John 1:14

What you can see here, dearly beloved, on the table of the Lord, is bread and wine; but this bread and wine, when the word is applied to it, becomes the body and blood of the Word. That Lord, you see, who “in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” was so compassionate that he did not despise what he had created in his own image; and therefore “the Word became flesh and dwelt among us,” as you know. Because, yes, the very Word took to himself a man, that is, the soul and flesh of a man, and became man while remaining God. For that reason, because he also suffered for us, he also presented us in this sacrament with his body and blood, and this is what he made even us ourselves into as well.

Source: SERMON 229.1

[AD 430] Augustine of Hippo on John 1:14

What could be richer than he through whom all things were made? A rich person can possess gold, but he cannot create it. These riches of his having thus been declared, now observe his poverty: “And the word became flesh and dwelt among us.” It is by this poverty of his that we have been enriched, because by his blood, which flowed from his flesh, the flesh the Word became in order to dwell among us, the sacking of our sins was torn up. Through that blood we have cast off the rags of iniquity, in order to clothe ourselves in the robes of immortality.

Source: SERMON 36.3

[AD 430] Augustine of Hippo on John 1:14

His glory no one could see unless he was healed by the lowliness of his flesh. Why could we not see? Concentrate, my beloved people, and see what I am saying. Dust, so to speak, had forcibly entered humanity’s eye; earth had entered it, had injured the eye, and it could not see the light. That injured eye is anointed; it was injured by earth, and earth is put there that it may be healed. For all salves and medicines are nothing but [compounds] of the earth. You have been blinded by dust, you are healed by dust; thus the flesh has blinded you, flesh heals you. For the soul had become carnal by assenting to carnal passions; from that the eye of the heart had been blinded. “The Word was made flesh.” That physician made a salve for you. And because he came in such a way that by his flesh he might extinguish the faults of the flesh and by his death he might kill death, it was therefore effected in you that, because “the Word was made flesh,” you could say, “And we saw his glory.”

Source: TRACTATES ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 2.16.2

[AD 430] Augustine of Hippo on John 1:14

That “the Word became flesh” does not mean that the Word passed into flesh by perishing, but that flesh was attached to the Word to prevent flesh itself from perishing; with the result that just as a person is soul and flesh, so Christ would be God and man. The same one who is God is man, the same one who is man is God; not by a compounding of nature but by unity of person. In a word, the one who as Son of God is coeternal with his begetter and always from the Father is identical with the Son of man who began to be at a particular time from the Virgin. And thus humanity was indeed added to the divinity of the Son; and yet this did not result in a quaternity or foursome of persons, but the Trinity or threesome remains.

Source: SERMON 186.1

[AD 431] Council of Ephesus on John 1:14

(P. iii. Hom. Theod. Ancyr. de Nat. Dom.) The discourse which we utter, which we use in conversation with each other, is incorporeal, imperceptible, impalpable; but clothed in letters and characters, it becomes material, perceptible, tangible. So too the Word of God, which was naturally invisible, becomes visible, and that comes before us in tangible form, which was by nature incorporeal.

Source: Catena Aurea by Aquinas

[AD 444] Cyril of Alexandria on John 1:14

(ad Nes. Ep. 8) The Word uniting to Himself a body of flesh animated with a rational soul, substantially, was ineffably and incomprehensibly made Man, and called the Son of man, and that not according to the will only, or good-pleasure, nor again by the assumption of the Person alone. The natures are different indeed which are brought into true union, but He Who is of both, Christ the Son, is One; the difference of the natures, on the other hand, not being destroyed in consequence of this coalition.

Source: Catena Aurea by Aquinas

[AD 444] Cyril of Alexandria on John 1:14

And the Word was made Flesh.

He has now entered openly upon the declaration of the Incarnation. For he plainly sets forth that the Only-Begotten became and is called son of man; for this and nought else does his saying that the Word was made Flesh signify: for it is as though he said more nakedly The Word was made Man. And in thus speaking he introduces again to us nought strange or unwonted, seeing that the Divine Scripture ofttimes calls the whole creature by the name of flesh alone, as in the prophet Joel: I will pour out My Spirit upon all flesh. And we do not suppose that the Prophet says that that the Divine Spirit should be bestowed upon human flesh soul-less and alone (for this would be by no means free from absurdity): but comprehending the whole by the part, he names man from the flesh: for thus it was right and not otherwise. And why, it is needful I suppose to say.

Man then is a creature rational, but composite, of soul that is and of this perishable and earthly flesh. And when it had been made by God, and was brought into being, not having of its own nature incorruption and imperishableness (for these things appertain essentially to God Alone), it was sealed with the spirit of life, by participation with the Divinity gaining the good that is above nature (for He breathed, it says, into his nostrils the breath of life and man became a living soul). But when he was being punished for his transgressions, then with justice hearing Dust thou art and unto dust shalt thou return, he was bared of the grace; the breath of life, that is the Spirit of Him Who says I am the Life, departed from the earthy body and the creature falls into death, through the flesh alone, the soul being kept in immortality, since to the flesh too alone was it said, Dust thou art and unto dust shalt thou return. It needed therefore that that in us which was specially imperilled, should with the greater zeal be restored, and by intertwining again with Life That is by Nature be recalled to immortality: it needed that at length the sentence. Dust thou art and unto dust shalt thou return should be relaxed, the fallen body being united ineffably to the Word That quickeneth all things. For it needed that becoming His Flesh, it should partake of the immortality that is from Him. For it were a thing most absurd, that fire should have the power of infusing into wood the perceptible quality of its inherent power and of all but transfashioning into itself the things wherein it is by participation, and that we should not fully hold that the Word of God Which is over all, would in-work in the flesh His own Good, that is Life.

For this reason specially I suppose it was that the holy Evangelist, indicating the creature specially from the part affected, says that the Word of God became Flesh, that so we might see at once the wound and the medicine, the sick and the Physician, that which had fallen unto death and Him Who raised it unto life, that which was overcome of corruption and Him Who chased away the corruption, that which was holden of death and Him Who is superior to death, that which was bereft of life and the Giver of life.

But he says not that the Word came into flesh but that It was made Flesh, that you may not suppose that He came to it as in the case of the Prophets or other of the Saints by participation, but did Himself become actual Flesh, that is man: for so we just now said. Wherefore He is also God by Nature in Flesh and with Flesh, as having it His own, and conceived of as being Other than it, and worshipped in it and with it, according to what is written in the prophet Isaiah, Men of stature shall come over unto thee and they shall be thine: they shall come after thee; in chains they shall come over and they shall fall down unto thee, they shall make supplication unto thee, for God is in thee, and there is no God beside thee. Lo they say that God is in Him, not severing the Flesh from the Word; and again they affirm that there is none other God save He, uniting to the Word that which He bears about Him, as His very own, that is the temple of the Virgin: for He is One Christ of Both.

[AD 444] Cyril of Alexandria on John 1:14

And we beheld His glory, the glory as of the Only-begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.

Having said that the Word was made Flesh, that is Man, and having brought Him down to brotherhood with things made and in bondage, he preserves even thus His Divine dignity intact and shows Him again full of the own Nature of the Father inherent to Him. For the Divine Nature has truly stability in Itself, not enduring to suffer change to ought else, but rather always unvarying and abiding in Its own Endowments. Hence even though the Evangelist says that the Word was made Flesh, he yet affirms that It was not overcome by the infirmities of the flesh, nor fell from Its pristine Might and Glory, when It clad Itself in our frail and inglorious body. For we saw, he says, His Glory surpassing that of others, and such as one may confess befits the Only-Begotten Son of God the Father: for full was He of grace and truth. For if one looks at the choir of the saints and measures the things that are wondrously achieved by each, one will with reason marvel and be delighted at the good things that belong to each and will surely say that they are filled with glory from God. But the Divines and witnesses say that they have seen the glory and grace of the Only-Begotten, not competing with that of the rest, but very far surpassing it and mounting up by incomparable excellencies, having no measured grace, as though another gave it, but perfect and true as in the Perfect, that is, not imported nor supplied from without in the way of accession, but essentially in-existent, and the fruit of the Father's essential Property passing Naturally to the Son Who is of Him.

And if it seem good to any to test more largely what has been said, let him consider with himself both the deeds that are wonderfully done by each of the saints and those of our Saviour Christ and he will find the difference as great as we have just said. And there is this besides;----they are true servants about the house, He as a Son over his own house. And the Divine Scripture says of the Only-Begotten Blessed be he that cometh in the Name of the Lord, but of the saints God the Father says, I have even sent unto you all my servants the prophets. And the one were recipients of the grace from above, the other as Lord of Hosts says, If I do not the works of My Father, believe Me not: but if I do, though ye believe not Me, believe My works. If then the Only-Begotten is seen by the very works to be as great in power as the Father, He will conformably be celebrated by equal honours, as the Doer of equal works, and will surely as much surpass, even when in the Flesh, those who have been called unto brotherhood, as God by Nature overleaps the limits of men, and the Very Son the sons by adoption.

But since it is written in the blessed Luke, And Jesus increased in wisdom and grace, we must observe here that the Spirit-clad said that the Son hath His glory full of grace. Whither then will that which is full advance, or what addition will that at all admit, beyond which there is nought? Hence He is said to increase, not in that He is Word and God, but because He ever more greatly marvelled at, appeared more full of grace to those who saw Him, through His achievements, the disposition of those who marvelled advancing, as is more true to say, in grace, than He Who is Perfect as God. Be these things then spoken for profit, though they be somewhat discursive.

[AD 444] Cyril of Alexandria on John 1:14

And dwelt among us.

The Evangelist profitably goes over again what he has said, and brings the force of the thought to a clearer comprehension. For since he said that the Word of God was made Flesh, lest any out of much ignorance should imagine that He forsook His own Nature, and was in truth changed into flesh, and suffered, which were impossible (for the Godhead is far removed from all. variableness and change into ought else as to mode of being): the Divine exceeding well added straightway And dwelt among us, that considering that the things mentioned are two, the Dweller and that wherein is the dwelling, you might not suppose that He is transformed into flesh, but rather that He dwelt in Flesh, using His own Body, the Temple that is from the Holy Virgin. For in Him dwelt all the fulness of the Godhead bodily, as Paul saith.

But profitably does he affirm that the Word dwelt in us, unveiling to us this deep Mystery also: for we were all in Christ, and the community of human nature mounteth up unto His Person; since therefore was He named the last Adam,, giving richly to the common nature all things that belong to joy and glory, even as the first Adam what pertained to corruption and dejection. The Word then dwelt in all through one that the One being declared the Son of God with power according to the Spirit of holiness, the dignity might come unto all the human nature and thus because of One of us, I have said Ye are gods and all of you are children of the Most High might come to us also. Therefore in Christ verily is the bond made free, mounting up unto mystic union with Him Who bare the form of the servant; yet in us after the likeness of the One because of the relation after the flesh. For why doth He take on Him not the nature of angels but the seed of Abraham, whence in all things it behoved Him to he made like unto His brethren, and to become in truth Man? Is it not clear to all, that He descended unto the condition of bondage, not Himself giving thereby ought to Himself, but bestowing Himself on us, that we through His Poverty might be rich, and, soaring up through likeness to Him unto His own special good, might be made gods and children of God through faith? For He Who is by Nature Son and God dwelt in us, wherefore in His Spirit do we cry Abba Father. And the Word dwells in One Temple taken for our sakes and of us, as in all, in order that having all in Himself, He might reconcile all in one body unto the Father, as Paul saith.

[AD 444] Cyril of Alexandria on John 1:14

We do not say that the nature of the Word was changed and became flesh or that it was converted into a whole man consisting of soul and body; but rather that the Word having personally united to himself flesh animated by a rational soul did in an ineffable and inconceivable manner become man and was called the Son of man, not merely according to the will, or being pleased to be so called, neither on account of taking to himself a person, but because the two natures being brought together in a true union, there is of both one Christ and one Son. For the difference of the natures is not taken away by the union, but rather the divinity and the humanity make perfect for us the one Lord Jesus Christ by their ineffable and inexpressible union.

Source: LETTER 4, TO NESTORIUS

[AD 444] Cyril of Alexandria on John 1:14

John has now entered openly upon the declaration of the incarnation. For he plainly sets forth that the Only Begotten became and is called son of man; for his saying that “the Word was made flesh” signifies this and nothing else. For it is as though he had said more starkly “The Word was made man.” Speaking this way, he introduces nothing strange or unusual since divine Scripture often calls the whole creature by the name “flesh” by itself. …Humanity, then, is a creature who is rational but also composite. It consists of a soul that exists as well as this perishable and earthly flesh. And when it was made by God and was brought into being, not having of its own nature incorruption and immortality (for these things pertain essentially to God alone), it was sealed with the spirit of life by participation with the Divinity. In doing so, it gained the good that transcends nature. For he “breathed,” it says, “into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul.” But when he was being punished for his transgressions, then with justice he heard, “Dust you are, and to dust you shall return.” He was denuded of the grace. The “breath of life,” that is, the Spirit of him who says, “I am the life,” departed from the earthly body, and the creature fell into death through the flesh alone, the soul being kept in immortality, since to the flesh alone it was said. “Dust you are, and to dust you shall return.” It was necessary, therefore, that what in us was especially endangered should more urgently be restored, and by intertwining again with what is Life by nature, [our flesh] should be recalled to immortality. It was necessary that the sentence, “Dust you are, and to dust you will return” should be overturned, the fallen body being united ineffably to the Word that enlivens all things. For it was necessary that, becoming his flesh, it should partake of the immortality that is from him. For it would be absurd if fire should have the power of infusing into wood the perceptible quality of its inherent power and of all but transforming into itself anything that participates in it, and yet that we should not fully hold that the Word of God which is over all, would work into our flesh his own good, that is, life.
This, in my opinion, is probably the reason that the holy Evangelist, indicating the creature specifically by the part that was affected, says that “the Word of God became flesh,” so that we might see at once the wound and the medicine; [at once] the sick and the Physician; what had fallen into death and him who raised it to life; what was overcome by corruption and him who chased away the corruption, what was trapped in death and him who is superior to death; what was bereft of life and the Giver of life.

Source: COMMENTARY ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 1.9

[AD 444] Cyril of Alexandria on John 1:14

The assertion that the Word dwelt in us is a useful one because it also reveals to us a very deep mystery. For we were all in Christ. The common element of humanity is summed up in his person, which is also why he was called the last Adam: he enriched our common nature with everything conducive to joy and glory just as the first Adam impoverished it with everything bringing corruption and gloom. This is precisely why the Word dwelt in all of us by dwelling in a single human being, so that through that one being who was “designated Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness” the whole of humanity might be raised up to his status so that the verse, “I said, you are gods and all of you sons of the Most High” might through applying to one of us come to apply to us all. Therefore, that which is enslaved is liberated in a real sense and ascends to a mystical union with him who put on the form of a servant, while “in us” it is liberated by an imitation of the union with the One through our kinship according to the flesh.

Source: COMMENTARY ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 1.9

[AD 532] Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite on John 1:14

"The one says: "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us; and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the Only-begotten of the Father."

[AD 604] Gregory the Dialogist on John 1:14

(lxviii. Moral. c. 6. [12.]) In Scripture language as, and as it were, are sometimes put not for likeness but reality; whence the expression, As of the Only-Begotten of the Father.

Source: Catena Aurea by Aquinas

[AD 604] Gregory the Dialogist on John 1:14

But we say that the Word was made flesh not by losing what he was but by taking what he was not. For in the mystery of his incarnation the Only Begotten of the Father increased what was ours but diminished not what was his.

Source: LETTER 67

[AD 662] Maximus the Confessor on John 1:14

This grace we receive from [Christ’s] fullness always in proportion to our progress. Therefore, the one who keeps sacred the whole meaning of the Word of God’s becoming incarnate for our sake will acquire the glory full of grace and truth of the one who for our sake glorifies and consecrates himself in us by his coming. “When he appears we shall be like him.”

Source: CHAPTERS ON KNOWLEDGE 1.76

[AD 804] Alcuin of York on John 1:14

(in Joan. 1:1.) When we think how the incorporeal soul is joined to the body, so as that of two is made one man, we too shall the more easily receive the notion of the incorporeal Divine substance being joined to the soul in the body, in unity of person; so as that the Word is not turned into flesh, nor the flesh into the Word; just as the soul is not turned into body, nor the body into soul.

Or, dwelt among us, means, lived amongst men.

Source: Catena Aurea by Aquinas

[AD 1107] Theophylact of Ohrid on John 1:14

(in loc.) Apollinarius of Laodicea raised a heresy upon this text; saying, that Christ had flesh only, not a rational soul; in the place of which His divinity directed and controlled His body.

(in loc.) The Evangelist intends by making mention of the flesh, to show the unspeakable condescension of God, and lead us to admire His compassion, in assuming for our salvation, what was so opposite and incongenial to His nature, as the flesh: for the soul has some propinquity to God. If the Word, however, was made flesh, and assumed not at the same time a human soul, our souls, it would follow, would not be yet restored: for what He did not assume, He could not sanctify. What a mockery then, when the soul first sinned, to assume and sanctify the flesh only, leaving the weakest part untouched! This text overthrows Nestorius, who asserted that it was not the very Word, even God, Who the Self-same was made man, being conceived of the sacred blood of the Virgin: but that the Virgin brought forth a man endowed with every kind of virtue, and that the Word of God was united to him: thus making out two sons, one born of the Virgin, i. e. man, the other born of God, that is, the Son of God, united to that man by grace, and relation, and lover. In opposition to him the Evangelist declares, that the very Word was made Man, not that the Word fixing upon a righteous man united Himself to him.

(in v. 14) From the text, The Word was made flesh, we learn this farther, that the Word Itself is man, and being the Son of God was made the Son of a woman, who is rightly called the Mother of God, as having given birth to God in the flesh.

(hoc loc.) Or, full of grace, inasmuch as His word was gracious, as saith David, Full of grace are thy lips; and truth, (Ps. 45:3) because what Moses and the Prophets spoke or did in figure, Christ did in reality.

Source: Catena Aurea by Aquinas

[AD 1107] Theophylact of Ohrid on John 1:14

And the Word was made flesh:
Having said that we may become sons of God, if we so desire, by believing in Christ, here he adds the cause of such a great gift. The Evangelist is saying, "Do wish to learn what enabled us to be adopted as sons of God? It is thisâ€”that the Word was made flesh." When you hear He was made flesh, do not think that He abandoned His divine nature and was changed into flesh. He would not be God if He had been changed and altered. Instead, remaining what He was, He became what He was not. Here is where Apollinarius of Laodicea formed his heresy. He taught that our Lord and God did not assume the whole nature of a man, that is, a body and a rational soul, but took on flesh only, and not the rational and spiritual soul of a man. Christ God had no need of a human soul, he said, since His divine nature governed His human body, in the same manner as we have a soul which governs and moves our body. To support his argument, so he imagined, Appolinarius used these very words, And the Word was made flesh. He said, "The text does not say that He became man, but flesh. Therefore, Christ did not assume a human soul with mind and reason, but only flesh, without a human mind or reason." But was that pitiable man ignorant that Scripture often mentions the part for the whole? For example, when it refers to the whole man it often names him by one part only, the soul: "Let every soul which is not circumcised be put to death." [See Gen. 17:14.] Instead of saying, "Let every man," it mentions the part, namely, the soul. In another example, Scripture names the whole from the part, in this case, the flesh, when it says, And all flesh shall see the salvation of God. [Is. 40:5] Here "all flesh" means "every man." In exactly the same manner here, instead of saying, "The Word became man," the Evangelist says, The Word was made flesh, naming the man, composed of both body and soul, by one part only. Because flesh is alien to the divine nature, perhaps the Evangelist used the word flesh to show the boundless condescension of God, Who astounds us by His ineffable love for man, in that, for our salvation, He took upon Himself something that was completely alien and foreign to His divine nature, namely, our flesh. Our soul has some kinship with God, but flesh shares nothing whatsoever with the divine. Therefore I think that the Evangelist here uses only the word flesh, not because the soul had no part in what was assumed, but as a stronger indication of the marvelous and fearful mystery of the Incarnation. If the Word had not assumed a human soul when He took flesh, our souls would still remain unhealed. For what He did not assume, He did not sanctify. The soul was the first to fall, for it was the soul which first succumbed to the words of the serpent and was deceived in Paradise, and then the hand, following after its lady and mistress, reached out to touch. How laughable it is, then, to suppose that the handmaid, the flesh, should be assumed, sanctified, and healed, while the mistress, the soul, should be left unassumed and unhealed. Away with Appolinarius! When we hear that the Word was made flesh, we believe that He became perfect man, for Scripture habitually uses either "body" or "soul" to refer to the whole man. Nestorius is also refuted by these words. He claimed that God the Word Himself did not become that Man which was conceived from the most holy blood of the Virgin, but instead, that the Virgin gave birth to a man. To this man, filled with grace and with all virtue, was joined the Word of God, giving him power over unclean spirits. Thus Nestorius taught that there were two sons: one, the man Jesus, born of the Virgin, and the other, the Son of God, joined to the man and inseparable from him, but "inseparable" only by grace, by closeness, and by love, because he was a virtuous man. Teaching these things, Nestorius chose to be deaf to the truth. For if he had so desired, he would have heard this blessed Evangelist say, The Word was made flesh. Is Nestorius not clearly refuted here? The Word Himself became man. The Evangelist did not say that the Word found a man and was joined to him, but He Himself became a man. Eutyches, Valentinus, and Manes are also here rebutted. They taught that the Word of God appeared in semblance only. Let them hear also that the Word was made flesh. The Evangelist did not say that the Word appeared to be flesh, or was imagined to be flesh, but that He became flesh in truth and in essence, not by phantasy. It is foolish and absurd to believe that the Son of God, Who is Truth and is called Truth, would have made a lie of His Incarnation. For what is phantasy, if not a false appearance?

[AD 1107] Theophylact of Ohrid on John 1:14

And we beheld His glory, the glory as of the Only-begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth:
Because he had said, The Word became flesh, here he adds, and we beheld His glory, that is to say, "While He was in the flesh, we beheld His glory." The Israelites had been unable to look upon the face of Moses when it shone with glory after he spoke with God. [See Ex. 34:29-35.] Could the Apostles possibly have been able to endure the full divinity of the Only-begotten, had it not been revealed to them through the veil of the flesh? We beheld His glory, but not such glory as Mosesâ€™ face reflected, nor as the glory in which the cherubim and seraphim appeared to the prophet [Ezek. 10:4], but such glory as befits the Only-begotten Son of the Father, and belonging to Him by nature. Here, the word as does not express similarity [i.e. glory similar to that of the Only-begotten], but, instead, certain and unambiguous identity. When we see a king approaching in great glory, we say, "He approached as king," meaning, "He approached being in truth the king." So too, here, we should understand as of the Only-begotten to mean, "The glory which we beheld was the glory of Him Who is in truth the Son of God." Full of grace and truth. He was full of grace, inasmuch as even His speech was gracious, as David says, Grace hath been poured forth on Thy lips. [Ps. 44:2] And the Evangelist Luke records, They all marvelled at the words of grace which proceeded out of His mouth. [Lk. 4:22] Furthermore, He graciously bestowed healings on all those in need of them. He was also full of truth. All that was spoken or done by the prophets, even by Moses himself, was only a foreshadowing of the truth. But all that Christ said and did is full of truth, for Christ Himself is Grace and Truth, and He bestowed these things on others. Where did they behold His glory? Perhaps some will think that the disciples did so on Mount Tabor when He was transfigured. This is true, but not on the mountain only, but in everything that the Lord spoke and did, they beheld His glory.

[AD 1107] Theophylact of Ohrid on John 1:14

And dwelt in us:
He had said above that the Word became flesh. Now, lest anyone imagine that Christ became one nature, he adds the words, and dwelt in us, to show us two natures: our own and that of the Word. A tent has a certain nature; he who dwells in a tent has another. (5) In the same way, the Word dwells in us, that is to say, in our nature, though His nature is different than ours. Let the Armenians [i.e. Monophysites] be put to shame who claim that Christ has one nature. From the words, The Word became flesh, we learn that the Word Himself became man, and, while being the Son of God, also became the Son of a woman who is called the Theotokos, Godâ€™s Birthgiver, precisely because she gave birth to God in the flesh. From the words, He dwelt in us, we learn to believe the two natures in one Christ. Though He is one in hypostasis, that is to say, in person, He is two in nature, both God and man. The divine and human natures could not have become one unless they had appeared in One, that is, in Christ.

[AD 407] John Chrysostom on John 1:15

(Hom. in Joan. xiii. [xii.] 1, 2, 3) Or he introduces this, as if to say, Do not suppose that we bear witness to this out of gratitude, because we were with Him a long time, and partook of His table; for John who had never seen Him before, nor tarried with Him, bare witness to Him. The Evangelist repeats John's testimony many times here and there, because he was held in such admiration by the Jews. Other Evangelists refer to the old prophets, and say, This was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet. But he introduces a loftier, and later witness, not intending to make the servant vouch for the master, but only condescending to the weakness of his hearers. For as Christ would not have been so readily received, had He not taken upon Him the form of a servant; so if he had not excited the attention of servants by the voice of a fellow-servant beforehand, there would not have been many Jews embracing the word of Christ. It follows, And cried; that is, preached with openness, with freedom, without reservation. He did not however begin with asserting that this one was the natural only-begotten Son of God, but cried, saying, This was He of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me, for He was before me. For as birds do not teach their young all at once to fly, but first draw them outside the nest, and afterwards try them with a quicker motion; so John did not immediately lead the Jews to high things, but began with lesser flights, saying, that Christ was better than he; which in the mean time was no little advance. And observe how prudently he introduces his testimony; he not only points to Christ when He appears, but preaches Him beforehand; as, This is He of whom I spake. This would prepare men's minds for Christ's coming: so that when He did come, the humility of His garb would be no impediment to His being received. For Christ adopted so humble and common an appearance, that if men had seen Him without first hearing John's testimony to His greatness, none of the things spoken of Him would have had any effect.

(Hom. xiii. [xii.] 3) Or this does not refer to the birth from Mary; for Christ was born, when this was said by John; but to His coming for the work of preaching. He then saith, is madea before me; that is, is more illustrious, more honourable; as if he said, Do not suppose me greater than He, because I came first to preach.

(Hom. xiii. [xii.] 3) If the words, made before me, referred to His coming into being, it was superfluous to add, For He was before me. For who would be so foolish as not to know, that if He was made before him, He was before him. It would have been more correct to say, He was before me, because He was made before me. The expression then, He was made before me, must be taken in the sense of honour: only that which was to take place, he speaks of as having taken place already, after the style of the old Prophets, who commonly talk of the future as the past.

Source: Catena Aurea by Aquinas

[AD 407] John Chrysostom on John 1:15

1. Do we then run and labor in vain? Are we sowing upon the rocks? Does the seed fall upon the rocks? Does the seed fall without our knowing it by the wayside, and among thorns? I am greatly troubled and fear, lest our husbandry be unprofitable; not as though I shall be a loser as well as you, touching the reward of this labor. For it is not with those who teach as it is with husbandmen. Oftentimes the husbandman after his year's toil, his hard work and sweat, if the earth produce no suitable return for his pains, will be able to find comfort for his labors from none else, but returns ashamed and downcast from his barn to his dwelling, his wife and children, unable to require of any man a reward for his lengthened toil. But in our case there is nothing like this. For even though the soil which we cultivate bring forth no fruit, if we have shown all industry, the Lord of it and of us will not suffer us to depart with disappointed hopes, but will give us a recompense; for, says St. Paul, Every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labor 1 Corinthians 3:8, not according to the event of things. And that it is so, hearken: And You, he says, Son of man, testify unto this people, if they will hear, and if they will understand. Ezekiel 2:5, not from Septuagint And Ezekiel says, If the watchman give warning what it behooves to flee from, and what to choose, he has delivered his own soul, although there be none that will take heed. Ezekiel 3:18, and 33:9; not quoted from Septuagint Yet although we have this strong consolation, and are confident of the recompense that shall be made us, still when we see that the work in you does not go forward, our state is not better than the state of those husbandmen who lament and mourn, who hide their faces and are ashamed. This is the sympathy of a teacher, this is the natural care of a father. For Moses too, when it was in his power to have been delivered from the ingratitude of the Jews, and to have laid the more glorious foundation of another and far greater people, (Let Me alone, said God, that I may consume them, and make of you a nation mightier than this Exodus 32:10) because he was a holy man, the servant of God, and a friend very true and generous, he did not endure even to hearken to this word, but chose rather to perish with those who had been once allotted to him, than without them to be saved and be in greater honor. Such ought he to be who has the charge of souls. For it is a strange thing that any one who has weak children, will not be called the father of any others than those who are sprung from him, but that he who has had disciples placed in his hands should be continually changing one flock for another, that we should be catching at the charge now of these, then of those, then again of others, having no real affection for any one. May we never have cause to suspect this of you. We trust that you abound more in faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, and in love to one another and towards all men. And this we say as desiring that your zeal may be increased, and the excellence of your conversation farther advanced. For it is thus that you will be able to bring your understandings down to the very depth of the words set before us, if no film of wickedness darken the eyes of your intellect, and disturb its clearsightedness and acuteness.

What then is it which is set before us today? John bore witness of Him, and cried, saying, This was He of whom I spoke, He that comes after me is preferred before me, for He was before me. The Evangelist is very full in making frequent mention of John, and often bearing about his testimony. And this he does not without a reason, but very wisely; for all the Jews held the man in great admiration, (even Josephus imputes the war to his death; and shows, that, on his account, what once was the mother city, is now no city at all, and continues the words of his encomium to great length,) and therefore desiring by his means to make the Jews ashamed, he continually reminds them of the testimony of the forerunner. The other Evangelists make mention of the older prophets, and at each successive thing that took place respecting Him refer the hearer to them. Thus when the Child is born, they say, Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esias the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with Child, and shall bring forth a Son Matthew 1:22; Isaiah 7:14; and when He is plotted against and sought for everywhere so diligently, that even tender infancy is slaughtered by Herod, they bring in Jeremy, saying, In Ramah was there a voice heard, lamentation, and weeping, and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children Matthew 2:18; Jeremiah 31:15; and again, when He comes up out of Egypt, they mention Hosea, saying, Out of Egypt have I called My Son Matthew 2:15; Hosea 11:1; and this they do everywhere. But John providing testimony more clear and fresh, and uttering a voice more glorious than the other, brings continually forward not those only who had departed and were dead, but one also who was alive and present, who pointed Him out and baptized Him, him he continually introduces, not desiring to gain credit for the master through the servant, but condescending to the infirmity of his hearers. For as unless He had taken the form of a servant, He would not have been easily received, so had He not by the voice of a servant prepared the ears of his fellow-servants, the many (at any rate) of the Jews would not have received the Word.

2. But besides this, there was another great and wonderful provision. For because to speak any great words concerning himself, makes a man's witness to be suspected, and is often an obstacle to many hearers, another comes to testify of Him. And besides this the many are in a manner wont to run more readily to a voice which is more familiar and natural to them, as recognizing it more than other voices; and therefore the voice from heaven was uttered once or twice, but that of John oftentimes and continually. For those of the people who had surmounted the infirmity of their nature, and had been released from all the things of sense, could hear the Voice from heaven, and had no great need of that of man, but in all things obeyed that other, and were led by it; but they who yet moved below, and were wrapt in many veils, needed that meaner (voice). In the same way John, because he had snipped himself in every way of the things of sense, needed no other instructors, but was taught from heaven. He that sent me, says he, to baptize with water, the Same said unto me, Upon whom you shall see the Spirit of God descending, the same is He. John 1:33 But the Jews who still were children, and could not as yet reach to that height, had a man for their teacher, a man who did not speak to them words of his own, but brought them a message from above.

What then says he? He bears witness concerning Him, and cries, saying What means that word cries? Boldly, he means, and freely, without any reserve, he proclaims. What does he proclaim? To what does he bear witness, and cry? This is He of whom I said, He that comes after me is preferred before me; for He was before me. The testimony is dark, and contains besides much that is lowly. For he does not say, This is the Son of God, the Only-begotten, the true Son ; but what? He that comes after me, is preferred before me; for He was before me. As the mother birds do not teach their young all at once how to fly, nor finish their teaching in a single day, but at first lead them forth so as to be just outside the nest, then after first allowing them to rest, set them again to flying, and on the next day continue a flight much farther, and so gently, little by little, bring them to the proper height; just so the blessed John did not immediately bring the Jews to high things, but taught them for a while to fly up a little above the earth saying, that Christ was greater than he. And yet this, even this was for the time no small thing, to have been able to persuade the hearers that one who had not yet appeared nor worked any wonders was greater than a man, (John, I mean,) so marvelous, so famous, to whom all ran, and whom they thought to be an angel. For a while therefore he labored to establish this in the minds of his hearers, that He to whom testimony was borne was greater than he who bore it; He that came after, than he that came before, He who had not yet appeared, than he that was manifest and famous. And observe how prudently he introduces his testimony; for he does not only point Him out when He has appeared, but even before He appears, proclaims Him. For the expression, This is He of whom I spoke, is the expression of one declaring this. As also Matthew says, that when all came to him, he said, I indeed baptize you with water, but He that comes after me is mightier than I, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose. Wherefore then even before His appearance did he this? In order that when He appeared, the testimony might readily be received, the minds of the hearers being already prepossessed by what was said concerning Him, and the mean external appearance not vitiating it. For if without having heard anything at all concerning Him they had seen the Lord, and as they beheld Him had at the same time received the testimony of John's words, so wonderful and great, the meanness of His appearance would have straightway been an objection to the grandeur of the expressions. For Christ took on Him an appearance so mean and ordinary, that even Samaritan women, and harlots, and publicans, had confidence boldly to approach and converse with Him. As therefore, I said, if they had at once heard these words and seen Himself, they might perhaps have mocked at the testimony of John; but now because even before Christ appeared, they had often heard and had been accustomed to what was said concerning Him, they were affected in the opposite way, not rejecting the instruction of the words by reason of the appearance of Him who was witnessed of, but from their belief of what had been already told them, esteeming Him even more glorious.

The phrase, that comes after, means, that preaches after me, not that was born after me. And this Matthew glances at when he says, after me comes a man, not speaking of His birth from Mary, but of His coming to preach (the Gospel), for had he been speaking of the birth, he would not have said, comes, but has come; since He was born when John spoke this. What then means is before me? Is more glorious, more honorable. Do not, he says, because I came preaching first from this, suppose that I am greater than He; I am much inferior, so much inferior that I am not worthy to be counted in the rank of a servant. This is the sense of is before me, which Matthew showing in a different manner, says, The latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose. Luke 3:16 Again, that the phrase, is before me, does not refer to His coming into Being, is plain from the sequel; for had he meant to say this, what follows, for He was before me, would be superfluous. For who so dull and foolish as not to know that He who was born before him was before him? Or if the words refer to His subsistence before the ages, what is said is nothing else than that He who comes after me came into being before me. Besides, such a thing as this is unintelligible, and the cause is thrown in needlessly; for he ought to have said the contrary, if he had wished to declare this, that He who comes after me was before me, since also He was born before me. For one might with reason assign this, (the being born before) as the cause of being before, but not the being before, as the cause of being born. While what we assert is very reasonable. Since you all at least know this, that they are always things uncertain not things evident, that require their causes to be assigned. Now if the argument related to the production of substance, it could not have been uncertain that he who was born first must needs be first; but because he is speaking concerning honor, he with reason explains what seems to be a difficulty. For many might well enquire, whence and on what pretext He who came after, became before, that is, appeared with great honor; in reply to this question therefore, he immediately assigns the reason; and the reason is, His Being first. He does not say, that by some kind of advancement he cast me who has been first behind him, and so became before me, but that he was before me, even though he arrives after me.

But how, says one, if the Evangelist refers to His manifestation to men, and to the glory which was to attend Him from them, does he speak of what was not yet accomplished, as having already taken place? For he does not say, shall be, but was. Because this is a custom among the prophets of old, to speak of the future as of the past. Thus Isaiah speaking of His slaughter does not say, He shall be led (which would have denoted futurity) as a sheep to the slaughter; but He was led as a sheep to the slaughter Isaiah 53:7; yet He was not yet Incarnate, but the Prophet speaks of what should be as if it had come to pass. So David, pointing to the Crucifixion, said not, They shall pierce My hands and My feet, but They pierced My hands and My feet, and parted My garments among them, and cast lots upon My vesture Psalm 22:16-18; and discoursing of the traitor as yet unborn, he says, He which did eat of My bread, has lifted up his heel against Me Psalm 41:9; and of the circumstances of the Crucifixion, They gave Me gall for meat, and in My thirst they gave Me vinegar to drink. Psalm 69:21

4. Do you desire that we adduce more examples, or do these suffice? For my part, I think they do; for if we have not dug over the ground in all its extent, we have at least dug down to its bottom; and this last kind of work is not less laborious than the former; and we fear lest by straining your attention immoderately we cause you to fall back.

Let us then give to our discourse a becoming conclusion. And what conclusion is becoming? A suitable giving of glory to God; and that is suitable which is given, not by words only, but much more by actions. For He says, Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in Heaven. Matthew 5:16 Now nothing is more full of light than a most excellent conversation. As one of the wise men has said, The paths of the just shine like the light Proverbs 4:18, Septuagint; and they shine not for them alone who kindle the flame by their works, and are guides in the way of righteousness, but also for those who are their neighbors. Let us then pour oil into these lamps, that the flame become higher, that rich light appear. For not only has this oil great strength now, but even when sacrifices were at their height, it was far more acceptable than they could be. I will have mercy, He says, and not sacrifice. Matthew 12:7; Hosea 6:6 And with good reason; for that is a lifeless altar, this a living; and all that is laid on that altar becomes the food of fire, and ends in dust, and it is poured forth as ashes, and the smoke of it is dissolved into the substance of the air; but here there is nothing like this, the fruits which it bears are different. As the words of Paul declare; for in describing the treasures of kindness to the poor laid up by the Corinthians, he writes, For the administration of this service not only supplies the want of the saints, but is abundant also by many thanksgivings unto God. 2 Corinthians 9:12 And again; Whiles they glorify God for your professed subjection unto the Gospel of Christ, and for your liberal distribution unto them, and unto all men; and by their prayer for you, which long after you. Do you behold it resolving itself into thanksgiving and praise of God, and continual prayers of those who have been benefited, and more fervent charity? Let us then sacrifice, beloved, let us sacrifice every day upon these altars. For this sacrifice is greater than prayer and fasting, and many things beside, if only it come from honest gain, and honest toils, and be pure from all covetousness, and rapine, and violence. For God accepts such offerings as these, but the others He turns away from and hates; He will not be honored out of other men's calamities, such sacrifice is unclean and profane, and would rather anger God than appease Him. So that we must use all carefulness, that we do not, in the place of service, insult Him whom we would honor. For if Cain for making a second-rate offering, having done no other wrong, suffered extreme punishment, how shall not we when we offer anything gained by rapine and covetousness, suffer yet more severely. It is for this that God has shown to us the pattern of this commandment, that we might have mercy, not be severe to our fellow-servants; but he who takes what belongs to one and gives it to another, has not shown mercy, but inflicted hurt, and done an extreme injustice. As then a stone cannot yield oil, so neither can cruelty produce humanity; for alms when it has such a root as this is alms no longer. Therefore I exhort that we look not to this only, that we give to those that need, but also that we give not from other men's plunder. When one prays, and another curses, whose voice will the Lord hear? Sirach 34:24 If we guide ourselves thus strictly, we shall be able by the grace of God to obtain much lovingkindness and mercy and pardon for what we have done amiss during all this long time, and to escape the river of fire; from which may it come to pass that we be all delivered, and ascend to the Kingdom of Heaven, through the grace and lovingkindness of our Lord Jesus Christ, to whom, with the Father and the Holy Ghost, be glory for ever and ever. Amen.

[AD 407] John Chrysostom on John 1:15

The Evangelist makes frequent mention of John and his testimony. This is all the wiser because all the Jews held the man in great admiration. (Even Josephus imputes the war to his death and shows that, because of him, what once was the mother city is now no city at all. [He] continues the words of his encomium at great length.) John, wanting to shame the Jews, continually reminds them of the testimony of the forerunner.

Source: HOMILIES ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 13.1

[AD 430] Augustine of Hippo on John 1:15

(in Joan. Tr. 3) It does not mean—He was made before I was made; but He is preferred to me.

Source: Catena Aurea by Aquinas

[AD 430] Augustine of Hippo on John 1:15

We undertook, in the name of the Lord, and promised to you, beloved, to treat of that grace and truth of God, full of which the only-begotten Son, our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, appeared to the saints, and to show how, as a matter belonging to the New Testament, it is to be distinguished from the Old Testament. Give, then, your attention that what I receive in my measure from God you in your measure may receive and hear the same. For it will only remain if, when the seed is scattered in your hearts, the birds take it not away, nor thorns choke it, nor heat scorch it, and there descend upon it the rain of daily exhortations and your own good thoughts, by which that is done in the heart which in the field is done by means of harrows, so that the clod is broken, and the seed covered and enabled to germinate: that you bear fruit at which the husbandman may be glad and rejoice. But if, in return for good seed and good rain, you bring forth not fruit but thorns, the seed will not be blamed, nor will the rain be in fault; but for thorns due fire is prepared. Matthew 13:3-25

2. I do not think that I need spend much time in endeavoring to persuade you that we are Christian men; and if Christians, by virtue of the name, belonging to Christ. Upon the forehead we bear His sign; and we do not blush because of it, if we also bear it in the heart. His sign is His humility. By a star the Magi knew Him; Matthew 2:2 and this sign was given by the Lord, and it was heavenly and beautiful. He did not desire that a star should be His sign on the forehead of the faithful, but His cross. By it humbled, by it also glorified; by it He raised the humble, even by that to which He, when humbled, descended. We belong, then, to the gospel, we belong to the New Testament. The law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. We ask the apostle, and he says to us, since we are not under the law but under grace. Romans 6:14 He sent therefore His Son, made of a woman, made under the law, that He might redeem those who were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons. Galatians 4:4-5 Behold, for this end Christ came, that He might redeem those who were under the law; that now we may not be under the law, but under grace. Who, then, gave the law? He gave the law who gave likewise grace; but the law He sent by a servant, with grace He Himself came down. And in what manner were men made under the law? By not fulfilling the law. For he who fulfills the law is not under the law, but with the law; but he who is under the law is not raised up, but pressed down by the law. All men, therefore, being placed under the law, are by the law made guilty; and for this purpose it is over their head, that it may show sins, not take them away. The law then commands, the Giver of the law shows pity in that which the law commands. Men, endeavoring by their own strength to fulfill that which the law commands, fell by their own rash and headstrong presumption; and not with the law, but under the law, became guilty: and since by their own strength they were unable to fulfill the law, and had become guilty under the law, they implored the aid of the Deliverer; and the guilt which the law brought caused sickness to the proud. The sickness of the proud became the confession of the humble. Now the sick confess that they are sick; let the physician come to heal the sick.

3. Who is the Physician? Our Lord Jesus Christ. Who is our Lord Jesus Christ? He who was seen even by those by whom He was crucified. He who was seized, buffeted, scourged, spit upon, crowned with thorns, suspended upon the cross, died, pierced by the spear, taken down from the cross, laid in the sepulchre. That same Jesus Christ our Lord, that same Jesus exactly, He is the complete Physician of our wounds. That crucified One at whom insults were cast, and while He hung on the cross His persecutors wagging the head, and saying, If he be the Son of God, let him come down from the cross, Matthew 27:39-40 — He, and no other, is our complete Physician. Wherefore, then, did He not show to his deriders that He was the Son of God; so that if He allowed Himself to be lifted up upon the cross, at least when they said, If he be the Son of God, let him come down from the cross, He should then come down, and show to them that He was the very Son of God whom they had dared to deride? He would not. Wherefore would He not? Was it because He could not? Manifestly He could. For which is greater, to descend from the cross or to rise from the sepulchre? But He bore with His insulters; for the cross was taken not as a proof of power, but as an example of patience. There He cured your wounds, where He long bore His own; there He healed you of death eternal, where He vouchsafed to die the temporal death. And did He die, or in Him did death die? What a death was that, which slew death!

4. Is it, however, our Lord Jesus Christ Himself— His whole self— who was seen, and held, and crucified? Is the whole very self that? It is the same, but not the whole, that which the Jews saw; this is not the whole Christ. And what is? In the beginning was the Word. In what beginning? And the Word was with God. And what word? And the Word was God. Was then perhaps this Word made by God? No. For the same was in the beginning with God. What then? Are the other things which God made not like the Word? No: because all things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made. In what manner were all things made by Him? Because that which was made in Him was life; and before it was made there was life. That which was made is not life; but in the art, that is, in the wisdom of God, before it was made, it was life. That which was made passes away; that which is in wisdom cannot pass away. There was life, therefore, in that which was made. And what sort of life, since the soul also is the life of the body? Our body has its own life; and when it has lost it, the death of the body ensues. Was then the life such as this? No; but the life was the light of men. Was it the light of cattle? For this light is the light of men and of cattle. There is a certain light of men: let us see how far men differ from the cattle, and then we shall understand what is the light of men. Thou dost not differ from the cattle except in intellect; do not glory in anything besides. Do you presume upon your strength? By the wild beasts you are surpassed. Upon your swiftness do you presume? By the flies you are surpassed. Upon your beauty do you presume? How great beauty is there in the feathers of a peacock! Wherein then are you better? In the image of God. Where is the image of God? In the mind, in the intellect. If then you are in this respect better than the cattle, that you have a mind by which you may understand what the cattle cannot understand; and therein a man, because better than the cattle; the light of men is the light of minds. The light of minds is above minds and surpasses all minds. This was that life by which all things were made.

5. Where was it? Was it here? Was it with the Father, and was it not here? Or, what is more true, was it both with the Father and here also? If then it was here, wherefore was it not seen? Because the light shines in darkness, and the darkness comprehended it not. Oh men, be not darkness, be not unbelieving, unjust, unrighteous, rapacious, avaricious lovers of this world: for these are the darkness. The light is not absent, but you are absent from the light. A blind man in the sunshine has the sun present to him, but is himself absent from the sun. Be not then darkness. For this is perhaps the grace regarding which we are about to speak, that now we be no more darkness, and that the apostle may say to us, We were sometime darkness, but now light in the Lord. Ephesians 5:8 Because then the light of men was not seen, that is, the light of minds, there was a necessity that a man should give testimony regarding the light, who was not in darkness, but who was already enlightened; and nevertheless, because enlightened, not the light itself, but that He might bear witness of the light. For he was not that light. And what was the light? That was the true light which enlightened every man that comes into the world. And where was that light? In this world it was. And how was it in this world? As the light of the sun, of the moon, and of lamps, was that light thus in the world? No. Because the world was made by Him, and the world knew Him not; that is to say, the light shines in darkness, and the darkness comprehended it not. For the world is darkness; because the lovers of the world are the world. For did not the creature acknowledge its Creator? The heavens gave testimony by a star; Matthew 2:2 the sea gave testimony, and bore its Lord when He walked upon it; Matthew 14:26 the winds gave testimony, and were quiet at His bidding; Matthew 23:27 the earth gave testimony, and trembled when He was crucified. Matthew 27:51 If all these gave testimony, in what sense did the world not know Him, unless that the world signifies the lovers of the world, those who with their hearts dwell in the world? And the world is evil, because the inhabitants of the world are evil; just as a house is evil, not because of its walls, but because of its inhabitants.

6. He came unto His own; that is to say, He came to that which belonged to Himself; and His own received Him not. What, then, is the hope, unless that as many as received Him, to them gave He power to become the sons of God? If they become sons, they are born; if born, how are they born? Not of flesh, nor of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man; but of God are they born. Let them rejoice, therefore, that they are born of God; let them believe that they are born of God; let them receive the proof that they are born of God: And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us. If the Word was not ashamed to be born of man, are men ashamed to be born of God? And because He did this, He cured us; and because He cured us, we see. For this, that the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, became a medicine unto us, so that as by earth we were made blind, by earth we might be healed; and having been healed, might behold what? And we beheld, he says, His glory, the glory as of the Only-begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.

7. John bears witness of Him, and cries, saying, This was He of whom I spoke, He that comes after me is made before me. He came after me, and He preceded me. What is it, He is made before me? He preceded me. Not was made before I was made, but was preferred before me, this is He was made before me. Wherefore was He made before you, when He came after you? Because He was before me. Before you, O John! What great thing to be before you! It is well that you bear witness to Him; let us, however, hear Himself saying, Even before Abraham, I am. John 8:58 But Abraham also was born in the midst of the human race: there were many before him, many after him. Listen to the voice of the Father to the Son: Before Lucifer I have begotten You. He who was begotten before Lucifer Himself illuminates all. A certain one was named Lucifer, who fell; for he was an angel and became a devil; and concerning him the Scripture said, Lucifer, who did arise in the morning, fell. Isaiah 14:27 And why was he Lucifer? Because, being enlightened, he gave forth light. But for what reason did he become dark! Because he abode not in the truth. John 8:44 Therefore He was before Lucifer, before every one that is enlightened; since before every one that is enlightened, of necessity He must be by whom all are enlightened who can be enlightened.

8. Therefore this follows: And of His fullness have all we received. What have ye received? And grace for grace. For so run the words of the Gospel, as we find by a comparison of the Greek copies. He does not say, And of His fullness have all we received grace for grace; but thus He says: And of His fullness have all we received, and grace for grace,— that is, have we received; so that He would wish us to understand that we have received from His fullness something unexpressed, and something besides, grace for grace. For we received of His fullness grace in the first instance; and again we received grace, grace for grace. What grace did we, in the first instance, receive? Faith: walking in faith, we walk in grace. How have we merited this? By what previous merits of ours? Let not each one flatter himself, but let him return into his own conscience, seek out the secret places of his own thoughts, recall the series of his deeds; let him not consider what he is if now he is something, but what he was that he might be something: he will find that he was not worthy of anything save punishment. If, then, you were worthy of punishment, and He came not to punish sins, but to forgive sins, grace was given to you, and not reward rendered. Wherefore is it called grace? Because it is bestowed gratuitously. For you did not, by previous merits, purchase that which you received. This first grace, then, the sinner received, that his sins were forgiven. What did he deserve? Let him interrogate justice, he finds punishment; let him interrogate mercy, he finds grace. But God promised this also through the prophets; therefore, when He came to give what He had promised, He not only gave grace, but also truth. How was truth exhibited? Because that was done which had been promised.

9. What, then, is grace for grace? By faith we render God favorable to us; and inasmuch as we were not worthy to have our sins forgiven, and because we, who were unworthy, received so great a benefit, it is called grace. What is grace? That which is freely given. What is freely given? Given, not paid. If it was due, wages were given, not grace bestowed; but if it was reply due, you were good; but if, as is true, you were evil, but believed in Him who justifies the ungodly Romans 4:5 (What is, Who justifies the ungodly? Of the ungodly makes pious), consider what did by right hang over you by the law, and what you have obtained by grace. But having obtained that grace of faith, you shall be just by faith (for the just lives by faith); and you shall obtain favor of God by living by faith. And having obtained favor from God by living by faith, you shall receive immortality as a reward, and life eternal. And that is grace. For because of what merit do you receive life eternal? Because of grace. For if faith is grace, life eternal is, as it were, the wages of faith: God, indeed, appears to bestow eternal life as if it were due (To whom due? To the faithful, because he had merited it by faith); but because faith itself is grace, life eternal also is grace for grace.

10. Listen to the Apostle Paul acknowledging grace, and afterwards desiring the payment of a debt. What acknowledgment of grace is there in Paul? Who was before a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious; but I obtained, says he, mercy. 1 Timothy 1:13 He said that he who obtained it was unworthy; that he had, however, obtained it, not through his own merits, but through the mercy of God. Listen to him now demanding the payment of a debt, who had first received unmerited grace: For, says he, I am now ready to be offered up, and the time of my departure is at hand. I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith: henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness. 2 Timothy 4:6-8 Now he demands a debt, he exacts what is due. For consider the following words: Which the Lord, the righteous Judge, shall render unto me in that day. That he might in the former instance receive grace, he stood in need of a merciful Father; for the reward of grace, of a just judge. Will He who did not condemn the ungodly man condemn the faithful man? And yet, if you rightly consider, it was He who first gave you faith, whereby you obtained favor; for not of your own did you so obtain favor that anything should be due to you. Wherefore, then, in afterwards bestowing the reward of immortality, He crowns His own gifts, not your merits. Therefore, brethren, we all of His fullness have received; of the fullness of His mercy, of the abundance of His goodness have we received. What? The remission of sins that we might be justified by faith. And what besides? And grace for grace; that is, for this grace by which we live by faith we shall receive another grace. What, then, is it except grace? For if I shall say that this also is due, I attribute something to myself as if to me it were due. But God crowns in us the gifts of His own mercy; but on condition that we walk with perseverance in that grace which in the first instance we received

11. For the law was given by Moses; which law held the guilty. For what says the apostle? The law entered that the offense might abound. It was a benefit to the proud that the offense abounded, for they gave much to themselves, and, as it were, attributed much to their own strength; and they were unable to fulfill righteousness without the aid of Him who had commanded it. God, desirous to subdue their pride, gave the law, as if saying: Behold, fulfill, and do not think that there is One wanting to command. One to command is not wanting, but one to fulfill.

12. If, then, there is one wanting to fulfill, whence does he not fulfill? Because born with the heritage of sin and death. Born of Adam, he drew with him that which was there conceived. The first man fell, and all who were born of him from him derived the concupiscence of the flesh. It was needful that another man should be born who derived no concupiscence. A man and a man: a man to death and a man to life. Thus says the apostle: Since, indeed, by man death, by man also the resurrection of the dead. By which man death, and by which man the resurrection of the dead? Do not make haste: he goes on to say, For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. 1 Corinthians 15:21-22 Who belong to Adam? All who are born of Adam. Who to Christ? All who were born through Christ. Wherefore all in sin? Because no one was born except through Adam. But that they were born of Adam was of necessity, arising from damnation; to be born through Christ is of will and grace. Men are not compelled to be born through Christ: not because they wished were they born of Adam. All, however, who are of Adam are sinners with sin: all who are through Christ are justified, and just not in themselves, but in Him. For in themselves, if you should ask, they belong to Adam: in Him, if you should ask, they belong to Christ. Wherefore? Because He, the Head, our Lord Jesus Christ, did not come with the heritage of sin; but He came nevertheless with mortal flesh.

13. Death was the punishment of sins; in the Lord was the gift of mercy, not the punishment of sin. For the Lord had nothing on account of which He should justly die. He Himself says, Behold, the prince of this world comes, and finds nothing in me. Wherefore then dost Thou die? But that all may know that I do the will of my Father, arise, let us go hence. John 14:30-31 He had not in Himself any reason why He should die, and He died: you have such a reason, and do you refuse to die? Do not refuse to bear with an equal mind your desert, when He did not refuse to suffer, to deliver you from eternal death. A man and a man; but the one nothing but man, the other God-man. The one a man of sin, the other of righteousness. You died in Adam, rise in Christ; for both are due to you. Now you have believed in Christ, render nevertheless that which you owe through Adam. But the chain of sin shall not hold you eternally; because the temporal death of your Lord slew your eternal death. The same is grace, my brethren, the same is truth, because promised and manifested.

14. This grace was not in the Old Testament, because the law threatened, did not bring aid; commanded, did not heal; made manifest, but did not take away our feebleness: but it prepared the way for that Physician who was to come with grace and truth; as a physician who, about to come to any one to cure him, might first send his servant that he might find the sick man bound. He was not sound; he did not wish to be made sound and lest he should be made sound, he boasted that he was so. The law was sent, it bound him; he finds himself accused, now, he exclaims against the bandage. The Lord comes, cures with somewhat bitter and sharp medicines: for He says to the sick, Bear; He says, Endure; He says, Love not the world, have patience, let the fire of continence cure you, let your wounds endure the sword of persecutions. Were you greatly terrified although bound? He, free and unbound, drank what He gave to you; He first suffered that He might console you, saying, as it were, that which you fear to suffer for yourself, I first suffer for you. This is grace, and great grace. Who can praise it in a worthy manner?

15. I speak, my brethren, regarding the humility of Christ. Who can speak regarding the majesty of Christ, and the divinity of Christ? In explaining and speaking of the humility of Christ, to do so in any fashion we find ourselves not sufficient, indeed wholly insufficient: we commend Him entire to your thoughts, we do not endeavor to fill Him up to your hearing. Consider the humility of Christ. But who, you say, may explain it to us, unless you declare it? Let Him declare it within. Better does He declare it who dwells within, than he who cries without. Let Himself show to you the grace of His humility, who has begun to dwell in your hearts. But now, if in explaining and setting forth His humility we are deficient, who can speak of His majesty? If the Word made flesh disturbs us, who shall explain In the beginning was the Word? Keep hold then, brethren, upon the entireness of Christ.

16. The law was given by Moses: grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. By a servant was the law given, and made men guilty: by an Emperor was pardon given, and delivered the guilty. The law was given by Moses. Let not the servant attribute to himself more than was done through him. Chosen to a great ministry as one faithful in his house, but yet a servant, he is able to act according to the law, but cannot release from the guilt of the law. The law, then, was given by Moses: grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.

17. And lest, perhaps, any one should say, And did not grace and truth come through Moses, who saw God, immediately he adds, No one has seen God at any time. And how did God become known to Moses? Because the Lord revealed Himself to His servant. What Lord? The same Christ, who sent the law beforehand by His servant, that He might Himself come with grace and truth. For no one has seen God at any time. And whence did He appear to that servant as far as he was able to receive Him? But the Only-begotten, he says, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him. What signifies in the bosom of the Father? In the secret of the Father. For God has not a bosom, as we have, in our garments, nor is He to be thought of sitting, as we do, nor is He girt with a girdle so as to have a bosom; but because our bosom is within, the secret of the Father is called the bosom of the Father. And He who knew the Father, being in the secret of the Father, He declared Him. For no man has seen God at any time. He then came and narrated whatever He saw. What did Moses see? Moses saw a cloud, he saw an angel, he saw a fire. All that is the creature: it bore the type of its Lord, but did not manifest the presence of the Lord Himself. For you have it plainly stated in the law: And Moses spoke with the Lord face to face, as a friend with his friend. Following the same scripture, you find Moses saying: If I have found grace in Your sight, show me Yourself plainly, that I may see You. And it is little that he said this: he received the reply, You can not see my face. An angel then spoke with Moses, my brethren, bearing the type of the Lord; and all those things which were done by the angel promised that future grace and truth. Those who examine the law well know this; and when we have opportunity to speak somewhat of this matter also, we shall not fail to speak to you, beloved brethren, as far as the Lord may reveal to us.

18. But know this, that all those things which were seen in bodily form were not that substance of God. For we saw those things with the eyes of the flesh: how is the substance of God seen? Interrogate the Gospel: Blessed are the pure in heart; for they shall see God. Matthew 5:8 There have been men who, deceived by the vanity of their hearts, have said, The Father is invisible, but the Son is visible. How visible? If on account of His flesh, because He took flesh, the matter is manifest. For of those who saw the flesh of Christ, some believed, some crucified; and those who believed doubted when He was crucified; and unless they had touched the flesh after the resurrection, their faith would not have been recalled. If, then, on account of His flesh the Son was visible, that we also grant, and it is the Catholic faith; but if before He took flesh, as they say, that is, before He became incarnate, they are greatly deluded, and grievously err. For those visible and bodily appearances took place though the creature, in which a type might be exhibited: not in any fashion was the substance itself shown and made manifest. Give heed, beloved brethren, to this easy proof. The wisdom of God cannot be beheld by the eyes. Brethren, if Christ is the Wisdom of God and the Power of God; 1 Corinthians 1:24 if Christ is the Word of God, and if the word of man is not seen with the eyes, can the Word of God be so seen?

19. Expel, therefore, from your hearts carnal thoughts, that you may be really under grace, that you may belong to the New Testament. Therefore is life eternal promised in the New Testament. Read the Old Testament, and see that the same things were enjoined upon a people yet carnal as upon us. For to worship one God is also enjoined upon us. You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain is also enjoined upon us, which is the second commandment. Observe the Sabbath day is enjoined on us more than on them, because it is commanded to be spiritually observed. For the Jews observe the Sabbath in a servile manner, using it for luxuriousness and drunkenness. How much better would their women be employed in spinning wool than in dancing on that day in the balconies? God forbid, brethren, that we should call that an observance of the Sabbath. The Christian observes the Sabbath spiritually, abstaining from servile work. For what is it to abstain from servile work? From sin. And how do we prove it? Ask the Lord. Whosoever commits sin is the servant of sin. John 8:34 Therefore is the spiritual observance of the Sabbath enjoined upon us. Now all those commandments are more enjoined on us, and are to be observed: You shall not kill. You shall not commit adultery. You shall not steal. You shall not bear false witness. Honor your father and your mother. You shall not covet your neighbor's goods. You shall not covet your neighbor's wife. Exodus 20:3-17 Are not all these things enjoined upon us also? But ask what is the reward, and you will find it there said: That your enemies may be driven forth before your face, and that you may receive the land which God promised to your fathers. Leviticus 26:1-13 Because they were not able to comprehend invisible things, they were held by the visible. Wherefore held? Lest they should perish altogether, and slip into idol-worship. For they did this, my brethren, as we read, forgetful of the great miracles which God performed before their eyes. The sea was divided; a way was made in the midst of the waves; their enemies following, were covered by the same waves through which they passed: Exodus 14:21-31 and yet when Moses, the man of God, had departed from their sight, they asked for an idol, and said, Make us gods to go before us; for this man has deserted us. Their whole hope was placed in man, not in God. Behold, the man is dead: was God dead who had rescued them from the land of Egypt? And when they had made to themselves the image of a calf, they offered it adoration, and said, These be your gods, O Israel, which delivered you out of the land of Egypt. Exodus 32:1-4 How soon forgetful of such manifest grace! By what means could such a people be held except by carnal promises?

20. The same things are commanded in the Decalogue as we are commanded to observe; but the same promises are not made as to us. What is promised to us? Life eternal. And this is life eternal, that they know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent. John 17:3 The knowledge of God is promised: that is, grace for grace. Brethren, we now believe, we do not see; for faith the reward will be to see what we believe. The prophets knew this, but it was concealed before He came. For a certain lover sighing, says in the Psalms: One thing have I desired of the Lord, that will I seek after. And do you ask what he seeks? For perhaps he seeks a land flowing with milk and honey carnally, although this is to be spiritually sought and desired; or perhaps the subjection of his enemies, or the death of foes, or the power and riches of this world. For he glows with love, and sighs greatly, and burns and pants. Let us see what he desires: One thing have I desired of the Lord, that will I seek after. What is it that he does seek after? That I may dwell, says he, in the house of the Lord all the days of my life. And suppose that you dwell in the house of the Lord, from what source will your joy there be derived? That I may behold, says he, the beauty of the Lord.

21. My brethren, wherefore do you cry out, wherefore do you exult, wherefore do you love, unless that a spark of this love is there? What do you desire? I ask you. Can it be seen with the eyes? Can it be touched? Is it some fairness which delights the eyes? Are not the martyrs vehemently beloved; and when we commemorate them do we not burn with love? What is it that we love in them, brethren? Limbs torn by wild beasts? What is more revolting if you ask the eyes of the flesh? What more fair if you ask the eyes of the heart? How appears in your eyes a very fair young man who is a thief? How shocked are your eyes! Are the eyes of the flesh shocked? If you interrogate them, nothing is more shapely and better formed than that body; the symmetry of the limbs and the beauty of the color attract the eyes; and yet, when you hear that he is a thief, your mind recoils from the man. You behold on the other hand a bent old man, leaning upon a staff, scarcely moving himself, ploughed all over with wrinkles. You hear that he is just: you love and embracest him. Such are the rewards promised to us, my brethren: love such, sigh after such a kingdom, desire such a country, if you wish to arrive at that with which our Lord came, that is, at grace and truth. But if you covet bodily rewards from God, you are still under the law, and therefore you shall not fulfill the law. For when you see those temporal things granted to those who offend God, your steps falter, and you say to yourself: Behold, I worship God, daily I run to church, my knees are worn with prayers, and yet I am constantly sick: there are men who commit murders, who are guilty of robberies, and yet they exult and have abundance; it is well with them. Was it such things that you sought from God? Surely you belonged to grace. If, therefore, God gave to you grace, because He gave freely, love freely. Do not for the sake of reward love God; let Him be the reward. Let your soul say, One thing have I desired of the Lord, that will I seek after; that I may dwell in the house of the Lord all the days of my life, that I may behold the beauty of the Lord. Do not fear that your enjoyment will fail through satiety: such will be that enjoyment of beauty that it will ever be present to you, and you shall never be satisfied; indeed you shall be always satisfied, and yet never satisfied. For if I shall say that you shall not be satisfied, it will mean famine; and if I shall say you shall be satisfied, I fear satiety: where neither satiety nor famine are, I know not what to say; but God has that which He can manifest to those who know not how to express it, yet believe that they shall receive.

[AD 430] Augustine of Hippo on John 1:15

John admitted he was a lamp lit from Christ, and that is why he took refuge at his feet, to avoid being blown out by the wind of pride if he flew too high. He was in fact so great that some people thought he might be the Christ, and if he had not been his own witness that he was not, the mistake would have persisted, and people would have gone on thinking he was. What a humble man. The honor was offered him by the people, and he spurned it. People were getting the wrong ideas about his greatness, and he put himself in his place. He did not want to be magnified by the words of people, because he had grasped the Word of God.

Source: SERMON 66.1

[AD 444] Cyril of Alexandria on John 1:15

This was He of Whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred [has become] before me, for He was before me.

Having named the witness same-minded and same-named with himself, and having shown that he used a great voice for the service of his preaching, he profitably adds the mode too of his testimony: for it is in this in particular that the whole question lies. What then do we find the great John crying regarding the Only-Begotten? He that cometh after me has become before me for He was before me. Deep is the saying and one that demands keen search into its meaning.

For the obvious and received meaning is thus: As far as belongs to the time of the Birth according to the Flesh, the Baptist preceded the Saviour, and Emmanuel clearly followed and came after by six whole months, as the blessed Luke related. Some suppose that John said this, that it may be understood thus, He that cometh after me, in point of age, is preferred before me. But he who fixes a keener eye on the Divine thoughts may see, in the first place, that this view introduces us to futile ideas and carries us far from the needful subject of consideration. For the holy Baptist is introduced as a witness, not in order to show that Christ was once later, then again earlier in the time of His Birth, but as a co-witness of His Glory, the Glory as of the Only-Begotten of the Father full of grace and truth.

What meaning then can one give to such unseasonably introduced explanations as these? or how can one give us any clear interpretation, by understanding of time the words before us, He That cometh after me became before me? For be it laid down beyond a doubt that the Lord came after the Baptist, as being second to him in time according to the Flesh: how will He be also before him, I mean in time? for due order and sequence call us to this sense analogously to what preceded. But I think that it is evident to every one, that this is an impossibility. For that which cometh short of anything in point of time will never have the start of its leader. Hence it is a thing utterly senseless and altogether past belief, to imagine that the holy Baptist said of time after the Flesh,. He that cometh after me has become before me. But understanding it rather in accordance with the line of thought that preceded, we will believe that it was said in some such sense as this. The blessed Baptist meetly carries up his mode of speaking from a customary phrase to its spiritual import, and advances as it were from an image drawn from our affairs to the exposition of subtler thoughts.

For that which leads is ever considered to be more glorious than those which are said to follow, and things which succeed yield the palm to those that precede them. As for example, he who is a skilled worker in brass, or carpenter, or weaver, takes the lead and has superiority over him who is conceived as following by being a learner and advancing to perfect knowledge. But when such an one has surpassed the skill of his teacher and leaving that behind attains to something superior, I deem that he who is surpassed may not unfitly say of his outstripping pupil, He that cometh after me, has become before me.

Transferring then after this sort the force of our idea to our Saviour Christ and the holy Baptist, you will rightly understand it. Take now the account of each from the beginning. The Baptist was being admired by all, he was making many disciples, a great multitude of those who came for Baptism was always surrounding him: Christ, albeit superior, was unknown, they knew not that He was Very God. Since then He was unknown, while the Baptist was admired, He seemed I suppose to fall short of him; He came a little after him who had still the higher position in honour and glory from men. But He That cometh after has become before, being shown to be greater and superior to John. For the One was at length revealed by His works to be God, the other not surpassing the measure of human nature, is found at last to have become after.

Hence the blessed Baptist said darkly, He that cometh after me has become before me, instead of, He who was once behind me in honour, is beheld to be more glorious, and surpasses by incomparable excellencies the measure that befits and belongs to me. Thus understanding the words, we shall find him a witness of the Glory of the Only-Begotten and not an unseasonable setter forth of useless things. For his saying that Christ is greater than himself who has a great reputation for holiness, what else is it than witnessing to His especial glory?

[AD 444] Cyril of Alexandria on John 1:15

For He was before me.

Having said that He has become before me, he needfully adds, For He was before me, ascribing to Him glory most ancient, and affirming that the precedence of all things accrued not to Him in time, but is inherent in Him from the beginning as God by Nature. For He was before me, says he, instead of, Always and every-way superior and more glorious. And by His being compared with one among things originate, the judgment against all is concentrated in behalf of Him Who is above all. For we do not contemplate the great and glorious dignity of the Son as consisting in this alone that He surpassed the glory of John, but in His surpassing every originate essence.

[AD 444] Cyril of Alexandria on John 1:15

John bare witness of Him and cried.

The most wise Evangelist follows again the course of his thoughts and makes the sequel duly correspondent to what preceded. For when he said of the Son of God, we beheld His Glory, the Glory as of the Only-Begotten of the Father, that he might not appear to alone say this (the word we have seen not suiting a single person), he joins with himself his namesake witness, having one and the same piety with himself. I then, says he, bear witness (for I have beheld what I said), and the Baptist likewise bears witness. A most weighty pair of Spirit-clad, and a notable pair of men foster-brothers in truth and unknowing how to lie.

But see how exceeding forcible he made his declaration. For he not only says that John bears witness of Him, but profitably adds and cried, taking his proof from the words The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, and this too exceeding well. For it was possible that some of the opponents might say, When did the Baptist witness to the Only-Begotten or to whom did he impart the things regarding Him? He cried then, says he, that is, not in a corner does he utter them, not gently and in secret does he bear witness: you may hear him crying aloud more clear than a trumpet, (not you alone hearing these things,) widespread and to all is his speech, glorious the herald, remarkable the voice, great and not unknown the Forerunner.

[AD 444] Cyril of Alexandria on John 1:15

I [John the Evangelist] then, says he, bear witness (for I have beheld what I said), and the Baptist likewise bears witness. This is a most weighty pair of Spirit-clad and notable men, foster brothers in truth who do not know how to lie. But see how forcefully he made his declaration. For he not only says that John “bears witness of him” but profitably adds “and cried,” taking his proof from the words “the voice of one crying in the wilderness.” And he does this exceedingly well too. For it was possible that some of his opponents might say, When did the Baptist witness to the Only Begotten, or to whom did he impart things about him? He cried then, he says, that is, he does not speak them in a corner, nor does he bear witness gently and in secret. In fact, you (although not you alone) may hear him crying louder and more clearly than a trumpet since his speech is to everyone everywhere. Most glorious is the herald, remarkable the voice, great and not unheard of is the forerunner.

Source: COMMENTARY ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 1.9

[AD 444] Cyril of Alexandria on John 1:15

The obvious and received meaning is this: As far as his birth according to the flesh is concerned, the Baptist preceded the Savior, and Emmanuel clearly followed and came after by six whole months, as the blessed Luke related. Some suppose this is what John meant, in other words, that he who comes after me, in point of age, is preferred before me.… But this carries us too far afield.…Rather, the Baptist advances as it were from an image drawn from our affairs to the exposition of subtler thoughts. For one who leads is always considered to be more glorious than those who follow, and things that succeed yield the palm to those that precede them.… As for example when one has surpassed the skill of his teacher and, leaving that behind, attains to something superior. I think that he who is surpassed may correctly say of his overachieving student, “He that comes after me has become before me.” Transferring then the force of our idea to our Savior Christ and the holy Baptist, you will rightly understand it.… The Baptist was admired by all. He made many disciples. A great multitude of those who came for baptism was always surrounding him. Christ, albeit superior, was unknown, and they did not know that he was truly God. Since, then, he was unknown while the Baptist was admired, he seemed I suppose to fall short of him. He came a little after him who had still the higher position in honor and glory from people. But “he that comes after has become before,” being shown to be greater and superior to John. For the One was at length revealed by his works to be God, the other not surpassing the measure of human nature, is found at last to have become after.

Source: COMMENTARY ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 1.9

[AD 804] Alcuin of York on John 1:15

He had said before that there was a man sent to bear witness; now he gives definitely the forerunner's own testimony, which plainly declared the excellence of His Human Nature and the Eternity of His Godhead. John bare witness of Him.

Source: Catena Aurea by Aquinas

[AD 1107] Theophylact of Ohrid on John 1:15

(hoc loc.) Or, full of grace, inasmuch as His word was gracious, as saith David, Full of grace are thy lips; and truth, (Ps. 45:3) because what Moses and the Prophets spoke or did in figure, Christ did in reality.

He saith, Who cometh after me, that is, as to the time of His birth. John was six months before Christ, according to His humanity.

(in loc.) The Arians infer from this word1, that the Son of God is not begotten of the Father, but made like any other creature.

Source: Catena Aurea by Aquinas

[AD 1107] Theophylact of Ohrid on John 1:15

The Evangelist often cites the testimony of John, not because the words of a servant would give credibility to the Master, but because the people held John in such high regard that they would trust his testimony more than that of any other. By saying that John cried, he shows that John did not witness timidly in a corner, but shouted out with great boldness concerning Christ. What did he say? This was He of Whom I spake. John gave witness to Christ even before he saw Him. This was certainly by the will of God, so that Johnâ€™s good testimony of Christ would not appear biased and partial to Christ. This is why John said, He of Whom I spake, that is, even before he had seen Christ, He that cometh after me, meaning, who was born after I was, for the Forerunner preceded Christ in birth by six months, is preferred before me, that is, has become more highly honored and more glorious than I. Why? Because He was before me in His divinity. The Arians have interpreted these words in a foolish manner. They want to show that the Son of God was not begotten of Father, but was made as one of His creatures. Therefore they say, "Look! John bears witness to Christ, saying, â€™He came into being before me,â€™ meaning that He was born before me and was created by God as one of His works." (6) Their wrong interpretation is refuted by the words which follow. For what meaning is revealed by saying, "He, Christ, came into being before me," meaning, He was created before me, "because He was before me"? It is utterly foolish to say, "God created Him first because He was before me." It ought to say just the opposite, "He is before me because He came into being, was created, before me." So much for the Arians. But we, in Orthodox manner, understand that He that cometh after me in His birth in the flesh from the Virgin is preferred before me, meaning, has become more highly honored and more glorious than I because of the miracles that took place, because of His Birth, His upbringing, and His wisdom. And rightly so, for He was before me according to His begetting from the Father from before the ages, even though He came after me according to His advent in the flesh.

[AD 215] Clement of Alexandria on John 1:16

For of the prophets it is said, "We have all received of His fulness"

Source: Clement of Alexandria Stromata Book I

[AD 220] Tertullian on John 1:16

This figure of corporeal healing sang of a spiritual healing, according to the rule by which things carnal are always antecedent as figurative of things spiritual. And thus, when the grace of God advanced to higher degrees among men, an accession of efficacy was granted to the waters and to the angel.

Source: On Baptism

[AD 235] Hippolytus of Rome on John 1:16

"Thou didst prevail above the blessings of abiding mountains." By "eternal and abiding mountains and everlasting hills," he means the saints, because they are lifted above the earth, and make no account of the things that perish, but seek the things that are above, and aspire earnestly to rise to the highest virtues. After the glory of Christ, therefore, are those of the Fathers who were most illustrious, and reached the greatest elevation in virtue. These, however, were but servants; but the Lord, the Son, supplied them with the means by which they became illustrious. Wherefore also they acknowledge (the truth of this word), "Out of His fulness have all we received."

Source: Hippolytus Exegetical Fragments

[AD 253] Origen of Alexandria on John 1:16

This [continues] the recorded testimony of John the Baptist about Christ which begins with the statement “This was he who said, ‘He who comes after me’ ” and ends at the words “The only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, he has declared him.” …It is very forced to suppose that the word of the Baptist is suddenly and unseasonably, as it were, broken off by the word of the disciple. The sequence of the text is clear to everyone who knows how just to listen for a while to the context of what is being said: “This was he who said, ‘He who comes after me ranks before me, because he was before me.’ ”
But by the statement “Because of his fullness we all have received,” the Baptist is teaching how Jesus ranks before him by being before him (since he was the firstborn of creation). It is for this reason that he says, “He ranks before me, because he was before me.” And I think he existed before me and is more honored with the Father, because both I and the prophets before me have received the more divine and greater prophetic grace from his fullness for the grace we received from him in relation to our free choice.
In addition “he ranks because he was before me,” since, when we have received of his fullness, we have also understood that the law has been given “through Moses,” not “by Moses,” but that grace and truth have not only been given through Jesus Christ but also have come into existence through him, since his God and Father has both given the law through Moses and has produced through Jesus Christ the grace and the truth that have come to people.”

Source: COMMENTARY ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 6.13, 34-36

[AD 253] Origen of Alexandria on John 1:16-17

(in Joan. t. vi. 3.) This is to be considered a continuation of the Baptist's testimony to Christ, a point which has escaped the attention of many, who think that from this to, He hath declared Him, (v. 18) St. John the Apostle is speaking. But the idea that on a sudden, and, as it would seem, unseasonably, the discourse of the Baptist should be interrupted by a speech of the disciple's, is inadmissible. And any one, able to follow the passage, will discern a very obvious connection here. For having said, He is preferred before me, for He was before me, he proceeds, From this I know that He is before me, because I and the Prophets who preceded me have received of His fulness, and grace for grace, (the second grace for the first.) For they too by the Spirit penetrated beyond the figure to the contemplation of the truth. And hence receiving, as we have done, of his fulness, we judge that the law was given by Moses, but that grace and truth were made1, by Jesus Christ—made, not given: the Father gave the law by Moses, but made grace and truth by Jesus. But if it is Jesus who says below, I am the Truth, (John 14:6) how is truth made by Jesus? We must understand however that the very substantial Truth2, from which First Truth and Its Image many truths are engraven on those who treat of the truth, was not made through Jesus Christ, or through any one; but only the truth which is in individuals, such as in Paul, e. g. or the other Apostles, was made through Jesus Christ.

Source: Catena Aurea by Aquinas

[AD 407] John Chrysostom on John 1:16

1. I said the other day, that John, to resolve the doubts of those who should question with themselves how the Lord, though He came after to the preaching, became before and more glorious than he, added, for He was before me. And this is indeed one reason. But not content with this, he adds again a second, which now he declares. What is it? And of his fullness, says he, have all we received, and grace for grace. With these again he mentions another. What is this? That

[AD 407] John Chrysostom on John 1:16

John [the Evangelist] … joins his own testimony to that of the Baptist, for the expression “of his fullness have we all received” belongs not to the forerunner but to the disciple; and its meaning is something like this: Do not think, he says, that we, who accompanied him for so long and ate of his food and sat at table with him—that we bear witness to him because we are favored.… All we—the Twelve, the three hundred, the three thousand, the five thousand, the many myriads of Jews, all the fullness of the faithful who then were and now are and hereafter shall be—“have received of his fullness.”

Source: HOMILIES ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 14.1

[AD 407] John Chrysostom on John 1:16

He does not possess, he says, the gift by participation but is himself the very fountain and root of all good, the very life and light and truth, not retaining within himself the riches of his good things but overflowing with them into all others. And after the overflowing, he still remains full and undiminished, in spite of supplying others. On the contrary, he remains perfect as always, streaming forth as much as ever and imparting to others a share of these blessings. What I possess, on the other hand, is by participation (for I received it from another) and is only a small portion of the whole.

Source: HOMILIES ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 14.1

[AD 407] John Chrysostom on John 1:16-17

(Hom. xiii. [xii.] 3) If the words, made before me, referred to His coming into being, it was superfluous to add, For He was before me. For who would be so foolish as not to know, that if He was made before him, He was before him. It would have been more correct to say, He was before me, because He was made before me. The expression then, He was made before me, must be taken in the sense of honour: only that which was to take place, he speaks of as having taken place already, after the style of the old Prophets, who commonly talk of the future as the past.

(in Joan. Hom. xiv. [xiii.] 1) Or thus; John the Evangelist here adds his testimony to that of John the Baptist, saying, And of his fulness have we all received. These are not the words of the forerunner, but of the disciple; as if he meant to say, We also the twelve, and the whole body of the faithful, both present and to come, have received of His fulness.

(Hom. xiv. [xiii.] sparsim.) Or we have received grace for grace; that is, the new in the place of the old. For as there is a justice and a justice besides, an adoption and another adoption, a circumcision and another circumcision; so is there a grace and another grace: only the one being a type, the other a reality. He brings in the words to show that the Jews as well as ourselves are saved by grace: it being of mercy and grace that they received the law. Next, after he has said, Grace for grace, he adds something to show the magnitude of the gift; For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth were made by Jesus Christ. John when comparing himself with Christ above had said, He is preferred before me: but the Evangelist draws a comparison between Christ, and one much more in admiration with the Jews than John, viz. Moses. And observe his wisdom. He does not draw the comparison between the persons, but the things, contrasting grace and truth to the law: the latter of which he says was given, a word only applying to an administrator; the former made, as we should speak of a king, who does every thing by his power: though in this King it would be with grace also, because that with power He remitted all sins. Now His grace is shown in His gift of Baptism, and our adoption by the Holy Spirit, and many other things; but to have a better insight into what the truth is, we should study the figures of the old law: for what was to be accomplished in the New Testament, is prefigured in the Old, Christ at His Coming filling up the figure. Thus was the figure given by Moses, but the truth made by Christ.

Source: Catena Aurea by Aquinas

[AD 428] Theodore of Mopsuestia on John 1:16

“From his fullness,” he says, “we have all received,” that is, the grace of the Spirit, which is given to us as a gift, we received from his abundance. About his human nature he says that every grace is in it; but at the same time this shows the dignity of the nature that is in him. Through the union with the divine Word, by means of the Spirit, he was made participant in the true relationship. We have taken a part from his spiritual grace, and through it we are made participant together with him in this adoptive affiliation, even though we are very far away from that dignity. And he fortunately added, “grace for grace,” indicating with the name of grace the law as well. He says, instead of that grace [of the law] this grace is given.

Source: COMMENTARY ON JOHN 1.1.16

[AD 430] Augustine of Hippo on John 1:16

What then is “grace for grace”? By faith we first win God’s favor; and we who were not worthy to have our sins forgiven, from the very fact that, though unworthy, we received so great a gift, it is called grace.…But having acquired this grace of faith, you will be justified by faith. “For the just person lives by faith.” And you will first win God’s favor from living by faith. When you have won God’s favor from living by faith, you will receive as a reward immortality and eternal life. And that is grace. Now for what merit do you receive eternal life? For grace. For if faith is grace, and if eternal life is, as it were, a reward for faith, God, indeed, seems to pay back eternal life as if it were owed—owed to whom? Owed to the person of faith because he won it by faith—always recalling that faith comes only by grace, and eternal life is a grace for grace.

Source: TRACTATES ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 3.9.1-2

[AD 430] Augustine of Hippo on John 1:16-17

(in Joan. Tr. iii. c. 8. et seq.) But what have ye received? Grace for grace. So that we are to understand that we have received a certain something from His fulness, and over and above this, grace for grace; that we have first received of His fulness, first grace; and again, we have received grace for grace. What grace did we first receive? Faith: which is called grace, because it is given freely3. This is the first grace then which the sinner receives, the remission of his sins. Again, we have grace for grace; i. e. in stead of that grace in which we live by faith, we are to receive another, viz. life eternal: for life eternal is as it were the wages of faith. And thus as faith itself is a good grace, so life eternal is grace for grace. There was not grace in the Old Testament; for the law threatened, but assisted not, commanded, but healed not, showed our weakness, but relieved it not. It prepared the way however for a Physician who was about to come, with the gifts of grace and truth: whence the sentence which follows: For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth were made by Jesus Christ. The death of thy Lord hath destroyed death, both temporal and eternal; that is the grace which was promised, but not contained, in the law.

(de Trin. xiii. c. 24. [xix.]) Or, we may refer grace to knowledge, truth to wisdom. Amongst the events of time the highest grace is the uniting of man to God in One Person; in the eternal world the highest truth pertains to God the Word.

Source: Catena Aurea by Aquinas

[AD 444] Cyril of Alexandria on John 1:16

The Evangelist in these words accepts the true testimony of the Baptist, and makes clear the proof of the superiority of our Saviour, and of His possessing essentially the surpassing every thing originate, both in respect of glory itself (whereof he is now more especially speaking) and of the bright catalogue of all the other good things.

For most excellently, says he, and most truly does the Baptist appear to me to say of the Only-Begotten, For He was before me, that is far surpassing and superior. For all we too, who have been enrolled in the choir of the saints, enjoy the riches of His proper good, and the nature of man is ennobled with His rather than its own excellences, when it is found to have ought that is noble. For from the fulness of the Son, as from a perennial fountain, the gift of the Divine graces springing forth comes to each soul that is found worthy to receive it. But if the Son supplies as of His Natural fulness, the creature is supplied:----how will He not be conceived of as having glory not similar to the rest, but such as will beseem the Only-Begotten of God, having the superiority over all as the fruit of His own Nature, and the pre-eminence as the Dignity of His Father's Being? And I think that the most wise Paul too when defining as to the nature of all things, was moved thereby to true ideas, so as hence at length to address the creature, For what hast thou that thou didst not receive? For together with being, the well-being after such and such wise, is God's gift to the creature, and it has nothing of its own, but becomes rich only with the munificence of Him Who gives to it. But we must note again that he says that the Son is full, that is, All-perfect in all things, and so greatly removed from being lacking in anything whatever, that He can bestow even on all, refusing diminution, and preserving the greatness of His own excellence always the same.

[AD 444] Cyril of Alexandria on John 1:16

For it is a truly excellent pronouncement of the Baptist when he appears to me to say of the Only Begotten, “For he was before me,” that is, far surpassing and superior. For all we too, who have been enrolled in the choir of the saints, enjoy the riches of his proper good, and the nature of humanity is ennobled with his rather than its own excellences, when it is found to have nothing that is noble. For from the fullness of the Son, as from a perennial fountain, the gift of the divine graces springing forth comes to each soul that is found worthy to receive it. But if the Son supplies as from his own natural fullness and the creature is supplied—how will he not be conceived of as having glory, not similar to the rest, but the kind of glory that would pertain to the only begotten of God? He then is shown to have the superiority over all as the fruit of his own nature, and to have the preeminence as the dignity of his Father’s being.

Source: COMMENTARY ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 1.9

[AD 1107] Theophylact of Ohrid on John 1:16

These are the words of the Forerunner continuing to speak of Christ, "All we prophets have received of His fulness." For there is no greater grace than that which filled these Spirit-bearing men. As the source of every good thing, of all wisdom and prophecy, [God the Word] pours out these things on all who are worthy, while He Himself remains full and is never emptied. We have received grace, that is, the grace of the New Testament, for grace, that of the old lawgiving. (7) Because the Old Testament has grown old and weak, in place of it we have received the New. How, one might ask, could he name the Old Testament "grace"? Because the Jews also by grace were adopted and accepted as sons. For it is said, "Not because you are numerous, but for the sake of your fathers have I chosen you." [Dt. 7:7-8] The ancients, then, by grace were accepted, and we, most assuredly, by grace have been saved.

[AD 215] Clement of Alexandria on John 1:17

Now the law is ancient grace given through Moses by the Word. Wherefore also the Scripture says, "The law was given through Moses".
Next is to be learned the greatness of the Saviour after Him, and the newness of grace; for, according to the apostle, "the law was given by Moses, grace and truth came by Jesus Christ; "

Source: Clement of Alexandria The Instructor Book I

[AD 220] Tertullian on John 1:17

Whence we understand that God's law was anterior even to Moses, and was not first (given) in Horeb, nor in Sinai and in the desert, but was more ancient; (existing) first in paradise, subsequently reformed for the patriarchs, and so again for the Jews, at definite periods: so that we are not to give heed to Moses' Law as to the primitive law, but as to a subsequent, which at a definite period God has set forth to the Gentiles too and, after repeatedly promising so to do through the prophets, has reformed for the better; and has premonished that it should come to pass that, just as "the law was given through Moses" at a definite time, so it should be believed to have been temporarily observed and kept.

Source: An Answer to the Jews

[AD 220] Tertullian on John 1:17

For he, too, says that the world was originated by those angels; and sets forth Christ as born of the seed of Joseph, contending that He was merely human, without divinity; affirming also that the Law was given by angels; representing the God of the Jews as not the Lord, but an angel.

Source: Pseudo-Tertullian Against All Heresies

[AD 220] Tertullian on John 1:17

So faith, illumined by patience, when it was becoming propagated among the nations through" Abraham's seed, which is Christ," and was superinducing grace over the law, made patience her pre-eminent coadjutrix for amplifying and fulfilling the law, because that alone had been lacking unto the doctrine of righteousness.

Source: Of Patience

[AD 397] Ambrose of Milan on John 1:17

I pardon willingly, [says the Lord,] I quickly forgive: “I will have mercy rather than sacrifice,” because by sacrifice the just is rendered more acceptable, by mercy the sinner is redeemed. “I come not to call the righteous but sinners.” Sacrifice was under the law; in the gospel is mercy. “The law was given by Moses, grace by me.”

Source: Concerning Repentance 1.12.54

[AD 407] John Chrysostom on John 1:17

And what means that, says he, Of His fullness have all we received? For to this we must for a while direct our discourse. He possesses not, says he, the gift by participation, but is Himself the very Fountain and very Root of all good, very Life, and very Light, and very Truth, not retaining within Himself the riches of His good things, but overflowing with them unto all others, and after the overflowing remaining full, in nothing diminished by supplying others, but streaming ever forth, and imparting to others a share of these blessings, He remains in sameness of perfection. What I possess is by participation, (for I received it from another) and is a small portion of the whole, as it were a poor rain-drop compared with the untold abyss or the boundless sea; or rather not even can this instance fully express what we attempt to say, for if you take a drop from the sea, you have lessened the sea itself, though the diminution be imperceptible. But of that Fountain we cannot say this; how much soever a man draw, It continues undiminished. We therefore must needs proceed to another instance, a weak one also, and not able to establish what we seek, but which guides us better than the former one to the thought now proposed to us.

Let us suppose that there is a fountain of fire; that from that fountain ten thousand lamps are kindled, twice as many, thrice as many, ofttimes as many; does not the fire remain at the same degree of fullness even after its imparting of its virtue to such members? It is plain to every man that it does. Now if in the case of bodies which are made up of parts, and are diminished by abstraction, one has been found of such a nature, that after supplying to others something from itself it sustains no loss, much more will this take place with that incorporeal and uncompounded Power. If in the instance given, that which is communicated is substance and body, is divided yet does not suffer division, when our discourse is concerning an energy, and an energy too of an incorporeal substance, it is much more probable that this will undergo nothing of the sort. And therefore John said, Of His fullness have all we received, and joins his own testimony to that of the Baptist; for the expression, Of his fullness have we all received, belongs not to the forerunner but to the disciple; and its meaning is something like this: Think not, he says, that we, who long time companied with Him, and partook of His food and table, bear witness through favor, since even John, who did not even know Him before, who had never even been with Him, but merely saw Him in company with others when he was baptizing cried out, He was before me, having from that source received all; and all we the twelve, the three hundred, the three thousand, the five thousand, the many myriads of Jews, all the fullness of the faithful who then were, and now are, and hereafter shall be, have received of His fullness. What have we received? grace for grace, says he. What grace, for what? For the old, the new. For there was a righteousness, and again a righteousness, (Touching the righteousness which is in the law, says Paul blameless.) Philippians 3:6 There was a faith, there is a faith. (From faith to faith.) Romans 1:17 There was an adoption, there is an adoption. (To whom pertains the adoption.) Romans 9:4 There was a glory, there is a glory. (For if that which was done away was glorious, much more that which remains is glorious.) 2 Corinthians 3:11 There was a law, and there is a law. (For the law of the Spirit of life has made me free.) Romans 8:2 There was a service, and there is a service. (To whom pertains the service Romans 9:4 and again: Serving God in the Spirit.) Philippians 3:3 There was a covenant, and there is a covenant. (I will make with you a new covenant, not according to the covenant which I made with your fathers.) Jeremiah 31:31 There was a sanctification, and there is a sanctification: there was a baptism, and there is a Baptism: there was a sacrifice, and there is a Sacrifice: there was a temple, and there is a temple: there was a circumcision, and there is a circumcision; and so too there was a grace, and there is a grace. But the words in the first case are used as types, in the second as realities, preserving a sameness of sound, though not of sense. So in patterns and figures, the shape of a man scratched with white lines upon a black ground is called a man as well as that which has received the correct coloring; and in the case of statues, the figure whether formed of gold or of plaster, is alike called a statue, though in the one case as a model, in the other as a reality.

2. Do not then, because the same words are used, suppose that the things are identical, nor yet diverse either; for in that they were models they did not differ from the truth; but in that they merely preserved the outline, they were less than the truth. What is the difference in all these instances? Will you that we take in hand and proceed to examine one or two of the cases mentioned? Thus the rest will be plain to you; and we shall see that the first were lessons for children, the last for high-minded full-grown men; that the first laws were made as for mortals, the latter as for angels.

Whence then shall we begin? From the sonship itself? What then is the distinction between the first and second? The first is the honor of a name, in the second the thing goes with it. Of the first the Prophet says, I have said, You are gods, and all of you are children of the Most High Psalm 82:6; but of the latter, that they were born of God. How, and in what way? By the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost. For they, even after they had received the title of sons, retained the spirit of slavery, (for while they remained slaves they were honored with this appellation,) but we being made free, received the honor, not in name, but in deed. And this Paul has declared and said, For you have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear, but you have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. Romans 8:15 For having been born again, and, as one may say, thoroughly remade, we so are called sons. And if one consider the character of the holiness, what the first was and what the second, he will find there also great difference. They when they did not worship idols, nor commit fornication or adultery, were called by this name; but we become holy, not by refraining from these vices merely, but by acquiring things greater. And this gift we obtain first by means of the coming upon us of the Holy Ghost; and next, by a rule of life far more comprehensive than that of the Jews. To prove that these words are not mere boasting hear what He says to them, You shall not use divination, nor make purification of your children, for you are a holy people. So that holiness with them consisted in being free from the customs of idolatry; but it is not so with us. That she may be holy, says Paul, in body and spirit. 1 Corinthians 7:34 Follow peace, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord Hebrews 12:14: and, Perfecting holiness in the fear of God. 2 Corinthians 7:1 For the word holy has not force to give the same meaning in every case to which it is applied; since God is called Holy, though not as we are. What, for instance, does the Prophet say, when he heard that cry raised by the flying Seraphim? Woe is me! Because I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips Isaiah 6:5; though he was holy and clean; but if we be compared with the holiness which is above, we are unclean. Angels are holy, Archangels are holy, the Cherubim and Seraphim themselves are holy, but of this holiness again there is a double difference; that is, in relation to us, and to the higher powers. We might proceed to all the other points, but then the discussion would become too long, and its extent too great. We will therefore desist from proceeding farther, and leave it to you to take in hand the rest, for it is in your power at home to put these things together, and examine their difference, and in the same way to go over what remains. Give, says one, a starting place to the wise, and he becomes wiser. Proverbs 9:9 , Septuagint The beginning is from us, but the end will be from you. We must now resume the connection.

After having said, Of His fullness have all we received, he adds, and grace for grace. For by grace the Jews were saved: I chose you, says God, not because you were many in number, but because of your fathers. Deuteronomy 7:7, Septuagint If now they were chosen by God not for their own good deeds, it is manifest that by grace they obtained this honor. And we too all are saved by grace, but not in like manner; not for the same objects, but for objects much greater and higher. The grace then that is with us is not like theirs. For not only was pardon of sins given to us, (since this we have in common with them, for all have sinned,) but righteousness also, and sanctification, and sonship, and the gift of the Spirit far more glorious and more abundant. By this grace we have become the beloved of God, no longer as servants, but as sons and friends. Wherefore he says, grace for grace. Since even the things of the law were of grace, and the very fact of man being created from nothing, (for we did not receive this as a recompense for past good deeds, how could we, when we even were not? But from God who is ever the first to bestow His benefits,) and not only that we were created from nothing, but that when created, we straightway learned what we must and what we must not do, and that we received this law in our very nature, and that our Creator entrusted to us the impartial rule of conscience, these I say, are proofs of the greatest grace and unspeakable lovingkindness. And the recovery of this law after it had become corrupt, by means of the written (Law), this too was the work of grace. For what might have been expected to follow was, that they who falsified the law once given should suffer correction and punishments; but what actually took place was not this, but, on the contrary, an amending of our nature, and pardon, not of debt, but given through mercy and grace. For to show that it was of grace and mercy, hear what David says; The Lord executes righteousness and judgment for all that are oppressed; He made known His ways unto Moses, His acts unto the children of Israel Psalm 103:6-7: and again; Good and upright is the Lord, therefore will He give laws to them that are in the way. Psalm 25:8

3. Therefore that men received the law was of pity, mercies, and grace; and for this reason he says, Grace for grace. But striving yet more fervently to (express) the greatness of the gifts, he goes on to say,

Ver. 17 . The law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.

Do you see how gently, by a single word and little by little, both John the Baptist and John the Disciple lead up their hearers to the highest knowledge, having first exercised them in humbler things? The former having compared to himself Him who is incomparably superior to all, thus afterwards shows His superiority, by saying, has become before me, and then adding the words, was before me: while the latter has done much more than he, though too little for the worthiness of the Only-Begotten, for he makes the comparison, not with John, but with one reverenced by the Jews more than John, with Moses. For the law, says he, was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.

Observe his wisdom. He makes enquiry not concerning the person, but the things; for these being proved, it was probable that even the senseless would of necessity receive from them a much higher judgment and notion respecting Christ. For when facts bear witness, which cannot be suspected of doing so either from favor to any, or from malice, they afford a means of judging which cannot be doubted even by the senseless; for they remain to open view just as their actors may have arranged them, and therefore their evidence is the least liable to suspicion of any. And see how he makes the comparison easy even to the weaker sort; for he does not prove the superiority by argument, but points out the difference by the bare words, opposing grace and truth to law, and came to was given. Between each of these there is a great difference; for one, was given, belongs to something ministered, when one has received from another, and given to whom he was commanded to give; but the other, grace and truth came, befits a king forgiving all offenses, with authority, and himself furnishing the gift. Wherefore He said, Your sins be forgiven you Matthew 9:2; and again, But that you may know that the Son of Man has power on earth to forgive sins (He says to the sick of the palsy), Arise, take up your bed, and go unto your house. Matthew 5:6

Seest thou how grace comes by Him? Look also to truth. His grace the instance just mentioned, and what happened in the case of the thief, and the gift of Baptism, and the grace of the Spirit given by Him declare, and many other things. But His truth we shall more clearly know, if we understand the types. For the types like patterns anticipated and sketched beforehand the dispensations which should be accomplished under the new covenant, and Christ came and fulfilled them. Let us now consider the types in few words, for we cannot at the present time go through all that relates to them; but when you have learned some points from those (instances) which I shall set before you, you will know the others also.

Will you then that we begin with the Passion itself? What then says the type? Take a lamb for an house, and kill it, and do as he commanded and ordained. Exodus 12:3 But it is not so with Christ. He does not command this to be done, but Himself becomes It, by offering Himself a Sacrifice and Oblation to His Father.

4. See how the type was given by Moses, but the Truth came by Jesus Christ. Exodus 17:12

Again, when the Amalekites warred in Mount Sinai, the hands of Moses were supported, being stayed up by Aaron and Hur standing on either side of him Exodus 17:12; but when Christ came, He of Himself stretched forth His Hands upon the Cross. Have you observed how the type was given, but the Truth came?

Again, the Law said, Cursed is every one that continues not in all things that are written in this book. Deuteronomy 27:26, Septuagint But what says grace? Come unto Me, all you that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest Matthew 11:28; and Paul, Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us. Galatians 3:13

Since then we have enjoyed such grace and truth, I exhort you that we be not more slothful by reason of the greatness of the gift; for the greater the honor of which we have been deemed worthy, the greater our debt of excellence; for one who has received but small benefits, even though he makes but small returns, does not deserve the same condemnation; but he who has been raised to the highest summit of honor, and yet manifests groveling and mean dispositions, will be worthy of much greater punishment. May I never have to suspect this of you. For we trust in the Lord that you have winged your souls for heaven, that you have removed from earth, that being in the world you handle not the things of the world; yet though so persuaded, we do not cease thus continually to exhort you. In the games of the heathen, they whom all the spectators encourage are not those who have fallen and lie supine, but those who are exerting themselves and running still; of the others, (since they would be doing what would be of no use, and would not be able to raise up by their encouragements men once for all severed from victory,) they cease to take any notice. But in this case some good may be expected, not only of you who are sober, but even of those who have fallen, if they would but be converted. Wherefore we use every means, exhorting, reproving, encouraging, praising, in order that we may bring about your salvation. Be not then offended by our continual admonishing concerning the Christian conversation, for the words are not the words of one accusing you of sloth, but of one who has very excellent hopes respecting you. And not to you alone, but to ourselves who speak them, are these words said, yea, and shall be said, for we too need the same teaching; so though they be spoken by us, yet nothing hinders their being spoken to us, (for the Word, when it finds a man in fault, amends him, when clear and free, sets him as far off from it as possible,) and we ourselves are not pure from transgressions. The course of healing is the same for all, the medicines are set forth for all, only the application is not the same, but is made according to the choice of those who use the medicines; for one who will handle the remedy as he ought, gains some benefit from the application, while he who does not place it upon the wound, makes the evil greater, and brings it to the most painful end. Let us then not fret when we are being healed, but much rather rejoice, even though the system of discipline bring bitter pains, for hereafter it will show to us fruit sweeter than any. Let us then do all to this end, that we may depart to that world, cleared of the wounds and strokes which the teeth of sin make in the soul, so that having become worthy to behold the countenance of Christ, we may be delivered in that day, not to the avenging and cruel powers, but to those who are able to bring us to that inheritance of the heavens which is prepared for them that love Him; to which may it come to pass that we all attain, through the grace and lovingkindness of our Lord Jesus Christ, to whom be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

[AD 407] John Chrysostom on John 1:17

See how gently, by a single word and little by little, both John the Baptist and John the disciple lead their hearers up to the highest knowledge, having first exercised them in humbler things? John the Baptist, comparing with himself [Jesus], who is incomparably superior to all, thus afterwards shows Jesus’ superiority by saying, “he comes before me,” and then adding the words “he was before me.” Meanwhile, John the Evangelist has done much more than John the Baptist, though too little for the worthiness of the Only Begotten. For the Evangelist makes the comparison, not with John but with one reverenced by the Jews more than John. He compares him with Moses. “For the law,” he says, “was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.”

Source: HOMILIES ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 14.3

[AD 420] Jerome on John 1:17

For [in place of] the grace of the law, which has passed away, we have received the abiding grace of the gospel, and, instead of the shadows and figures of the ancient covenant, truth has come by Jesus Christ.

Source: LETTER 75

[AD 430] Augustine of Hippo on John 1:17

Death was the punishment of sins. The gift of mercy was in the Lord, not the punishment of sin.… And so the chain of sin shall not hold you forever, because the temporal death of your Lord defeated your eternal death. The same is grace, my brothers, the same is truth, because it is not only promised but also made known.This grace was not in the Old Testament, because the law threatened but did not bring aid; commanded but did not heal; made known but did not take away our feebleness. Instead it prepared the way for that physician who was to come with grace and truth. He is the kind of physician who, when about to come to anyone to cure him, might first send his servant so that he might find the sick person bound. He was not healthy; he did not wish to be made healthy and just in case he should be made healthy, he boasted that he was so. The law was sent; it bound him. He finds himself accused, so now he cries out against the bondage. The Lord comes, cures with somewhat bitter and sharp medicines. For he says to the sick, “Bear.” He says, “Endure.” He says, “Do not love the world, have patience, let the fire of continence cure you, let your wounds endure the sword of persecutions.” Were you greatly terrified although bound? He, free and unbound, drank what he gave to you. He first suffered that he might console you, saying, as it were, that which you fear to suffer for yourself, I first suffer for you. This is grace, and great grace. Who can praise it in a worthy manner?

Source: TRACTATES ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 3.13-14

[AD 444] Cyril of Alexandria on John 1:17

What then is the distinction between the law and the grace that comes through the Savior?… The law condemned the world (for God through [the law] “concluded all under sin,” as Paul says) and showed us subject to punishment. But the Savior rather sets the world free, for he came “not to judge the world but to save the world.” And the law too used to give grace to people, calling them to the knowledge of God and drawing away from the worship of idols those who had been led astray. It also pointed out evil and taught good, if not perfectly, yet in the manner of a teacher and usefully. But the truth and grace that are through the Only Begotten do not introduce to us the good that is in types or to limited things that are only profitable as in shadow. Rather, in glorious and most pure ordinances, it leads us by the hand to an ever more perfect knowledge of the faith. And the law used to give the “spirit of bondage to fear,” but Christ gives the spirit of adoption to liberty. The law likewise brings in the circumcision in the flesh, which is nothing (for “circumcision is nothing”22). But our Lord Jesus Christ is the giver of circumcision “in the spirit and heart.” The law baptizes the defiled with mere water; the Savior baptizes “with the Holy Spirit and with fire.” The law brings in the tabernacle for a “figure of the true”; the Savior bears up to heaven itself and brings to the truer “tabernacle, which the Lord set up and not man [humankind].” There are plenty of other proofs besides, but we must respect our limits.But we will say this for profit and need. The blessed Paul in few words solved the question, saying of the law and of the Savior’s grace, “For if there was splendor in the dispensation of condemnation, the dispensation of righteousness must far exceed it in splendor.” For he says that the commandment by Moses is “the ministration of condemnation,” but the grace through the Savior he calls “the ministration of righteousness,” which he says surpasses in glory. And so he most perfectly examines the nature of things like a child with the Spirit. Since then the law, which condemns, “was given by Moses,” the grace that justifies came by the Only Begotten. If this is true, he says, how can it be otherwise than that [Jesus] is superior in glory through whom the better things were ordained?

Source: COMMENTARY ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 1.9

[AD 1107] Theophylact of Ohrid on John 1:17

The Evangelist explains to us how we have received the greatest grace in place of a small grace, saying that the law was given byMoses, God using a human mediator. But the New Testament came byJesus Christ, which he calls both grace and truth: grace, because God graciously bestowed on us not only forgiveness of sins but adoption as sons; truth, because everything which the men of old saw and spoke only in type, the New Testament proclaimed in radiant clarity. Therefore, the New Testament, which is called grace and truth, had no mere man as mediator, but the Son of God. See how he said of the Old Testament that it was given by Moses, for Moses was a minister and servant. But of the New Testament he said, not that it "was given," but that it came, showing that by our Lord Jesus Christ as Master, not servant, it came into being, revealing grace and truth. The law was given through the mediation of Moses, but grace came, and was not given, through Jesus Christ. The word came [egeneto] is a mark of the masterâ€™s authority; was given [edoth] is a mark of a servant.

[AD 202] Irenaeus on John 1:18

For "no man "he says, "hath seen God at any time "unless "the only-begotten Son of God, which is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared .
He who worketh all things in all is God, .
If, then, neither Moses, nor Elias, nor Ezekiel, who had all many celestial visions, did see God; but if what they did see were similitudes of the splendour of the Lord, And prophecies of things to come; it is manifest that the Father is indeed invisible, of whom also the Lord said, "No man hath seen God at any time."

Source: Against Heresies Book IV

[AD 202] Irenaeus on John 1:18

Clearly the Father is indeed invisible, of whom also the Lord said, “No one has seen God at any time.” But his Word, as he himself willed it and for the benefit of those who beheld it, did show the Father’s brightness and explained his purposes—as also the Lord said, “The only begotten God, which is in the bosom of the Father, he has declared [him].” And, he himself also interprets the Word of the Father as being rich and great. He appeared not only in one figure or in one character to those who saw him, but according to whatever purpose or effect he was aiming for in his plan of salvation.

Source: AGAINST HERESIES 4.20.11

[AD 215] Clement of Alexandria on John 1:18

And John the apostle says: "No man hath seen God at any time. The only-begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared Him"

Source: Clement of Alexandria Stromata Book V

[AD 220] Tertullian on John 1:18

For God the Father none ever saw, and lived. And accordingly it is agreed that the Son of God Himself spake to Moses, and said to the people, "Behold, I send mine angel before thy"-that is, the people's-"face, to guard thee on the march, and to introduce thee into the land which I have prepared thee: attend to him, and be not disobedient to him; for he hath not escaped thy notice, since my name is upon him.

Source: An Answer to the Jews

[AD 220] Tertullian on John 1:18

With us, however, the Son alone knows the Father, and has Himself unfolded "the Father's bosom." He has also heard and seen all things with the Father; and what He has been commanded by the Father, that also does He speak.

Source: Against Praxeas

[AD 220] Tertullian on John 1:18

Behold, then, I find both in the Gospels and in the (writings of the) apostles a visible and an invisible God (revealed to us), under a manifest and personal distinction in the condition of both. There is a certain emphatic saying by John: "No man hath seen God at any time; " meaning, of course, at any previous time But he has indeed taken away all question of time, by saying that God had never been seen.

Source: Against Praxeas

[AD 220] Tertullian on John 1:18

And therefore, inasmuch as he had said that the Word of God was God, in order that he might give no help to the presumption of the adversary, (which pretended) that he had seen the Father Himself and in order to draw a distinction between the invisible Father and the visible Son, he makes the additional assertion, ex abundanti as it were: "No man hath seen God at any time." What God does he mean? The Word? But he has already said: "Him we have seen and heard, and our hands have handled the Word of life.

Source: Against Praxeas

[AD 220] Tertullian on John 1:18

Well, (I must again ask, ) what God does he mean? It is of course the Father, with whom was the Word, the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, and has Himself declared Him. He was both heard and seen and, that He might not be supposed to be a phantom, was actually handled.

Source: Against Praxeas

[AD 220] Tertullian on John 1:18

"His glory was beheld-the glory as of the only-begotten of the Father;" not, (observe, ) as of the Father. He "declared" (what was in) "the bosom of the Father alone; " the Father did not divulge the secrets of His own bosom.

Source: Against Praxeas

[AD 220] Tertullian on John 1:18

He "declared" (what was in) "the bosom of the Father alone; " the Father did not divulge the secrets of His own bosom. For this is preceded by another statement: "No man hath seen God at any time." Then, again, when He is designated by John (the Baptist) as "the Lamb of God," He is not described as Himself the same with Him of whom He is the beloved Son.

Source: Against Praxeas

[AD 235] Hippolytus of Rome on John 1:18

If, again, he allege His own word when He said, "I and the Father are one," let him attend to the fact, and understand that He did not say, "I and the Father am one, but are one." For the word are is not said of one person, but it refers to two persons, and one power. He has Himself made this clear, when He spake to His Father concerning the disciples, "The glory which Thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: I in them, and Thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; that the world may know that Thou hast sent me." What have the Noetians to say to these things? Are alI one body in respect of substance, or is it that we become one in the power and disposition of unity of mind? In the same manner the Son, who was sent and was not known of those who are in the world, confessed that He was in the Father in power and disposition. For the Son is the one mind of the Father. We who have the Father's mind believe so (in Him); but they who have it not have denied the Son. And if, again, they choose to allege the fact that Philip inquired about the Father, saying, "Show us the Father, and it sufficeth us," to whom the Lord made answer in these terms: "Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? He that hath seen me hath seen the Father. Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? " and if they choose to maintain that their dogma is ratified by this passage, as if He owned Himself to be the Father, let them know that it is decidedly against them, and that they are confuted by this very word. For though Christ had spoken of Himself, and showed Himself among all as the Son, they had not yet recognised Him to be such, neither had they been able to apprehend or contemplate His real power. And Philip, not having been able to receive this, as far as it was possible to see it, requested to behold the Father. To whom then the Lord said, "Philip, have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me? He that hath seen me hath seen the Father." By which He means, If thou hast seen me, thou mayest know the Father through me. For through the image, which is like (the original), the Father is made readily known. But if thou hast not known the image, which is the Son, how dost thou seek to see the Father? And that this is the case is made clear by the rest of the chapter, which signifies that the Son who "has been set forth was sent from the Father, and goeth to the Father."

Source: Hippolytus Dogmatical and Historical Fragments

[AD 253] Origen of Alexandria on John 1:18

(in Joan. t. vi. §. 2) Heraclcon asserts, that this is a declaration of the disciple, not of the Baptist: an unreasonable supposition; for if the words, Of His fulness have we all received, are the Baptist's, does not the connection run naturally, that he receiving of the grace of Christ, the second in the place of the first grace, and confessing that the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ; understood here that no man had seen God at any time, and that the Only Begotten, who was in the bosom of the Father, had committed this declaration of Himself to John, and all who with him had received of His fulness? For John was not the first who declared Him; for He Himself who was before Abraham, tells us, that Abraham rejoiced to see His glory.

Source: Catena Aurea by Aquinas

[AD 253] Origen of Alexandria on John 1:18

For “[he who is] in the bosom of the Father” did not now for the first time make the declarations that he made to the apostles, as though there had been no one fit to receive them previously, since, indeed, in his existence before Abraham was, he teaches us that Abraham rejoiced that he might see his day and was glad. … The prophets too have received their gift from the fullness of Christ, and they have received the second grace for the former, for they too, being led by the Spirit, arrived at the vision of truth after they were initiated in types.

Source: COMMENTARY ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 6.15

[AD 311] Methodius of Olympus on John 1:18

Let us then also sing the like song, and raise the hymn to the Holy Father, glorifying in the Spirit Jesus, who is in His bosom.
Therefore God alone is celebrated, as the unbegotten, independent, and unwearied nature; being incorporeal, and therefore invisible; for "no man hath seen God."

Source: Methodius Concerning Free-Will

[AD 328] Alexander of Alexandria on John 1:18

The evangelist John sufficiently shows, when he thus writes concerning Him: "The only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father.".
does not condemn those who say there was a time when He was not? Who that hears these words of the Gospel, "the only-begotten Son; "

[AD 339] Eusebius of Caesarea on John 1:18

From the text “No one has seen God at any time,” perhaps it might be thought that the above quotation contradicts the Savior’s words, as implying that the invisible is visible. But if they are understood, like our former quotations, of the Word of God, who was seen by the fathers “in many and various ways,” no contradiction is involved.

Source: PROOF OF THE GOSPEL 5.18.3

[AD 367] Hilary of Poitiers on John 1:18

(de Trin. vi. 39) The Truth of His Nature did not seem sufficiently explained by the name of Son, unless, in addition, its peculiar force as proper to Him were expressed, so signifying its distinctness from all beside. For in that, besides Son, he calleth Him also the Only-Begotten, he cut off altogether all suspicion of adoption, the Nature of the Only-Begotten guaranteeing the truth of the name.

Source: Catena Aurea by Aquinas

[AD 367] Hilary of Poitiers on John 1:18

The Truth of His Nature did not seem sufficiently explained by the name of Son, unless, in addition, its peculiar force as proper to Him were expressed, so signifying its distinctness from all beside. For in that, besides Son, he calls Him also the Only-Begotten, he cut off altogether all suspicion of adoption, the Nature of the Only-Begotten guaranteeing the truth of the name.

[AD 367] Hilary of Poitiers on John 1:18

It seemed to [John] that the name of Son did not set forth with sufficient distinctness his true divinity, unless he gave an external support to the peculiar majesty of Christ by indicating the difference between him and all others. And so he not only calls him the Son but adds the further designation of the Only Begotten. In this way he cuts away the last prop from under this imaginary adoption. For the fact that he is Only Begotten is proof positive of his right to the name of Son.

Source: ON THE TRINITY 6.39

[AD 367] Hilary of Poitiers on John 1:18

In the nature of God, God is one, yet in such a way that the Son also is God, because in him there is not a different nature. And since he is God of God, both must be God, and since there is no difference of kind between them, there is no distinction in their essence. The idea of having a number of titular gods is rejected because there is no diversity in the quality of the divine nature. Therefore he is anathema who says there are many gods, and he is anathema who denies that the Son is God. It is fully shown that the fact that each has one and the same name arises from the real character of the similar substance in each.… In confessing the unborn God the Father, and the only begotten God the Son, with no dissimilarity of essence between them, each is called God. And yet, God must be believed and be declared to be one. So by the diligent and watchful care of the bishops the creed guards the similarity of the nature begotten and the nature begetting, confirming it by the application of one name.

Source: ON THE COUNCILS 36

[AD 380] Apostolic Constitutions on John 1:18

After this he comes to the water, and blesses and glorifies the Lord God Almighty, the Father of the only begotten God;

Source: CONSTITUTIONS OF THE HOLY APOSTLES

[AD 397] Ambrose of Milan on John 1:18

For Christ is the interpreter of the Godhead, because “no one has at any time seen God, except the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has revealed him.”

Source: JOSEPH 14.84

[AD 397] Ambrose of Milan on John 1:18

“The bosom of the Father,” then, is to be understood in a spiritual sense, as a kind of innermost dwelling of the Father’s love and of his nature in which the Son always dwells. Even so, the Father’s womb is the spiritual womb of an inner sanctuary from which the Son has proceeded just as from a generative womb. To be sure, we read in different versions, now that it was the Father’s womb, again that it was his heart with which he uttered the Word, and again that it was his mouth from which justice proceeded and from which wisdom came forth, as Wisdom says, “From the mouth of the Most High I came forth.” Thus, since the One is not limited and all things declare the One, the blessing refers rather to the spiritual mystery of generation from the Father than to some part of the body. But just as we interpret it to mean that generation from the Father, likewise let us interpret it to mean the generation from Mary unto the completion of faith, when the mother’s womb is blessed, that virginal womb of Mary that brought forth for us the Lord Jesus.… Here was a twofold nature in Christ, the divine and the fleshly, the former from the Father, the latter from a virgin.

Source: ON THE PATRIARCHS 11.51

[AD 397] Ambrose of Milan on John 1:18

The Word of God is in the bosom of his Father, that is, in the hidden and secret places of God. The fountain of wisdom is there, and from it one may drink the everlasting drink of eternal life in place of death.

Source: FLIGHT FROM THE WORLD 2.10

[AD 400] Pseudo-Clement on John 1:18

"In addition to this, it is the peculiarity of the Father not to have been begotten, but of the Son to have been begotten; but what is begotten cannot be compared with that which is unbegotten or self-begotten." And Simon said: "Is it not the same on account of its origin?" And Peter said: "He who is not the same in all respects as some one, cannot have all the same appellations applied to him as that person." And Simon said: "This is to assert, not to prove." And Peter said: "Why, do you not see that if the one happens to be self-begotten or unbegotten, they cannot be called the same; nor can it be asserted of him who has been begotten that he is of the same substance as he is who has begotten him? Learn this also: The bodies of men have immortal souls, which have been clothed with the breath of God; and having come forth from God, they are of the same substance, but they are not gods. But if they are gods, then in this way the souls of all men, both those who have died, and those who are alive, and those who shall come into being, are gods. But if in a spirit of controversy you maintain that these also are gods, what great matter is it, then, for Christ to be called God? For He has only what all have."

Source: The Clementine Homilies, Homily 16

[AD 400] Ignatius of Antioch on John 1:18

There is then one God and Father, and not two or three; One who is; and there is no other besides Him, the only true [God]. For "the Lord thy God," saith [the Scripture], "is one Lord." And again, "Hath not one God created us? Have we not all one Father? And there is also one Son, God the Word. For "the only-begotten Son," saith [the Scripture], "who is in the bosom of the Father." And again, "One Lord Jesus Christ." And in another place, "What is His name, or what His Son's name, that we may know? " And there is also one Paraclete. For "there is also," saith [the Scripture], "one Spirit," since "we have been called in one hope of our calling." And again, "We have drunk of one Spirit," with what follows. And it is manifest that all these gifts [possessed by believers] "worketh one and the self-same Spirit." There are not then either three Fathers, or three Sons, or three Paracletes, but one Father, and one Son, and one Paraclete. Wherefore also the Lord, when He sent forth the apostles to make disciples of all nations, commanded them to "baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost," not unto one [person] having three names, nor into three [persons] who became incarnate, but into three possessed of equal honour.

Source: Epistle of Pseudo-Ignatius to the Philippians

[AD 407] John Chrysostom on John 1:18

(in Joan. Hom. xiv. [xiii.] 1) Or thus; the Evangelist after showing the great superiority of Christ's gifts, compared with those dispensed by Moses, wishes in the next place to supply an adequate reason for the difference. The one being a servant was made a minister of a lesser dispensation: but the other Who was Lord, and Son of the King, brought us far higher things, being ever coexistent with the Father, and beholding Him. Then follows, No man hath seen God at any time, &c.

(Hom. xv. [xiv.]) If the old fathers had seen That very Nature, they would not have contemplated It so variously, for It is in Itself simple and without shape; It sits not, It walks not; these are the qualities of bodies. Whence he saith through the Prophet, I have multiplied visions, and used similitudes, by the ministry of the Prophets: (Hosea 12:10) i. e. I have condescended to them, I appeared that which I was not. For inasmuch as the Son of God was about to manifest Himself to us in actual flesh, men were at first raised to the sight of God, in such ways as allowed of their seeing Him.

(Hom. xv. [xiv.] 1) That very existence which is God, neither Prophets, nor even Angels, nor yet Archangels, have seen. For enquire of the Angels; they say nothing concerning His Substance; but sing, Glory to God in the highest, and Peace on earth to men of good will. (Luke 2:1) Nay, ask even Cherubim and Seraphim; thou wilt hear only in reply the mystic melody of devotion, and that heaven and earth are full of His glory. (Is. 6:3)

(Hom. xv. [xiv.] 1.) In this complete sense only the Son and the Holy Ghost see the Father. For how can created nature see that which is uncreated? So then no man knoweth the Father as the Son knoweth Him: and hence what follows, The Only-Begotten Son, Who is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared Him. That we might not be led by the identity of the name, to confound Him with the sons made so by grace, the article is annexed in the first place; and then, to put an end to all doubt, the name Only-Begotten is introduced.

(Hom. xv. [xiv.] 2.) He adds, Which is in the bosom of the Father. To dwell in the bosom is much more than simply to see. For he who sees simply, hath not the knowledge thoroughly of that which he sees; but he who dwells in the bosom, knoweth every thing. When you hear then that no one knoweth the Father save the Son, do not by any means suppose that he only knows the Father more than any other, and does not know Him fully. For the Evangelist sets forth His residing in the bosom of the Father on this very account: viz. to show us the intimate converse of the Only-Begotten, and His coeternity with the Father.

(Hom. xv. [xiv.] 3) But what hath He declared? That God is one. But this the rest of the Prophets and Moses proclaim: what else have we learnt from the Son Who was in the bosom of the Father? In the first place, that those very truths, which the others declared, were declared through the operation of the Only Begotten: in the next place, we have received a far greater doctrine from the Only Begotten; viz. that God is a Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth; and that God is the Father of the Only Begotten.

(Hom. xvi. [xv.] 1.) The text then, No man hath seen God at any time, applies not to the Father only, but also to the Son: for He, as Paul saith, is the Image of the invisible God; but He who is the Image of the Invisible, must Himself also be invisible.

Source: Catena Aurea by Aquinas

[AD 407] John Chrysostom on John 1:18

Observe, therefore, with what fullness the Evangelist speaks. Having said that “no man has seen God at any time,” he does not go on to say “that the Son who has seen has declared him,” but adds something beyond “seeing” by the words “who is in the bosom of the Father.” “To dwell in the bosom” is far more than “to see.” For he who merely “sees” does not have an exact knowledge of the object in every way. He who “dwells in the bosom,” however, can be ignorant of nothing.… The Evangelist mentions “the bosom” in order to show to us by that one word that the affinity and nearness of the essence is great, that the knowledge is in no way different and that the power is equal. The Father would not have in his bosom one of another essence, nor would he have dared, had he been one among many servants, to live in the bosom of his Lord. For this belongs only to a true Son, to one who has much confidence toward his Father and who is in nothing inferior to him.

Source: HOMILIES ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 15.2

[AD 407] John Chrysostom on John 1:18

What has he declared? That “no one has seen God at any time”? That “God is one”? But this all the other prophets testify, and Moses continually exclaims, “The Lord your God is one Lord”; and Isaiah, “Before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.” What more then have we learned from “the Son who is in the bosom of the Father”? What more from “the Only Begotten”? In the first place, these very words were uttered by his working. In the next place, we have received a teaching that is far clearer, and we learned that “God is a spirit, and they who worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.” And again, that it is impossible to see God; “that no one knows” him “except the Son”; that he is the Father of the true and Only Begotten; and all other things that are told us of him. But the word “has declared” shows the plainer and clearer teaching that he gave and established not to the Jews only but to all the world. Not even all the Jews listened to the prophets, but to the only begotten Son of God all the world yielded and obeyed. So the “declaration” in this place shows the greater clearness of his teaching, and therefore he is called “Word” and “Angel of great Counsel.”

Source: HOMILIES ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 15.3

[AD 430] Augustine of Hippo on John 1:18

(de Trin. xiii. c. 24. [xix.]) Or, we may refer grace to knowledge, truth to wisdom. Amongst the events of time the highest grace is the uniting of man to God in One Person; in the eternal world the highest truth pertains to God the Word.

(Ep. to Paulina [Ep. 147. al. 112. c. 5]) What is that then which Jacob said, I have seen God face to face; (Gen. 32.) and that which is written of Moses, he talked with God face to face; (Ex. 33) and that which the prophet Isaiah saith of himself, I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne? (Isa. 6.)

(Ep. to Paulina sparsim.) Now it is said, Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God; (Matt. 5:8) and again, When He shall appear, we shall be like unto Him, for we shall see Him as He is. (1 John 3:2) What is the meaning then of the words here: No man hath seen God at any time? The reply is easy: those passages speak of God, as to be seen, not as already seen. They shall see God, it is said, not, they have seen Him: nor is it, we have seen Him, but, we shall see Him as He is. For, No man hath seen God at any time, neither in this life, nor yet in the Angelic, as He is; in the same way in which sensible things are perceived by the bodily vision.

(xii. on Gen. ad litteram c. 27) For unless any in some sense die to this life, either by leaving the body altogether, or by being so withdrawn and alienated from carnal perceptions, that he may well not know, as the Apostle says, whether he be in the body or out of the body, (2 Cor. 12:2) he cannot be carried away, and borne aloft to that vision.

(to Paul. c. iv.) If we say, that the text, No oned hath seen God at any time, (1 Tim. 6:16) applies only to men; so that, as the Apostle more plainly interprets it, Whom no man hath seen nor can see, no one is to be understood here to mean, no one of men: the question may be solved in a way not to contradict what our Lord says, Their Angels do always behold the face of My Father; (Mat. 18:10) so that we must believe that Angels see, what no one, i. e. of men, hath ever seen.

(to Paulina c. 7) Which indeed is true so far, that no bodily or even mental vision of man hath ever embraced the fulness of God; for it is one thing to see, another to embrace the whole of what thou seest. A thing is seen, if only the sight of it be caught; but we only see a thing fully, when we have no part of it unseen, when we see round its extreme limits.

(in Joan. Tr. iii. c. 17) In the bosom of the Father, i. e. in the secret Presence1 of the Father: for God hath not the folde on the bosom, as we have; nor must be imagined to sit, as we do; nor is He bound with a girdle, so as to have a fold: but from the fact of our bosom being placed innermost, the secret Presence of the Father is called the bosom of the Father. He then who, in the secret Presence of the Father, knew the Father, the same hath declared what He saw.

(Tr. iii. c. 18) Yet have there been men, who, deceived by the vanity of their hearts, maintained that the Father is invisible, the Son visible. Now if they call the Son visible, with respect to His connection with the flesh, we object not; it is the Catholic doctrine. But it is madness in them to say He was so before His incarnation; i. e. if it be true that Christ is the Wisdom of God, and the Power of God. The Wisdom of God cannot be seen by the eye. If the human word cannot be seen by the eye, how can the Word of God?

Source: Catena Aurea by Aquinas

[AD 430] Augustine of Hippo on John 1:18

In case anyone might say, “And did not grace and truth come through Moses who saw God?” immediately he adds, “No one has seen God at any time.” And how did God become known to Moses? He became known because the Lord revealed himself to his servant. What Lord? It was the same Christ who sent the law beforehand by his servant so that he might himself come with grace and truth.… And he who knew the Father, being in the secret place of the Father, declared him. “For no one has seen God at any time.” He then came and narrated whatever he saw. What did Moses see? Moses saw a cloud, an angel, a fire. All that is of the creature bore the type of its Lord, but they did not manifest the presence of the Lord himself. For you have it plainly stated in the law, “And Moses spoke with the Lord face to face, as a friend with his friend.” … An angel then spoke with Moses, my brothers, bearing the type of the Lord; and all those things that were done by the angel promised that future grace and truth. Those who examine the law know this well.…But know also this, that all those things that were seen in bodily form were not that substance of God. For we saw those things with the eyes of the flesh—how is the substance of God seen? Interrogate the Gospel: “Blessed are the pure in heart; for they shall see God.” There have been those who, deceived by the vanity of their hearts, have said: The Father is invisible, but the Son is visible. What do they mean by visible? If they mean on account of his flesh, because he took flesh, the matter is clear. For of those who saw the flesh of Christ, some believed, some crucified. And those who believed doubted when he was crucified. Unless they had touched the flesh after the resurrection, their faith would not have even been recalled. If, then, the Son was visible because of his flesh, we grant this, and it is the catholic faith. But if before he took flesh, that is, if before he became incarnate they say they saw the Son, they are greatly deluded and making a horrible mistake. For those visible and bodily appearances took place through the creature, in which a type might be exhibited. But there is no way that the substance itself was shown and made known. Listen, beloved, to this easy proof. The wisdom of God cannot be beheld by the eyes. Brothers, if Christ is the wisdom of God and the power of God, if Christ is the Word of God, and if the word of man [humankind] is not seen with the eyes, can the Word of God be seen in this way?

Source: TRACTATES ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 4.17-18

[AD 430] Augustine of Hippo on John 1:18

He is Son by nature, we by grace; he is the “only Son,” we are many, because he is born, we are adopted. So while God had a one and only Son, “he did not spare,” as the apostle says, “his very own one and only Son, but gave him up for us all.” What greater medicine could the human race demand or hope for, than that the only Son should be sent, not to live with us, but to die?

Source: SERMON 348A.3

[AD 430] Augustine of Hippo on John 1:18

We believe in him that he was born of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary. Each birth of his, you see, must be considered wonderful, both that of his divinity and that of his humanity. The first is from the Father without mother, the second from mother without father; the first apart from all time, the second at “the acceptable time”; the first eternal, the second at the right moment; the first without a body “in the bosom of the Father,” the second with a body, which did not violate the virginity of his mother; the first without either sex, the second without a man’s embrace.

Source: SERMON 214.6

[AD 444] Cyril of Alexandria on John 1:18

CHAPTER X. That the Only-Begotten is Alone by Nature the Son from the Father, as being of Him and in Him.

See again herein the vigilance of the Spirit-clad. He was not ignorant that some would surely say, bitterly searching into the things which are spoken of the Only-Begotten: You said, good sir, that you had beheld His Glory, the glory as of the Only-Begotten of the Father: then when you ought to unfold to us the explanation of this and to tell us some thing God-befitting and due, you made your demonstration from His superiority to Moses and to the measure of John, as though one could not in any other way see His Glory, although the blessed Prophet Isaiah says, I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne high and lifted up and His train filled the temple. Above it stood the Seraphim, each one had six wings, with twain he covered his face and with twain he covered his feet and with twain he did fly; and one cried unto another and said, Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord of hosts; the whole earth is full of His glory: Bzekiel again cried openly to us that he both saw the Cherubim, having a firmament like a sapphire resting upon their heads, and upon a throne likewise the Lord of Hosts: his words are these, And there was a voice, says he, from the firmament that was over their heads, and above the firmament that was over their heads was the likeness of a throne, as the appearance of a sapphire stone: and upon the likeness of the throne was the likeness as the appearance of a man above upon it: and I saw as the colour of amber, from the appearance of his loins even upwards and from the appearance of his loins even downwards, I saw as it were the appearance of fire and it had brightness round about, as the appearance of the bow that is in the cloud in the day of rain, so was the appearance of the brightness round about. This was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the Lord.

Since therefore it was not unlikely that not a few of the more unlearned would say some such things to us, needs does the blessed Evangelist hasten to cut short their attempts, saying, No man hath seen God at any time; for the Only-Begotten Himself being God, Which is in the bosom of God the Father, made this declaration to us, saying most clearly to the hierophant Moses, There shall no man see My Face and live: and sometime to His own disciples, Not that any man hath seen the Father, save He Which is of God, He hath seen the Father. For to the Son Alone That is by Nature is the Father visible and that in such wise as one may think that the Divine Nature Divinely sees and is seen, and to none other of things which are. Yet will the speech of the holy Prophets in no way be false when they cry aloud that they saw the Lord of Hosts: for they do not affirm that they saw that very essential Thing that the Nature of God is, but they themselves too openly cry out, This is the appearance of the likeness of the Glory of the LORD. Therefore the fashion of the Divine Glory was darkly formed out of things such as are ours, and was rather a likeness giving things Divine as it were in a picture, while the truth of them mounts up to excellence above mind and speech. Most excellently then does the most wise Evangelist saying, And we beheld His glory, the glory as of the Only-Begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth, bring in the demonstration thereof from His superiority to all. For like as from the beauty of the creatures proportionably is the Power of the Creator of all beheld, and the heavens without voice declare the glory of God, and the firmament showeth His handywork: so again will the Only-Begotten be proved superior in Glory and more resplendent, surpassing apprehension, as regards the power of the eye, as God; and wherein He surpasses the creature, therein deemed of and glorified as being above it. Such thought then and no other I deem that the words now before us are replete with. But we must note again that he both calls the Son Only-Begotten God, and says that He is in the Bosom of the Father, that He may be shown again to be outside of any connaturality with the creature and to have His own proper Being of the Father and in the Father. For if He is verily Only-Begotten God, how is He not Other in nature than they who are by adoption gods and sons? For the Only-Begotten will be conceived of not among many brethren, but as the Only one from the Father. But since, while there are as Paul saith many who are are called gods in heaven and earth, the Son is Only-Begotten God, He will clearly be outside of the rest and will not be reckoned among those who are gods by grace, but will rather be Very God with the Father. For so does Paul conjoin Him, saying to us, But to us One God the Father of Whom are all things, and One Lord Jesus Christ by Whom are all things. For the Father being by Nature One God, the Word That is of Him and in Him will not remain external from being God, eminent in the ownness of Him Who begat Him, and ascending essentially to equal Dignity, because He is by Nature God.

Therefore does he say that He is in the Bosom of the Father, that you may again conceive His being in Him and of Him according to what is said in the Psalms: From the womb before the day-star begat I Thee. For as here he puts From the womb, because of His being of Him and that really, from likeness of things belonging to us (for things born of men proceed from the womb); so too when he says in the bosom, he would plainly show the Son all but in the womb of the Father which begat Him forth, (as it were in some Divine gleaming forth and unspeakable forth-come unto His own Person), but which yet possesses Him, since not by cutting away or division after the flesh, did the Divine Offspring come forth of the Father. And indeed the Son somewhere says that He is in the Father and has again the Father in Him. For the very own of the Father's Essence passing essentially into, the Son, shows the Father in Him, and the Father again has the Son rooted in Himself in exact sameness of Essence and begotten of Him, yet not by division or interval of place, but inherent and ever co-existing; thus rather shall we piously understand that the Son is in the Bosom of the Father, not as some of those who are wont to fight against God have taken it, whose damnation is just: for they pervert all equity, as the Prophet says, undoing the ears of the simpler ones and sinning without heed against the brethren, for whom Christ died.

What it is then that these both think and say and try to teach others, we must needs say. When the holy Evangelist says that the Son is in the Bosom of God the Father, and the children of the Church think rightly, and affirm that He is therefore of the Father and in the Father, and contend and that aright, that the true mode of Generation must be preserved; straightway they that are drunk with all unlearning laugh outright and even dare to say: Your opinion, sirs, is all nonsense: for not well-instructedly do ye think of God, deeming that because the Son is said to be in the Bosom of the Father, He is therefore wholly of His Essence, and foolishly imagining that He is the Fruit of the Inoriginate Nature. For have ye not heard, say they, in the Gospel parables, when Christ Himself was discoursing of the Rich man and Lazarus, that it came to pass that Lazarus died and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom? will ye then grant, because Lazarus was in the bosom of Abraham, that therefore he is of him and in him by nature, or will ye not rightly refuse to say this, and yourselves too with us allow that love is meant by the "bosom"? we say therefore that the Son is in the Bosom of God the Father, instead of in His love, as Himself also says, The Father loveth the Son.

But when the fault-finders hit us with these words, though they be zealous to nought but railing, then we too will answer them, arraying against them the right word of the truth: The bosom, good sirs, according to you means love: for this we just now heard you say. Shall we then, since God loved the world, as the Saviour saith, and The Lord loveth the gates of Sion, according to the holy Psalmist, fearlessly say that both the world itself and the gates of Sion are in the bosom of God the Father? And when He says too to the hierophant Moses, Put thine hand into thy bosom, does He bid him, tell me, love his hand and not rather keep it hidden? Then how shall we not incur great laughter hereby, yea rather how shall we not behave with impiety towards the Father Himself, if we say that all things are in His Bosom, and make that common to the rest which is the special prerogative of the Only-Begotten, in order that the Son may have nought above the creature?

Hence bidding good bye to their ill-counsel, we will go on the straight road of thoughts of the Truth, when the Son is said to be in the Bosom of the Father, conceiving of Him as of Him and in Him: and accurately taking in the force of the thought, we shall find it thus and not otherwise. The Only-Begotten God, he says, Which is in the Bosom of the Father, He hath declared. For when he said Only-Begotten and God, he straightway says, Which is in the Bosom of the Father, that He may be conceived of as Son of Him and in Him Naturally, saying Bosom of the Father instead of Essence, as by corporeal simile. For things manifest are types of things spiritual, and things among us lead us by the hand to the apprehension of the things which are above us: and the corporal things are often taken in the way of image and introduce to us the apprehension of subtler thoughts, even though they be in their proper time understood as they were uttered, as I mean that to Moses, Put thine hand into thy bosom. And it will no way hurt our argument to say that Lazarus was laid in Abraham's bosom, but will aid it rather and will go along with our thoughts. For the Divine Scripture says so to speak thus: Lazarus having died and deceased from his life in the body, was carried into Abraham's bosom, instead of "was numbered among Abraham's children." For "I have made thee a father of many nations," said God to him, for so is it somewhere written of him, For a father of many nations have I made thee.

[AD 444] Cyril of Alexandria on John 1:18

“No one has seen God at any time;” for the “Only Begotten” himself being God, “which is in the bosom of” God “the Father,” made this declaration to us, saying most clearly to the hierophant Moses, “No one shall see my face and live.” He also said to his own disciples, “Not that any one has seen the Father, except he who is of God, he has seen the Father.” For the Father is visible to the Son, who alone is Son by nature, and only in this way may one understand55 that the divine nature divinely sees and is seen. It is not [visible] to anything else that exists.

Source: COMMENTARY ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 1.10

[AD 458] Theodoret of Cyrus on John 1:18

So when we use religious arguments and rely on divine denials that explicitly state that “no one has ever seen God,” we are saying that they have seen, not the divine nature but certain visions adapted to their capability. …Let us think about the angels in the same way, then, when we hear, “They see the face of your Father daily.” For they do not see the divine substance, which is infinite, unlimited, incomprehensible and embraces all things, but rather a certain glory that is adapted to their own nature.…
After becoming human, however, he is also seen by angels, according to the divine apostle, not in a likeness of glory, but using the true and living cloak of flesh as though it were a veil. For he says, “Who was made manifest in flesh, was vindicated in spirit, was seen by angels.”

Source: DIALOGUE 1

[AD 604] Gregory the Dialogist on John 1:18

(xviii. Moral. c. 54. [88] rec. 28) It is plainly given us to understand here, that while we are in this mortal state, we can see God only through the medium of certain images, not in the reality of His own nature. A soul influenced by the grace of the Spirit may see God through certain figures, but cannot penetrate into his absolute essence. And hence it is that Jacob, who testifies that he saw God, saw nothing but an Angel: and that Moses, who talked with God face to face, says, show me Thy way, that I may know Thee: (Exod. 33:13) meaning that he ardently desired to see in the brightness of His own infinite Nature, Him Whom he had only as yet seen reflected in images.

(xviii. Moral.) If however any, while inhabiting this corruptible flesh, can advance to such an immeasurable height of virtue, as to be able to discern by the contemplative vision, the eternal brightness of God, their case affects not what we say. For whoever seeth wisdom, that is, God, is dead wholly to this life, being no longer occupied by the love of it.

(xviii. Moral. c. 54. 90. vet. xxxviii.) Some hold that in the place of bliss, God is visible in His brightness, but not in His nature. This is to indulge in over much subtlety. For in that simple and unchangeable essence, no division can be made between the nature and the brightness.

(xviii. Moral. c. 54. [91] vet. xxxviii.) Some however there are who conceive that not even the Angels see God.

Source: Catena Aurea by Aquinas

[AD 604] Gregory the Dialogist on John 1:18

Now, if we can by no means apprehend things that are done in ourselves, how could it ever be that we should understand the mystery of the uncreated Creator, which goes beyond every mind? Assuredly, if this mystery were one that could be penetrated by man, the inspired John would by no means have affirmed this: "No man hath seen God at any time."

[AD 735] Bede on John 1:18

(in loc.) Farther, if the word declared have reference to the past, it must be considered that He, being made man, declared the doctrine of the Trinity in unity, and how, and by what acts we should prepare ourselves for the contemplation of it. If it have reference to the future, then it means that He will declare Him, when He shall introduce His elect to the vision of His brightness.

Source: Catena Aurea by Aquinas

[AD 253] Origen of Alexandria on John 1:19

Now, therefore, let us consider John’s second testimony. Jews from Jerusalem send priests and Levites to inquire who John might be, since they are kinsmen of the Baptist who happens to be from the priestly race. … Note that two embassies come to the Baptist. One consists of “priests and Levites” sent from Jerusalem by the Jews “to ask him, ‘Who are you?’ ” The other comes from the Pharisees, who send also because they are in doubt about the answer that had been given to the priests and Levites. Observe carefully, therefore, how in accordance with the character of priests and Levites, things are said with gentleness and curiosity.… There is nothing self-willed or rash in the inquiry of these men; everything is appropriate to scrupulous servants of God.…These elect ambassadors were sent from Jerusalem, the place chosen above all the earth … and they interrogate John with the greatest respect. Nothing like this, however, has been recorded to have been done by the Jews concerning Christ. It is John who does to Christ what the Jews do to him, when he [respectfully] inquires through his own disciples, “Are you he that is to come, or should we expect another?”

Source: COMMENTARY ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 6.43, 50-51, 54

[AD 253] Origen of Alexandria on John 1:19-23

(in Joan. tom. ii. c. 29) This is the second testimony of John the Baptist to Christ, the first began with, This is He of Whom I spake; and ended with, He hath declared Him.

(t. vi. c. 4) The Jews of Jerusalem, as being of kin to the Baptist, who was of the priestly stock, send Priests and Levites to ask him who he is; (c. 6). that is, men considered to hold a superior rank to the rest of their order, by God's election, and coming from that favoured above all cities, Jerusalem. Such is the reverential way in which they interrogate John. We read of no such proceeding towards Christ: but what the Jews did to John, John in turn does to Christ, when he asks Him, through His disciples, Art thou He that should come, (Luke 7:20) or look we for another?

(in Joh. tom. vi. c. 6) John, as it appears, saw from the question, that the Priests and Levites had doubts whether it might not be the Christ, who was baptizing; which doubts however they were afraid to profess openly, for fear of incurring the charge of credulity. He wisely determines therefore first to correct their mistake, and then to proclaim the truth. Accordingly, he first of all shows that he is not the Christ: And he confessed, and denied not; but confessed, I am not the Christ. We may add here, that at this time the people had already begun to be impressed with the idea that Christ's advent was at hand, in consequence of the interpretations which the lawyers had collected out of the sacred writings to that effect. Thus Theudas had been enabled to collect together a considerable body, on the strength of his pretending to be the Christ; and after him Judas, in the days of the, taxation, had done the same. (Acts 5) Such being the strong expectation of Christ's advent then prevalent, the Jews send to John, intending by the question, Who art thou? to extract from him whether he were the Christ.

(in Joan. tom. vi. c. 7) Some one will say that John was ignorant that he was Elias; as those say, who maintain, from this passage the doctrine of a second incorporation, as though the soul took up a new body, after leaving its old one. For the Jews, it is said, asking John by the Levites and priests, whether he is Elias, suppose the doctrine of a second body to be already certain; as though it rested upon tradition, and were part of their secret system. To which question, however, John replies, I am not Elias: not being acquainted with his own prior existence. But how is it reasonable to imagine, if John were a prophet enlightened by the Spirit, and had revealed so much concerning the Father, and the Only-Begotten, that he could be so in the dark as to himself, as not to know that his own soul had once belonged to Elias?

(in Joan. tom. vi. c. 7) He answers then the Levites and Priests, I am not, conjecturing what their question meant: for the purport of their examination was to discover, not whether the spirit in both was the same, but whether John was that very Elias, who was taken up, now appearing again, as the Jews expected, without another birthI. But he whom we mentioned above as holding this doctrine of a reincorporation, will say that it is not consistent that the Priests and Levites should be ignorant of the birth of the son of so dignified a priest as Zacharias, who was born too in his father's old age, and contrary to all human probabilities: especially when Luke declares, that fear came on all that dwelt round about them. (Luke 1:65) But perhaps, since Elias was expected to appear before the coming of Christ near the end, they may seem to put the question figuratively, Art thou he who announcest the coming of Christ at the end of the world? to which he answers, I am not. But there is in fact nothing strange in supposing that John's birth might not have been known to all. For as in the case of our Saviour many knew Him to be born of Mary, and yet some wrongly imagined that He was John the Baptist, or Elias, or one of the Prophets; so in the case of John, some were not unacquainted with the fact of his being son of Zacharias, and yet some may have been in doubt whether he were not the Elias who was expected. Again, inasmuch as many prophets had arisen in Israel, but one was especially looked forward to, of whom Moses had prophesied, The Lord thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto Him shall ye hearken: (Deut. 18, 15) they ask him in the third place, not simply whether he is a prophet, but with the article prefixed, Art thou that Prophet? For every one of the prophets in succession had signified to the people of Israel that he was not the one whom Moses had prophesied of; who, like Moses, was to stand in the midst between God and man, and deliver a testament, sent from God to His disciples. They did not however apply this name to Christ, but thought that He was to be a different person; whereas John knew that Christ was that Prophet, and therefore to this question, he answered, No.

(in Joan. tom. vi. c. 12) Heracleon, in his discussion on John and the Prophets, infers that because the Saviour was the Word, and John the voice, therefore the whole of the prophetic order was only sound. To which we reply, that, if the trumpet gives an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself for the battle? If the voice of prophecy is nothing but sound, why does the Saviour send us to it, saying, Search the Scriptures? (John 5:39) But John calls himself the voice, not that crieth, but of one that crieth in the wilderness; viz. of Him Who stood and cried, If any man thirst, let him come unto Me and drink. (John 7:37) He cries, in order that those at a distance may hear him, and understand from the loudness of the sound, the vastness of the thing spoken of.

(tom. vi. c. 10. 11) There is need of the voice crying in the wilderness, that the soul, forsaken by God, may be recalled to making straight the way of the Lord, following no more the crooked paths of the serpent. This has reference both to the contemplative life, as enlightened by truth, without mixture of falsehood, and to the practical, as following up the correct perception by the suitable action. Wherefore he adds, Make straight the way of the Lord, as saith the prophet, Esaias.

Source: Catena Aurea by Aquinas

[AD 407] John Chrysostom on John 1:19

1. A dreadful thing is envy, beloved, a dreadful thing and a pernicious, to the enviers, not to the envied. For it harms and wastes them first, like some mortal venom deeply seated in their souls; and if by chance it injure its objects, the harm it does is small and trifling, and such as brings greater gain than loss. Indeed not in the case of envy only, but in every other, it is not he that has suffered, but he that has done the wrong, who receives injury. For had not this been so, Paul would not have enjoined the disciples rather to endure wrong than to inflict it, when he says, Why do you not rather take wrong? Why do you not rather suffer yourselves to be defrauded? 1 Corinthians 6:7 Well he knew, that destruction ever follows, not the injured party, but the injuring. All this I have said, by reason of the envy of the Jews. Because those who had flocked from the cities to John, and had condemned their own sins, and caused themselves to be baptized, repenting as it were after Baptism, send to ask him, Who are you? Of a truth they were the offspring of vipers, serpents, and even worse if possible than this. O evil and adulterous and perverse generation, after having been baptized, do you then become vainly curious, and question about the Baptist? What folly can be greater than this of yours? How was it that you came forth? That you confessed your sins, that you ran to the Baptist? How was it that you asked him what you must do? When in all this you were acting unreasonably, since you knew not the principle and purpose of his coming. Yet of this the blessed John said nothing, nor does he charge or reproach them with it, but answers them with all gentleness.

It is worth while to learn why he did thus. It was, that their wickedness might be manifest and plain to all men. Often did John testify of Christ to the Jews, and when he baptized them he continually made mention of Him to his company, and said, I indeed baptize you with water, but there comes One after me who is mightier than I; He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire. Matthew 3:11 With regard to him they were affected by a human feeling; for, tremblingly attentive to the opinion of the world, and looking to the outward appearance 2 Corinthians 10:7, they deemed it an unworthy thing that he should be subject to Christ. Since there were many things that pointed out John for an illustrious person. In the first place, his distinguished and noble descent; for he was the son of a chief priest. Then his conversation, his austere mode of life, his contempt of all human things; for despising dress and table, and house and food itself, he had passed his former time in the desert. In the case of Christ all was the contrary of this. His family was mean, (as they often objected to Him, saying, Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not his mother called Mary? And his brethren James and Joses?) Matthew 13:55; and that which was supposed to be His country was held in such evil repute, that even Nathanael said, Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth? John 1:46 His mode of living was ordinary, and His garments not better than those of the many. For He was not girt with a leathern girdle, nor was His raiment of hair, nor did He eat honey and locusts. But He fared like all others, and was present at the feasts of wicked men and publicans, that He might draw them to Him. Which thing the Jews not understanding reproached Him with, as He also says Himself, The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold a gluttonous man and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners. Matthew 11:19 When then John continually sent them from himself to Jesus, who seemed to them a meaner person, being ashamed and vexed at this, and wishing rather to have him for their teacher, they did not dare to say so plainly, but send to him, thinking by their flattery to induce him to confess that he was the Christ. They do not therefore send to him mean men, as in the case of Christ, for when they wished to lay hold on Him, they sent servants, and then Herodians, and the like, but in this instance, priests and Levites, and not merely priests, but those from Jerusalem, that is, the more honorable; for the Evangelist did not notice this without a cause. And they send to ask, Who are you? Yet the manner of his birth was well known to all, so that all said, What manner of child shall this be? Luke 1:66; and the report had gone forth into all the hill country. And afterwards when he came to Jordan, all the cities were set on the wing, and came to him from Jerusalem, and from all Judæa, to be baptized. Why then do they now ask? Not because they did not know him, (how could that be, when he had been made manifest in so many ways?) but because they wished to bring him to do that which I have mentioned.

2. Hear then how this blessed person answered to the intention with which they asked the question, not to the question itself. When they said, Who are you? he did not at once give them what would have been the direct answer, I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness. But what did he? He removed the suspicion they had formed; for, says the Evangelist, being asked, Who are you?

[AD 407] John Chrysostom on John 1:19-23

(Hom. xvi. [xv.] 1.) The text then, No man hath seen God at any time, applies not to the Father only, but also to the Son: for He, as Paul saith, is the Image of the invisible God; but He who is the Image of the Invisible, must Himself also be invisible.

(in Joan. Hom. xvi. [xv.]) Such confidence had they in John, that they were ready to believe him on his own words: witness how it is said, To ask him, Who art thou?

(Hom. xvi. [xv.] 1, 2) Or take this explanation: The Jews were influenced by a kind of human sympathy for John, whom they were reluctant to see made subordinate to Christ, on account of the many marks of greatness about him; his illustrious descent in the first place, he being the son of a chief priest; in the next, his hard training, and his contempt of the world. Whereas in Christ the contrary were apparent; a humble birth, for which they, reproach Him; Is not this the carpenter's son? (Mat. 13:55) an ordinary way of living; a dress such as every one else wore. As John then was constantly sending to Christ, they send to him, with the view of having him for their master, and thinking to induce him, by blandishments, to confess himself Christ. They do not therefore send inferior persons to him, ministers and Herodians, as they did to Christ, but Priests and Levites; and not of these an indiscriminate party, but those of Jerusalem, i. e. the more honourable ones; but they send them with this question, to ask, Who art thou? not from a wish to be informed, but in order to induce him to do what I have said. John replies then to their intention, not to their interrogation: And he confessed, and denied not; but confessed, I am not the Christ. And observe the wisdom of the Evangelist: he repeats the same thing three times, to show John's virtue, and the malice and madness of the Jews. For it is the character of a devoted servant, not only to forbear taking to himself his lord's glory, but even, when numbers offer it to him, to reject it. The multitude indeed believed from ignorance that John was the Christ, but in these it was malice; and in this spirit they put the question to him, thinking, by their blandishments to bring him over to their wishes. For unless this had been their design, when he replied, I am not the Christ, they would have said, We did not suspect this; we did not come to ask this. When caught, however, and discovered in their purpose, they proceed to another question: And they asked him, What then? Art thou Elias?

(Hom. xvi. [xv.] 2) You see them here pressing him still more strongly with their questions, while he on the other hand quietly puts down their suspicions, where they are untrue, and establishes the truth in their place: saying, I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness.

Source: Catena Aurea by Aquinas

[AD 430] Augustine of Hippo on John 1:19

You have very often heard, holy brethren, and you know well, that John the Baptist, in proportion as he was greater than those born of women, and was more humble in his acknowledgment of the Lord, obtained the grace of being the friend of the Bridegroom; zealous for the Bridegroom, not for himself; not seeking his own honor, but that of his Judge, whom as a herald he preceded. Therefore, to the prophets who went before, it was granted to predict concerning Christ; but to this man, to point Him out with the finger. For as Christ was unknown by those who did not believe the prophets before He came, He remained unknown to them even when present. For He had come humbly and concealed from the first; the more concealed in proportion as He was more humble: but the people, despising in their pride the humility of God, crucified their Saviour, and made Him their condemner.

2. But will not He who at first came con cealed, because humble, come again manifested, because exalted? You have just listened to the Psalm: God shall come manifestly, and our God shall not keep silence. He was silent that He might be judged, He will not be silent when He begins to judge. It would not have been said, He will come manifestly, unless at first He had come concealed; nor would it have been said, He shall not keep silence, unless He had first kept silence. How was He silent? Interrogate Isaiah: He was brought as a sheep to the slaughter, and as a lamb before his shearer was dumb, so He opened not His mouth. Isaiah 53:7 But He shall come manifestly, and shall not keep silence. In what manner manifestly? A fire shall go before Him, and round about Him a strong tempest. That tempest has to carry away all the chaff from the floor, which is now being threshed; and the fire has to burn what the tempest carries away. But now He is silent; silent in judgment, but not silent in precept. For if Christ is silent, what is the purpose of these Gospels? What the purpose of the voices of the apostles, what of the canticles of the Psalms, what of the declarations of the prophets? In all these Christ is not silent. But now He is silent in not taking vengeance: He is not silent in not giving warning. But He will come in glory to take vengeance, and will manifest Himself even to all who do not believe in Him. But now, because when present He was concealed, it behooved that He should be despised. For unless He had been despised, He would not have been crucified; if He had not been crucified, He would not have shed His blood— the price by which He redeemed us. But that He might give a price for us, He was crucified; that He might be crucified, He was despised; that He might be despised, He appeared in humility.

3. Yet because He appeared as it were in the night, in a mortal body, He lighted for Himself a lamp by which He might be seen. That lamp was John, John 5:35 concerning whom you lately heard many things: and the present passage of the evangelist contains the words of John; in the first place, and it is the chief point, his confession that he was not the Christ. But so great was the excellence of John, that men might have believed him to be the Christ: and in this he gave a proof of his humility, that he said he was not when he might have been believed to have been the Christ; therefore, This is the testimony of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites to him from Jerusalem to ask him, Who are you? But they would not have sent unless they had been moved by the excellence of his authority who ventured to baptize. And he confessed, and denied not. What did he confess? And he confessed, I am not the Christ.

4. And they asked him, What then? Are you Elias? For they knew that Elias was to precede Christ. For to no Jew was the name of Christ unknown. They did not think that he was the Christ; but they did not think that Christ would not come at all. When they were hoping that He would come, they were offended at Him when He was present, and stumbled at Him as on a low stone. For He was as yet a small stone, already indeed cut out of the mountain without hands; as says Daniel the prophet, that he saw a stone cut out of the mountain without hands. But what follows? And that stone, says he grew and became a great mountain and filled the whole face of the earth. Daniel 2:34-35 Mark then, my beloved brethren, what I say: Christ, before the Jews, was already cut out from the mountain. The prophet wishes that by the mountain should be understood the Jewish kingdom. But the kingdom of the Jews had not filled the whole face of the earth. The stone was cut out from thence, because from thence was the Lord born on His advent among men. And wherefore without hands? Because without the cooperation of man did the Virgin bear Christ. Now then was that stone cut out without hands before the eyes of the Jews; but it was humble. Not without reason; because not yet had that stone increased and filled the whole earth: that He showed in His kingdom, which is the Church, with which He has filled the whole face of the earth. Because then it had not yet increased, they stumbled at Him as at a stone: and that happened in them which is written, Whosoever shall fall upon that stone shall be broken; but on whomsoever that stone shall fall, it will grind them to powder. Luke 20:18 At first they fell upon Him lowly: as the lofty One He shall come upon them; but that He may grind them to powder when He comes in His exaltation, He first broke them in His lowliness. They stumbled at Him, and were broken; they were not ground, but broken: He will come exalted and will grind them. But the Jews were to be pardoned because they stumbled at a stone which had not yet increased. What sort of persons are those who stumble at the mountain itself? Already you know who they are of whom I speak. Those who deny the Church diffused through the whole world, do not stumble at the lowly stone, but at the mountain itself: because this the stone became as it grew. The blind Jews did not see the lowly stone: but how great blindness not to see the mountain!

5. They saw Him then lowly, and did not know Him. He was pointed out to them by a lamp. For in the first place he, than whom no greater had arisen of those born of women, said, I am not the Christ. It was said to him, Are you Elias? He answered, I am not. For Christ sends Elias before Him: and he said, I am not, and occasioned a question for us. For it is to be feared lest men, insufficiently understanding, think that John contradicted what Christ said. For in a certain place, when the Lord Jesus Christ said certain things in the Gospel regarding Himself, His disciples answered Him: How then say the scribes, that is, those skilled in the law, that Elias must first come? And the Lord said, Elias is already come, and they have done unto him what they listed; and, if you wish to know, John the Baptist is he. The Lord Jesus Christ said, Elias is already come, and John the Baptist is he; but John, being interrogated, confessed that he was not Elias, in the same manner that he confessed that he was not Christ. And as his confession that he was not Christ was true, so was his confession that he was not Elias. How then shall we compare the words of the herald with the words of the Judge? Away with the thought that the herald speaks falsehood; for that which he speaks he hears from the Judge. Wherefore then did he say, I am not Elias; and the Lord, He is Elias? Because the Lord Jesus Christ wished in him to prefigure His own advent, and to say that John was in the spirit of Elias. And what John was to the first advent, that will Elias be to the second advent. As there are two advents of the Judge, so are there two heralds. The Judge indeed was the same, but the heralds two, but not two judges. It was needful that in the first instance the Judge should come to be judged. He sent before Him His first herald; He called him Elias, because Elias will be in the second advent what John was in the first.

6. For mark, beloved brethren, how true it is what I say. When John was conceived, or rather when he was born, the Holy Spirit prophesied that this would be fulfilled in him: And he shall be, he said, the forerunner of the Highest, in the spirit and power of Elias. Luke 1:17 What signifies in the spirit and power of Elias? In the same Holy Spirit in the room of Elias. Wherefore in room of Elias? Because what Elias will be to the second, that John was to the first advent. Rightly therefore, speaking literally, did John reply. For the Lord spoke figuratively, Elias, the same is John: but he, as I have said, spoke literally when he said, I am not Elias. Neither did John speak falsely, nor did the Lord speak falsely; neither was the word of the herald nor of the Judge false, if only you understand. But who shall understand? He who shall have imitated the lowliness of the herald, and shall have acknowledged the loftiness of the Judge. For nothing was more lowly than the herald. My brethren, in nothing had John greater merit than in this humility, inasmuch as when he was able to deceive men, and to be thought Christ, and to have been received in the place of Christ (for so great were his grace and his excellency), nevertheless he openly confessed and said, I am not the Christ. Are you Elias? If he had said I am Elias, it would have been as if Christ were already coming in His second advent to judge, not in His first to be judged. As if saying, Elias is yet to come, I am not, said he, Elias. But give heed to the lowly One before whom John came, that you may not feel the lofty One before whom Elias came. For thus also did the Lord complete the saying: John the Baptist is he which is to come. He came as a figure of that in which Elias is to come in his own person. Then Elias will in his own proper person be Elias, now in similitude he was John. Now John in his own proper person is John, in similitude Elias. The two heralds gave to each other their similitudes, and kept their own proper persons; but the Judge is one Lord, whether preceded by this herald or by that.

7. And they asked him, What then? Are you Elias? And he said, No. And they said unto him, Are you a prophet? And he answered, No! They said therefore unto him, Who are you? That we may give an answer to them that sent us. What do you say of yourself? He says, I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness. Isaiah 40:3 That said Isaiah. This prophecy was fulfilled in John, I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness. Crying what? Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make straight the paths of our God. Would it not have seemed to you that a herald would have cried, Go away, make room. Instead of the herald's cry Go away, John says Come. The herald makes men stand back from the judge; to the Judge John calls. Yes, indeed, John calls men to the lowly One, that they may not experience what He will be as the exalted Judge. I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, as said the prophet Isaiah. He did not say, I am John, I am Elias, I am a prophet. But what did he say? This I am called, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare the way for the Lord: I am the prophecy itself.

8. And they which were sent were of the Pharisees, that is, of the chief men among the Jews; and they asked him and said unto him, Why do you baptize then, if you be not the Christ, nor Elias, nor a prophet? As if it seemed to them audacity to baptize, as if they meant to inquire, in what character do you baptize? We ask whether you are the Christ; you say that you are not. We ask whether you perchance are His precursor, for we know that before the advent of Christ, Elias will come; you answer that you are not. We ask, if perchance you are some herald come long before, that is, a prophet, and hast received that power, and you say that you are not a prophet. And John was not a prophet; he was greater than a prophet. The Lord gave such testimony concerning him: What went ye out into the wilderness to see? A reed shaken with the wind? Of course implying that he was not shaken by the wind; because John was not such an one as is moved by the wind; for he who is moved by the wind is blown upon by every seductive blast. But what went ye out for to see? A man clothed in soft raiment? For John was clothed in rough garments; that is, his tunic was of camel's hair. Behold, they who are clothed in soft raiment are in kings' houses. You did not then go out to see a man clothed in soft raiment. But what went ye out for to see? A prophet? Yea, I say unto you, one greater than a prophet is here; Matthew 11:7-9 for the prophets prophesied of Christ a long time before, John pointed Him out as present.

9. Why do you baptize then, if you be not the Christ, nor Elias, nor a prophet? John answered them, saying, I baptize with water; but there stands One among you whom you know not. For, very truly, He was not seen, being humble, and therefore was the lamp lighted. Observe how John gives place, who might have been accounted other than he was. He it is who comes after me, who is made before me (that is, as we have already said, is preferred before me), whose shoe's latchet I am not worthy to unloose. How greatly did he humble himself! And therefore he was greatly lifted up; for he that humbles himself shall be exalted. Luke 14:11 Hence, holy brethren, you ought to note that if John so humbled himself as to say, I am not worthy to unloose His shoe-latchet, what need they have to be humbled who say, We baptize; what we give is ours, and what is ours is holy. He said, Not I, but He; they say, We. John is not worthy to unloose His shoe's latchet; and if he had said he was worthy, how humble would he still have been! And if he had said he was worthy, and had spoken thus, He came after me who is made before me, the latchet of whose shoe I am only worthy to unloose, he would have greatly humbled himself. But when he says that he is not worthy even to do this, truly was he full of the Holy Spirit, who in such fashion as a servant acknowledged his Lord, and merited to be made a friend instead of a servant.

10. These things were done in Bethany, beyond Jordan, where John was baptizing. The next day John saw Jesus coming unto him, and says, Behold the Lamb of God; behold Him who takes away the sin of the world! Let no one so arrogate to himself as to say that he takes away the sin of the world. Give heed now to the proud men at whom John pointed the finger. The heretics were not yet born, but already were they pointed out; against them he then cried from the river, against whom he now cries from the Gospel. Jesus comes, and what says he? Behold the Lamb of God! If to be innocent is to be a lamb, then John was a lamb, for was not he innocent? But who is innocent? To what extent innocent? All come from that branch and shoot, concerning which David sings, even with groanings, Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me. Alone, then, was He, the Lamb who came, not so. For He was not conceived in iniquity, because not conceived of mortality; nor did His mother conceive Him in sin, whom the Virgin conceived, whom the Virgin brought forth; because by faith she conceived, and by faith received Him. Therefore, Behold the Lamb of God. He is not a branch derived from Adam: flesh only did he derive from Adam, Adam's sin He did not assume. He who took not upon Him sin from our lump, He it is who takes away our sin. Behold the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!

11. You know that certain men say sometimes, We take away sin from men, we who are holy; for if he be not holy who baptizes, how takes he away the sin of another, when he is a man himself full of sin? In opposition to these disputations, let us not speak our own words, let us read what John says: Behold the Lamb of God; behold Him who takes away the sin of the world! Let there not be presumptuous confidence of men upon men: let not the sparrow flee to the mountains, but let it trust in the Lord; and if it lift its eyes to the mountains, from whence comes aid to it, let it understand that its aid is from the Lord who made heaven and earth. So great is the excellence of John, that to him it is said, Are you the Christ? He says, No. Are you Elias? He says, No. Are you a prophet? He says, No. Wherefore then do you baptize? Behold the Lamb of God; behold Him who takes away the sin of the world! This is He of whom I spoke, After me comes a Man who was made before me; for He was before me. Comes after me, because He was born later; was made before me, because preferred before me; He was before me, because, In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

12. And I knew Him not, he said; but that He might be made manifest to Israel, therefore came I baptizing with water. And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon Him. And I knew Him not: but He that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom you shall see the Spirit descending, and abiding upon Him, the same is He who baptizes with the Holy Ghost. And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God. Give heed for a little, beloved. When did John learn Christ? For he was sent to baptize with water. They asked, Wherefore? That He might be made manifest to Israel, he said. Of what profit was the baptism of John? My brethren, if it had profited in any respect, it would have remained now, and men would have been baptized with the baptism of John, and thus have come to the baptism of Christ. But what says he? That He might be made manifest to Israel,— that is, to Israel itself, to the people Israel, so that Christ might be made manifest to it—therefore he came baptizing with water. John received the ministry of baptism, that by the water of repentance he might prepare the way for the Lord, not being himself the Lord; but where the Lord was known, it was superfluous to prepare for Him the way, for to those who knew Him He became Himself the way; therefore the baptism of John did not last long. But how was the Lord pointed out? Lowly, that John might so receive a baptism in which the Lord Himself should be baptized.

13. And was it needful for the Lord to be baptized? I instantly reply to any one who asks this question: Was it needful for the Lord to be born? Was it needful for the Lord to be crucified? Was it needful for the Lord to die? Was it needful for the Lord to be buried? If He undertook for us so great humiliation, might He not also receive baptism? And what profit was there that he received the baptism of a servant? That you might not disdain to receive the baptism of the Lord. Give heed, beloved brethren. Certain catechumens were to arise in the Church of higher grace. It sometimes comes to pass that you see a catechumen who practises continence, bids farewell to the world, renounces all his possessions, distributing them to the poor; and although but a catechumen, instructed in the saving doctrine better, perhaps, than many of the faithful. It is to be feared regarding such an one that he may say to himself about holy baptism, whereby sins are remitted, What more shall I receive? Behold, I am better than this faithful man, and this—having in his mind those among the faithful who are either married, or who are perhaps ignorant, or who keep possession of their property, while he has given his to the poor—and considering himself better than those who have been already baptized, he deigns not to come to baptism, saying, Am I to receive what this man has, and this thinking of persons whom he despises, and, as it were, considers it an indignity to receive that which inferiors have received, because he appears to himself to be already better than they; and, nevertheless, all his sins are upon him, and without coming to saving baptism, wherein all sins are remitted, he cannot, with all his excellence, enter into the kingdom of heaven. But the Lord, in order to invite such excellence to his baptism, that sins might be remitted, Himself came to the baptism of His servant; and although He had no sin to be remitted, nor was there anything in Him that needed to be washed, He received baptism from a servant; and by so doing, addressed Himself to the son carrying himself proudly, and exalting himself, and disdaining, perhaps, to receive along with the ignorant that from which salvation comes to him, and said to him: How do you extend yourself? How do you exalt yourself? How great is your excellence? How great is your grace? Can it be greater than mine? If I come to the servant, do you disdain to come to the Lord? If I have received the baptism of the servant, do you disdain to be baptized by the Lord?

14. But that you may know, my brethren, that not from a necessity of any chain of sin did the Lord come to this John, as the other evangelists say when the Lord came to him to be baptized, John himself said, Comest Thou to me? I have need to be baptized by You. Matthew 3:14-15 What did He reply to him? Suffer it to be so now: let all righteousness be fulfilled? What means this, let all righteousness be fulfilled? I came to die for men, have I not to be baptized for men? What means let all righteousness be fulfilled? Let all humility be fulfilled. What then? Was not He to accept baptism from a good servant who accepted suffering at the hands of evil servants? Give heed then. The Lord being baptized, if John for this end baptized, that by means of his baptism the Lord might manifest His humility, should no one else have been baptized with the baptism of John? But many were baptized with the baptism of John. When the Lord was baptized with the baptism of John, the baptism of John ceased. John was immediately cast into prison. Afterwards we do not find that any one is baptized with that baptism. If, then, John came baptizing for this end, that the humility of the Lord might be made manifest to us, in order that we might not disdain to receive from the Lord that which the Lord had received from a servant, should John have baptized the Lord alone? But if John had baptized the Lord alone, some would have thought that the baptism of John was more holy than that of Christ: as if Christ alone had been found worthy to be baptized with the baptism of John, but the human race with that of Christ. Give heed, beloved brethren. With the baptism of Christ we have been baptized, and not only we, but the whole world, and this will continue to the end. Which of us can in any respect be compared with Christ, whose shoe's latchet John declared himself unworthy to unloose? If, then, the Christ, a man of such excellence, a man who is God, had been alone baptized with the baptism of John, what were men likely to say? What a baptism was that of John! His was a great baptism, an ineffable sacrament; behold, Christ alone deserved to be baptized with the baptism of John. And thus the baptism of the servant would appear greater than the baptism of the Lord. Others were also baptized with the baptism of John, that the baptism of John might not appear better than the baptism of Christ; but baptized also was the Lord, that through the Lord receiving the baptism of the servant, other servants might not disdain to receive the baptism of the Lord: for this end, then, was John sent.

15. But did he know Christ, or did he not know Him? If he did not know Him, wherefore did He say, when Christ came to the river, I have need to be baptized by You? That is to say, I know who You are. If, then, he already knew Him, assuredly he knew Him when he saw the dove descending. It is evident that the dove did not descend upon the Lord until after He went up out of the water of baptism. The Lord having been baptized, went up out of the water, and the heavens were opened, and he saw a dove descending on Him. If, then, the dove descended after the baptism, and if, before the Lord was baptized, John said to Him, Comest Thou to me? I have need to be baptized by You; that is to say, before he knew Him to whom he said, Comest Thou to me? I have need to be baptized by You;— how then said he, And I knew Him not: but He who sent me to baptize with water, the same said to me, Upon whom you see the Spirit descending as a dove, and abiding upon Him, the same is He which baptizes with the Holy Ghost? It is not an insignificant question, my brethren. If you have seen the question, you have seen not a little; it remains that the Lord give the solution of it. This, however, I say, if you have seen the question, it is no small matter. Behold, John is placed before your eyes, standing beside the river. Behold John the Baptist. Behold, the Lord comes, as yet to be baptized, not yet baptized. Hear the voice of John, Comest Thou to me? I have need to be baptized by You. Behold, already he knew the Lord, by whom He wishes to be baptized. The Lord, having been baptized, goes up out of the water; the heavens are opened, the Spirit descends; then John knows Him. If then for the first time he knew Him, why did he say before, I have need to be baptized by You? But if he did not then recognize Him for the first time, because he knew Him already, what is the meaning of what he said, I knew Him not: but He that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom you shall see the Spirit descending, and abiding upon Him, as a dove, the same is He which baptizes with the Holy Ghost?

16. My brethren, this question if solved today would oppress you, I do not doubt, for already have I spoken many words. But know that the question is of such a character that alone it is able to extinguish the party of Donatus. I have said thus much, my beloved, in order to gain your attention, as is my wont; and also in order that you may pray for us, that the Lord may grant to us to speak what is suitable, and that you may be found worthy to receive what is suitable. In the meantime, be pleased to defer the question for today. But in the meantime, I say this briefly, until I give a fuller solution: Inquire peacefully, without quarreling, without contention, without altercations, without enmities; both seek by yourselves, and inquire of others, and say, This question our bishop proposed to us today, and he will resolve it at a future time, if the Lord will. But whether it be resolved or not, reckon that I have propounded what appears to me of importance; for it does seem of considerable importance. John says, I have need to be baptized by You, as if he knew Christ. For if he did not know Him by whom he wished to be baptized, he spoke rashly when he said, I have need to be baptized by You. Therefore he knew Him. If he knew Him, what is the meaning of the saying, I knew Him not: but He that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom you shall see the Spirit descending, and abiding upon Him, as a dove, the same is He which baptizes with the Holy Ghost? What shall we say? That we do not know when the dove came? Lest perchance they take refuge in this, let the other evangelists be read, who have spoken of this matter more plainly, and we find most evidently that the dove then descended when the Lord came up out of the water. Upon Him baptized the heavens opened, and He saw the Spirit descending. If it was when He was already baptized that John knew Him, how says he to Him, coming to baptism, I have need to be baptized by You? Ponder this in the meantime with yourselves, confer upon it, treat of it, one with another. The Lord our God grant that before you hear it from me, the explanation may be revealed to some of you first. Nevertheless, brethren, know this, that by means of the solution of this question, the allegation of the party of Donatus, if they have any sense of shame, will be silenced, and their mouths will be shut regarding the grace of baptism, a matter about which they raise mists to confuse the uninstructed, and spread nets for flying birds.

[AD 430] Augustine of Hippo on John 1:19-23

(Tr. 4. c. 3) They would not have sent, unless they had been impressed by his lofty exercise of authority, in daring to baptize.

(in Joan. Tr. iv. c. 4) For they knew that Elias was to preach Christ; the name of Christ not being unknown to any among the Jews; but they did not think that He our Lord was the Christ: and yet did not altogether imagine that there was no Christ about to come. In this way, while looking forward to the future, they mistook at the present.
And he said, I am not.

(in Joan. Tr. iv. c. 8) Or because John was more than a prophet: for that the prophets announced Him afar off, but John pointed Him out actually present.
Then said they unto him, Who art thou? that we may give an answer to them that sent us. What sayest thou of thyself?

(Tr. iv. c. 7) So spoke Esaias: the prophecy was fulfilled in John the Baptist.

Source: Catena Aurea by Aquinas

[AD 604] Gregory the Dialogist on John 1:19-23

(Hom. vii. in Evang. c. 1) He denied directly being what he was not, but he did not deny what he was: thus, by his speaking truth, becoming a true member of Him Whose name he had not dishonestly usurped.

(Hom. vii. c. 1) These words gave rise to a very different question. In another place, our Lord, when asked by His disciples concerning the coming of Elias, replied, If ye will receive it, this is Elias. (Mat. 11:14) But John says, I am not Elias. How is he then a preacher of the truth, if he agrees not with what that very Truth declares?

(Hom. vii. in Evang. c. 1) But if we examine the truth accurately, that which sounds inconsistent, will be found not really so. The Angel told Zacharias concerning John, He shall go before Him in the spirit and power of Elias. (Luke 1:17) As Elias then will preach the second advent of our Lord, so John preached His first; as the former will come as the precursor of the Judge, so the latter was made the precursor of the Redeemer. John was Elias in spirit, not in person: and what our Lord affirms of the spirit, John denies of the Person: there being a kind of propriety in this; viz. that our Lord to His disciples should speak spiritually of John, and that John, in answering the carnal multitude, should speak of his body, not of his spirit.

(Hom. vii. c. 2) Ye know that the only-begotten Son is called the Word of the Father. Now we know, in the case of our own utterance, the voice first sounds, and then the word is heard. Thus John declares himself to be the voice, i. e. because he precedes the Word, and, through his ministry, the Word of the Father is heard by man.

(Hom. vii. in Ev. c. 2) John crieth in the wilderness, because it is to forsaken and destitute Judæa that he bears the consolatory tidings of a Redeemer.

(Hom. vii. in Evang. c. 2) The way of the Lord is made straight to the heart, when the word of truth is heard with humility; the way of the Lord is made straight to the heart, when the life is formed upon the precept.

Source: Catena Aurea by Aquinas

[AD 1107] Theophylact of Ohrid on John 1:19-23

(in loc.) Or, after the introduction above of John's testimony to Christ, is preferred before me, the Evangelist now adds when the above testimony was given, And this is the record of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem.

(in loc.) Or because he declared the truth plainly, while all who were under the law spoke obscurely.

Source: Catena Aurea by Aquinas

[AD 235] Hippolytus of Rome on John 1:20-27

But we, who know the economy, adore His mercy, because He hath come to save and not to judge the world. Wherefore John, the forerunner of the Lord, who before knew not this mystery, on learning that He is Lord in truth, cried out, and spake to those who came to be baptized of him, "O generation of vipers," why look ye so earnestly at me? "I am not the Christ; " I am the servant, and not the lord; I am the subject, and not the king; I am the sheep, and not the shepherd; I am a man, and not God. By my birth I loosed the barrenness of my mother; I did not make virginity barren. I was brought up from beneath; I did not come down from above. I bound the tongue of my father; I did not unfold divine grace. I was known by my mother, and I was not announced by a star. I am worthless, and the least; but "after me there comes One who is before me" -after me, indeed, in time, but before me by reason of the inaccessible and unutterable light of divinity. "There comes One mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire." I am subject to authority, but He has authority in Himself. I am bound by sins, but He is the Remover of sins. apply the law, but He bringeth grace to light. teach as a slave, but He judgeth as the Master. I have the earth as my couch, but He possesses heaven. I baptize with the baptism of repentance, but He confers the gift of adoption: "He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire." Why give ye attention to me? I am not the Christ.

Source: Hippolytus Dogmatical and Historical Fragments

[AD 253] Origen of Alexandria on John 1:20

Someone may, perhaps, reasonably raise the question why in the world, when the priests and Levites inquire of John, not if he is the Christ but “Who are you?” the Baptist does not answer, “I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness.” … It is likely that John saw from the question the reverence of the priests and Levites. Their question suggested their secret suspicion that he who baptizes might be the Christ, but they were cautious about asserting this more boldly that they might not seem rash. This is why he declares with good reason that he is not the Christ, to remove all their false suspicion about him first, then, in this way, to present the truth.…We should also add that the people were disturbed that the time of the Christ’s sojourn might already be imminent from the time slightly preceding the birth of Jesus up to the manifestation of his preaching. In all probability the scribes and lawyers were already expecting the one awaited (deriving his time from the Scriptures). This is why Theodas had sprung up who had gathered no small crowd by claiming to be the Christ, I think. And after him, Judas of Galilee, in the days of the taxation, had done something similar. Since therefore Christ’s sojourn is rather heatedly expected and discussed, it is with good reason that the Jews send priests and Levites from Jerusalem to John, intending with the question, “Who are you,” to see if he will admit to being the Christ.

Source: COMMENTARY ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 6.56-57, 60-61

[AD 407] John Chrysostom on John 1:20

Observe the wisdom of the Evangelist. He mentions this for the third time, to set forth the excellency of the Baptist, and their wickedness and folly. And Luke also says, that when the multitudes supposed him to be the Christ, he again removes their suspicion. This is the part of an honest servant, not only not to take to himself his master's honor, but also to reject it when given to him by the many. But the multitudes arrived at this supposition from simplicity and ignorance; these questioned him from an ill intention, which I have mentioned, expecting, as I said, to draw him over to their purpose by their flattery. Had they not expected this, they would not have proceeded immediately to another question, but would have been angry with him for having given them an answer foreign to their enquiry, and would have said, Why, did we suppose that? Did we come to ask you that? But now as taken and detected in the fact, they proceed to another question, and say,

[AD 407] John Chrysostom on John 1:20

[The Jews] were influenced by a kind of human sympathy for John [the Baptist], whom they were reluctant to see made subordinate to Christ because of the many marks of greatness about him. [For example], there was in the first place his illustrious descent, since he was the son of a chief priest. There was also his hard training and his contempt for the world. … In Christ, however, the contrary was apparent. He was of humble birth, for which they reproach him by asking, “Is not this the carpenter’s son?” … And the country that he was supposed to have come from had such a bad reputation that even Nathanael said, “Can anything good come from Nazareth?” He also had an ordinary way of living and clothes like everyone else wore.… When John then was constantly sending them to Christ … therefore, they send someone to him, thinking by their flattery that they will induce him to confess that he was the Christ. They do not therefore send inferior people to him … servants and Herodians, as they did to Christ, but priests and Levites. And no indiscriminate party are these, but those [priests and Levites] of Jerusalem, that is, the more honorable ones.… They send them to ask, “Who are you?” … They send them not because they want to be informed but in order to induce him to do what I have said.…John replies then to their intention, not to their interrogation.… “And he confessed, and did not deny, but confessed, ‘I am not the Christ.’ ” And observe the wisdom of the Evangelist. He repeats the same thing three times to show John’s virtue and [the priests’ and Levites’] wickedness and foolishness.… For it is the character of an honest servant not only to forbear taking to himself his lord’s glory but even to reject it when many offer it to him. The multitude indeed believed from ignorance that John [the Baptist] was the Christ, but in [the priests and Levites] it was malice, and in this spirit they put the question to him, expecting to draw him over to their purpose by their flattery. If they had not expected this to happen, they would not have proceeded immediately to another question. Instead, they would have been angry with him for giving them an answer outside of what they were asking.… When caught, however, and it was discovered what they had in mind, they proceed to another question: “And they asked him, ‘What then? Are you Elijah?’ ”

Source: HOMILIES ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 16.1-2

[AD 430] Augustine of Hippo on John 1:20

For they knew that Elijah would precede Christ. For the name of Christ was not unknown to any Jew. They did not think that he was the Christ, but they did not think that Christ would not come at all. When they were hoping that he would come, they were offended at him when he did come and stumbled at him as on a low stone.… They did not see the lowly stone—but what great blindness not to see the mountain!

Source: TRACTATES ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 4.4

[AD 444] Cyril of Alexandria on John 1:20

The Evangelist recalls his own words and endeavours to explain to us more fully (doing exceeding well) what he had already told us told us briefly as in summary. For having said There was a man sent from God, whose name was John: the same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, needs does he bring in the mode also of the witness given by him. For when, he says, the chiefs of the Jewish divisions after the Law, sent priests and Levites to him, bidding them ask him, what he would say of himself, then very clearly did he confess, spurning all shame for the truth's sake. For he said, I am not the Christ. Therefore neither do I, says he, the compiler of this Book, lie saying of him, He was not the Light but to bear witness of the Light.

[AD 220] Tertullian on John 1:21

Well, then, was it really in a Pythagorean sense that the Jews approached John with the inquiry, "Art thou Elias? " and not rather in the sense of the divine prediction, "Behold, I will send you Elijah" the Tisbite? The fact, however, is, that their metempsychosis, or transmigration theory, signifies the recall of the soul which had died long before, and its return to some other body.

Source: A Treatise on the Soul

[AD 253] Origen of Alexandria on John 1:21

Once the priests and Levites, who were sent from Jerusalem, have heard that he is not the awaited Christ, they inquire if he might be Elijah, the person who held the second rank in honor as an object of their hope. He says that he is not Elijah, again confessing the truth through the expression “I am not.”

Source: COMMENTARY ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 6.44

[AD 253] Origen of Alexandria on John 1:21

[Someone] might say that John is Elijah who is to come, in one sense, but that he responded to the priests and Levites, “I am not,” because he knew what they were really asking. For the earlier question to John from the priests and Levites was not intended to ascertain if the same spirit was in both men, but if John were that very Elijah who had been taken up, now appearing without a birth according to the Jewish expectation. For those who had been sent from Jerusalem may have been ignorant of John’s birth. He appropriately answers this question, “I am not,” for Elijah who had been taken up had not come, as if he had changed his body and had been named John.

Source: COMMENTARY ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 6.70-71

[AD 253] Origen of Alexandria on John 1:21

Inasmuch as there were many prophets in Israel—there was one in particular, who had been prophesied by Moses, who was especially expected in accordance with the saying, “The Lord our God shall raise up a prophet like me for you from your brothers; him you shall hear”—they ask a third time, not if he is a prophet but if he is “the prophet.”They do not apply this title to the Christ but suppose that he is another in addition to the Christ. Because John knows that he of whom he is the forerunner is both the Christ and this prophet who was prophesied, he says “No.” He might have answered, “Yes,” if they had asked their question without using the article, for he was not unaware that he was a prophet.

Source: COMMENTARY ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 6.45-46

[AD 253] Origen of Alexandria on John 1:21

A certain prophet was specially expected who would be similar to Moses in some respect, to mediate between God and humankind, and who would receive the covenant from God and give the new covenant to those who became disciples. And the people of Israel knew so far as each of the prophets was concerned that no one of them was the one announced by Moses. As, therefore, they were in doubt about whether John was the Christ, so also they were in doubt whether he was “the prophet.” It is not strange if those who were in doubt about whether John was the Christ did not understand thoroughly that the Christ and the prophet are the same. For not knowing that Christ and the prophet are the same is the consequence of uncertainty about John.

Source: COMMENTARY ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 6.90-91

[AD 407] John Chrysostom on John 1:21

For they expected that Elias also would come, as Christ declares; for when His disciples enquired, How then do the scribes say that Elias must first come? Matthew 17:10 He replied, Elias truly shall first come, and restore all things. Then they ask, Are you that prophet? And he answered, No. Matthew 17:10 Yet surely he was a prophet. Wherefore then does he deny it? Because again he looks to the intention of his questioners. For they expected that some special prophet should come, because Moses said, The Lord your God will raise up unto you a Prophet of your brethren like me, unto Him shall you harken. Deuteronomy 18:15 Now this was Christ. Wherefore they do not say, Are you a prophet? meaning thereby one of the ordinary prophets; but the expression, Are you the prophet? with the addition of the article, means, Are you that Prophet who was foretold by Moses? and therefore he denied not that he was a prophet, but that he was that Prophet.

[AD 430] Augustine of Hippo on John 1:21

The Lord Jesus Christ said, “Elijah has come already, and he is John the Baptist.” John, however, when asked, proclaimed that he was not Elijah, just as [he proclaimed] that neither was he the Christ. And, indeed, just as he truly proclaimed that he was not the Christ, so he truly proclaimed that neither was he Elijah.How then shall we compare the words of the herald with the words of the judge? Far be it from the herald to lie, for he says what he hears from the judge. Why then did he say, “I am not Elijah” and the Lord said, “He is Elijah”? Because in him the Lord Jesus Christ wished to prefigure his future coming and to say that John was in the spirit of Elijah. And what John was to the first coming, this will Elijah be to the second coming.… When John was conceived, or rather when he was born, the Holy Spirit prophesied that this was to be fulfilled with regard to that man. “And he will be,” he said, “the forerunner of the most high, in the spirit and power of Elijah.” Not then Elijah but “in the spirit and power of Elijah.” What is “in the spirit and power of Elijah”? It means in the same Holy Spirit in place of Elijah. Why in place of Elijah? Because what Elijah is to the second coming, this John was to the first.

Source: TRACTATES ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 4.5.1-2

[AD 444] Cyril of Alexandria on John 1:21

Having said by way of explanation, he confessed, I am not the Christ; he tries to show how or in what manner the confession was made; and he appears to me to wish thereby to lay bare the ill-instructedness of the Jews. For professing themselves to be wise they became fools, and puffed up at their knowledge of the Law, and ever putting forward the commandments of Moses and asserting that they were perfectly instructed in the words of the holy Prophets, by their foolish questions they are convicted of being wholly uninstructed. For the hierophant Moses saying that the Lord should be revealed as a Prophet foretold to the children of Israel, The Lord thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me, unto Him shall ye hearken; according to all that thou desiredst of the Lord thy God in Horeb. The blessed Isaiah, introducing to us the forerunner and fore-messenger, says, The voice of one crying in the wilderness Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make His paths straight: and in addition to these the Prophet Joel 13 says of |127 the Tishbite (he was Elias) Behold, I send you Elijah the Tishbite 14 who shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse.

There being then three, who were promised should come, Christ and John and Elias, the Jews expect that more will come, that they may rightly hear, Ye do err not knowing the Scriptures. For when they enquired of the blessed Baptist and learned that he was not the Christ, they answer, What then? art thou Elias? and on his saying I am not, when they ought to have asked respecting the fore-runner (for he it was that remained) they ignorantly return to Christ Himself, Who was revealed through the Law as a Prophet. For see what they say, not knowing what was told them through Moses, Art thou the Prophet? and he answered, No. For he was not the Christ, as he had already before declared.

[AD 604] Gregory the Dialogist on John 1:21

When in another place his disciples asked our Lord about the coming of Elijah, he answered, “Elijah has already come, and they did not know him but did to him whatever they please; and if you want to know, John is Elijah.” John, when he was asked, said, “I am not.” …If we carefully examine truth himself, what sounded contradictory is found to be not contradictory. The angel said to Zechariah, of the promised birth of John, that “he will come in the spirit and power of Elijah.” This is said because just as Elijah is the forerunner of the Lord’s second coming, so was John the forerunner of his first; as Elijah will come as the forerunner of the Judge, so was John the forerunner of the Redeemer. John, then, was Elijah in spirit; he was not Elijah in person. What the Lord spoke of the spirit, John denied of the person. It was right that the Lord should make a spiritual assertion about John to his disciples and that John should answer the same question to the materialistic crowds not about his spirit but about his body. What John said appears to contradict truth, yet he did not depart from the path of truth. FORTY GOSPEL HOMILIES 4.
For it has been established that those who sent knew that John had been born of Zechariah and Elizabeth, and even more so that those who were sent, since they belonged to the priestly house and would not be unaware of the incredible good offspring of so renowned a fellow kinsman as Zechariah, also knew. What did they have in mind then when they asked, “Are you Elijah?” since they were men who had read that he was taken up as though into heaven and they were waiting for his coming? Perhaps, then, since they expect Elijah before Christ at the consummation, and Christ after him, they seem to ask figuratively, as it were, “Are you the one who announces in advance the word that will precede Christ at the consummation?” He wisely responds to this, “I am not.” …
It is not strange, therefore, that, just as in the case of the Savior—although many knew of his birth from Mary, others were deceived—so also in the case of John, some were aware of his birth from Zechariah, but others were in doubt whether the awaited Elijah had appeared in the person of John.

Source: COMMENTARY ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 6.72, 77-78, 81

[AD 604] Gregory the Dialogist on John 1:21

When John himself was asked, he answered, “I am not a prophet.” He who knew that he was more than a prophet said he was not a prophet. He is said to be more than a prophet because it is a prophet’s task to foretell things to come, not to point them out as well. John is more than a prophet because with his finger he pointed to the one he spoke of [right at that moment].

Source: FORTY GOSPEL HOMILIES 1

[AD 253] Origen of Alexandria on John 1:22-23

But he cries and shouts that both those who are far off may hear him speaking and those who are hard of hearing may understand the greatness of what is said, since it is proclaimed with a loud voice, helping both those who have departed from God and those who have lost keenness of their hearing.… Now the necessity of the voice of one crying in the wilderness is that the soul—which is devoid of God and destitute of truth (for what other wilderness is harder to deal with than a soul that is bereft of God and of all virtue?)—might be exhorted to make straight the way of the Lord, because it is still going in a crooked manner and is in need of teaching.

Source: COMMENTARY ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 6.100, 102

[AD 407] John Chrysostom on John 1:22

Observe them pressing him more vehemently, urging him, repeating their questions, and not desisting; while he first kindly removes false opinions concerning himself, and then sets before them one which is true. For, says he,

[AD 407] John Chrysostom on John 1:22-23

See how [the priests and Levites] press him more vehemently, repeatedly urging their questions on him without giving up. John for his part first removes their false assumptions about him and then sets before them what is true.

Source: HOMILIES ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 16.2

[AD 430] Augustine of Hippo on John 1:22-23

The voice came before the Word. How can the voice be before the Word?… We have heard that Christ is the Word; let us hear that John is the voice. When he was asked, “You then, who are you?” he answered, “I am the voice of one crying in the desert.” So if Christ is the Word, John the voice, John was taken over as the voice in order that the Word might be spoken to us. And that the Word might come to us, the voice preceded it. That is why it is both true that Christ was before John in eternity, and that all the same, he had not to be born first, unless John came to us before the Word as the voice. So there is going to be a time when we shall see the Word as he is seen by the angels; now, however, let us make progress in the Word, so that we may remain with him forever.

Source: SERMON 293A.5

[AD 444] Cyril of Alexandria on John 1:22-23

I come, [John the Baptist] says nothing else than that the one you are looking for is finally at the doors. Indeed, the Lord is within the doors. Be ready to go whatever way he asks you. You have gone the way given you through Moses, [but now] take up the way of Christ. For this is what the choir of the holy prophets told you beforehand.

Source: COMMENTARY ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 1.10

[AD 604] Gregory the Dialogist on John 1:22-23

I have said before that the prophet called him a voice because he preceded the Word. What he was crying is disclosed to us, “Prepare the way of the Lord, make straight his paths.” What else is anyone doing who is preaching the true faith and good works but preparing the way for the Lord to come to his hearers’ hearts so that the power of grace may enter them and the light of truth pervade them? He makes the Lord’s paths straight when he predisposes the mind for good thoughts by his good preaching.

Source: FORTY GOSPEL HOMILIES 6

[AD 220] Tertullian on John 1:23

"He was," He says, "the burning and shining lamp; " as being he who not merely "prepared His ways in the desert," but withal, by pointing out "the Lamb of God," illumined the minds of men by his heralding, so that they understood Him to be that Lamb whom Moses was wont to announce as destined to suffer.

Source: An Answer to the Jews

[AD 407] John Chrysostom on John 1:23

When he had spoken some high and lofty words concerning Christ, as if (replying) to their opinion, he immediately betook himself to the Prophet to draw from thence confirmation of his assertion.

[AD 444] Cyril of Alexandria on John 1:23

He accuses them sharply as knowing nothing, and accredits the design or purpose entrusted to him by Prophetic testimony. For I come, he says, to say nothing else than that He, The Looked for, is at length at the doors, yea rather the Lord within the doors. Be ye ready to go whatsoever way He bids you, ye have gone the way given you through Moses, take up that by Christ: for this the choir of the holy Prophets foretold you.

A setting forth of sayings concerning the way that is after Christ.

Isaiah. Come ye and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob, and He will teach us of His ways and we will walk in His paths.

The same. And an highway shall be there and a way, and it shall be called The way of holiness; no lion shall be there nor any ravenous beast shall go up thereon, but the redeemed shall walk there.

The same. I will give beginning to Sign, and will exhort Jerusalem unto the way.

The same. And I will bring the blind by a way that they knew not: I will lead them in paths that they have not known.

Jeremiah. Stand ye in the ways and see and ask for the old paths, where is the good way and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for you souls.

What then is the good way and that purifies those who walk in it, let Christ Himself say: I am the Way.

[AD 604] Gregory the Dialogist on John 1:23

I cannot keep silence while Thou art present, for I am a voice; yea, I am the voice, as it is said, of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord.

[AD 253] Origen of Alexandria on John 1:24-25

After the priests and Levites were sent from Jerusalem to ask John who he was, the Pharisees send to him as well, asking, “Why then do you baptize if you are not the Christ or Elijah or the prophet?” After they have examined him, they are the next to be baptized.… The difficulty is solved as follows. The Pharisees … who heard the words “generation of vipers …,” although they have not believed him, probably come for baptism because they fear the crowd and, in accordance with their hypocrisy toward them, consider it proper to let themselves be washed that they might not seem to be opposed to such people.

Source: COMMENTARY ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 6.146, 151

[AD 253] Origen of Alexandria on John 1:24-28

(in Joan. tom. vi. c. 13) The questions of the priests and Levites being answered, another mission comes from the Pharisees: And they that were sent were of the Pharisees. So far as it is allowable to form a conjecture from the discourse itself here, I should say that it was the third occasion of John's giving his witness. Observe the mildness of the former question, so befitting the priestly and levitical character, Who art thou? There is nothing arrogant or disrespectful, but only what becomes true ministers of God. The Pharisees however, being a sectarian body, as their name implies, address the Baptist in an importunate and contumelious way. And they said, Why baptizest thou then, if thou be not that Christ, neither Elias, neither that Prophet? not caring about information, but only wishing to prevent him baptizing. Yet the very next thing they did, was to come to John's baptism. The solution of this is, that they came not in faith, but hypocritically, because they feared the people.

(in Joan. tom. vi. c. 15) For how would the question, Why then baptizest thou, be replied to in any other way, than by setting forth the carnal nature of his own baptism?

(in Joan. tom. vi. c. 15) Or thus; Having said, I indeed baptize with water, in answer to the question, Why baptizest thou then?—to the next, If thou be not Christ? he replies by declaring the preexistent substance of Christ; that it was of such virtue, that though His Godhead was invisible, He was present to every one, and pervaded the whole world; as is conveyed in the words; There standeth one among you. For He it is, Who hath diffused Himself through the whole system of nature, insomuch that every thing which is created, is created by Him; All things were made by Him. Whence it is evident that even those who enquired of John, Why baptizest thou then? had Him among them. Or, the words, There standeth one among you, are to be understood of mankind generally. For, from our character as rational beings, it follows that the words exists in the centre of us, because the heart, which is the spring of motion within us, is situated in the centre of the body. Those then who carry the word within them, but are ignorant of its nature, and the source and beginning and the way in which it resides in them; these, hearing the word within them, know it not. But John recognised Him, and reproached the Pharisees, saying, Whom ye know not. For, though expecting Christ's coming, the Pharisees had formed no lofty conception of Him, but supposed that He would only be a holy man: wherefore he briefly refutes their ignorance, and the false ideas that they had of His excellence. He saith, standeth; for as the Father standeth, i. e. exists without variation or change, so standeth the Word ever in the work of salvation, though It assume flesh, though It be in the midst of men, though It stand invisible. Lest any one however should think that the invisible One Who cometh to all men, and to the universal world, is different from Him Who was made man, and appeared on the earth, he adds, He that cometh after me; i. e. Who will appear after me. The after however here has not the same meaning that it has, when Christ calls us after Him; for there we are told to follow after Him, that by treading in His steps, we may attain to the Father; but here the word is used to intimate what should follow upon John's teaching; for he came that all may believe, having by his ministry been fitted gradually by lesser things, for the reception of the perfect Word. Therefore he saith, He it is Who cometh after me.

(tom. vi. in Joan.) The place has been understood not amiss thus by a certain person1; I am not of such importance, as that for my sake He should descend from this high abode, and take flesh upon Him, as it were a shoe.

(tom. vi. c. 24) Bethabara means house of preparation; which agreeth with the baptism of Him, who was making ready a people prepared for the Lord. (c.25. et seq.). Jordan, again, means, "their descent." Now what is this river but our Saviour, through Whom coming into this earth all must be cleansed, in that He came down not for His own sake, but for theirs. This river it is which separateth the lots given by Moses, from those given by Jesus; its streams make glad the city of God. (c. 29). As the serpent lies hid in the Egyptian river, so doth God in this; for the Father is in the Son. Wherefore whosoever go thither to wash themselves, lay aside the reproach of Egypt, (Joshua 5:9.) are made meet to receive the inheritance, are cleansed from leprosy, (2 Kings 5:14.) are made capable of a double portion of grace, and ready to receive the Holy Spirit; (2 Kings 2:9.) nor doth the spiritual dove light upon any other river. John again baptizes beyond Jordan, as the precursor of Him Who came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

Source: Catena Aurea by Aquinas

[AD 407] John Chrysostom on John 1:24

Do you see not without reason I said that they wished to bring him to this? And the reason why they did not at first say so was, lest they should be detected by all men. And then when he said, I am not the Christ, they, being desirous to conceal what they were plotting within, go on to Elias, and that Prophet. But when he said that he was not one of these either, after that, in their perplexity, they cast aside the mask, and without any disguise show clearly their treacherous intention, saying, Why do you baptize then, if you be not that Christ? And then again, wishing to throw some obscurity over the thing, they add the others also, Elias, and that Prophet. For when they were not able to trip him by their flattery, they thought that by an accusation they could compel him to say the thing that was not.

What folly, what insolence, what ill-timed officiousness! You were sent to learn who and whence he might be, not to lay down laws for him also. This too was the conduct of men who would compel him to confess himself to be the Christ. Still not even now is he angry, nor does he, as might have been expected, say to them anything of this sort, Do you give orders and make laws for me? but again shows great gentleness towards them.

[AD 407] John Chrysostom on John 1:24-25

When John says, “I am not the Christ,” the Pharisees try to conceal what they were plotting within by asking him about Elijah and the prophet. But when he said that he was not any of these either, they leave behind any pretense and clearly show their treacherous intention, saying, “Why do you baptize then if you are not the Christ?” And then again, wishing to throw some obscurity over the whole thing, they add “Elijah” and “the prophet.” For when they were not able to trip him up by their flattery, they thought that by an accusation they could compel him to say something he was not.What foolishness, insolence and ill-timed interference! You were sent to learn who John was and where he came from, not to involve him in an accusation. This too was the conduct of people who would compel him to confess himself to be the Christ. Still, he is not angry even now, nor does he, as might have been expected, say anything to them like, “Do you give orders and make laws for me?” But again he shows great gentleness toward them.

Source: HOMILIES ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 16.2

[AD 407] John Chrysostom on John 1:24-28

(Hom. xvi. [al. xv.] 2) Or, those very same priests and Levites were of the Pharisees, and, because they could not undermine him by blandishments, began accusing, after they had compelled him to say what he was not. And they asked him, saying, Why baptizest thou then, if thou art not the Christ, neither Elias, neither that Prophet? As if it were an act of audacity in him to baptize, when he was neither the Christ, nor His precursor, nor His proclaimer, i. e. that Prophet.

(xvi. 3) One among you. It was fitting that Christ should mix with the people, and be one of the many, showing every where His humility. Whom ye know not; i. e. not, in the most absolute and certain sense; not, who He is, and whence Ho is.

(Hom. xvi. [al. xv.] 3) As if he said, Do not think that every thing is contained in my baptism; for if my baptism were perfect, another would not come after me with another baptism. This baptism of mine is but an introduction to the other, and will soon pass away, like a shadow, or an image. There is One coming after me to establish the truth: and therefore this is not a perfect baptism; for, if it were, there would be no room for a second: and therefore he adds, Who is made before me: i. e. is more honourable, more lofty.

(Hom. xvi. [al. xv.] 3) But lest thou shouldest think this to be the result of comparison, he immediately shows it to be a superiority beyond all comparison; Whose shoe's latchet I am not worthy to unloose: as if He said, He is so much before me, that I am unworthy to be numbered among the lowest of His attendants: the unloosing of the sandal being the very lowest kind of service.

(Hom. xvii. [al. xvi.] 1. in Joan) John having preached the thing concerning Christ publicly and with becoming liberty, the Evangelist mentions the place of His preaching: These things were done in Bethany beyond Jordan, where John was baptizing. For it was in no house or corner that John preached Christ, but beyond Jordan, in the midst of a multitude, and in the presence of all whom He had baptized. Some copies read more correctly Bethabara: for Bethany was not beyond Jordan, or in the desert, but near Jerusalem.

(Hom. xvii) He mentions this too for another reason, viz. that as He was relating events which had only recently happened, He might, by a reference to the place, appeal to the testimony of those who were present and saw them.

Source: Catena Aurea by Aquinas

[AD 430] Augustine of Hippo on John 1:24-28

(Tr. iv. c. 9) In His low estate He was not seen; and therefore the candle was lighted.

(Tr. iv) To have pronounced himself worthy even of unloosing His shoe's latchet, he would have been thinking too much of himself.

Source: Catena Aurea by Aquinas

[AD 444] Cyril of Alexandria on John 1:24

They who were sent from the Jews (they were Levites and certain of those who belonged to the priesthood) were convicted of asking foolish questions. For supposing that Christ was one person, the Prophet declared by the Law another, they said, after the holy Baptist had said, I am not the Christ, Art thou the Prophet? But lo, the multitude of the Pharisees also is caught in conceit of wisdom rather than having really an accurate knowledge of the Divine oracles. For why, it says, baptizest thou at all, if thou be not the Christ nor Elias neither the Prophet? and they are shown again to be full of no small senselessness against the Baptist. For they do not, it seems, vouchsafe to put him in the number of those expected, but sick with the haughtiness that was their foster-sister, they deem that he is nought, albeit he be fore-announced by the Prophet's voice. For though they heard, I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness Prepare ye the way of the Lord: receiving not his word, they rebuke him without restraint saying after this sort: There is nought in thee, Sir, worthy of credit, nor wondrous nor great: why baptizest thou even at all? why dost thou, who art absolutely nothing, take in hand so great a thing? It was the habit of the ungodly Pharisees to act thus, to disparage one who was already come, to pretend to honour one who was to come. For in order that they might always procure for themselves honours at the hand of the Jews, and might procure to themselves incomes of money, they desire that none save themselves should appear illustrious. For thus slew they the heir Himself also, saying Come let us kill Him and let us seize on His inheritance.

[AD 604] Gregory the Dialogist on John 1:24-28

(Hom. vii. in Evang. c. 2) The way of the Lord is made straight to the heart, when the word of truth is heard with humility; the way of the Lord is made straight to the heart, when the life is formed upon the precept.

(Hom. vii. in Evang c. 3) A saint, even when perversely questioned, is never diverted from the pursuit of goodness. Thus John to the words of envy opposes the words of life: John answered them, saying, I indeed baptize with water.

(Hom. vii. in Evang. c. 3) John baptizeth not with the Spirit, but with water; not being able to remit sins, he washes the bodies of the baptized with water, but not their souls with pardon. Why then doth he baptize, when he doth not remit sins by baptism? To maintain his character of forerunner. As his birth preceded our Lord's, so doth his baptism precede our Lord's baptism. And he who was the forerunner of Christ in His preaching, is forerunner also in His baptism, which was the imitation of that Sacrament. And withal he announces the mystery of our redemption, saying that He, the Redeemer, is standing in the midst of men, and they know it not: There standeth one among you, whom ye know not: for our Lord, when He appeared in the flesh, was visible in body, but in majesty invisible.

(Hom. vii. in Ev. c. 3) Made before me, i. e. preferred before me. He comes after me, that is, He is born after me; He is made before me, that is, He is preferred to me.

(Hom. vii. in Ev. c. 3) Or thus: It was a law of the old dispensation, that, if a man refused to take the woman, who of right came to him, to wife, he who by right of relationship came next to be the husband, should unloose his shoe. Now in what character did Christ appear in the world, but as Spouse of the Holy Church? (John 3:29.) John then very properly pronounced himself unworthy to unloose this shoe's latchet: as if he said, I cannot uncover the feet of the Redeemer, for I claim not the title of spouse, which I have no right to. Or the passage may be explained in another way. We know that shoes are made out of dead animals. Our Lord then, when He came in the flesh, put on, as it were, shoes; because in His Divinity He took the flesh of our corruption, wherein we had of ourselves perished. And the latchet of the shoe, is the seal upon the mystery. John is not able to unloose the shoe's latchet; i. e. even he cannot penetrate into the mystery of the Incarnation. So he seems to say: What wonder that He is preferred before me, Whom, being born after me, I contemplate, yet the mystery of Whose birth I comprehend not.

Source: Catena Aurea by Aquinas

[AD 804] Alcuin of York on John 1:24-28

The meaning of Bethany is, house of obedience; by which it is intimated to us, that all must approach to baptism, through the obedience of faith.

Source: Catena Aurea by Aquinas

[AD 1107] Theophylact of Ohrid on John 1:24-28

(in loc.) Or it was, that our Lord was in the midst of the Pharisees; and they not knowing Him. For they thought that they knew the Scriptures, and therefore, inasmuch as our Lord was pointed out there, He was in the midst of them, i. e. in their hearts. But they knew Him not, inasmuch as they understood not the Scriptures. Or take another interpretation. He was in the midst of them, as mediator between God and man, wishing to bring them, the Pharisees, to God. But they knew Him not.

Source: Catena Aurea by Aquinas

[AD 1274] Glossa Ordinaria on John 1:24-28

Or we must suppose two Bethanies; one over Jordan, the other on this side, not far from Jerusalem, the Bethany where Lazarus was raised from the dead.

Source: Catena Aurea by Aquinas

[AD 253] Origen of Alexandria on John 1:26

We must note that John’s baptism was inferior to Jesus’ baptism, which was given through his disciples. Those, therefore, in Acts who have been baptized into John’s baptism, who have not even heard that there was a Holy Spirit, are baptized a second time by the apostle. For the washing of regeneration did not come about at the hands of John but at the hands of Jesus through his disciples. And the so-called bath of rebirth takes place with the renewal of the Spirit, which even now is borne above the water, since it is from God. But it does not appear in everyone after the water.

Source: COMMENTARY ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 6.168-69

[AD 258] Cyprian on John 1:26

That Christ is the Bridegroom, having the Church as His bride, from which spiritual children were to be born. In Joel: "Blow with the trumpet in Sion; sanctify a fast, and call a healing; assemble the people, sanctify the Church, gather the elders, collect the little ones that suck the breast; let the Bridegroom go forth of His chamber, and the bride out of her closet." Also in Jeremiah: "And I will take away from the cities of Judah, and from the streets of Jerusalem, the voice of the joyous, and the voice of the glad; the voice of the bridegroom, and the voice of the bride." Also in the eighteenth Psalm: "And he is as a bridegroom going forth from his chamber; he exulted as a giant to run his course. From the height of heaven is his going forth, and his circuit even to the end of it; and there is nothing which is hid from his heat." Also in the Apocalypse: "Come, I will show thee the new bride, the Lamb's wife. And he took me in the Spirit to a great mountain, and he showed me the holy city Jerusalem descending out of heaven from God, having the glory of God." Also in the Gospel according to John: "Ye are my witnesses, that I said to them who were sent from Jerusalem to me, that I am not the Christ, but that I am sent before Him. For he who has the bride is the bridegroom; but the friend of the bridegroom is he who standeth and heareth him with joy, and rejoiceth because of the voice of the bridegroom." The mystery of this matter was shown in Jesus the son of Nave, when he was bidden to put his shoes from off him, doubt less because he himself was not the bridegroom. For it was in the law, that whoever should refuse marriage should put off his shoe, but that he should be shod who was to be the bridegroom: "And it happened, when Jesus was in Jericho, he looked around with his eyes, and saw a man standing before his face, and holding a javelin in his hand, and said, Art thou for us or for our enemies? And he said, I am the leader of the host of the Lord; now draw near. And Jesus fell on his rice to the earth, and said to him, Lord, what dost Thou command unto Thy servant. And the leader of the Lord's host said, Loose thy shoe from thy feet, for the place whereon thou standest is holy ground." Also, in Exodus, Moses is bidden to put off his shoe, because he, too, was not the bridegroom: "And there appeared unto him the angel of the Lord in a flame of fire out of a bush; and he saw that the bush burned with fire, but the bush was not consumed. And Moses said, I will pass over and see this great sight, why the bush is not consumed. But when He saw that he drew near to see, the Lord God called him from the bush, saying, Moses, Moses. And he said, What is it? And He said, Draw not nigh hither, unless thou hast loosed thy shoe from off thy feet; for the place on which thou standest is holy ground. And He said unto him, I am the God of thy father, the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob." This was also made plain in the Gospel according to John: "And John answered them, I indeed baptize with water, but there standeth One in the midst of you whom ye know not: He it is of whom I said, The man that cometh after me is made before me, the latchet of whose shoe I am not worthy to unloose." Also according to Luke: "Let your loins be girt, and your lamps burning, and ye like to men that wait for their master when he shall come from the wedding, that when he cometh and knocketh, they may open unto him. Blessed are those servants whom their Lord, when He cometh, shall find watching." Also in the Apocalypse: "The Lord God omnipotent reigneth: let us be glad and rejoice, and let us give to Him the honour of glory; for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and His wife hath made herself ready."

Source: Treatise XII Three Books of Testimonies Against the Jews

[AD 382] Apollinaris of Laodicea on John 1:26

They object to John, “Why then do you baptize, if you are none of these things?” They do not know that not even the Christ—who himself was the prophet—baptized, but rather his disciples. Elijah did not baptize the wood of the altar that needed dousing in the matter of Ahab, but he ordered the priests to do this. Now then, to address the words “Why then do you baptize?” John sets forth his own bodily baptism. But to address the words “if you are not the Christ,” he praises the preexisting nature of Christ, saying that he is unseen in his divinity but is present to all the world. He upbraids them for their low opinion about the Christ, and he unites the Word “in the beginning” by his incarnation, as he joins the phrase “whom you do not know” with the words “the one coming after me.” He shows the superiority of Christ to himself through the sentence “I am not worthy.” And if he is “in the midst” either of the whole world so as to reach every rational creature, or in the midst only of us who have dominion over the world, then in any case the Word is in each person. But if his earlier presence among us remained unperceived, his coming after John would not. As John speaks about the nature of the Word, he also adds some words about his sojourn after him, mentioning that Christ will come after him.

Source: FRAGMENTS ON JOHN 5

[AD 407] John Chrysostom on John 1:26

3. What could the Jews have left to say to this? For even from this the accusation against them cannot be evaded, the decision against them admits not of pardon, they have given sentence against themselves. How? In what way? They deemed John worthy of credit, and so truthful, that they might believe him not only when he testified of others, but also when he spoke concerning himself. For had they not been so disposed, they would not have sent to learn from him what related to himself. Because you know that the only persons whom we believe, especially when speaking of themselves, are those whom we suppose to be more veracious than any others. And it is not this alone which closes their mouths, but also the disposition with which they had approached him; for they came forth to him at first with great eagerness, even though afterwards they altered. Both which things Christ declared, when He said, He was a burning (and a shining) light, and you were willing for a season to rejoice in his light. Moreover, his answer made him yet more worthy of credit. For (Christ) says, He that seeks not his own glory, the same is true, and no unrighteousness is in him. Now this man sought it not, but refers the Jews to another. And those who were sent were of the most trustworthy among them, and of the highest rank, so that they could have in no way any refuge or excuse, for the unbelief which they exhibited towards Christ. Wherefore did you not receive the things spoken concerning Him by John? You sent men who held the first rank among you, you enquired by them, you heard what the Baptist answered, they manifested all possible officiousness, sought into every point, named all the persons you suspected him to be; and yet most publicly and plainly he confessed that he was neither Christ, nor Elias nor that Prophet. Nor did he stop even there, but also informed them who he was, and spoke of the nature of his own baptism, that it was but a slight and mean thing, nothing more than some water, and told of the superiority of the Baptism given by Christ; he also cited Esaias the prophet, testifying of old very long ago, and calling Christ Lord Isaiah 40:3, but giving him the names of minister and servant. What after this ought they to have done? Ought they not to have believed on Him who was witnessed of, to have -->worshipped--> Him, to have confessed Him to be God? For the character and heavenly wisdom of the witness showed that his testimony proceeded, not from flattery, but from truth; which is plain also from this, that no man prefers his neighbor to himself, nor, when he may lawfully give honor to himself, will yield it up to another, especially when it is so great as that of which we speak. So that John would not have renounced this testimony (as belonging) to Christ, had He not been God. For though he might have rejected it for himself as being too great for his own nature, yet he would not have assigned it to another nature that was beneath it.

But there stands One among you, whom you know not. Reasonable it was that Christ should mingle among the people as one of the many, because everywhere He taught men not to be puffed up and boastful. And in this place by knowledge the Baptist means a perfect acquaintance with Him, who and whence He was.  And immediately next to this he puts, Who comes after me; all but saying, Think not that all is contained in my baptism, for had that been perfect, Another would not have arisen after me to offer you a different One, but this of mine is a preparation and a clearing the way for that other. Mine is but a shadow and image, but One must come who shall add to this the reality. So that His very coming 'after me' especially declares His dignity: for had the first been perfect, no place would have been required for a second. Is before me, is more honorable, brighter. And then, lest they should imagine that His superiority was found by comparison, desiring to establish His incomparableness, he says, Whose shoe's latchet I am not worthy to unloose; that is, who is not simply before me, but before me in such a way, that I am not worthy to be numbered among the meanest of His servants. For to loose the shoe is the office of humblest service.

Now if John was not worthy to unloose the latchet Matthew 11:11, John, than whom among them that are born of women there has not risen a greater, where shall we rank ourselves? If he who was equal to, or rather greater than, all the world, (for says Paul, the world was not worthy of them Hebrews 11:38 declares himself not worthy to be reckoned even among the meanest of those who should minister unto Him, what shall we say, who are full of ten thousand sins, and are as far from the excellence of John, as earth from heaven.

4. He then says that he himself is not worthy so much as to unloose the latchet of His shoe; while the enemies of the truth are mad with such a madness, as to assert that they are worthy to know Him even as He knows Himself. What is worse than such insanity, what more frenzied than such arrogance? Well has a wise man said, The beginning of pride is not to know the Lord.

The devil would not have been brought down and become a devil, not being a devil before, had he not been sick of this disease. This it was that cast him out from that confidence, this sent him to the pit of fire, this was the cause of all his woes. For it is enough of itself to destroy every excellence of the soul, whether it find almsgiving, or prayer, or fasting, or anything. For, says the Evangelist, That which is highly esteemed among men is impure before the Lord. Luke 16:15 — not quoted exactly Therefore it is not only fornication or adultery that are wont to defile those who practice them, but pride also, and that far more than those vices. Why? Because fornication though it is an unpardonable sin, yet a man may plead the desire; but pride cannot possibly find any cause or pretext of any sort whatever by which to obtain so much as a shadow of excuse; it is nothing but a distortion and most grievous disease of the soul, produced from no other source but folly. For there is nothing more foolish than a proud man, though he be surrounded with wealth, though he possess much of the wisdom of this world, though he be set in royal place, though he bear about with all things that among men appear desirable.

For if the man who is proud of things really good is wretched and miserable, and loses the reward of all those things, must not he who is exalted by things that are nought, and puffs himself up because of a shadow or the flower of the grass, (for such is this world's glory,) be more ridiculous than any, when he does just as some poor needy man might do, pining all his time with hunger, yet if ever he should chance one night to see a dream of good fortune, filled with conceit because of it?

O wretched and miserable! When your soul is perishing by a most grievous disease, when you are poor with utter poverty, are you high-minded because you have such and such a number of talents of gold? Because you have a multitude of slaves and cattle? Yet these are not yours; and if you dost not believe my words, learn from the experience of those who have gone before you. And if you are so drunken, that you can not be instructed even from what has befallen others, wait a little, and you shall know by what befalls yourself that these things avail you nothing, when gasping for life, and master not of a single hour, not even of a little moment, you shall unwillingly leave them to those who are about you, and these perhaps those whom you would not. For many have not been permitted even to give directions concerning them, but have departed suddenly, desiring to enjoy them, but not permitted, dragged from them, and forced to yield them up to others, giving place by compulsion to those to whom they would not. That this be not our case, let us, while we are yet in strength and health, send forward our riches hence to our own city, for thus only and in no other way shall we be able to enjoy them; so shall we lay them up in a place inviolate and safe. For there is nothing, there is nothing there that can take them from us; no death, no attested wills, no successors to inheritances, no false informations, no plottings against us, but he who has departed hence bearing away great wealth with him may enjoy it there for ever. Who then is so wretched as not to desire to revel in riches which are his own throughout? Let us then transfer our wealth, and remove it there. We shall not need for such a removal asses, or camels, or carriages, or ships, (God has relieved even us from this difficulty,) but we only want the poor, the lame, the crippled, the infirm. These are entrusted with this transfer, these convey our riches to heaven, these introduce the masters of such wealth as this to the inheritance of goods everlasting. Which may it be that we all attain through the grace and lovingkindness of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom and with whom, to the Father and the Holy Ghost, be glory, now and ever, and world without end. Amen.

[AD 444] Cyril of Alexandria on John 1:26

Much enduringly does the blessed Baptist bear with the fault finders: and very seasonably does he make the declaration regarding himself a basis of saving preaching: and teaches those who were sent from the Pharisees now even against their will that Christ was within the doors. For I, he says, am bringing in an introductory Baptism, washing those defiled by sin with water for a beginning of penitence and teaching them to go up from the lower unto the more perfect. For this were to accomplish in act, what I was sent to preach, Prepare ye, I mean, the way of the Lord. For the Giver of the greater and most notable gifts and Supplier of all perfection of good things, standeth among you, unknown as yet by reason of the veil of flesh, but so much surpassing me the Baptist, that I must deem myself not to have the measure even of a servant's place in His Presence. For this I deem is the meaning of, I am not worthy to unloose His shoe-latchet.

And in saying what is true, he works something else that is useful, for he persuades the haughty Pharisee to think lowlily, and brings himself in as an example of this.

But he says that these things were done in Bethabara beyond Jordan, putting this too as a sign of accurate and careful narration. For we are all accustomed, so to speak, in our accounts of things that require it to mention also the places where they happened.

[AD 444] Cyril of Alexandria on John 1:26

The Baptist teaches those who were sent from the Pharisees now even against their will that Christ was within the doors. For I, he says, am bringing an introductory baptism, washing those defiled by sin with water for a beginning of repentance and teaching them to go up from the lower to the more perfect.

Source: COMMENTARY ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 1.10

[AD 604] Gregory the Dialogist on John 1:26

John did not baptize with the Spirit but with water, since he was unable to take away the sins of those being baptized. He washed their bodies with water but not their hearts with pardon. Why did one whose baptism did not forgive sins baptize, except that he was observing his vocation as forerunner? He whose birth foreshadowed greater birth, by his baptizing foreshadowed the Lord who would truly baptize. He whose preaching made him the forerunner of Christ, by baptizing also became his forerunner, using a symbol of the future sacrament. With these other mysteries he makes known the mystery of our Redeemer, declaring that he has stood among people and not been known. The Lord appeared in a human body: he came as God in flesh, visible in his body, invisible in his majesty.

Source: FORTY GOSPEL HOMILIES 4

[AD 215] Clement of Alexandria on John 1:27

While he, though speaking more perspicuously as no longer prophesying, but pointing out as now present, Him, who was proclaimed symbolically from the beginning, nevertheless said, "I am not worthy to loose the latchet of the Lord's shoe."

[AD 397] Ambrose of Milan on John 1:27

Moses was not the bridegroom, for to him comes the word, “Loose your shoe from off your foot,” that he might give place to his Lord. Nor was Joshua, the son of Nun, the bridegroom, for to him also it was told, saying, “Loose your shoe from off your foot,” lest, by reason of the likeness of his name, he should be thought the spouse of the church. None other is the bridegroom but Christ alone, of whom John said, “He who has the bride is the bridegroom.” They, therefore, loose their shoes, but his shoe cannot be loosed, even as John said, “I am not worthy to untie the thong of his sandal.” … To whom else but the Word of God incarnate can those words apply? “His legs are pillars of marble, set upon bases of gold.” For Christ alone walks in the souls and makes his path in the minds of his saints, in which, as upon bases of gold and foundations of precious stone the heavenly Word has left his footprints ineffaceably impressed.

Source: Exposition of the Christian Faith 3.10.71-74

[AD 430] Augustine of Hippo on John 1:27

And yet, just notice how this forerunner of his Lord, of one who is God and man, how much he humbles himself. No one has arisen greater among those born of women than this man, and here he is, questioned about whether he is himself the Christ. He was so great that people could make this mistake. They wondered whether he was himself the Christ, and they wondered about it seriously enough to question him. Now if he had been a son of pride, not a teacher of humility, he would not have taken steps to make them think that, but he would simply have accepted what they were already thinking. It would possibly have been overreaching himself to wish to persuade people that he was the Christ. If he had tried to do so and had not been believed, he would have been left high and dry, both rejected and dejected, both despised among people and condemned in God’s eyes. But there was no need for him to persuade people. He could already see they were thinking this about him. He could simply accept their mistake and boost his own prestige.…Consider how inferior to him he would have been, even if he had been worthy. Consider how much he would have been debasing himself if this is what he had said: “He is greater than I am, and I am only worthy to undo the strap of his sandal.” He would have been calling himself worthy at least to stoop down to his feet. But now, as it is, see how exalted he proclaimed him to be when he declared himself unworthy even to touch his feet, or rather his sandals! So John came to teach the proud humility, to proclaim the way of repentance.

Source: SERMON 293A.4

[AD 604] Gregory the Dialogist on John 1:27

I acknowledge my own servitude, I proclaim Thy glorious greatness, I recognise Thy perfect lordship, I recognise my own perfect insignificance, I am not worthy to unloose the latchets of Thy shoes;

[AD 604] Gregory the Dialogist on John 1:27

It was a custom among the ancients that if someone was unwilling to take the wife he should be taking, he who should have come to her as bridegroom by right of relationship would undo his sandal. How did Christ appear among men and women if not as the bridegroom of his holy church? John said of him that “he who has the bride is the bridegroom.” Since people considered John the Christ, a fact that he denied, he was right to declare his unworthiness to undo the strap of Christ’s sandal. It is as if he was saying, “I am not able to lay bare the footsteps of the Redeemer, because I am not unrightfully usurping for myself the name of bridegroom.”We can also interpret this verse in another way. We all know that sandals are made from dead animals. Our Lord came in the flesh; he appeared as if shod in sandals because he assumed in his divinity the dead flesh of our corrupt condition.…
The human eye is not able to grasp the mystery of Christ’s incarnation. In no way can we discover how the Word took on a body, how the supreme life-giving Spirit came to life in his mother’s womb, how he who has not beginning both is and is conceived. The sandal strap is the bond of a mystery. John is not able to undo the strap of his sandal because not even he who recognized the mystery of the Lord’s incarnation through the spirit of prophecy can subject it to investigation.

Source: FORTY GOSPEL HOMILIES 4

[AD 253] Origen of Alexandria on John 1:28

We are not unaware that “Bethany” occurs in nearly all the manuscripts.… But since we have been in these places, so far as historical account is concerned, of the footprints of Jesus and his disciples and the prophets, we have been convinced that we ought not to read “Bethany” but “Bethabara.” …Bethabara means house of preparation, which agrees with the baptism of him who was making ready a people prepared for the Lord.… Jordan, again, means, “their descent.” … Now what is this river but our Savior, through whom coming into this earth all must be cleansed, in that he came down not for his own sake but for theirs?… This is the river that separates the lots given by Moses from those given by Jesus. “The streams” of this “river” that has descended “make glad the city of God.” …
As the dragon is in the Egyptian river, so God is in the river that makes glad the city of God, for the Father is in the Son. For this reason those who come to wash themselves in him put away the reproach of Egypt59 and become more worthy to be taken up. They are cleansed from the most abominable leprosy and receive a double portion of gifts and are prepared to receive the Holy Spirit since the dove of the Spirit has not flown to another river. Since, therefore, we have considered the Jordan in a manner more worthy of God, and the baptism in it, and Jesus who was baptized in it, … let us draw from the river as much of this help as we need.

Source: COMMENTARY ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 6.204, 206, 217-19, 249-51

[AD 407] John Chrysostom on John 1:28

1. A great virtue is boldness and freedom of speech, and the making all things second in importance to the confessing of Christ; so great and admirable, that the Only-begotten Son of God proclaims such an one in the presence of the Father. Luke 12:8 Yet the recompense is more than just, for you confess upon earth, He in heaven, thou in the presence of men, He before the Father and all the angels.

Such an one was John, who regarded not the multitude, nor opinion, nor anything else belonging to men, but trod all this beneath his feet, and proclaimed to all with becoming freedom the things respecting Christ. And therefore the Evangelist marks the very place, to show the boldness of the loud-voiced herald. For it was not in a house, not in a corner, not in the wilderness, but in the midst of the multitude, after that he had occupied Jordan, when all that were baptized by him were present, (for the Jews came upon him as he was baptizing,) there it was that he proclaimed aloud that wonderful confession concerning Christ, full of those sublime and great and mysterious doctrines, and that he was not worthy to unloose the latchet of His shoe. Wherefore he says, These things were done in Bethany, or, as all the more correct copies have it, in Bethabara. For Bethany was not beyond Jordan, nor bordering on the wilderness, but somewhere near to Jerusalem.

He marks the places also for another reason. Since he was not about to relate matters of old date, but such as had come to pass but a little time before, he makes those who were present and had beheld, witnesses of his words, and supplies proof from the places themselves. For confident that nothing was added by himself to what was said, but that he simply and with truth described things as they were, he draws a testimony from the places, which, as I said, would be no common demonstration of his veracity.

The next day he sees Jesus coming to him, and says, Behold the Lamb of God, which takes away the sin of the world.

The Evangelists distributed the periods among them; and Matthew having cut short his notice of the time before John the Baptist was bound, hastens to that which follows, while the Evangelist John not only does not cut short this period, but dwells most on it. Matthew, after the return of Jesus from the wilderness, saying nothing of the intermediate circumstances, as what John spoke, and what the Jews sent and said, and having cut short all the rest, passes immediately to the prison. For, says he, Jesus having heard that John was betrayed, departed thence. Matthew 14:13 But John does not so. He is silent as to the journey into the wilderness, as having been described by Matthew; but he relates what followed the descent from the mountain, and after having gone through many circumstances, adds, For John was not yet cast into prison. John 3:24

And wherefore, says one, does Jesus now come to him? Why does he come not merely once, but this second time also? For Matthew says that His coming was necessary on account of Baptism: since Jesus adds, that thus it becomes us to fulfill all righteousness. Matthew 3:15 But John says that He came again after Baptism, and declares it in this place, for, I saw, says he, the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and It abode upon Him.  Wherefore then did He come to John? For He came not casually, but went expressly to him. John, says the Evangelist, sees Jesus coming unto him. Then wherefore comes He? In order that since John had baptized Him with many (others), no one might suppose that He had hastened to John for the same reason as the rest to confess sins, and to wash in the river unto repentance. For this He comes, to give John an opportunity of setting this opinion right again, for by saying, Behold the Lamb of God, that takes away the sin of the world, he removes the whole suspicion. For very plain it is that One so pure as to be able to wash away the sins of others, does not come to confess sins, but to give opportunity to that marvelous herald to impress what he had said more definitely on those who had heard his former words, and to add others besides. The word Behold is used, because many had been seeking Him by reason of what had been said, and for a long time. For this cause, pointing Him out when present, he said, Behold, this is He so long sought, this is the Lamb. He calls Him Lamb, to remind the Jews of the prophecy of Isaiah, and of the shadow under the law of Moses, that he may the better lead them from the type to the reality. That Lamb of Moses took not at once away the sin of any one; but this took away the sin of all the world; for when it was in danger of perishing, He quickly delivered it from the wrath of God.

[AD 407] John Chrysostom on John 1:28

John, who had no concern for the crowd’s opinion or anyone else’s opinion, which he would rather trample underfoot, proclaimed to all with an attractive kind of freedom the things about Christ. And therefore the Evangelist marks the very place, to show the boldness of the outspoken herald. For it was not in a house, not in a corner, not in the wilderness, but in the middle of the multitude. This was after he had made his presence known at the Jordan when all that were baptized by him were present (for the Jews came upon him as he was baptizing). It was here that he proclaimed aloud that wonderful confession concerning Christ, full of those sublime and great and mysterious doctrines. It was here that he said he was not worthy to unloose the latchet of his shoe. This is why the Evangelist reports that “these things were done in Bethany,” or, as all the more correct copies have it, “in Bethabara.” For Bethany was not “beyond Jordan” or bordering on the wilderness, but somewhere near Jerusalem.He marks the places also for another reason. Since he was not about to relate matters that were out of date, but rather those that had happened just a little before, he makes those who were present and had seen everything witnesses of his words and supplies proof from the places themselves. Confident that nothing was added by himself to what was said, but that he simply and with truth described things as they were, he draws a testimony from the places which, as I said, would be no common demonstration of his veracity.

Source: HOMILIES ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 17.1

[AD 180] Melito of Sardis on John 1:29

First of all, the Scripture about the Hebrew Exodus has been read and the words of the mystery have been explained as to how the sheep was sacrificed and the people were saved.

Therefore, understand this, O beloved: The mystery of the passover is new and old, eternal and temporal, corruptible and incorruptible, mortal and immortal...

The sheep was corruptible, but the Lord is incorruptible, who was crushed as a lamb, but who was resurrected as God. For although he was led to sacrifice as a sheep, yet he was not a sheep; and although he was as a lamb without voice, yet indeed he was not a lamb. The one was the model; the other was found to be the finished product.

For God replaced the lamb, and a man the sheep; but in the man was Christ, who contains all things...

For the one who was born as Son, and led to slaughter as a lamb, and sacrificed as a sheep, and buried as a man, rose up from the dead as God, since he is by nature both God and man.

He is everything... in that he is begotten he is Son, in that he suffers he is sheep, in that he is buried he is man, in that he comes to life again he is God.

Such is Jesus Christ, to whom be the glory forever. Amen.

Source: On the Passover 1-2, 4-5, 8-10

[AD 202] Irenaeus on John 1:29

Because He was prior to me: and of His fulness have all we received."

[AD 215] Clement of Alexandria on John 1:29

But the unlovely and unsightly man will hear, "Friend, how did you come in here, without having a wedding garment?" [Matthew 22:12] And the fat and unctuous food — the delicacies abundant and sufficing of the blessed, — the fatted calf is killed; which is also again spoken of as a lamb (not literally); that no one may suppose it small; but it is the great and greatest.

Source: Fragments (Clement of Alexandria)

[AD 220] Tertullian on John 1:29

Source: An Answer to the Jews

[AD 220] Tertullian on John 1:29

Then, again, when He is designated by John (the Baptist) as "the Lamb of God," He is not described as Himself the same with Him of whom He is the beloved Son.

Source: Against Praxeas

[AD 220] Tertullian on John 1:29

In fact, they say that Jesus Christ descended, that is, that the dove came down on Jesus; and, since the dove is styled by the Greek name peristera/-(peristera), it has in itself this number DCCCI.

Source: Pseudo-Tertullian Against All Heresies

[AD 235] Hippolytus of Rome on John 1:29

In order, then, to show the time when He is to come whom the blessed Daniel desired to see, he says, "And after seven weeks there are other threescore and two weeks," which period embraces the space of 434 years. For after the return of the people from Babylon under the leadership of Jesus the son of Josedech, and Ezra the scribe, and Zerubbabel the son of Salathiel, of the tribe of David, there were 434 years unto the coming of Christ, in order that the Priest of priests might be manifested in the world, and that He who taketh away the sins of the world might be evidently set forth, as John speaks concerning Him: "Behold the Lamb of God, that taketh away the sin of the world!" And in like manner Gabriel says: "To blot out transgressions, and make reconciliation for sins." But who has blotted out our transgressions? Paul the apostle teaches us, saying, "He is our peace who made both one; " and then, "Blotting out the handwriting of sins that was against us."

Source: Hippolytus Exegetical Fragments

[AD 235] Hippolytus of Rome on John 1:29

Now, as our Lord Jesus Christ, who is also God, was prophesied of under the figure of a lion, on account of His royalty and glory, in the same way have the Scriptures also aforetime spoken of Antichrist as a lion, on account of his tyranny and violence. For the deceiver seeks to liken himself in all things to the Son of God. Christ is a lion, so Antichrist is also a lion; Christ is a king, so Antichrist is also a king. The Saviour was manifested as a lamb; so he too, in like manner, will appear as a lamb, though within he is a wolf. The Saviour came into the World in the circumcision, and he will come in the same manner. The Lord sent apostles among all the nations, and he in like manner will send false apostles. The Saviour gathered together the sheep that were scattered abroad, and he in like manner will bring together a people that is scattered abroad. The Lord gave a seal to those who believed on Him, and he will give one like manner. The Saviour appeared in the form of man, and he too will come in the form of a man. The Saviour raised up and showed His holy flesh like a temple, and he will raise a temple of stone in Jerusalem. And his seductive arts we shall exhibit in what follows. But for the present let us turn to the question in hand.

Source: Hippolytus Fragments - Dogmatic and Historical

[AD 235] Hippolytus of Rome on John 1:29

He, on hearing the salutation addressed to Elisabeth, leaped with joy in his mother's womb, recognising God the Word conceived in the womb of the Virgin. Thereafter he came forward preaching in the wilderness, proclaiming the baptism of repentance to the people, (and thus) announcing prophetically salvation to the nations living in the wilderness of the world. After this, at the Jordan, seeing the Saviour with his own eye, he points Him out, and says, "Behold the Lamb of God, that taketh away the sin of the world!" He also first preached to those in Hades, becoming a forerunner there when he was put to death by Herod, that there too he might intimate that the Saviour would descend to ransom the souls of the saints from the hand of death.

Source: Hippolytus Fragments - Dogmatic and Historical

[AD 253] Origen of Alexandria on John 1:29-31

(tom. vi. c. 24) Bethabara means house of preparation; which agreeth with the baptism of Him, who was making ready a people prepared for the Lord. (c.25. et seq.). Jordan, again, means, "their descent." Now what is this river but our Saviour, through Whom coming into this earth all must be cleansed, in that He came down not for His own sake, but for theirs. This river it is which separateth the lots given by Moses, from those given by Jesus; its streams make glad the city of God. (c. 29). As the serpent lies hid in the Egyptian river, so doth God in this; for the Father is in the Son. Wherefore whosoever go thither to wash themselves, lay aside the reproach of Egypt, (Joshua 5:9.) are made meet to receive the inheritance, are cleansed from leprosy, (2 Kings 5:14.) are made capable of a double portion of grace, and ready to receive the Holy Spirit; (2 Kings 2:9.) nor doth the spiritual dove light upon any other river. John again baptizes beyond Jordan, as the precursor of Him Who came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

(tom. vi. c. 30) After this testimony, Jesus is seen coming to John, not only persevering in his confession, but also advanced in goodness: as is intimated by the second day. Wherefore it is said, The next day John seeth Jesus coming to him. Long before this, the Mother of Jesus, as soon as she had conceived Him, went to see the mother of John then pregnant; and as soon as the sound of Mary's salutation reached the ears of Elisabeth, John leaped in the womb: but now the Baptist himself after his testimony seeth Jesus coming. Men are first prepared by hearing from others, and then see with their own eyes. The example of Mary going to see Elisabeth her inferior, and the Son of God going to see the Baptist, should teach us modesty and fervent charity to our inferiors. What place the Saviour came from when He came to the Baptist we are not told here; but we find it in Matthew, Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John to be baptized of him. (Matt. 3:13)

(tom. vi. c. 32. et seq.) But whereas five kinds of animals are offered in the temple, three beasts of the field, a calf, a sheep, and a goat; and two fowls of the air, a turtle dove and a pigeon; and of the sheep kind three are introduced, the ram, the ewe, the lamb; of these three he mentions only the lamb; the lamb, as we know, being offered in the daily sacrifice, one in the morning, and one in the evening. But what other daily offering can there be, that can be meant to be offered by a reasonable nature, except the perfect Word, typically called the Lamb? This sacrifice, which is offered up as soon as the soul begins to be enlightened, shall be accounted as a morning sacrifice, referring to the frequent exercise of the mind in divine things; for the soul cannot continually apply to the highest objects because of its union with an earthly and gross body. By this Word too, Which is Christ the Lamb, we shall be able to reason on many things, and shall in a manner attain to Him in the evening, while engaged with things of the bodyt. But He Who offered the lamb for a sacrifice, was God hid in human form, the great Priest, He who saith below, No man taketh it (My life) from Me, but I lay it down of Myself: (John 10:18) whence this name, the Lamb of God: for He carrying our sorrows, (Isaiah 53:4. 1 Pet. 2:24.) and taking away the sins of the whole world, hath undergone death, as it were baptism. (Luke 12:50.) For God suffers no fault to pass uncorrected; but punishes it by the sharpest discipline.

(tom. vi. c. 36) As there was a connection between the other sacrifices of the law, and the daily sacrifice of the lamb, in the same way the sacrifice of this Lamb has its reflexion in the pouring out of the blood of the Martyrs, by whose patience, confession, and zeal for goodness, the machinations of the ungodly are frustrated.

Source: Catena Aurea by Aquinas

[AD 253] Origen of Alexandria on John 1:29

There are five animals that are offered on the altar, three being land animals and two winged. It seems worthwhile to me to ask why the Savior is said to be a “lamb” by John and none of the rest. But also, in the case of the land animals, since three types of animal are offered according to each species, why did he name the lamb from the species of sheep? Now these are the five animals: a young bull, a sheep, a goat, a turtledove, a pigeon.And the three types of sheep are a ram, the ewe and the lamb.… It is the lamb, however, that we find offered in the perpetual sacrifices. … What other perpetual sacrifice can be spiritual to a spiritual being than the Word in his prime, the Word symbolically called “lamb”?… But if we examine the declaration about Jesus, who is pointed out by John in the words “Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world,” from the standpoint of the plan of salvation when the Son of God bodily lived among the human race, we will assume that the lamb is none other than his humanity. For he “was led as a sheep to the slaughter and was dumb as a lamb before its shearer,” saying, “I was an innocent lamb being led to be sacrificed.”
This is why in the Apocalypse, too, a little lamb is seen “standing as though slain.” This lamb, indeed, which was slain according to certain secret reasons, has become the expiation of the whole world. According to the Father’s love for humanity, he also submitted to slaughter on behalf of the world, purchasing us with his own blood from him who bought us when we had sold ourselves into sin. He, however, who led this lamb to the sacrifice was God in man, the great high priest, who reveals this through the saying, “No one takes my life from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it up again.”

Source: COMMENTARY ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 6.264-65, 268, 270, 273-75

[AD 258] Cyprian on John 1:29

That Christ is called a sheep and a lamb who was to be slain, and concerning the sacrament (mystery) of the passion. In Isaiah: "He was led as a sheep to the slaughter, and as a lamb before his shearer is dumb, so He opened not His mouth. In His humiliation His judgment was taken away: who shall relate His nativity? Because His life shall be taken away from the earth. By the transgressions of my people He was led to death; and I will give the wicked for His burial, and the rich themselves for His death; because He did no wickedness, nor deceits with His mouth. Wherefore He shall gain many, and shall divide the spoils of the strong; because His soul was delivered up to death, and He was counted among transgressors. And He bare the sins of many, and was delivered for their offences." Also in Jeremiah: "Lord, give me knowledge, and I shall know it: then I saw their meditations. I was led like a lamb without malice to the slaughter; against me they devised a device, saying, Come, let us cast the tree into His bread, and let us erase His life from the earth, and His name shall no more be a remembrance." Also in Exodus God said to Moses: "Let them take to themselves each man a sheep, through the houses of the tribes, a sheep without blemish, perfect, male, of a year old it shall be to you. Ye shall take it from the lambs and from the goats, and all the congregation of the synagogue of the children of Israel shall kill it in the evening; and they shall take of its blood, and shall place it upon the two posts, and upon the threshold in the houses, in the very houses in which they shall eat it. And they shall eat the flesh on the same night, roasted with fire; and they shall eat unleavened bread with bitter herbs. Ye shall not eat of them raw nor dressed in water, but roasted with fire; the head with the feet and the inward parts. Ye shall leave nothing of them to the morning; and ye shall not break a bone of it. But what of it shall be left to the morning shall be burnt with fire. But thus ye shall eat it; your loins girt, and your sandals on your feet, and your staff in your hands; and ye shall eat it in haste: for it is the Lord's passover." Also in the Apocalypse: "And I saw in the midst of the throne, and of the four living creatures, and in the midst of the elders, a Lamb standing as if slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of God sent forth throughout all the earth. And He came and took the book from the right. hand of God, who sate on the throne. And when He had taken the book, the four living creatures and the four and twenty elders cast themselves before the Lamb, having every one of them harps and golden cups full of odours of supplications, which are the prayers of the saints; and they sang a new song, saying, Worthy art Thou, O Lord, to take the book, and to open its seals: for Thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us with Thy blood from every tribe, anti and people, and nation; and Thou hast made us a kingdom unto our God, and hast made us priests, and they shall reign upon the earth." Also in the Gospel: "On the next day John saw Jesus coming to him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, and behold Him that taketh away the sins of the world!"

Source: Treatise XII Three Books of Testimonies Against the Jews

[AD 339] Eusebius of Caesarea on John 1:29

The sacrifice was the Christ of God, foretold in ancient times as coming to human beings, to be sacrificed like a sheep for the whole human race. As Isaiah the prophet says of him: “As a sheep he was led to slaughter, and as a lamb before her shearers he did not open his mouth.” And he adds, “He bears our sins and is pained for us; yet we accounted him to be in trouble, and in suffering, and our sins, and he was made sick on account of our iniquities, the chastisement of our peace was upon him, and with his stripes we are healed.… And the Lord has given him up for our iniquities.… For he himself did not sin, nor was guile found in his mouth.” Jeremiah, another Hebrew prophet, speaks similarly in the person of Christ: “I was led as a lamb to the slaughter.”John the Baptist sets the seal on their predictions at the appearance of our Savior. For beholding him, and pointing him out to those present as the one foretold by the prophets, he cried, “Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world.”

Source: PROOF OF THE GOSPELS 1.10.15-17

[AD 397] Ambrose of Milan on John 1:29

Abel knew how to divide when he offered a sacrifice from “the firstlings of his flock,” teaching that the gifts of the earth, which had degenerated in the sinner, will not please God. But those in which the grace of the divine mystery shone forth will please him. And so he prophesied that we were to be redeemed from fault through the passion of the Lord, of whom it is written: “Here is the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.” Thus, too, he made an offering from the firstlings, that he might signify the firstborn. Therefore, he shows that God’s true sacrifice would be us, of whom the prophet says, “Bring to the Lord the offspring of rams.” And worthily is he confirmed by the judgment of God.

Source: ON THE SACRAMENT OF THE INCARNATION OF OUR LORD 1.4

[AD 407] John Chrysostom on John 1:29-31

(Hom. xvii. [al. xvi.]) Or; Matthew relates directly Christ's coming to His baptism, John His coming a second time subsequent to His baptism, as appears from what follows: I saw the Spirit descending, &c. The Evangelists have divided the periods of the history between them; Matthew passing over the part before John's imprisonment, and hastening to that event; John chiefly dwelling on what took place before the imprisonment. Thus he says, The next day John seeth Jesus coming to him. But why did He come to him the next day after His baptism? Having been baptized with the multitude, He wished to prevent any from thinking that He came to John for the same reason that others did, viz. to confess His sins, and be washed in the river unto repentance. He comes therefore to give John an opportunity of correcting this mistake; which John accordingly did correct; viz. by those words, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world. For He Who was so pure, as to be able to absolve other men's sins, evidently could not have come thither for the sake of confessing His own; but only to give John an opportunity of speaking of Him. He came too the next day, that those who had heard the former testimonies of John, might hear them again more plainly; and other besides. For he saith, Behold the Lamb of God, signifying that He was the one of old sought after, and reminding them of the prophecy of Isaiah, and of the shadows of the Mosaic law, in order that through the figure he might the easier lead them to the substance.

(Hom. xvii. [al. xvi.] 2) That He might not seem however to give His testimony from any motive of friendship or kindred, in consequence of his being related to our Lord according to the flesh, he says, I knew Him not. John could not of course know Him, having lived in the desert. And the miraculous events of Christ's childhood, the journey of the Magi, and such like, were now a long time past; John having been quite an infant, when they happened. And throughout the whole of the interval, He had been absolutely unknown: insomuch that John proceeds, But that He should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water. (And hence it is clear that the miracles said to have been performed by Christ in His childhood, are false and fictitious. For if Jesus had performed miracles at this early age, he would not have been unknown to John, nor would the multitude have wanted a teacher to point Him out.) Christ Himself then did not want baptism; nor was that washing for any other reason, than to give a sign beforehand of faith in Christ. For John saith not, in order to change men, and deliver from sin, but, that he should be made manifest in Israel, have I come baptizing. But would it not have been lawful for him to preach, and bring crowds together, without baptizing? Yes: but this was the easier way, for he would not have collected such numbers, had he preached without baptizing.

Source: Catena Aurea by Aquinas

[AD 407] John Chrysostom on John 1:29

The Evangelists distributed the periods among themselves. Matthew, having cut short his notice of the time before John the Baptist was bound, hurries to that which follows, while the Evangelist John not only does not cut short this period but dwells on it the most. Matthew, after the return of Jesus from the wilderness, says nothing about the intervening period as John does. He says nothing about what the Jews send and said. He skips over all of this and passes immediately to John’s imprisonment. “For,” he says, “Jesus having heard” that John was betrayed, “withdrew from there.” But John does not [say this]. He is silent about the journey into the wilderness described by Matthew. Instead, he relates what followed the descent form the mountain, and after having gone through many circumstances, he then adds, “For John was not yet cast into prison.”

Source: HOMILIES ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 17.1

[AD 407] John Chrysostom on John 1:29

Why does Jesus come to him now? Why does he come not merely once, but this second time also? Matthew says that his coming was necessary because of baptism since Jesus adds that he did this “to fulfill all righteousness.” But John says that he came again after his baptism when he says, “I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it rested upon him.” Why then did he come to John, since he did not come casually but went expressly to him?… Since John had baptized him with many [others], he came so that no one might think that he had hurried to John for the same reason as the rest, that is, to confess his sins and wash in the river for repentance. He comes, in other words, to give John an opportunity of setting this opinion right again. For by saying, “Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world,” he removes the whole suspicion. For it is obvious that one pure enough to be able to wash away the sins of others does not come to confess sins but to give an opportunity to that marvelous herald to impress what he had said more definitely on those who had heard his former words.

Source: HOMILIES ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 17.1

[AD 428] Theodore of Mopsuestia on John 1:29

As appears from the narrative of the Evangelist, John the Baptist said his previous words as if the Lord had come already and walked among crowds who still ignored him. Now, since he is coming to be baptized, he is described with the words “this is the Lamb of God.” Let us consider how Scripture likes to place words in the appropriate context of facts. By saying in this passage, “This is the one who takes away the sin of the world,” he did not say “the only begotten Son,” or the “Son of God” or “the one who is close to the father’s bosom,” which appear in what he said above. Although now it would have seemed right to express the greatness of his nature, in order to confirm the promise of the things he was going to give. But this is not what he said. Instead, he called him “lamb,” and with this name he signifies his passion. In fact, he was called lamb and sheep to signify his death when he washed away sin. Since the sin reigned in our mortality, and death was gaining strength in us because of sin, Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior came and remitted all these things to us. And after destroying death through his death, he also destroyed the sin rooted in our nature because of mortality. Through his promise he made us immortal, and he will render us so in reality when he defeats sin with the gift of immortality.

Source: COMMENTARY ON JOHN 1.1.29

[AD 430] Augustine of Hippo on John 1:29-31

(Tr. iv. c. 10) If the Lamb of God is innocent, and John is the lamb, must he not be innocent? But all men come of that stock of which David sings sorrowing, Behold, I was conceived in wickedness. (Ps. 51:5) He then alone was the Lamb, who was not thus conceived; for He was not conceived in wickedness, nor in sin did His mother bear Him in her womb, Whom a virgin conceived, a virgin brought forth, because that in faith she conceived, and in faith received.

(Tr. iv. c. 10, 11) For He Who took not sin from our nature, He it is Who taketh away our sin. Some say, We take away the sins of men, because we are holy; for if he, who baptizes, is not holy, how can he take away the other's sin, seeing he himself is full of sin? Against these reasoners let us point to the text; Behold Him Who taketh away the sin of the world; in order to do away with such presumption in man towards man.

(Tr. iv) He cometh after me, because he was born after me: He is made before me, because He is preferred to me.

(Tr. iv. c. 12, 13) Now when our Lord became known, it was unnecessary to prepare a way for Him; for to those who knew Him, He became His own way. And therefore John's baptism did not last long, but only so long as to show our Lord's humility. (Tr. v. c. 5.). Our Lord received baptism from a servant, in order to give us such a lesson of humility as might prepare us for receiving the grace of baptism. And that the servant's baptism might not be set before the Lord's, others were baptized with it; who after receiving it, had to receive our Lord's baptism: whereas those who first received our Lord's baptism, did not receive the servant's after.

Source: Catena Aurea by Aquinas

[AD 430] Augustine of Hippo on John 1:29

It was Christ that was represented by a ram, Christ by a lamb, Christ by a calf, Christ by a goat—everything was Christ. He was represented by the ram because it leads the flock. It was found in the thorns when our father Abraham was ordered to spare his son but not to depart without offering any sacrifice. Isaac was Christ, and the ram was Christ. Isaac carried the wood for sacrificing himself; Christ was burdened with his own cross. The ram was substituted for Isaac; but not of course Christ for Christ. But Christ was in both Isaac and the ram. The ram was caught by its horns in the thorn bush; ask the Jews what they crowned the Lord with that time. He is the lamb: “Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world.”

Source: SERMON 19.3

[AD 444] Cyril of Alexandria on John 1:29

And saith, Behold the Lamb of God, Which taketh away the sin of the world.

No longer has prepare ye the way fit place, since He at length is seen and is before the eyes for Whom the preparation is made: the nature of the thing began to need other words. It needed to explain, Who He is Who is come, and to whom He maketh His descent Who hath come to us from Heaven. Behold, therefore, saith he, the Lamb of God Which taketh away the sin of the world, Whom the Prophet Isaiah did signify to us, saying, He is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb: Whom of old, too, saith he, the law of Moses typified, but then it saved in part, not extending mercy to all (for it was a type and shadow): but now He Who of old was dimly pictured, the very Lamb, the spotless Sacrifice, is led to the slaughter for all, that He |132 might drive away the sin of the world, that He might overturn the destroyer of the earth, that dying for all He might bring to nought death, that He might undo the curse that is upon us, that He might at length end Dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return, that He might become the second Adam, not of the earth, but from heaven, and might be the beginning of all good to the nature of man, deliverance from the imported corruption, Bestower of eternal life, foundation of our reconciliation to God, beginning of godliness and righteousness, way to the Kingdom of Heaven. For one Lamb died for all, saving the whole flock on earth to God the Father, One for all, that He might subject all to God, One for all, that He might gain all: that at length all should not henceforth live to themselves but to Him Which died for them and rose again. For since we were in many sins, and therefore due to death and corruption, the Father hath given the Son a redemption for us, One for all, since all are in Him, and He above all. One died for all, that all should live in Him. For death having swallowed up the Lamb for all, hath vomited forth all in Him and with Him. For all we were in Christ, Who on account of us and for us died and rose again. But sin being destroyed, how could it be that death which was of it and because of it should not altogether come to nothing? The root dying, how could the shoot yet survive? wherefore should we yet die, now that sin hath been destroyed? therefore jubilant in the Sacrifice of the Lamb of God we say: O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory? For all iniquity, as the Psalmist sings somewhere, shall stop her mouth, no longer able to accuse those who have sinned from infirmity. For it is God that justifieth, who is he that condemneth? Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us, that we might escape the curse from transgression.

[AD 444] Cyril of Alexandria on John 1:29

The next day he seeth Jesus coming to him.

In a very little time, the Baptist is declared to be Prophet alike and Apostle. For Whom he was heralding as coming, Him now come he points out. Therefore, he bounded beyond even the measure of prophets, as the Saviour Himself saith when discoursing with the Jews concerning him, What went ye out into the wilderness for to see? A prophet, yea, I say unto you and more than a prophet. For they in their times prophesied that Christ should be revealed, but he, crying that He shall come, also pointed Him out come. For the next day, saith he, he seeth Jesus coming to him.

[AD 444] Cyril of Alexandria on John 1:29

No longer does John need to “prepare the way,” since the one for whom the preparation was being made is right there before his eyes.… But now he who of old was dimly pictured, the very Lamb, the spotless Sacrifice, is led to the slaughter for all, that he might drive away the sin of the world, that he might overturn the destroyer of the earth, that dying for all he might annihilate death, that he might undo the curse that is upon us.… For one Lamb died for all, saving the whole flock on earth to God the Father, one for all, that he might subject all to God.

Source: COMMENTARY ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 2.1

[AD 555] Romanos the Melodist on John 1:29

Now the the garment of mourning is rent; we have put on the white robe
Which the spirit has woven for us from the lamb’s fleece of our Lamb and our God;
Sin is taken away, and immortality is given us, our restoration is clear.
The Forerunner has proclaimed it.…
O, the message of the Baptist, and the mystery in it!
He calls the shepherd lamb, and not only a lamb, but one to free from mistakes.
He showed the lawless that the goat which they sent into the desert was ineffective.
“Lo,” he said, “the lamb; there is no longer need of the goat;
Put your hands on him,
All of you who confess your sins,
For He has come to take them away, those of the people, and of the whole world.
For lo, the One whom the Father has sent to us is the One who carries away evil,
Who appeared and illumined all things.”

Source: KONTAKION ON THE EPIPHANY 6.12-13

[AD 604] Gregory the Dialogist on John 1:29-31

(Moral. viii. c. 32) But then only will sin be entirely taken away from the human race, when our corruption has been turned to a glorious incorruption. We cannot be free from sin, so long as we are held in the death of the body.

(Hom. vii. in Ev. c. 3) He explains the reason of this superiority, in what follows: For He was before me; as if his meaning was; And this is the reason of His being superior to me, though born after me, viz. that He is not circumscribed by the time of His nativity. He Who was born of His mother in time, was begotten of His Father out of time.

Source: Catena Aurea by Aquinas

[AD 604] Gregory the Dialogist on John 1:29

I Extend Thy dread right hand, which Thou hast prepared for Thyself, and crown my head by Thy touch, in order that I may run the course before Thy kingdom, crowned like a forerunner, and diligently announce the good tidings to the sinners, addressing them with this earnest call: "Behold the Lamb of God, that taketh away the sin of the world!"

[AD 735] Bede on John 1:29

[Jesus] gave his blood as the price for our salvation, and by undergoing death for a time he condemned the sovereignty of death forever. The Lamb that was innocent was killed. But by a wonderful and longed-for display [of his power] he efficaciously weakened the strength of the lion that had killed him. The Lamb that took away the sins of the world brought to naught the lion that had brought sins into the world. It was the Lamb that restored us by the offering of his flesh and blood, so that we would not perish.

Source: Homilies on the Gospels 2.7

[AD 1107] Theophylact of Ohrid on John 1:29-31

(in loc.) He is called the Lamb of God, because God the Father accepted His death for our salvation, or, in other words, because He delivered Him up to death for our sakes. For just as we say, This is the offering of such a man, meaning the offering made by him; in the same sense Christ is called the Lamb of God Who gave His Son to die for our salvation. And whereas that typical lamb did not take away any man's sin, this one hath taken away the sin of the whole world, rescuing it from the danger it was in from the wrath of God. Behold Him1 Who taketh away the sin of the world: he saith not, who will take, but, Who taketh away the sin of the world; as if He were always doing this. For He did not then only take it away when He suffered, but from that time to the present, He taketh it away; not by being always crucified, for He made one sacrifice for sins, but by ever washing it by means of that sacrifice.

(in loc.) Why does he say the sin of the world, not sins? Because he wished to express sin universally: just as we say commonly, that man was cast out of paradise; meaning the whole human race.

(in loc.) John having said above to those who came from the Pharisees, that there stood one among them whom they knew not, he here points Him out to the persons thus ignorant: This is He of whom I said, After me cometh a man which is preferred before me. Our Lord is called a man, in reference to His mature age, being thirty years old when He was baptized: or in a spiritual sense, as the Spouse of the Church; in which sense St. Paul speaks, I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ. (2 Cor. 11:2)

(in loc.) Attend, O Arius. He saith not, He was created before me, but He was before me. Let the false sect of Paul of Samosata attend. They will see that He did not derive His original existence from Mary; for if He derived the beginning of His being from the Virgin, how could He have been before His precursor? it being evident that the precursor preceded Christ by six months, according to the human birth.

Source: Catena Aurea by Aquinas

[AD 1274] Glossa Ordinaria on John 1:29-31

Or by the sin of the world is meant original sin, which is common to the whole world: which original sin, as well as the sins of every one individually, Christ by His grace remits.

Source: Catena Aurea by Aquinas

[AD 373] Ephrem the Syrian on John 1:30-31

Eliezar sought Rebekah as a bride at a well of water. Jacob sought Rachel at a well of water, as Moses did so with Zipporah. Thus, all of these were types of the Lord, who sought his church as a bride by the baptism at the Jordan River. And just as Eliezar made Rebekah known to his master when he came to meet her in the field, so also John made our Savior known at the Jordan: “See, the Lamb of God, for he takes away the sin of the world.”

Source: Commentary on Tatian’s DIATESSARON 3.17

[AD 407] John Chrysostom on John 1:30

2. Do you see here also how he interprets the word before? For having called Him Lamb, and that He takes away the sin of the world, then he says that He is preferred before me, for He was before me; declaring that this is the before, the taking upon Him the sins of the world, and the baptizing with the Holy Ghost. For my coming had no farther object than to proclaim the common Benefactor of the world, and to afford the baptism of water; but His was to cleanse all men, and to give them the power of the Comforter. He is preferred before me, that is to say, has appeared brighter than I, because He was before me. Let those who have admitted the madness of Paul of Samosata be ashamed when they withstand so manifest a truth.

[AD 407] John Chrysostom on John 1:30-31

Jesus then did not need baptism, nor did that washing have any other object than to prepare for all others a way to faith in Christ. For [the Baptist] did not say, “that I might cleanse those who are baptized” or “that I might deliver them from their sins” but “that he should be made known to Israel.” And why, tell me, could he not have preached without baptism and still brought the multitudes to him? But this would not have made it any easier. For they would not have all run together like they did, if the preaching had been without baptism. They would not by the comparison have learned his superiority. The multitude came together not to hear his words, but for what? They came to be “baptized, confessing their sins.” But when they came, they were taught the matters pertaining to Christ and the difference of his baptism. Yet even this baptism of John was of greater dignity than the Jewish one, and therefore all ran to it; yet even so it was imperfect.

Source: HOMILIES ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 17.2

[AD 430] Augustine of Hippo on John 1:30-31

John received the ministry of baptism so that by the water of repentance he might prepare the way for the Lord, not being himself the Lord. But where the Lord was known, it was superfluous to prepare for him the way, for to those who knew him he himself became the way. Therefore the baptism of John did not last long, but [it lasted long enough] to show our Lord’s humility.… And did the Lord need to be baptized? I instantly reply to any one who asks this question: Was it needful for the Lord to be born? Was it needful for the Lord to be crucified? Was it needful for the Lord to die? Was it needful for the Lord to be buried? If he undertook for us so great a humiliation, might he not also receive baptism?…When the Lord was baptized with the baptism of John, the baptism of John ceased. John was then cast into prison. Afterwards we do not find that anyone is baptized with that baptism.… But if John had baptized the Lord alone, some would have thought that the baptism of John was more holy than that of Christ, as if Christ alone had been found worthy to be baptized with the baptism of John, but the human race with that of Christ.… And thus the baptism of the servant would appear greater than the baptism of the Lord. Others were also baptized with the baptism of John, [however,] so that the baptism of John might not appear better than the baptism of Christ. But the Lord also was baptized so that, through the Lord receiving the baptism of the servant, other servants might not disdain to receive the baptism of the Lord. This then is why John was sent.

Source: TRACTATES ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 4.12-14

[AD 444] Cyril of Alexandria on John 1:30

He leads the hearers to remembrance of his words, and yields to Christ the superiority in glory, accomplishing the work, not of love, but rather of truth and necessity. For the creature is subject, even if it willeth not, to the Creator? the bond to the Lord, the supplied to the Giver. But in what manner Christ was after John, but preferred before him, for He was before him, as himself confesseth, we have spoken sufficiently in what has preceded.

[AD 407] John Chrysostom on John 1:31

Here he renders his testimony free from suspicion, by showing that it was not from human friendship, but had been caused by divine revelation. I knew Him not, he says. How then couldest thou be a trustworthy witness? How shall you teach others, while you yourself art ignorant? He did not say I know Him not, but, I knew Him not; so that in this way he would be shown most trustworthy; for why should he have shown favor to one of whom he was ignorant?

But that He should be made manifest unto Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water.

He then did not need baptism, nor had that laver any other object than to prepare for all others a way to faith on Christ. For he did not say, that I might cleanse those who are baptized, or, that I might deliver them from their sins, but, that He should be made manifest unto lsrael. And why, tell me, could he not without baptism have preached and brought the multitudes to Him? But in this way it would not have been by any means easy. For they would not so all have run together, if the preaching had been without the baptism; they would not by the comparison have learned His superiority. For the multitude came together not to hear his words, but for what? To be baptized, confessing their sins. But when they came, they were taught the matters concerning Christ, and the difference of His baptism. Yet even this of John was of greater dignity than the Jewish, and therefore all ran to it; yet even so it was imperfect.

How then did you know Him? By the descent of the Spirit, he says. But again, lest any one should suppose that he was in need of the Spirit as we are, hear how he removes the suspicion, by showing that the descent of the Spirit was only to declare Christ. For having said, And I knew Him not, he adds, But He that sent me to baptize with water the Same said unto me, Upon whom you shall see the Spirit descending and remaining on Him, the same is He which baptizes with the Holy Ghost. John 1:33

Do you see that this was the work of the Spirit, to point out Christ? The testimony of John was indeed not to be suspected, but wishing to make it yet more credible, he leads it up to God and the Holy Spirit. For when John had testified to a thing so great and wonderful, so fit to astonish all his hearers, that He alone took on Him the sins of all the world, and that the greatness of the gift sufficed for so great a ransom, afterwards he proves this assertion. And the proof is that He is the Son of God, and that He needed not baptism, and that the object of the descent of the Spirit was only to make Him known. For it was not in the power of John to give the Spirit, as those who were baptized by him show when they say, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost. Acts 19:2 In truth, Christ needed not baptism, neither his nor any other; but rather baptism needed the power of Christ. For that which was wanting was the crowning blessing of all, that he who was baptized should be deemed worthy of the Spirit; this free gift then of the Spirit He added when He came.

[AD 444] Cyril of Alexandria on John 1:31

He that leaped in the depth of the womb of his mother at the voice of the Holy Virgin while yet bearing the Lord, prophet before the travail-pang, disciple in the womb, says of the Saviour, I knew Him not, and says truly, for he does not lie. For God knows all things of Himself and untaught, but the creature, by being taught. For the Spirit indwelling in the Saints, fulfils what is lacking, and gives to human nature His Own good, I mean, knowledge of things to come, and of the hidden mysteries. Therefore the holy Baptist saying that he does not know the Lord, will by no means speak untruly, in regard of the property of human nature, and the measure befitting the creature, but will attribute the knowledge of all things to God Alone, Who through the Holy Ghost enlighteneth man to the apprehension of hidden things. And very profitably doth he say that of himself he knew not Christ, but is come for that very purpose, to make Him manifest to Israel, that he may not seem to run of his own accord to bear testimony, nor be thought by any the minister of his own will, but the worker of the Divine dispensation, the minister of the Counsel from above revealing to him the Lamb Which taketh away the sin of the world.

In order therefore that the Jews may the more easily come to believe on our Saviour Christ, and may have the most worthy conception of Him, he says that having not known Him, he knows Him, that they may understand then at length God Who revealed Him, and awestruck at the judgment from above, may receive his word concerning Him, and, seeing the servant so great, may proportionally estimate the Dignity of the Master. For his saying, that he was come to make Him manifest to Israel, how does it not denote the care belonging to a servant?

[AD 407] John Chrysostom on John 1:32

He puts the I knew Him not repeatedly. On what account, and wherefore? He was His kinsman according to the flesh. Behold, says the angel, your cousin Elisabeth, she also has received a son. Luke 1:36 That therefore he might not seem to favor Him because of the relationship, he repeats the I knew Him not. And this happened with good reason; for he had passed all his time in the wilderness away from his father's house.

How then, if he knew Him not before the descent of the Spirit, and if he then for the first time recognized Him, did he forbid Him before baptism, saying, I have need to be baptized by You, and You come to me? Matthew 3:14, since this was a proof that he knew Him very well. Yet he knew Him not before or for a long time, and with good cause; for the marvels which took place when He was a child, as the circumstances of the Magi and others the like, had happened long before, while John himself was very young, and since much time had elapsed in the interval, He was naturally unknown to all. For had He been known, John would not have said, That He should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing.

3. Hence it remains clear to us, that the miracles which they say belong to Christ's childhood, are false, and the inventions of certain who bring them into notice. For if He had begun from His early age to work wonders, neither could John have been ignorant of Him, nor would the multitude have needed a teacher to make Him known. But now he says, that for this he has come, that He might be made manifest to Israel; and for this reason he said again, I have need to be baptized by You. Afterwards, as having gained more exact knowledge of Him, he proclaimed Him to the multitude, saying, This is He of whom I said, After me comes a Man which is preferred before me. For He who sent me to baptize with water, and sent me for this end, that He should be made manifest to Israel, Himself revealed Him even before the descent of the Spirit. Wherefore even before He came, John said, One comes after me who is preferred before me. He knew Him not before he came to Jordan and baptized all men, but when He was about to be baptized, then he knew Him; and this from the Father revealing Him to the Prophet, and the Spirit showing Him when He was being baptized to the Jews, for whose sake indeed the descent of the Spirit took place. For that the witness of John might not be despised who said, that He was before me, and that He baptizes with the Spirit, and that He judges the world, the Father utters a Voice proclaiming the Son, and the Spirit descends, directing that Voice to the Head of Jesus. For since one was baptizing, the other receiving baptism, the Spirit comes to correct the idea which some of those present might form, that the words were spoken of John. So that when he says, I knew Him not, he speaks of former time, not that near to His baptism. Otherwise how could he have forbidden Him, saying, I have need to be baptized by You? How could he have said such words concerning Him?

But, says one, how then did not the Jews believe? For it was not John only that saw the Spirit in the likeness of a dove. It was, because, even if they did see, such things require not only the eyes of the body, but more than these, the vision of the understanding, to prevent men from supposing the whole to be a vain illusion. For if when they saw Him working wonders, touching with His own hands the sick and the dead, and so bringing them back to life and health, they were so drunk with malice as to declare the contrary of what they saw; how could they shake off their unbelief by the descent of the Spirit only? And some say, that they did not all see it, but only John and those of them who were better disposed. Because even though it were possible with fleshly eyes to see the Spirit descending as in the likeness of a dove, still not for this was it absolutely necessary that the circumstance should be visible to all. For Zacharias saw many things in a sensible form, as did Daniel and Ezekiel, and had none to share in what they saw; Moses also saw many things such as none other has seen; nor did all the disciples enjoy the view of the Transfiguration on the mount, nor did they all alike behold Him at the time of the Resurrection. And this Luke plainly shows, when he says, that He showed Himself to witnesses chosen before of God. Acts 10:41

And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God.

Where did he bear record that this is the Son of God? he called Him indeed Lamb, and said that He should baptize with the Spirit, but nowhere did he say of Him, Son of God. But the other Evangelists do not write that He said anything after the baptism, but having been silent as to the time intervening, they mention the miracles of Christ which were done after John's captivity, whence we may reasonably conjecture that these and many others are omitted. And this our Evangelist himself has declared, at the end of his narrative. For they were so far from inventing anything great concerning Him, that the things which seem to bring reproach, these they have all with one voice and with all exactness set down, and you will not find one of them omitting one of such circumstances; but of the miracles, part some have left for the others to relate, part all have passed over in silence.

I say not this without cause, but to answer the shamelessness of the heathen. For this is a sufficient proof of their truth-loving disposition, and that they say nothing for favor. And thus as well as in other ways you may arm yourselves for trial of argument with them. But take heed. Strange were it that the physician, or the shoemaker, or the weaver, in short all artists, should be able each to contend correctly for his own art, but that one calling himself Christian should not be able to give a reason for his own faith; yet those things if overlooked bring only loss to men's property, these if neglected destroy our very souls. Yet such is our wretched disposition, that we give all our care to the former, and the things which are necessary, and which are the groundwork of our salvation, as though of little worth, we despise.

4. That it is which prevents the heathen from quickly deriding his own error. For when they, though established in a lie, use every means to conceal the shamefulness of their opinions, while we, the servants of the truth, cannot even open our mouths, how can they help condemning the great weakness of our doctrine? How can they help suspecting our religion to be fraud and folly? How shall they not blaspheme Christ as a deceiver, and a cheat, who used the folly of the many to further his fraud? And we are to blame for this blasphemy, because we will not be wakeful in arguments for godliness, but deem these things superfluous, and care only for the things of earth. He who admires a dancer or a charioteer, or one who contends with beasts, uses every exertion and contrivance not to come off worst in any disputes concerning him, and they string together long panegyrics, as they compose their defense against those who find fault with them, and cast sneers without number at their opponents: but when arguments for Christianity are proposed, they all hang their heads, and scratch themselves, and gape, and retire at length the objects of contempt.

Must not this deserve excessive wrath, when Christ is shown to be less honorable in your estimation than a dancer? Since you have contrived ten thousand defenses for the things they have done, though more disgraceful than any, but of the miracles of Christ, though they have drawn to Him the world, you cannot bear even to think or care at all. We believe in the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost, in the Resurrection of bodies, and in Life everlasting. If now any heathen say, What is this Father, what this Son, what this Holy Ghost? How do you who say that there are three Gods, charge us with having many Gods? What will you say? What will you answer? How will you repel the attack of these arguments? But what if when you are silent, the unbeliever should again propose this other question, and ask, What in a word is resurrection? Shall we rise again in this body? Or in another, different from this? If in this, what need that it be dissolved? What will you answer? And what, if he say, Why did Christ come now and not in old time? Has it seemed good to Him now to care for men, and did He despise us during all the years that are past? Or if he ask other questions besides, more than these? For I must not propose many questions, and be silent as to the answers to them, lest, in so doing, I harm the simpler among you. What has been already said is sufficient to shake off your slumbers. Well then, if they ask these questions, and you absolutely cannot even listen to the words, shall we, tell me, suffer trifling punishment only, when we have been the cause of such error to those who sit in darkness? I wished, if you had sufficient leisure, to bring before you all the book of a certain impure heathen philosopher written against us, and that of another of earlier date, that so at least I might have roused you, and led you away from your exceeding slothfulness. For if they were wakeful that they might say these things against us, what pardon can we deserve, if we do not even know how to repel the attacks made upon us? For what purpose have we been brought forward? Do you not hear the Apostle say, Be ready to give an answer to every man that asks you a reason of the hope that is in you? 1 Peter 3:15 And Paul exhorts in like manner, saying, Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly. Colossians 3:16 What do they who are more slothful than drones reply to this? Blessed is every simple soul, and, he that walks simply walks surely. Proverbs 10:8 For this is the cause of all sorts of evil, that the many do not know how to apply rightly even the testimony of the Scriptures. Thus in this place, the writer does not mean (by simple) the man who is foolish, or who knows nothing, but him who is free from wickedness, who is no evil-doer, who is wise. If it were not so, it would have been useless to say, Be wise as serpents, and harmless as doves. Matthew 10:16 But why should I name these things, when the discourse comes in quite out of place? For besides the things already mentioned, other matters are not right with us, those, I mean, which concern our life and conversation. We are in every way wretched and ridiculous, ever ready to find fault with each other, but slow to correct in ourselves things for which we blame and accuse our neighbor. Wherefore I exhort you, that now at least we attend to ourselves, and stop not at the finding fault, (this is not enough to appease God;) but that we show forth a change in every way most excellent, in order that having lived here to the glory of God, we may enjoy the glory to come; which may it come to pass that we will all attain, through the grace and lovingkindness of our Lord Jesus Christ, to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.

[AD 407] John Chrysostom on John 1:32

To prevent any, however, from thinking that Christ really lacked the Holy Spirit in the way that we do, [the Baptist] corrects this notion also by informing us that the descent of the Holy Spirit took place only for the purpose of making Christ known.

Source: HOMILIES ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 17.2

[AD 407] John Chrysostom on John 1:32-34

(Hom. xvii. [al. xvi.] 2) John having made a declaration, so astonishing to all his hearers, viz. that He, whom he pointed out, did of Himself take away the sins of the world, confirms it by a reference to the Father and the Holy Spirit. For John might be asked, how did you know Him? Wherefore he replies beforehand, by the descent of the Holy Spirit: And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him.

(Hom. xvii [al. xvi.] 2. in Joan.) Should any however think that Christ really wanted the Holy Spirit, in the way that we do, he corrects this notion also, by informing us that the descent of the Holy Ghost took place only for the purpose of manifesting Christ: And I knew Him not: but He that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on Him, the same is He which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.

(Hom. xvii. [al. xvi.] c. 3. in Joan.) When he saith, I knew Him not, he is speaking of time past, not of the time of his baptism, when he forbad Him, saying, I have need to be baptized of Thee.

(Hom. xvii. [al. xvi.] 3) The Father having sent forth a voice proclaiming the Son, the Holy Spirit came besides, bringing the voice upon the head of Christ, in order that no one present might think that what was said of Christ, was said of John. But it will be asked: How was it that the Jews believed not, if they saw the Spirit? Such sights however require the mental vision, rather than the bodily. If those who saw Christ working miracles were so drunken with malice, that they denied what their own eyes had seen, how could the appearance of the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove overcome their incredulity? Some say however that the sight was not visible to all, but only to John, and the more devotional part. But even if the descent of the Spirit, as a dove, was visible to the outward eye, it does not follow that because all saw it, all understood it. Zacharias himself, Daniel, Ezechiel, and Moses saw many things, appearing to their senses, which no one else saw: and therefore John adds, And I saw and bare record that this is the Son of God. He had called Him the Lamb before, and said that He would baptize with the Spirit; but he had no where called Him the Son before.

Source: Catena Aurea by Aquinas

[AD 428] Theodore of Mopsuestia on John 1:32

Here it is evident that the Spirit descending like a dove on the baptized Lord was not seen by all those present, but by John only in a sort of spiritual vision. Similarly, the prophets amid many people were used to seeing those things that were invisible to all the others. It would have been useless to say that John testified and said, “I saw the Spirit,” if all those present had been participants in that vision as well.

Source: COMMENTARY ON JOHN 1.1.32

[AD 430] Augustine of Hippo on John 1:32

Christ was certainly not then anointed with the Holy Spirit when the Spirit as a dove descended upon him at his baptism. For here he condescends to prefigure his body, that is, his church, in which preeminently the baptized receive the Holy Spirit.… For it would be most absurd to believe that he received the Holy Spirit when he was near thirty years of age. For that was the age at which he was baptized by John. But although he came to baptism without any sin at all, he did not come without the Holy Spirit. For it was written of his servant and forerunner John himself, “He shall be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother’s womb.” If [John], though generated by his father, still received the Holy Spirit when formed in the womb, what must be understood and believed of the man Christ whose flesh had not a carnal but spiritual conception?

Source: ON THE TRINITY 15.26.46

[AD 430] Augustine of Hippo on John 1:32

We do not attribute only to Christ the possession of a real body and say that the Holy Spirit assumed a false appearance to people’s eyes. For the Holy Spirit could no more, in consistency with his nature, deceive people than could the Son of God. The almighty God, who made every creature out of nothing, could as easily form a real body of a dove, without the instrumentality of other doves, as he made a real body in the womb of the Virgin without the seed of the male.

Source: CHRISTIAN COMBAT 22.24

[AD 430] Augustine of Hippo on John 1:32

Because we love you in Christ, love us in return in Christ; and let our love for one another [voice its] moaning to God, for moaning is itself a characteristic of the dove. If, then, moaning is characteristic of a dove, as we all know, but doves moan in love, hear what the apostle says, and do not wonder that the Holy Spirit wished to be shown in the form of a dove. He says, “For we know not what we should pray for as we ought, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with unspeakable groanings.” Well now, my brothers, are we to say that the Spirit groans when he has perfect and eternal happiness with the Father and the Son? For the Holy Spirit is God, as the Son of God is God and the Father God.… Therefore the Holy Spirit does not moan in himself with himself in that Trinity, in that beatitude, in that eternity of his substance; but he moans in us because he makes us moan.… One who knows that he lives in the midst of affliction in this mortal life and that he is exiled from the Lord, … moans well. It is the Spirit that has taught him to moan. He learned it from the dove.

Source: TRACTATES ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 6.1.2-2.3

[AD 430] Augustine of Hippo on John 1:32

The Holy Spirit was made to appear visibly in two ways: as a dove, on our Lord at his baptism, and as a flame upon his disciples when they were gathered together.… The former shape denoted simplicity, the latter fervency.… The dove intimates that those who are sanctified by the Spirit should have no guile; the fire indicates that in that simplicity there should not be coldness. Nor let it disturb you that the tongues are divided, for tongues are diverse; therefore the appearance was that of cloven tongues.… Do not fear division; recognize unity in the dove.…It was appropriate then that the Holy Spirit should be manifested in this way descending on our Lord so that every one who had the Spirit might know that he ought to be simple as a dove and be in sincere peace with his brothers and sisters. The kisses of doves represent this peace.… Ravens kiss, but they also tear; but the nature of doves is innocent of tearing.… Ravens feed on the dead, but the dove eats nothing but the fruits of the earth. Its food is innocent.…
That is why on this occasion the most holy Trinity appeared, the Father in the voice that said, “You are my beloved Son” and the Holy Spirit in the likeness of the dove. In that Trinity … the apostles were sent [to baptize], that is, in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.… What then could more appropriately represent the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of unity, than the dove? As he said himself to his reconciled church, “My dove is one.” What could better express humility than the simplicity and moaning of a dove?

Source: TRACTATES ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 6.3-5, 10

[AD 430] Augustine of Hippo on John 1:32-34

(Tr. iv. c. 12, 13) Now when our Lord became known, it was unnecessary to prepare a way for Him; for to those who knew Him, He became His own way. And therefore John's baptism did not last long, but only so long as to show our Lord's humility. (Tr. v. c. 5.). Our Lord received baptism from a servant, in order to give us such a lesson of humility as might prepare us for receiving the grace of baptism. And that the servant's baptism might not be set before the Lord's, others were baptized with it; who after receiving it, had to receive our Lord's baptism: whereas those who first received our Lord's baptism, did not receive the servant's after.

(de Trin. xv. c. 46. [26.]) This was not however the first occasion of Christ's receiving the unction of the Holy Spirit: viz. Its descent upon Him at His baptism; wherein He condescended to prefigure His body, the Church, wherein those who are baptized receive preeminently the Holy Spirit. For it would be absurd to suppose that at thirty years old, (which was His age, when He was baptized by John,) He received for the first time the Holy Spirit: and that, when He came to that baptism, as He was without sin, so was He without the Holy Spirit. For if even of His servant and forerunner John it is written, He shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from His mother's womb; if He, though sprung from His father's seed, yet received the Holy Ghost, when as yet He was only formed in the womb; what ought we to think and believe of Christ, whose very flesh had not a carnal but spiritual conception?

(de Agon. Christiano, c. 24. [22.]) We do not attribute to Christ only the possession of a real body, and say that the Holy Spirit assumed a false appearance to men's eyes: for the Holy Spirit could no more, in consistency with His nature, deceive men, than could the Son of God. The Almighty God, Who made every creature out of nothing, could as easily form a real body of a dove, without the instrumentality of other doves, as He made a real body in the womb of the Virgin, without the seed of the male.

(in Joan. Tr. vi. sparsim) The Holy Ghost was made to appear visibly in two ways: as a dove, upon our Lord at His baptism; and as a flame upon His disciples, when they were met together: the former shape denoting simplicity, the latter fervency. The dove intimates that souls sanctified by the Spirit should have no guile; the fire, that in that simplicity there should not be coldness. Nor let it disturb thee, that the tongues are cloven; fear no division; unity is assured to us in the dove. It was meet then that the Holy Spirit should be thus manifested descending upon our Lord; in order that every one who had the Spirit might know, that he ought to be simple as a dove, and be in sincere peace with the brethren. The kisses of doves represent this peace. Ravens kiss, but they tear also; but the nature of the dove is most alien to tearing. Ravens feed on the dead, but the dove eats nothing but the fruits of the earth. If doves moan in their love, marvel not that He Who appeared in the likeness of a dove, the Holy Spirit, maketh intercession for us with groanings that cannot be uttered. (Rom. 8:26) The Holy Spirit however groaneth not in Himself, but in us: He maketh us to groan. And he who groaneth, as knowing that, so long as He is under the burden of this mortality, he is absent from the Lord, groaneth well: it is the Spirit that hath taught him to groan. But many groan because of earthly calamities; because of losses which disquiet them, or bodily sickness which weigh heavily on them: they groan not, as doth the dove. What then could more fitly represent the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of unity, than the dove? as He saith Himself to His reconciled Church, My dove is one. (Cant. 6:9) What could better express humility, than the simplicity and moaning of a dove? Wherefore on this occasion it was that there appeared the very most Holy Trinity, the Father in the voice which said, Thou art My beloved Son; the Holy Spirit in the likeness of the dove. (Matt. 28:19) In that Trinity the Apostles were sent to baptize, i. e. in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.

(Aug. Tr. v. c. i) But who sent John? If we say the Father, we say true; if we say the Son, we say true. But it would be truer to say, the Father and the Son. How then knew he not Him, by Whom he was sent? For if he knew not Him, by Whom he wished to be baptized, it was rash in him to say, I have need to be baptized by Thee. So then he knew Him; and why saith he, I knew Him not?

(Aug. Tr. iv.v. and vi. sparsim.) Let us turn to the other Evangelists, who relate the matter more clearly, and we shall find most satisfactorily, that the dove descended when our Lord ascended from the water. If then the dove descended after baptism, but John said before the baptism, I have need to be baptized of Thee, he knew Him before His baptism also. How then said he, I knew him not, but He which sent me to baptize? Was this the first revelation made to John of Christ's person, or was it not rather a fuller disclosure of what had been already revealed? John knew the Lord to be the Son of God, knew that He would baptize with the Holy Ghost: for before Christ came to the river, many having come together to hear John, he said unto them, He that cometh after me is mightier than I: He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire. (Matt. 3:11) What then? He did not know that our Lord (lest Paul or Peter might say, my baptism, as we find Paul did say, my Gospel,) would have and retain to Himself the power of baptism, the ministering of it however passing to good and bad indiscriminately. What hindrance is the badness of the minister, when the Lord is good? So then we baptize again after John's baptism; after a homicide's we baptize not: because John gave his own baptism, the homicide gives Christ's; which is so holy a sacrament, that not even a homicide's ministration can pollute it. Our Lord could, had He so willed, have given power to any servant of His to give baptism as it were in His own stead; and to the baptism, thus transferred to the servant, have imparted the same power, that it would have had, when given by Himself. But this He did not choose to do; that the hope of the baptized might be directed to Him, Who had baptized them; He wished not the servant to place hope in the servant. And again, had He given this power to servants, there would have been as many baptisms as servants; as there had been the baptism of John, so should we have had the baptism of Paul and of Peter. It is by this power then, which Christ retains in His own possession exclusively, that the unity of the Church is established; of which it is said, My dove is one. (Cant. 6:9) A man may have a baptism besides the dove; but that any besides the dove should profit, is impossible.

(Tr. vii. in Joan) It was necessary that the Only Son of God should baptize, not an adopted son. Adopted sons are ministers of the Only Son: but though they have the ministration, the Only one alone has the power.

Source: Catena Aurea by Aquinas

[AD 444] Cyril of Alexandria on John 1:32

CHAPTER I. That the Holy Ghost is in the Son not by participation, not from without, but Essentially and by Nature.

Having said above that he knew Him not, he profitably explains and uncovers the Divine Mystery, both showing that He Who told him was God the Father, and clearly relating the manner of the revelation. By all does he profit the mind of the headers; and whereby he says that the Mystery of Christ to men-ward was taught him of God, he shows that his opposers are fighting against the decree from above, and to their own peril arraying themselves against the mighty purpose of the Father. For this was the part of one skillfully persuading them to desist from their vain counsel, and to receive Him Who by the goodwill of the Father came for the salvation of all. He therefore testifieth, both that he saw the Spirit descending from Heaven upon Him, in the form of a Dove, and that It abode upon Him. Then besides, he says that himself was the ear-witness of Him Who sent him to baptize with water, that He upon Whom the Spirit came and abode upon Him is He which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost. Most worthy of belief then the witness, supernatural the sign, above all the Father Who revealed.

And these things are thus. But perchance the heretic fond of carping will jump up, and with a big laugh, say; What again, sirs, say ye to this too, or what argument will ye bring forth, wresting that which is written? Lo, he saith that the Spirit descendeth upon the Son; lo, He is anointed by God the Father; That Which He hath not, He receives forsooth, the Psalmist co-witnessing with us and saying, as to Him: Wherefore God, Thy God, hath anointed Thee with the oil of gladness above Thy fellows. How then will the Son any more be Consubstantial with the Perfect Father, not being Himself Perfect, and therefore anointed? To this then I think it right to say to those who overturn the holy doctrines of the Church, and pervert the truth of the Scriptures: Awake, ye drunkards, from your wine, that viewing the clear beauty of the truth, ye may be able with us to cry to the Son: Of a truth Thou art the Son of God. For if thou fully believe that He is by Nature God, how will He not have perfection? For time is it that ye now speak impiously against the Father Himself also: for whence must He needs, as thou sayest, have perfection? how will He not be brought down to the abasement of His Offspring, which according to you is imperfect, in that the Divine Essence in the Son has once received the power of not having Perfection, according to your unlearned and uninstructed reasoning? For we will not divide that Great and Untaint Nature into different Words, so that it should be imperfect perchance in one, and again Perfect in the other. Since the definition of human nature too is one in respect of all men, and equal in all of us, what man will be less, qua man? but neither will he be considered more so than another. And I suppose that one angel will differ in nothing from another angel in respect of their being what they are, angels to wit, from sameness of nature, being all linked with one another unto one nature. How then can the Nature Which is Divine and surpassing all, show Itself in a state inferior to things originate in Its own special good, and endure a condition which the creature cannot endure? How will It be at all simple and uncompounded, if Perfection and imperfection appear in It? For It will be compounded of both, since Perfection is not of the same kind as imperfection. For if they be of the same kind, and there be no difference between them, every thing which is perfect will without distinction be also imperfect: and if ought again be imperfect, this too will be perfect. And the charge against the Son will be nought, even though according to your surmisings He appear not Perfect: but neither will the Father Himself, though witnessed to in respect of His Perfection, surpass the Son, and there is an end of our dispute. But if much interval severs imperfection from perfection, and the Divine Nature admits both together, It is compound, and not simple.

But perchance some one will say, that contraries are incompatible, and not co-existent in one subject at the same time, as for instance in a body white and black skin together. Well, my friend, and very bravely hast thou backed up my argument. For if the Divine Nature be One, and there be none other than It, how, tell me, will It admit of contraries? How will things unlike to one another come together into one subject? But since the Father is by Nature God, the Son too is by Nature God. He will therefore in nothing differ, in respect of being Perfect, from the Father, since He is begotten of His Divine and most Perfect Essence. For must not He needs be Perfect Who is of a Perfect Parent, since He is both His exact Likeness, and the express Image of His Person, as it is written? But every one will I suppose consent and agree to this. Or let him come forward and say, how the Son is the exact Image of the Perfect Father, not having Perfection in His Own Nature, according to the uncounsel of some. For since He is the Impress and Image, He is Himself too perfect as He, Whose Image He is.

But, says one, John saw the Spirit descending from Heaven upon the Son, and He has Sanctification from without, for He receives it as not having it. Time then is it to call Him openly a creature, barely honoured with a little excellence, perfected and sanctified in equal rank with the rest, and having His supply of good things an acquired one. Then how does the Evangelist not lie, when he says, Of His fulness have all we received? For how will He be full in His Own Nature, Who Himself receiveth from Another? Or how will God be at all conceived of as Father if the Only-Begotten is a creature, and not rather Son? For if this be so, both Himself will be falsely called Father, and the Son will not be Truth, having upon Him a spurious dignity, and a title of bare words. The whole therefore will come to nothing; the Father being neither truly father, nor the Son this by Nature, which He is said to be. But if God be truly Father, He surely has whereof He is Father, the Son, that is, of Himself.

Then how will the Godhead Holy by Nature beget that of Itself which is void of holiness, and bring forth Its own Fruit destitute of Its own inherent Properties? For if He hath sanctification from without, as they babbling say;----they must needs confess, even against their will, that He Was not always holy, but became so afterwards, when the Spirit descended upon Him, as John saith. How then was the Son holy even before the Incarnation? for so did the Seraphim glorify Him, repeating the Holy, in order, from the first to the third time. If then He was holy, even before the Incarnation, yea rather being ever with the Father, how needed He a sanctifier, and this in the last times, when He became Man? I marvel how this too escapes them, with all their love of research. For must we not needs conceive, that the Son could at any time reject sanctification, if it be not in Him essentially, but came to Him as it does to us, or any other reasonable creature? But that which falls away from sanctification, will it not be altogether under the bonds of sin, and sink to the worse, no longer retaining power to be apart from vice? Therefore neither will the Son be found to be unchangeable, and the Psalmist will lie crying in the Spirit as to Him, But Thou art the Same.

Besides what has been already said, let this too be considered, for it brings in a kindred idea: All reasoning will demonstrate that the partaken is somewhat other by nature than the partaker. For if this be not true, but that shall in no wise differ from this, and is the same; that which partakes of ought partakes of itself, which is incredible even to think of (for how can any one be imagined to partake of himself?). But if the things mentioned lie altogether in natural diversity one to another, and the necessity of reasoning separates them, let them who give the Spirit by participation to the Only-Begotten, see to what a depth of impiety they sink unawares. For if the Son is partaker of the Spirit, and the Spirit is by Nature holy, He Himself will not be by Nature holy, but is shown to be hardly so through combination with another, transelemented by grace to the better, than that wherein He was at first. But let the fighter against God again see, into how great impiety the question casts him down. For first some change and turning, as we said before, will be found to exist respecting the Son. And being according to you changed, and having advanced unto the better, He will be shown to be not only not inferior to the Father, but even somehow to have become superior: and how this is, we will say, taking it from the Divine Scripture. The divine Paul says somewhere of Him: Be each among you so 1 minded, according to what was also in Christ Jesus, Who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God, but emptied Himself, and took upon Him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men, and being found in fashion as a Man, He humbled Himself. Since then even before the Incarnation, He was in the form and equality of the Father, but at the time of the Incarnation receiving the Spirit from Heaven was sanctified, according to them, and became by reason of this better alike and greater than Himself, He surpasses at length it is plain even the measure of His Father. And if on receiving the Spirit He mounted up unto dignity above that of the Father, then is the Spirit superior even to the Father Himself, seeing that He bestows on the Son the superiority over Him. Who then will not shudder at the mere hearing of this? For hard is it in truth even to go through such arguments, but no otherwise can the harm of their stubbornness be driven off. Therefore we will say again to them: If when the Word of God became Man, He is then also sanctified by receiving the Spirit: but before the Incarnation was in the Form and Equality of the Father, not yet according to them sanctified, time is it they should boldly say, that God the Father is not holy, if the Word Who is in all things altogether Con-formal and Equal to Him, was not holy in the beginning, but barely in the last times became so. And again, if He is truly the Word of God, Who receiveth the Spirit, and is sanctified in His Own Nature, let our opponents say, whether in doing this, He became greater or less than Himself, or remained the Same. For if He hath nothing more from the Spirit, but remaineth the same as He was, be not offended at learning that It descended on Him. But if He was injured by receiving It, and became less, you will introduce to us the Word as passible, and will accuse the Essence of the Father as wronging rather than sanctifying. But if He became better by receiving the Spirit, but was in the Form and Equality of the Father, even before, according to you, He became bettered, the Father hath not attained unto the height of glory, but will be in that measure of it, in which the Son Who hath advanced to the better was Con-formal and Equal to Him. Convenient is it then, I deem, to say to the ill-instructed heretics, Behold o foolish people and without understanding, which have eyes, and see not; which have ears and hear not; for the god of this world hath indeed blinded the eyes of them, which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ should shine unto them: worthy of pity are they rather than of anger. For they understand not, what they read.

But that the reasoning is true, will be clear from hence, even if we have not, by our previous attempts, made the demonstration perfectly clear. Again shall this that is spoken by the mouth of Paul be brought forward: Be each among you, saith he, so minded, according to what was also in Christ Jesus, Who being in the Form of God thought it not robbery to be equal with God, but emptied Himself, and took upon Him the Form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men, and being found in fashion as a Man, He humbled Himself. Lo, he much marvels at the Son, as being Equal and Con-formal with God the Father, not, by reason of His Love to us, seizing this, but descending to lowliness, through the Form of a servant, emptied by reason of His Manhood. But if, sirs, He on receiving the Spirit were sanctified rather, when He became Man, and were, through the sanctification, rendered superior to Himself, into what kind of lowliness shall we see Him to have descended? How is That made low that was exalted, how did That descend that was sanctified, or how did it not rather ascend, and was exalted for the better? What emptiness hath filling through the Spirit? or how will He at all be thought to have been Incarnate for our sakes, Who underwent so great profit in respect of Himself? How did the Rich become poor for our sakes, who was enriched because of us? How was He rich even before His Advent, Who according to them received in it what He had not, to wit the Spirit? Or how will He not rather justly offer to us thank-offering for what by means of us He gained? Be astonished, as it is written, O ye heavens, at this: and be horribly afraid, saith the Lord: for the people of the heretics have in truth committed two evils, understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm, and think it not grievous thus to incur such danger in the weightiest matters. For else would they, shedding bitter tears from their eyes, and lifting up a mighty voice on high, have approached, saying, Set a watch, O Lord, before my mouth, keep the door of my lips. Incline not my heart to words of wickedness. For words of wickedness in truth are their words, travailing with extremest mischief to the hearers. But we, having expelled their babbling from our heart, will walk in the right way of the faith, bearing in mind that which is written: Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ. Come then, and bringing into captivity our mind as to the subjects before us, let us subject it to the glory of the Only-Begotten, bringing all things wisely to His obedience, that is, to the mode of the Incarnation. For, being Rich, for our sakes He became poor, that we through His poverty might be rich.

Receive then, if you please, our proof through that also which is now before us, opening a forbearing ear to our words. The Divine Scripture testifies that man was made in the Image and Likeness of God Who is over all. And indeed, he who compiled the first book for us (Moses, who above all men was known to God) says, And God created man, in the Image of God created He him. But that through the Spirit he was sealed unto the Divine Image, himself again taught us, saying, And breathed into his nostrils the breath of life. For the Spirit at once began both to put life into His formation and in a Divine manner to impress His own Image thereon. Thus the most excellent Artificer God, having formed the reasonable living creature upon the earth, gave him the saving commandment. And he was in Paradise, as it is written, still keeping the Gift, and eminent in the Divine Image of Him That made him, through the Holy Ghost That indwelt him. But when perverted by the wiles of the devil, he began to despise his Creator, and by trampling on the law assigned him, to grieve his Benefactor, He recalled the grace given to him, and he that was made unto life then first heard Dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return. And now the Likeness to God was through the inroad of sin defaced, and no longer was the Impress bright, but fainter and darkened because of the transgression. But when the race of man had reached to an innumerable multitude, and sin had dominion over them all, manifoldly despoiling each man's soul, his nature was stripped of the ancient grace; the Spirit departed altogether, and the reasonable creature fell into extremest folly, ignorant even of its Creator. But the Artificer of all, having endured a long season, at length pities the corrupted world, and being Good hastened to gather together to those above His runaway flock upon earth; and decreed to trans-element human nature anew to the pristine Image through the Spirit. For no otherwise was it possible that the Divine Impress should again shine forth in him, as it did aforetime.

What then He contrives to this end, how He implanted in us the inviolate grace, or how the Spirit again took root in man, |142 in what manner nature was re-formed to its old condition, it is meet to say. The first man, being earthy, and of the earth, and having, placed in his own power, the choice between good and evil, being master of the inclination to each, was caught of bitter guile, and having inclined to disobedience, falls to the earth, the mother from whence he sprang, and over-mastered now at length by corruption and death, transmits the penalty to his whole race. The evil growing and multiplying in us, and our understanding ever descending to the worse, sin reigned, and thus at length the nature of man was shown bared of the Holy Ghost Which indwelt him. For the Holy Spirit of wisdom will flee deceit, as it is written, nor dwell in the body that is subject unto sin. Since then the first Adam preserved not the grace given him of God, God the Father was minded to send us from Heaven the second Adam. For He sendeth in our likeness His own Son Who is by Nature without variableness or change, and wholly unknowing of sin, that as by the disobedience of the first, we became subject to Divine wrath, so through the obedience of the Second, we might both escape the curse, and its evils might come to nought. But when the Word of God became Man, He received the Spirit from the Father as one of us, (not receiving ought for Himself individually, for He was the Giver of the Spirit); but that He Who knew no sin, might, by receiving It as Man, preserve It to our nature, and might again inroot in us the grace which had left us. For this reason, I deem, it was that the holy Baptist profitably added, I saw the Spirit descending from Heaven, and It abode upon Him. For It had fled from us by reason of sin, but He Who knew no sin, became as one of us, that the Spirit might be accustomed to abide in us, having no occasion of departure or withdrawal in Him.

Therefore through Himself He receives the Spirit for us, and renews to our nature, the ancient good. For thus is He also said for our sakes to become poor. For being rich, as God and lacking no good thing, He became Man lacking all things, to whom it is somewhere said and that very well, What hast thou that thou didst not receive? As then, being by Nature Life, He died in the Flesh for our sakes, that He might overcome death for us, and raise up our whole nature together with Himself (for all we were in Him, in that He was made Man): so does He also receive the Spirit for our sakes, that He may sanctify our whole nature. For He came not to profit Himself, but to be to all us the Door and Beginning and Way of the Heavenly Goods. For if He had not pleased to receive, as Man, or to suffer too, as one of us, how could any one have shown that He humbled Himself? or how would the Form of a servant have been fittingly kept, if nothing befitting a servant were written of Him? Let not then the all-wise account of the dispensation be pulled to pieces, whereof the divine Paul himself rightly cries in admiration: To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the Church the manifold wisdom of God, according to the eternal purpose which He purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord. For wisdom indeed and God-befitting, is the great mystery of the Incarnation seen to be.

Such an apprehension of our Saviour do I suppose that we who choose to be pious, and rejoice in orthodox doctrines, ought to have. For we too will not descend to such lack of reason as to suppose that in the Son by Nature was the Spirit by participation and not rather essentially inherent even as in the Father Himself. For as of the Father, so also of the Son, is the Holy Ghost. So did we also read in the Divine Scriptures. For it says: After they were come to Mysia, they assayed to go into Bithynia, and the Spirit of Jesus suffered them not.

But if it seem good to any one, with over contentious zeal, to object to our words hereon, and to assert again, that the Spirit is in the Son by participation, or that, not being in Him before, He then came to be in Him, when He was baptized, in the period of His Incarnation, let him see, into what and how great absurdities he will fall. For first, the Saviour saith: Among them that are born of women there hath not arisen a greater than John the Baptist. And the word is true: but we see him who hath attained to the summit of glory and virtue that belong to us, honouring Christ with incomparable excellencies. For I am not worthy, says he, to stoop down and unloose the latchet of His shoes. How then is it not absurd, yea rather impious, to believe that John was filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb, because it is so written of him: and to suppose that his Master, yea rather the Master and Lord of all, then first received the Spirit, when He was baptized, albeit holy Gabriel says to the holy Virgin: The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the Power of the Highest shall overshadow thee; therefore also that holy Thing which shall be born of thee, shall be called the Son of God. And let the lover of learning see, with how great a meaning the word travaileth. For of John, it saith, he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost (for the Holy Ghost was in him as a gift, and not essentially), but of the Saviour, he no longer saith shall be filled, (in rightness of conception,) but that holy Thing which shall be born of thee. Nor did he add shall be, for It was always Holy by Nature, as God.

But since I deem that we ought to seek after what is profitable from all quarters; the voice of the archangel having been once brought forward, come, let us exercise ourselves a little in it. The Holy Ghost, says he, shall come upon thee, and the Power of the Highest shall overshadow thee; therefore also That Holy Thing which shall be born of thee, shall be called the Son of God. Let him then, who from great unlearning, opposeth the right doctrines of the Church, tell us, whether even before the Incarnation the the Word of God the Father was Son, or had the glory in name only, but was a bastard, and falsely called. For if he say that He was not the Son at all, he will deny the Father (for of whom will He be the Father, if He have no Son?): and he will think contrary to all the Divine Scriptures. But if he confess that the Son even before the Incarnation both was and was called Son, how does the Archangel tell us that That which should be born of the holy Virgin shall be called the Son of God, albeit He was this by Nature even long before? As therefore the Son being from eternity with the Father, as having Origin of Being, is at the time of His Incarnation called Son of God, from His appearing in the world with a Body; so, having in Himself Essentially His Own Spirit, He is said to receive It as Man, preserving to the Humanity the order befitting it, and with it appropriating for our sakes the things befitting it. But how can the Word be thought of at all apart from Its Own Spirit? For would it not be absurd to say, that the spirit of man, which is in him, according to the definition of nature, and for the completeness of the living-being, was separated from him? But I suppose that this is most evident to all. How then shall we sever the Spirit from the Son, Which is so inherent and essentially united, and through Him proceeding and being in Him by Nature, that It cannot be thought to be Other than He by reason both of Identity of working, and the very exact likeness of Nature. Hear what the Saviour saith to His own disciples, If ye love Me, keep My Commandments, and I will pray the Father, and He shall give you Another Comforter, the Spirit of Truth, Whom the world cannot receive. Lo, plainly He calls the Holy Ghost Spirit of Truth. But that He and none other than He is the Truth, hear Him again saying, I am the Truth. The Son by Nature then being and being called Truth, see how great Oneness with Him the Spirit hath. For the disciple John saith somewhere of our Saviour, This is He that came by water and blood and the spirit, Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood: and it is the Spirit That beareth witness, because the Spirit is Truth. Therefore also, the Holy Ghost indwelling in our inner man, Christ Himself is said to dwell therein, and so it is. And indeed the blessed Paul most clearly teaching this, says, But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, If so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of His. And if Christ be in you, the body |146 is dead because of sin, but the Spirit is life because of righteousness. Apply, sir, a quick ear to what is said. Having named the Spirit of Christ That dwelleth in us, he straightway added, If Christ be in you, introducing the exact likeness of the Son with the Spirit, Which is His Own and proceeding from Him by Nature. Therefore He is called the Spirit of adoption also, and in Him we cry Abba, Father. And as the blessed John somewhere says, Hereby know we that He dwelleth in us, because He hath given us of His Spirit.

I think then that these things will suffice, to enable the children of the Church to repel the mischief of the heretics. But if any one be soused in the unmixed strong drink of their unlearning, and suppose that the Son then first received the Spirit, when He became Man: let him show that the Word of God was not holy before the Incarnation, and we will hold our peace.

But one may well wonder that the holy Evangelist every where preserves with much observance what befits the Divine Nature. For since he said above, that no man hath seen God at any time, and now says that the blessed Baptist saw the Spirit descend from Heaven upon the Son, he adds of necessity, I saw the Spirit, but in the form of a Dove, not Himself by Nature, as He is, but shadowed in the gentlest animal; that in this again He might be shown to preserve His Natural Affinity and Likeness to the Son, Who saith, Learn of Me, for I am meek and lowly in heart. Therefore the Spirit will not fall away from being God by Nature: for the never having been seen at any time has been preserved to Him, save under the form of a dove, by reason of the need of the disciple. For the blessed Baptist says that the descent of the Spirit was given him by way of a sign and token, adding to his testimonies respecting our Saviour, He that sent me to baptize with water, the Same said unto me, Upon Whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending and remaining on Him, the Same is He Which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost. Therefore I think we may fitly laugh to scorn those senseless heretics who take as matter of fact, that which was set forth by way of sign, even though |147 it took place as part of the oeconomy, as hath been already said, for the need's sake of the human race.

[AD 604] Gregory the Dialogist on John 1:32

He said, Abode upon Him: for the Holy Spirit visits all the faithful; but on the Mediator alone does He abide forever in a peculiar manner; never leaving the Son’s Humanity, even as He proceeds Himself from the Son’s Divinity. But when the disciples are told of the same Spirit, He shall dwell with you, how is the abiding of the Spirit a peculiar sign of Christ? This will appear if we distinguish between the different gifts of the Spirit. As regards those gifts which are necessary for attaining to life, the Holy Spirit ever abides in all the elect; such are gentleness, humility, faith, hope, charity: but with respect to those, which have for their object, not our own salvation, but that of others, he does not always abide, but sometimes withdraws, and ceases to exhibit them; that men may be more humble in the possession of His gifts. But Christ had all the gifts of the Spirit, uninterruptedly always.

[AD 604] Gregory the Dialogist on John 1:32

It is written in the Gospel that the one on whom you see the Spirit descending and remaining on, this is the one who baptizes with the Holy Spirit. For the Spirit descends on all the faithful. But he only remains on the mediator—and does so in a special way. For he has never left the Son’s human nature even as he proceeds from his divine nature.… But when the voice of truth tells the disciples that this same Spirit, “will dwell with you and shall be in you,” how is this abiding of the Spirit declared by the voice of God supposed to be a peculiar sign of the mediator?… This will appear if we distinguish between the different gifts of the Spirit. There are some gifts which are necessary for attaining life and there are others through which holiness of life becomes evident for the good of others. Gentleness, humility, faith, hope and charity are all gifts that come from the Spirit and are gifts a person needs in order to attain life.… In the case of these gifts … the Holy Spirit always remains.… But with respect to those which have for their object, not our own salvation, but that of others, he does not always abide.… Instead, sometimes he withdraws and ceases to exhibit them so that people should be more humble in the possession of his gifts.… But the Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, always had all the gifts of the Spirit without interruption.

Source: MORALS ON THE BOOK OF JOB 2.56.90-92

[AD 604] Gregory the Dialogist on John 1:32-34

(Moral. liv. [90.]) He saith, Abode upon Him: for the Holy Spirit visits all the faithful; but on the Mediator alone does He abide for ever in a peculiar manner; never leaving the Son's Humanity, even as Ho proceeds Himself from the Son's Divinity. But when the disciples are told of the same Spirit, (John 14:17.) He shall dwell with you, how is the abiding of the Spirit a peculiar sign of Christ? This will appear if we distinguish between the different gifts of the Spirit. As regards those gifts which are necessary for attaining to life, the Holy Spirit ever abides in all the elect; such are gentleness, humility, faith, hope, charity: but with respect to those, which have for their object, not our own salvation, but that of others, he does not always abide, but sometimes withdraws, and ceases to exhibit them; that men may be more humble in the possession of His gifts. But Christ had all the gifts of the Spirit, uninterruptedly always.

Source: Catena Aurea by Aquinas

[AD 220] Tertullian on John 1:33

Source: On Baptism

[AD 386] Cyril of Jerusalem on John 1:33

This Holy Spirit came down when the Lord was baptized so that the dignity of him who was baptized might not be hidden.… The heavens too were opened because of the dignity of him who descended. For see, he says, the heavens were opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove, and lighting upon him. The Spirit descended voluntarily. For it was appropriate, as some have interpreted, that the primacy and firstfruits of the Holy Spirit promised to the baptized should be conferred upon the humanity of the Savior first since the Spirit is the giver of such grace. But perhaps he came down in the form of a dove, as some say, to exhibit a figure of that dove who is pure and innocent and undefiled—who also helps the prayers of the children she has begotten and who brings forgiveness of sins. It was emblematically foretold that Christ should be made known in this way in the appearance of his eyes. For in the Song of Songs she cries concerning the Bridegroom, and says, “Your eyes are as doves by the rivers of water.”69The dove of Noah, according to some, was in part a figure of this dove. In the time of Noah, salvation came to them by means of wood and water along with the beginning of a whole new generation. And, the dove returned to him towards evening with an olive branch. Just as this happened, they say, so the Holy Spirit also descended upon the true Noah, the author of the second birth, who draws together into one the wills of all nations. The various dispositions of the animals in the ark were in fact a figure of him too—him at whose coming the spiritual wolves feed with the lambs, in whose church the calf, and the lion, and the ox, feed in the same pasture, as we behold to this day the rulers of the world guided and taught by churchmen. The spiritual dove therefore, as some interpret, came down at the season of his baptism so that he might show that it is he who by the wood of the cross saves those who believe, he who when evening comes grants salvation through his death.

Source: Catechetical Lecture 17:9-10

[AD 407] John Chrysostom on John 1:33

How then, if he did not know him before the descent of the Spirit, and if he then for the first time recognized him—how then did he forbid him before baptism, saying, “I need to be baptized by you, and you come to me?” Actually, this proved that he knew him very well. Yet he did not know him before, or at least for that long—and with good cause, for the amazing things that took place when he was a child, such as the visit of the magi, had happened long before when John himself was very young. And since a lot of time had elapsed in the interval, Jesus was naturally unknown to all. For had he been known, John would not have said, “I come baptizing so that he should be made known to Israel.”

Source: HOMILIES ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 17.2

[AD 428] Theodore of Mopsuestia on John 1:33

He revealed why he lived in the wilderness. This certainly happened through a special providence of God, in order that he might not have any relationship with the Messiah. And John certainly would have had such a relationship if he had lived in town, since they were of the same age and they were related. The suspicion would have easily arisen that he had testified those words because of that previous relationship and because of their friendship and the fact that they were related. In order to remove this suspicion, John was segregated from adolescence onward and grew up in the wilderness. Therefore, with good reason he said, “I myself did not know him.” I had no familiarity or friendship with him, but I was sent to baptize with water for him so that I might reveal him whom I did not know. He clearly showed that he baptized so that all the Jews who came because of the baptism might have an occasion to hear his doctrine and to see him to whom he testified.

Source: COMMENTARY ON JOHN 1.1.33

[AD 428] Theodore of Mopsuestia on John 1:33

He who sent me so that I might reveal before everybody that he had come—and therefore he gave me the power to baptize with water—predicted to me that the Spirit would descend on him. These words were said to the Baptist while he was in the wilderness, and immediately he who indeed did [preach and baptize] came. As the Lord then came to John, he immediately received the vision so that he might recognize the Lord. This is why he preached so publicly about his greatness. When he, while administering the baptism, saw in a spiritual vision the Spirit descending, as had been predicted to him, then he was sure that he was seeing the expected result of the prophecy.

Source: COMMENTARY ON JOHN 1.1.33

[AD 430] Augustine of Hippo on John 1:33

We have arrived, as the Lord has willed it, to the day of our promise. He will grant this also, that we may arrive at the fulfillment of the promise. For then those things which we say, if they are useful to us and to you, are from Him; but those things which proceed from man are false, as our Lord Jesus Christ Himself has said, He that speaks a lie speaks of his own. John 8:44 No one has anything of his own except falsehood and sin. But if man has any truth and justice, it is from that fountain after which we ought to thirst in this desert, so that being, as it were, bedewed by some drops from it, and comforted in the meantime in this pilgrimage, we may not fail by the way, but reach His rest and satisfying fullness. If then he that speaks a lie speaks of his own, he who speaks the truth speaks of God. John is true, Christ is the Truth; John is true, but every true man is true from the Truth. If, then, John is true, and a man cannot be true except from the Truth, from whom was he true, unless from Him who said, I am the truth? John 14:6 The Truth, then, could not speak contrary to the true man, or the true man contrary to the Truth. The Truth sent the true man, and he was true because sent by the Truth. If it was the Truth that sent John, then it was Christ that sent him. But that which Christ does with the Father, the Father does; and what the Father does with Christ, Christ does. The Father does nothing apart from the Son, nor the Son anything apart from the Father: inseparable love, inseparable unity: inseparable majesty, inseparable power, according to these words which He Himself propounded, I and my Father are one. John 10:30 Who then sent John? If we say the Father, we speak truly; if we say the Son, we speak truly; but to speak more plainly, we say the Father and the Son. But whom the Father and the Son sent, one God sent; because the Son said, I and the Father are one. How, then, did he not know Him by whom he was sent? For he said, I knew Him not: but He that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me. I interrogate John: Who sent you to baptize with water? What did He say to you? Upon whom you shall see the Spirit descending as a dove, and abiding upon Him, the same is He which baptizes with the Holy Ghost. Is it this, O John, that He said to you who sent you? It is manifest that it was this; who, then, sent you? Perhaps the Father. True God is the Father, and the Truth is God the Son: if the Father without the Son sent you, God without the Truth sent you; but if you are true, because you speak the truth, and dost speak of the Truth, the Father did not send you without the Son, but the Father and the Son together sent you. If, then, the Son sent you with the Father, how did you not know Him by whom you were sent? He whom you had seen in the Truth, Himself sent you that He might be recognized in the flesh, and said, Upon whom you shall see the Spirit descending as a dove, and abiding upon Him, the same is He which baptizes with the Holy Ghost.

2. Did John hear this that he might know Him whom he had not known, or that he might more fully know Him whom he had already known? For if he had been entirely ignorant of Him, he would not have said to Him when He came to the river to be baptized, I have need to be baptized by You, and You come to me? Matthew 3:14 He knew Him therefore. But when did the dove descend? When the Lord had been baptized, and was ascending from the water. But if He who sent Him said, Upon whom you shall see the Spirit descending as a dove, and abiding upon Him, the same is He which baptizes with the Holy Ghost, and he knew Him not, but when the dove descended he learned to know Him, and the time at which the dove descended was when the Lord was going up from the water; but John had known the Lord, when the Lord came to him to the water: it is made plain to us that John after a manner knew, and after a manner did not at first know the Lord. And unless we understand it so, he was a liar. How was he true acknowledging the Lord and saying, Comest Thou to me to be baptized, and, I have need to be baptized by You? Is he true when he said this? And how is he again true when he says, I knew Him not: but He that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom you shall see the Spirit descending as a dove, and abiding upon Him, the same is He who baptizes with the Holy Ghost? The Lord was made known by a dove, not to him who knew Him not, but to him who in a manner knew Him, and in a manner knew Him not. It is for us to discover what, in Him, John did not know, and learned by the dove.

3. Why was John sent baptizing? Already, I recollect, I have explained that to you, beloved, according to my ability. For if the baptism of John was necessary for our salvation, it ought even now to be used. For we cannot think that men are not saved now, or that more are not saved now, or that there was one salvation then, another now. If Christ has been changed, the salvation has also been changed; if salvation is in Christ, and Christ Himself is the same, there is the same salvation to us. But why was John sent baptizing? Because it behooved Christ to be baptized. Wherefore did it behoove Christ to be baptized? Wherefore did it behoove Christ to be born? Wherefore did it behoove Christ to be crucified? For if He had come to point out the way of humility, and to make Himself the way of humility; in all things had humility to be fulfilled by Him. He deigned from this to give authority to His own baptism, that His servants might know with what alacrity they ought to run to the baptism of the Lord, when He Himself did not refuse to receive the baptism of a servant. This favor was bestowed upon John that it should be called his baptism.

4. Give heed to this, exercise your discrimination, and know it, beloved. The baptism which John received is called the baptism of John: alone he received such a gift. No one of the just before him and no one after him so received a baptism that it should be called his baptism. He received it indeed, for of himself he could do nothing: for if any one speaks of his own, he speaks of his own a lie. And whence did he receive it except from the Lord Jesus Christ? From Him he received power to baptize whom he afterwards baptized. Do not marvel; for Christ acted in the same manner in respect to John as in respect to His mother. For concerning Christ it was said, All things were made by Him. John 1:3 If all things were made by him, Mary also was made by Him, of whom Christ was afterwards born. Give heed, beloved; in the same manner that He did create Mary, and was created by Mary, so did He give the baptism of John, and was baptized by John.

5. For this purpose therefore did He receive baptism from John, in order that, receiving what was inferior from an inferior, He might exhort inferiors to receive that which was superior. But wherefore was not He alone baptized by John, if John, by whom Christ was baptized, was sent for this end, to prepare a way for the Lord, that is, for Christ Himself? This we have already explained, but we recur to it, because it is necessary for the present question. If our Lord Jesus Christ had been alone baptized with the baptism of John;— hold fast what we say; let not the world have such power as to efface from your hearts what the Spirit of God has written there; let not the thorns of care have such power as to choke the seed which is being sown in you: for why are we compelled to repeat the same things, but because we are not sure of the memory of your hearts?— and if then the Lord alone had been baptized with the baptism of John, there would be persons who would so reckon it, that the baptism of John was greater than is the baptism of Christ. For they would say, that baptism is so much the greater, that Christ alone deserved to be baptized with it. Therefore, that an example of humility might be given us by the Lord, that the salvation of baptism might be obtained by us, Christ accepted what for Him was not necessary, but on our account was necessary. And again, lest that which Christ received from John should be preferred to the baptism of Christ, others also were permitted to be baptized by John. But for those who were baptized by John that baptism did not suffice: for they were baptized with the baptism of Christ; because the baptism of John was not the baptism of Christ. Those who receive the baptism of Christ do not seek the baptism of John; those who received the baptism of John sought the baptism of Christ. Therefore was the baptism of John sufficient for Christ. How should it not be sufficient, when not even it was necessary? For to Him was no baptism necessary; but in order to exhort us to receive His baptism, He received the baptism of His servant. And lest the baptism of the servant should be preferred to the baptism of the Lord, other fellow-servants were baptized with the baptism of the servant. But it behooved those fellow-servants who were baptized with that baptism to be likewise baptized with the baptism of the Lord: but those who were baptized with the baptism of the Lord do not require the baptism of the fellow-servant.

6. Since, then, John had accepted a baptism which may be properly called the baptism of John, but the Lord Jesus Christ would not give His baptism to any, not that no one should be baptized with the baptism of the Lord, but that the Lord Himself should always baptize: that was done, that the Lord should baptize by means of servants; that is to say, those whom the servants of the Lord were to baptize, the Lord baptized, not they. For it is one thing to baptize in the capacity of a servant, another thing to baptize with power. For baptism derives its character from Him through whose power it is given; not from him through whose ministry it is given. As was John, so was his baptism: the righteous baptism of a righteous man; but of a man who had received from the Lord that grace, and so great grace, that he was worthy to be the forerunner of the Judge, and to point Him out with the finger, and to fulfill the saying of that prophecy: The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way for the Lord. Isaiah 40:3 As was the Lord, such was His baptism: the baptism of the Lord, then, was divine, because the Lord was God.

7. But the Lord Jesus Christ could, if He wished, have given power to one of His servants to give a baptism of his own, as it were, in His stead, and have transferred from Himself the power of baptizing, and assigned it to one of His servants, and have given the same power to the baptism transferred to the servant as it had when bestowed by the Lord. This He would not do, in order that the hope of the baptized might be in him by whom they acknowledged themselves to have been baptized. He would not, therefore, that the servant should place his hope in the servant. And therefore the apostle exclaimed, when he saw men wishing to place their hope in himself, Was Paul crucified for you? Or were ye baptized in the name of Paul? 1 Corinthians 1:13 Paul then baptized as a servant, not as the power itself; but the Lord baptized as the power. Give heed. He was both able to give this power to His servants, and unwilling. For if He had given this power to His servants— that is to say, that what belonged to the Lord should be theirs— there would have been as many baptisms as servants; so that, as we speak of the baptism of John, we should also have spoken of the baptism of Peter, the baptism of Paul, the baptism of James, the baptism of Thomas, of Matthew, of Bartholomew: for we spoke of that baptism as that of John. But perhaps some one objects, and says, Prove to us that that baptism was called the baptism of John. I will prove it from the very words of the Truth Himself, when He asked the Jews, The baptism of John, whence was it? From heaven, or of men? Matthew 21:25 Therefore, lest as many baptisms should be spoken of as there are servants who received power from the Lord to baptize, the Lord kept to Himself the power of baptizing, and gave to His servants the ministry. The servant says that he baptizes; he says so rightly, as the apostle says, And I baptized also the household of Stephanas; 1 Corinthians 1:16 but as a servant. Therefore, if even he be bad, and he happen to have the ministration of baptism, and if men do not know him, but God knows him, God, who has kept the power to Himself, permits baptism to be administered through him.

8. But this John did not know in the Lord. That He was the Lord he knew, and that he ought to be baptized by Him he knew; and he confessed that He was the Truth, and that he, the true man, was sent by the Truth: this he knew. But what was in Him which he knew not? That he was about to retain to Himself the power of His baptism, and was not to transmit or transfer it to any servant; but that, whether a good servant baptized in a ministerial manner, or whether an evil servant baptized, the person baptized should not know that he was baptized, unless by Him who kept to Himself the power of baptizing. And that you may know, brethren, what John did not know in Him, he learned it by means of the dove: for he knew the Lord; but that He was to retain to Himself the power of baptizing, and not to give it to any servant, he did not yet know. Regarding this he said, I knew Him not. And that you may know that he there learned this, give heed to what follows: But He that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom you shall see the Spirit descending as a dove, and abiding upon Him, the same is He. What same is He? The Lord? But he already knew the Lord. Suppose, then, that John had said thus far, I knew Him not: but He that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me— We ask, what He said? It follows: Upon whom you shall see the Spirit descending as a dove, and abiding upon Him. I do not say what follows. In the meantime give heed: Upon whom you shall see the Spirit descending as a dove, and abiding upon Him, the same is He. But what same is He? What did He who sent me mean to teach me by means of a dove? That He was Himself the Lord. Already I knew by whom I was sent; already I knew Him to whom I said, Comest Thou to me to be baptized? I have need to be baptized by You. So far, then, did I know the Lord, that I wished to be baptized by Him, not that He should be baptized by me; and then He said to me, Suffer it to be so now; for thus it becomes us to fulfill all righteousness. Matthew 3:15 I came to suffer; do I not come to be baptized? Let all righteousness be fulfilled, says my God to me. Let all righteousness be fulfilled; let me teach entire humility. I know that there will be proud ones in my future people; I know that some men then will be eminent in some grace, so that when they see ordinary persons baptized, they, because they consider themselves better, whether in continence, or in almsgiving, or in doctrine, will perhaps not deign to receive what has been received by their inferiors. It was needful that I should heal them, so that they should not disdain to come to the baptism of the Lord, because I came to the baptism of the servant.

9. Already, then, John knew this, and he knew the Lord. What then did the dove teach? What did He desire to teach by means of the dove— that is, by means of the Holy Spirit thus coming to teach who had sent him to whom He said, Upon whom you shall see the Spirit descending as a dove, and abiding upon Him, the same is He? Who is this He? The Lord? I know. But did you already know this, that the same Lord having the power to baptize, was not to give that power to any servant, but to retain it to Himself, so that all who were baptized by the ministration of the servant, should not impute their baptism to the servant, but to the Lord? Did you already know this? I did not know this: so what did He say to me? Upon whom you shall see the Spirit descending as a dove, and abiding upon Him, the same is He who baptizes with the Holy Ghost. He does not say, He is the Lord; He does not say, He is the Christ; He does not say, He is God; He does not say, He is Jesus; He does not say, He is the One who was born of the Virgin Mary, after you, before you. This He does not say, for this John did already know. But what did he not know? That this great authority of baptism the Lord Himself was to have, and to retain to Himself, whether present in the earth or absent in body in the heaven, and present in majesty; lest Paul should say, my baptism; lest Peter should say, my baptism. Therefore see, give heed to the words of the apostles. None of the apostles said, my baptism. Although there was one gospel of all, yet you find that they said, my gospel: you do not find that they say, my baptism.

10. This, then, my brethren, John learned. What John learned by means of the dove let us also learn. For the dove did not teach John without teaching the Church, the Church to which it was said, My dove is one. Song of Songs 6:8 Let the dove teach the dove; let the dove know what John learned by the dove. The Holy Spirit descended in the form of a dove. But this which John learned in the dove, wherefore did he learn it in the dove? For it behooved him to learn, and perhaps it did not so much behoove him to learn as to learn by the dove. What shall I say, my brethren, concerning the dove? Or when will faculty of tongue or heart suffice to speak as I wish? And perchance, my wish falls short of my duty in speaking; even if I were able to speak as I wish, how much less am I able to speak as I ought? I could wish to hear one better than myself speak this, rather than speak of it to you.

11. John learns to know Him whom he knew; but he learns in Him with regard to what he did not know; with regard to what he did know, he does not learn. And what did he know? The Lord. What did he not know? That the power of the Lord's baptism was not to pass from the Lord to any man, but that the ministration of it plainly would do so; the power from the Lord to no one, the ministration both to good and bad. Let not the dove shrink from the ministration of the bad, but have regard to the power of the Lord. What injury does a bad servant do to you where the Lord is good? What impediment can the malicious herald put in your way if the judge is well-disposed? John learned by means of the dove this. What is it that he learned? Let him repeat it himself. The same said unto me, says he, Upon whom you shall see the Spirit descending as a dove, and abiding on Him, this is He which baptizes with the Holy Ghost. Let not those seducers deceive you, O dove, who say, We baptize. Acknowledge, dove, what the dove has taught: This is He which baptizes with the Holy Ghost. By means of the dove we are taught that this is He; and do you think that you are baptized by his authority by whose ministration you are baptized? If you think this, you are not as yet in the body of the dove; and if you are not in the body of the dove, it is not to be wondered at that you have not simplicity; for by means of the dove, simplicity is chiefly designated.

12. Wherefore, my brethren, by the simplicity of the dove did John learn that This is He which baptizes with the Holy Ghost, unless to show that these are not doves who have scattered the Church? Hawks they were, and kites. The dove does not tear. And you see that they hold us up to hatred, for the persecutions, as they call them, which they have suffered. Bodily persecutions, indeed, if they are to be so called, they have suffered, since these were the scourges of the Lord, plainly administering temporal correction, lest He should have to condemn them eternally, if they did not acknowledge it and amend themselves. They truly persecute the Church who persecute by means of deceit; they strike the heart more heavily who strike with the sword of the tongue; they shed blood more bitterly who, as far as they can, slay Christ in man. They seem to be in fear, as it were, of the judgment of the authorities. What does the authority do to you if you are good? But if you are evil, fear the authority; For he bears not the sword in vain, Romans 13:4 says the apostle. Draw not the sword wherewith you strike Christ. Christian, what do you persecute in a Christian? What did the Emperor persecute in you? He persecuted the flesh; you in a Christian persecute the Spirit. You do not slay the flesh. And, nevertheless, they do not spare the flesh; as many as they were able, they slew with the sword; they spared neither their own nor strangers. This is known to all. The authority is hated because it is legitimate; he acts in a hated manner who acts according to the law; he acts without incurring hatred who acts contrary to the laws. Give heed, each one of you, my brethren, to what the Christian possesses. His humanity he has in common with many, his Christianity distinguishes him from many, and his Christianity belongs to him more strictly than his humanity. For, as a Christian, he is renewed after the image of God, by whom man was made after the image of God; Colossians 3:10 but as a man he might be bad, he might be a pagan, he might be an idolater. This you persecute in the Christian, which is his better part; for this by which he lives you wish to take away from him. For he lives tempo rally according to the spirit of life, by which his body is animated, but he lives for eternity according to the baptism which he received from the Lord; you wish to take this away from him which he received from the Lord, this you wish to take away from him by which he lives. Robbers, with regard to those whom they wish to despoil, have the purpose to enrich themselves and to deprive their victims of all that they have; but you take from him, and with you there will not be anything more, for there does not accrue more to you because you take from him. But, truly, they do the same as those who take away the natural life: they take it away from another, and yet they themselves have not two lives.

13. What, then, do you wish to take away? What displeases you in the man whom you wish to rebaptize? You are not able to give what he already has, but you make him deny what he has. What greater cruelty did the pagan persecutor of the Church commit? Swords were stretched out against the martyrs, wild beasts were let loose, fires were applied: for what purpose these things? In order that the sufferer might be induced to say, I am not a Christian. What do you teach him whom you wish to rebaptize, unless that he first say, I am not a Christian? For the same purpose for which the persecutor put forth the flame, you put forth the tongue; you do by seducing what he did not do by slaying. And what is it you give, and to whom are you to give it? If he tells you the truth, and does not lie, seduced by you, he will say, I have. Thou ask, Have you baptism? I have, he says. As long as he says, I have, you say, I will not give. And do not give, for that which you wish to give cannot cleave to me; because what I received cannot be taken away from me. But wait, nevertheless; let me see what you would teach me. Say, he said, in the first place, I have not. But this I have; if I shall say, I have not, I lie; for what I have I have. You have not, he says. Teach me that I have it not. An evil man gave it to you. If Christ is evil, an evil man did give it to me. Christ, he says, is not evil; but Christ did not give it to you. Who then gave it to me? Reply, I know that I received it from Christ. He who gave it to you, he says, was not Christ, but some traditor. I shall see to it who was the minister; I shall see who was the herald. Concerning the official, I do not dispute; I give heed to the Judge: and, perchance, in your objection to the official, you speak falsely. But I decline to discuss it; let the Lord of both decide the cause of His own official. If, perhaps, I were to ask for proof, you could give none; indeed, you lie, it has been proved that you were not able to give proof. But I do not place my case on this, lest from my zealous defense of innocent men you infer that I have placed my hope even on innocent men. Let the men be what they may, I received from Christ, I was baptized by Christ. No, he says; not Christ, but that bishop baptized you, and that bishop communicates to them. By Christ I have been baptized, I know. How do you know? The dove taught me, which John saw. O evil kite, you may not tear me from the bowels of the dove. I am numbered among the members of the dove, because what the dove taught, this I know. You say to me, This man or that baptized you: by means of the dove it is said to me and to you, This is He which baptizes. Which shall I believe, the kite or the dove?

14. Tell me certainly, that you may be confounded by that lamp by which also were the former enemies confounded, who were like to you, the Pharisees, who, when they questioned the Lord by what authority He did those things: I also, said He, will ask you this question, Tell me, the baptism of John, whence is it? From heaven, or of men? And they, who were preparing to spread their wiles, were entangled by the question, and began to debate with themselves, and say, If we shall answer, It is from heaven, He will say unto us, Wherefore did ye not believe him? For John had said of the Lord, Behold the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world! John 1:29 Why then do you inquire by what authority I act? O wolves, what I do, I do by the authority of the Lamb. But that you may know the Lamb, why do you not believe John, who said, Behold the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world? They, then, knowing what John had said regarding the Lord, said among themselves, If we shall say that John's baptism is from heaven, He will say unto us, Wherefore then did ye not believe him? If we shall say, It is of men, the people will stone us; for they hold John as a prophet. Hence, they feared men; hence, they were confounded to confess the truth. Darkness replied with darkness; but they were overcome by the light. For what did they reply? We know not; regarding that which they knew, they said, We know not. And the Lord said, Neither tell I you by what authority I do these things. Matthew 21:23-27 And the first enemies were confounded. How? By the lamp. Who was the lamp? John. Can we prove that he was the lamp? We can prove it; for the Lord says: He was a burning and a shining lamp. John 5:35 Can we prove also that the enemies were confounded by him? Listen to the psalm: I have prepared, he says, a lamp for my Christ. His enemies I will clothe with shame.

15. As yet, in the darkness of this life, we walk by the lamp of faith: let us hold also to the lamp John, and let us confound by him the enemies of Christ; indeed, let Christ Himself confound His own enemies by His own lamp. Let us put the question which the Lord put to the Jews, let us ask and say, The baptism of John, whence is it? From heaven, or of men? What will they say? Mark, if they are not as enemies confounded by the lamp. What will they say? If they shall say, Of men, even their own will stone them; but if they shall say, From heaven, let us say to them, Wherefore, then, did ye not believe him? They perhaps say, We believe him. Wherefore, then, do you say that you baptize, when John says, This is He which baptizes? But it behooves, they say, the ministers of so great a Judge who baptize, to be righteous. And I also say, and all say, that it behooves the ministers of so great a Judge to be righteous; let the ministers, by all means, be righteous if they will; but if they will not be righteous who sit in the seat of Moses, my Master made me safe, of whom His Spirit said, This is He which baptizes. How did He make me safe? The scribes and the Pharisees, He says, sit in Moses' seat: what they say, do; but what they do, that do not ye: for they say, and do not. Matthew 23:2-3 If the minister is righteous, I reckon him with Paul, I reckon him with Peter; with those I reckon righteous ministers: because, in truth, righteous ministers seek not their own glory; for they are ministers, they do not wish to be thought judges, they abhor that one should place his hope on them; therefore, I reckon the righteous minister with Paul. For what does Paul say? I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase. Neither is he that plants anything, nor he that waters; but God who gives the increase. 1 Corinthians 3:6-7 But he who is a proud minister is reckoned with the devil; but the gift of Christ is not contaminated, which flows through him pure, which passes through him liquid, and comes to the fertile earth. Suppose that he is stony, that he cannot from water rear fruit; even through the stony channel the water passes, the water passes to the garden beds; in the stony channel it causes nothing to grow, but nevertheless it brings much fruit to the gardens. For the spiritual virtue of the sacrament is like the light: both by those who are to be enlightened is it received pure, and if it passes through the impure it is not stained. Let the ministers be by all means righteous, and seek not their own glory, but His glory whose ministers they are; let them not say, The baptism is mine; for it is not theirs. Let them give heed unto John. Behold, John was full of the Holy Spirit; and he had his baptism from heaven, not from men; but how long had he it? He said himself, Prepare ye the way for the Lord. John 1:23 But when the Lord was known, Himself became the way; there was no longer need for the baptism of John to prepare the way for the Lord.

16. What, however, are they accustomed to say against us? Behold, after John, baptism was given. For before that question was properly treated in the Catholic Church, many erred in it, both great and good men; but because they were members of the dove, they did not cut themselves off, and in their case that happened which the apostle said, If in any thing you are otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you. Philippians 3:15 Whence those who separated themselves became unteachable. What then are they wont to say? Behold, after John baptism was given; after heretical baptism is it not to be given? Because certain who had the baptism of John were commanded by Paul to be baptized, Acts 19:3-5 for they had not the baptism of Christ. Why then, say they, do you exaggerate the merit of John, and, as it were, underrate the misery of heretics? I also grant to you that the heretics are wicked; but the heretics gave the baptism of Christ, which baptism John did not give.

17. I go back to John, and say, This is he which baptizes. For John is better than a heretic, just as John is better than a drunkard, as John is better than a murderer. If we ought to baptize after the worse because the apostles baptized after the better, whosoever among them were baptized by a drunkard,— I do not say by a murderer, I do not say by the satellite of some wicked man, I do not say by the robber of other men's goods, I do not say by the oppressor of orphans, or a separater of married persons; I speak of none of these; I speak of what happens every year, of what happens every day; I speak of what all are called to, even in this city, when it is said to them, Let us play the part of the irrational, let us have pleasure, and on such a day as this of the calends of January we ought not to fast: these are the things I speak of, these trifling everyday proceedings—when one is baptized by a drunkard, who is better? John or the drunkard? Reply, if you can, that the drunkard is better than John! This you will never venture to do. Do you then, as a sober man, baptize after your drunkard. For if the apostles baptized after John, how much more ought the sober to baptize after the drunkard? Or do you say, the drunkard is in unity with me? Was not John then, the friend of the Bridegroom, in unity with the Bridegroom?

18. But I say to you yourself, whoever you are, Are you better than John? You will not venture to say: I am better than John. Then let your own baptize after you if they are better. For if baptism was administered after John, blush that baptism is not administered after you. You will say, But I have and teach the baptism of Christ. Acknowledge, then, now the Judge, and do not be a proud herald. You give the baptism of Christ, therefore baptism is not administered after you: after John it was administered, because he gave not the baptism of Christ, but his own; for he had in such manner received it that it was his own. You are then not better than John: but the baptism given through you is better than that of John; for the one is Christ's, but the other is that of John. And that which was given by Paul, and that which was given by Peter, is Christ's; and if baptism was given by Judas it was Christ's. Judas gave baptism and after Judas baptism was not repeated; John gave baptism, and baptism was repeated after John: because if baptism was given by Judas, it was the baptism of Christ; but that which was given by John, was John's baptism. We prefer not Judas to John; but the baptism of Christ, even when given by the hand of Judas, we prefer to the baptism of John, rightly given even by the hand of John. For it was said of the Lord before He suffered, that He baptized more than John; then it was added: Howbeit, Jesus Himself baptized not, but His disciples. John 4:1-2 He, and not He: He by power, they by ministry; they performed the service of baptizing, the power of baptizing remained in Christ. His disciples, then, baptized, and Judas was still among his disciples: and were those, then, whom Judas baptized not again baptized; and those whom John baptized were they again baptized? Plainly there was a repetition, but not a repetition of the same baptism. For those whom John baptized, John baptized; those whom Judas baptized, Christ baptized. In like manner, then, they whom a drunkard baptized, those whom a murderer baptized, those whom an adulterer baptized, if it was the baptism of Christ, were baptized by Christ. I do not fear the adulterer, the drunkard, or the murderer, because I give heed unto the dove, through whom it is said to me, This is He which baptizes.

19. But, my brethren, it is madness to say that— I will not say Judas— but that any man was better than he of whom it was said, that Among those that are born of women, there has not arisen a greater than John the Baptist. Matthew 11:11 No servant then is preferred to him; but the baptism of the Lord, even when given through an evil servant, is preferred to the baptism even of a servant who was a friend. Listen to the sort of persons whom the Apostle Paul mentions, false brethren, preaching the word of God through envy, and what he says of them: And I therein do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice. Philippians 1:15-18 They proclaimed Christ, through envy indeed, but still they proclaimed Christ. Consider not the why, but the whom: through envy is Christ preached to you. Behold Christ, avoid envy. Do not imitate the evil preacher, but imitate the Good One who is preached to you. Christ then was preached by some out of envy. And what is envy? A shocking evil. By this evil was the devil cast down; this malignant pest it was which cast him down; and certain preachers of Christ were possessed by it, whom, nevertheless, the apostle permitted to preach. Wherefore? Because they preached Christ. But he who envies, hates; and he who hates, what is said concerning him? Listen to the Apostle John: He who hates his brother is a murderer. 1 John 3:15 Behold, after John baptism was given, after a murderer baptism was not given; because John gave his own baptism, the murderer gave the baptism of Christ. That sacrament is so sacred that not even the ministration of a murderer pollutes it.

20. I do not reject John, but rather I believe John. In what do I believe John? In that which he learned through the dove? What did he learn through the dove? This is He which baptizes with the Holy Ghost. Now therefore, brethren, hold this fast and impress it upon your hearts; for if I would more fully explain today, Wherefore through the dove? time fails. For I have, I think, to some extent made plain to you, holy brethren, that a matter which had to be learned was instilled into John by means of the dove, a matter with regard to Christ which John did not know, although he already knew Christ; but why it behooved this matter to be pointed out by means of the dove, I would say, were it possible to say it briefly: but because it would take long to say, and I am unwilling to burden you, since I have been helped by your prayers to perform my promise; with the renewed help of your pious attention and good wishes, it will likewise become clear to you, wherefore John with regard to that matter which he learned regarding the Lord, namely, that it is He which baptizes with the Holy Ghost, and that to none of His servants had he transferred the power of baptizing— why this it became him not to learn except through the dove.

[AD 430] Augustine of Hippo on John 1:33

But did he know Christ, or did he not know him? If he did not know him, then why, when Christ came to the river, did he say, “I need to be baptized by you”? In other words, he’s saying: I know who you are. If, then, he already knew him, assuredly he knew him when he saw the dove descending. It is evident that the dove did not descend upon the Lord until after he went up out of the water of baptism.… But if this is not the first time he recognizes him, because he already knew, then why did he say, “I didn’t know him”?

Source: TRACTATES ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 4.15

[AD 430] Augustine of Hippo on John 1:33

It was not that he did not know him to be the Son of God, or did not know him to be the Lord, or did not know him to be the Christ, or did not, also, in fact, know that he himself would baptize with water and the Holy Spirit; for he knew this too. But that he would baptize in this way, namely, that he would keep for himself the power and would transfer it to no one of his ministers, this is what he learned in the dove. For through this power, which Christ kept for himself alone and transmitted to none of his ministers, although he deigned to baptize through his ministers, through this abides the unity of the Church which is signified in the dove, about which it is said, “One is my dove, the only one her mother has.”

Source: TRACTATES ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 6.6

[AD 444] Cyril of Alexandria on John 1:33

The divine Scripture testifies that human beings were made in the image and likeness of God who is over all. … For the Spirit at once began to put life into what he had formed and to impress his own divine image on it there. … Subsequently, however, the likeness to God was defaced through the inroad of sin and the impress was no longer bright as it was. It had grown fainter and darkened because of sin. And when sin became so great … that human nature was stripped of its ancient grace, the Spirit departed altogether. Then this creature endowed with reason fell into the most extreme kind of foolishness, ignorant even of its Creator. But then the maker of all, after enduring a lengthy amount of time, finally pities the corrupted world. Because he is good, he hurried to gather together his runaway flock upon earth in order to bring it to those who dwell above. He agreed to transform human nature anew to its pristine image through the Spirit. For in no other way was it possible for the divine impress to again shine forth in men and women as it once had. Let us now look at this plan and how he implanted in us the inviolate grace. Let us see how the Spirit again took root in humanity and in what way nature was reformed into its prior condition.…Since the first Adam did not preserve the grace given him by God, God the Father intended to send us from heaven the second Adam. For he sends in our likeness his own Son who is by nature without variableness or change, and who in no way knew any sins. He did this so that even as through the disobedience of the first Adam we became subject to divine wrath, so through the obedience of the Second Adam, we might both escape the curse, and its evils might come to nothing. But when the Word of God became man, he received the Spirit from the Father as one of us. He did not receive anything for himself individually since he himself was the Giver of the Spirit. And so, he who knew no sin might, by receiving it as man, preserve it for our nature, and might again in-root in us the grace which had left us. This is the reason I think it was that the holy Baptist profitably added, “I saw the Spirit descending from heaven, and it rested upon him.” For it had fled from us because of sin, but he who knew no sin became as one of us so that the Spirit might be accustomed to abide in us, having no occasion of departure or withdrawal in him. Therefore through himself he receives the Spirit for us, and renews to our nature, the ancient good.

Source: COMMENTARY ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 2.1

[AD 430] Augustine of Hippo on John 1:34

1. We rejoice at your numbers, for you have come together with readiness and in greater numbers than we could have hoped. This it is that delights and consoles us in all the labors and dangers of this life, your love towards God, and pious zeal, and assured hope, and fervor of spirit. You heard when the psalm was read, that the needy and poor man cries to God in this world. For it is the voice, as you have often heard, and ought to remember, not of one man, and yet of one man; not of one, because the faithful are many— many grains groaning amid the chaff diffused throughout the whole world— but of one, because all are members of Christ, and thus one body. This people, then, poor and needy, does not know to rejoice with the world: its grief is within, and its joy is within, where no one sees but He who listens to him who groans, and crowns him who hopes. The rejoicing of the world is vanity. With great expectation is it hoped for and it cannot, when it comes, be held fast. For this day which is a day of rejoicing in this city to the lost, tomorrow will, of course, cease to be; nor will they themselves be the same tomorrow that they are today. And all things pass away, fly away, and vanish like smoke; and woe to those who love such things! For every soul follows what it loves. All flesh is grass, and all the goodliness thereof as the flower of the field: the grass withers, the flower fades; but the word of the Lord abides forever. Isaiah 40:1-8 Behold what you must love if you desire to abide for ever. But you had this to reply: How can I apprehend the word of God? The Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us. John 1:14

2. Wherefore, beloved, let it belong to our neediness and poverty to grieve for those who seem to themselves to abound. For their joy is as that of madmen. But as a madman rejoices for the most part in his madness, and laughs, and grieves over him who is in his senses, so let us, beloved, if we have received the medicine coming from heaven, because we all were madmen, as if made whole, because those things which we did love we do not love—let us, I say, groan unto God for those who are yet in madness, for He is able to save them also. And there is need that they should look upon themselves and be displeased with themselves: to behold they desire, and to behold themselves they have not known. For if they for a little turn their eyes upon themselves, they see their own confusion. But until this take place, let our pursuits be different, let the recreations of our souls be different; our grief avails more than their joy. As far as regards the number of the brethren, it is difficult to conceive that any one of the men should have been carried away by that celebration; but as regards the number of the sisters, it grieves us, and this is a greater cause for grief, that they do not rather repair to the Church, whom if not fear, modesty at all events ought to deter from the public scene. May He see to this who sees it; and may His mercy be present to heal all. Let us who have come together feed upon the feast of God, and let our joy be His word. For He has invited us to His gospel, and He is our food, than whom nothing is sweeter, if only a man have a healthy palate in his heart.

3. But I imagine, beloved brethren, that you remember that this Gospel is read in order in suitable portions; and I think that it has not escaped you what has lately been treated of, specially the recent matters concerning John and the dove. Concerning John, namely, what new thing he learned concerning the Lord by means of the dove, although he had already known the Lord. And this was discovered by the inspiration of the Spirit of God, that John indeed already knew the Lord, but that the Lord Himself was to baptize, that the power of baptizing He would not transfer from Himself to any one, this he learned by means of the dove, because it was said to him, On whom you shall see the Spirit descending as a dove, and abiding upon Him, this is He which baptizes with the Holy Ghost. John 1:33 What is This is He? Not another, although by means of another. But why by means of a dove? Many things were said, and I am not able, nor is there need that I should go over all—principally, however, to denote peace, because also the trees which were baptized outside, because the dove found in them fruit, it brought to the ark, as you remember the dove sent out by Noah from the ark, which floated on the flood and was washed by baptism, was not submerged. When, then, it was sent forth, it brought an olive branch; but it had not leaves alone, it had also fruit. Genesis 8:8-11 This, then, we ought to wish for our brethren who are baptized outside, that they may have fruit; the dove will not permit them to remain outside, but bring them back to the ark. For the whole of fruit is charity, without which a man is nothing, whatever else he have. And this, which is most fully said by the apostle, we have mentioned and recounted. For he says, Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I have become as sounding brass or a tinkling cymbal; and though I should have all knowledge, and know all mysteries, and have all prophecy, and should have all faith (but in what sense did he say all faith?), so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. And though I should distribute all my goods to the poor, and though I should give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profits me nothing. 1 Corinthians 13:1-3 But in no manner are they able to say that they have charity who divide unity. These things were said: let us see what follows.

4. John bare record because he saw. What record did he bear? That this is the Son of God. It behooved, then, that He should baptize who is God's only Son, not His adopted son. Adopted sons are the ministers of the only Son: the only Son has power; the adopted, the ministry. In the case that a minister baptizes who does not belong to the number of sons, because he lives evilly and acts evilly, what is our consolation? This is He which baptizes.

5. The next day, John stood, and two of his disciples; and looking upon Jesus as He walked, he says, Behold the Lamb of God! Assuredly, in a special sense, the Lamb; for the disciples were also called lambs: Behold, I send you as lambs in the midst of wolves. Matthew 10:16 They were also called light: You are the light of the world; Matthew 5:14 but in another sense is He called so, concerning whom it was said, That was the true light, which lights every man that comes into the world. John 1:9 In like manner was He called the dove in a special sense, alone without stain, without sin; not one whose sins have been washed away, but One who never had stain. For what? Because John said concerning the Lord, Behold the Lamb of God, was not John himself a lamb? Was he not a holy man? Was he not the friend of the Bridegroom? Wherefore, with a special meaning, said John of Him, This is the Lamb of God; because solely by the blood of this Lamb alone could men be redeemed.

6. My brethren, if we acknowledge our price, that it is the blood of the Lamb, who are they who this day celebrate the festival of the blood of I know not what woman, and how ungrateful are they! The gold was snatched, they say, from the ear of a woman, and the blood ran, and the gold was placed on a pair of scales or on a balance, and the advantage was much on the side of the blood. If the blood of a woman was sufficiently weighty to outweigh the gold, what power to outweigh the world has the blood of the Lamb by whom the world was made? And, indeed, that spirit, I know not who, was pacified by the blood that he should depress the weight. Impure spirits knew that Jesus Christ would come, they had heard of His coming from the angels, they had heard of it from the prophets, and they expected it. For if they were not expecting it, why did they exclaim, What have we to do with You? Are You come before the time to destroy us? We know who You are; the Holy One of God. Mark 1:24 They expected that He would come, but they were ignorant of the time. But what have you heard in the psalm regarding Jerusalem? For Your servants have taken pleasure in her stones, and will pity the dust thereof. You shall arise, says he, and have mercy upon Zion: for the time has come that You will have mercy upon her. When the time came for God to have mercy, the Lamb came. What sort of a Lamb whom wolves fear? What sort of a Lamb is it who, when slain, slew a lion? For the devil is called a lion, going about and roaring, seeking whom he may devour. 1 Peter 5:8 By the blood of the Lamb the lion was vanquished. Behold the spectacles of Christians. And what is more: they with the eyes of the flesh behold vanity, we with the eyes of the heart behold truth. Do not think, brethren, that our Lord God has dismissed us without spectacles; for if there are no spectacles, why have ye come together today? Behold, what we have said you saw, and you exclaimed; you would not have exclaimed if you had not seen. And this is a great thing to see in the whole world, the lion vanquished by the blood of the Lamb: members of Christ delivered from the teeth of the lions, and joined to the body of Christ. Therefore some spirit or other contrived the counterfeit that His image should be bought for blood, because he knew that the human race was at some time to be redeemed by the precious blood. For evil spirits counterfeit certain shadows of honor to themselves, that they may deceive those who follow Christ. So much so, my brethren, that those who seduce by means of amulets, by incantations, by the devices of the enemy, mingle the name of Christ with their incantations: because they are not now able to seduce Christians, so as to give them poison they add some honey, that by means of the sweet the bitter may be concealed, and be drunk to ruin. So much so, that I know that the priest of that Pilleatus was sometimes in the habit of saying, Pilleatus himself also is a Christian. Why so, brethren, unless that they were not able otherwise to seduce Christians?

7. Do not, then, seek Christ elsewhere than where Christ wished Himself to be preached to you; and as He wished Himself to be preached to you, in that fashion hold Him fast, in that manner write Him on your heart. It is a wall against all the assaults, and against all the snares of the enemy. Do not fear, he does not tempt unless he has been permitted; it is certain that he does nothing unless permitted or sent. He is sent as an evil angel by a power holding him in control: he is permitted when he asks anything; and this, brethren, does not take place unless that the just may be tried, the unjust punished. Why, then, do you fear? Walk in the Lord your God; be assured, what He does not wish you to suffer you do not suffer; what He permits you to suffer is the scourge of one correcting, not the punishment of one condemning. We are being educated for an eternal inheritance, and do we spurn to be scourged? My brethren, if a boy were to refuse the punishment of cuffs or stripes from his father, would he not be called proud, incorrigible, ungrateful towards paternal discipline? And for what does an earthly father educate his son? That he may not lose the temporal things which he has acquired for him, which he has collected for him, which he does not wish him to lose, which he who leaves them cannot retain eternally. He does not teach a son with whom he is to possess, but one who is to possess after him. My brethren, if a father teaches a son who is to succeed him, and teaches him also that he will have to pass through all these things, in same way as he who is admonishing him is destined to pass through them, how do you wish that He educate us, our Father to whom we are not to succeed, but to whom we are to approach, and with whom we are to abide eternally in an inheritance which does not decay nor die, and which no storms can desolate? He is Himself both the inheritance and the Father. Shall we possess Him, and ought we not to undergo training? Let us hear the instruction of the Father. When our head aches, let us not have recourse to the superstitious intercessor, to the diviners and remedies of vanity. My brethren, shall I not mourn over you? Daily do I find these things; and what shall I do? Not yet have I persuaded Christians that their hope ought to be placed in God. Behold, if one dies to whom one of these remedies has been given (and how many have died with remedies, and how many have lived without them!), with what confidence does the spirit go forth to God? He has lost the sign of Christ, and has received the sign of the devil. Perhaps he may say that he has not lost the sign of Christ. You can have, then, the sign of Christ along with the sign of the devil. Christ does not desire community of ownership, but He desires to possess alone what He has purchased. He has bought at so great a price that He may possess alone: you make Him the partner of that devil to whom you sold yourself by your sin. Woe to the double-hearted, Sirach 2:12 to those who in their hearts give part to God and part to the devil. God, being angry that the devil has part there, departs, and the devil will possess the whole. Not in vain, therefore, says the apostle, Neither give place to the devil. Ephesians 4:27 Let us know the Lamb, then, brethren; let us know our price.

8. John stood, and two of his disciples. Behold two of John's disciples: since John, the friend of the Bridegroom, was such as he was, he sought not his own glory, but bore witness to the truth. Did he wish that his disciples should remain with him and not follow the Lord? Rather he himself showed hisdisciples whom they should follow. For they accounted of him as though he were the lamb; and he said, Why do you give heed to me? I am not the lamb; behold the Lamb of God, of whom also he had already said, Behold the Lamb of God. And what benefit does the Lamb of God confer upon us? Behold, he says, who takes away the sin of the world. The two who were with John followed Him when they heard this.

9. Let us see what follows: Behold the Lamb of God. This John said, and the two disciples heard him speak, and followed Jesus. Then Jesus turned and saw them following, and says unto them, What do you seek? And they said, Rabbi (that is to say, being interpreted, Master), where dwellest Thou? They did not follow Him in such manner as that they should cleave to Him; for it is plain when they clave unto Him, for He called them from the ship. For one of the two was Andrew, as you have just heard, and Andrew was the brother of Peter; and we know from the Gospel that the Lord called Peter and Andrew from the ship, saying, Come ye after me, and I will make you fishers of men. Matthew 4:19 And from that time they clave unto Him, so as not to go away. On the present occasion these two followed Him, not as those who were not again to leave Him, but to see where He dwelt, and to fulfill the Scripture: Let your foot wear out the threshold of His doors; arise to come to Him continually, and be instructed in His precepts. Sirach 6:36-37 He showed them where He dwelt: they came and remained with Him. What a blessed day they spent, what a blessed night! Who can make known to us those things which they heard from the Lord? Let us also build in our heart, and make a house into which He may come and teach us, and have converse with us.

10. What do you seek? They said unto Him, Rabbi (which is to say, being interpreted, Master), where dwellest Thou? He says to them, Come and see. And they came and saw where He dwelt, and abode with Him that day: and it was about the tenth hour. Do we think that it did in no wise pertain to the evangelist to tell us what hour it was? Is it possible that he wished us to give heed to nothing in that, to inquire after nothing? It was the tenth hour. That number signifies the law, because the law was given in ten commandments. But the time had come for the law to be fulfilled by love, because it could not be fulfilled by the Jews by fear. Hence the Lord says, I am not come to destroy the law, but to fulfill. Matthew 5:17 Suitably, then, at the tenth hour did these two follow Him, at the testimony of the friend of the Bridegroom, and that He at the tenth hour heard Rabbi (which is interpreted, Master). If at the tenth hour the Lord heard Rabbi, and the tenth number pertains to the law, the master of the law is no other than the giver of the law. Let no one say that one gave the law, and that another teaches the law: for the same teaches it who gave it; He is the Master of His own law, and teaches it. And mercy is in His tongue, therefore mercifully teaches He the law, as it is said regarding wisdom, The law and mercy does she carry in her tongue. Proverbs 31:26 Do not fear that you are not able to fulfill the law, flee to mercy. If you can not fulfill the law, make use of that covenant, make use of the bond, make use of the prayers which the heavenly One, skilled in the law, has ordained and composed for you.

11. For those who have a cause, and wish to supplicate the emperor, seek for some one skilled in the law, and trained in the schools, to compose their petition for them; lest perchance, if they ask in an unbecoming manner, they not only do not obtain what they seek, but get punishment instead of a benefit. When, therefore, the apostles sought to petition, and could not find how to approach the Emperor God, they said unto Christ, Lord, teach us to pray; that is to say, O you who are our skilled One in the law, our Assessor, yea, the Concessor of God, compose for us prayers. And the Lord taught them from the book of the celestial law, taught them how to pray; and in that which He taught, He laid down a certain condition: Forgive us our debts, as we also forgive our debtors. Luke 11:1-4 If you seek not according to the law, you become guilty. Do you not tremble before the Emperor, having become guilty? Offer the sacrifice of humility, offer the sacrifice of mercy; pray, saying, Forgive me, for I also forgive. But if you say, do. For what will you do? Whither will you go if you have lied in your prayers? Not as it is said in the forum, you shall lose the benefit of the rescript; but you shall not obtain a rescript. For it is the law of the forum that he who shall have lied in his petition shall derive no benefit from that which he has obtained. But this among men, because a man can be deceived: the emperor might have been deceived, when you addressed to him your petition; for you said what you would, and he to whom you spoke knew not whether it was true or false; he sent you away to your adversary to be confuted if possible, so that if before the judge you should be convicted of falsehood (because he was not able not to grant the rescript, not knowing whether you had lied), you should lose the benefit of the rescript, in the place to which you had taken it. But God, who knows whether you lie or speakest the truth, does not cause you to lose in the judgment the benefit, but does not permit you to obtain it, because you have dared to lie to the Truth.

12. What, then, will you do? Tell me. To fulfill the law in every part, so as to offend in nothing, is difficult: the condition of guilt is therefore certain; will you refuse to use the remedy? Behold, my brethren, what a remedy the Lord has provided for the sicknesses of the soul! What then? When your head aches, we praise you if you place the gospel at your head, instead of having recourse to an amulet. For so far has human weakness proceeded, and so lamentable is the estate of those who have recourse to amulets, that we rejoice when we see a man who is upon his bed, and tossed about with fevers and pains, placing his hope on nothing else than that the gospel lies at his head; not because it is done for this purpose, but because the gospel is preferred to amulets. If, then, it is placed at the head to allay the pain of the head, is it not placed at the heart to heal it from sin? Let it be done then. Let what be done? Let it be placed at the heart, let the heart be healed. It is well—well that you should have no further care regarding the safety of the body, than to ask it from God. If He knows that it will do you good, He will give it you; if He give it not to you, it would not have profited you to have it. How many are sick in bed, and for that reason are innocent! For if they were to recover, they would go forth to commit acts of wickedness. To how many is health an injury! The robber who goes forth to the narrow path to slay a man, how much better for him would it have been to have been sick! And he who rises by night to dig through his neighbor's wall, how much better for him to be tossed by fever! If he were ill, he would have been comparatively innocent; being well, he is guilty of wickedness. It is known, then, to God what is expedient for us: let us make this only our endeavor, that our hearts be whole from sins; and when it happens that we are scourged in the body, let us pray to Him for relief. The Apostle Paul besought Him that He would take away the thorn in his flesh, and He would not. Was he disturbed? Was he filled with sadness, and did he speak of himself as deserted? Rather did he say that he was not deserted, because that was not taken away which he desired to be taken away, to the end that infirmity might be cured. For this he found in the voice of the Physician, My grace is sufficient for you; for my strength is made perfect in weakness. 2 Corinthians 12:8-9 Whence do you know, then, that God does not wish to heal you? As yet it is expedient for you to be scourged. Whence do you know how diseased that is which the physician cuts, using his knife on the diseased parts? Does he not know the measure, what he is to do, and how far he is to do it? Does the shrieking of him he cuts restrain the hands of the physician cutting according to his art? The one cries, the other cuts. Is he cruel who does not listen to the man crying out, or is he not rather merciful in following the wound, that he may heal the sick man? These things have I said, my brethren, in order that no one seek any other aid than that of God, when we happen to be under the reproof of God. See that you perish not; see that you do not depart from the Lamb, and be devoured by the lion.

13. We have declared, then, why it was at the tenth hour. Let us see what follows: One of the two which heard John speak, and followed Him, was Andrew, Simon Peter's brother. He finds his own brother Simon, and says unto him, We have found the Messias, which is, being interpreted, the Christ. Messias, in Hebrew; Christ, in Greek; in Latin, Anointed. Χρῖσμα is anointing in Greek; Christ, therefore, is the Anointed. He is peculiarly anointed, pre-eminently anointed; wherewith all Christians are anointed, He is pre-eminently anointed. Hear how He speaks in the psalm: Wherefore God, Your God, has anointed You with the oil of gladness above Your fellows. For all the holy ones are His fellows, but He in a peculiar sense is the Holy of Holies, peculiarly anointed, peculiarly Christ.

14. And he brought him to Jesus; and when Jesus beheld him, He said, You are Simon the son of Joannes: you shall be called Cephas, which is, by interpretation, Peter. It is not a great thing that the Lord said whose son Peter was. What is great to the Lord? He knew all the names of His own saints, whom He predestinated before the foundation of the world; and do you wonder that He said to one man, You are the son of this man, and you shall be called this or that? Is it a great matter that He changed his name, and converted it from Simon to Peter? Peter is from petra, a rock, but the petra [rock]; is the Church; in the name of Peter, then, was the Church figured. And who is safe, unless he who builds upon the rock? And what says the Lord Himself? He that hears these my words, and does them, I will liken him unto a wise man building his house upon a rock (he does not yield to temptation). The rain descended, the floods came, the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock. But he that hears my words, and does them not (now let each one of us fear and beware), I will liken him to a foolish man, who built his house upon the sand: the rain descended, the floods came, the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it. Matthew 7:24-27 What profit is it to enter the Church for him who builds upon the sand? For, by hearing and not doing, he builds indeed, but on the sand. For if he hears nothing, he builds nothing; but if he hears, he builds. But we ask, Where? For if he hears and does, he builds upon the rock; if he hears and does not, he builds upon the sand. There are two kinds of builders, those building upon the rock, and those building upon the sand. What, then, are those who do not hear? Are they safe? Does He say that they are safe because they do not build? They are naked beneath the rains, before the winds, before the floods; when these come, they carry away those persons before they overthrow the houses. It is then the only security, both to build, and to build upon the rock. If you will hear and do not, you build, but you build a ruin: and when temptation comes it overthrows the house, and carries away you with the ruin. But if you do not hear, you are naked; you yourself art dragged away by those temptations. Hear, then, and do; it is the only remedy. How many, perchance, on this day, by hearing and not doing, are hurried away on the stream of this festival! For, through hearing and not doing, the flood comes, this annual festival; the torrent is filled, it will pass away and become dry, but woe to him whom it shall carry away! Know this, then, beloved, that unless a man hears and does, he builds not upon the rock, and he does not belong to that great name which the Lord so commended. For He has called your attention. For if Simon had been called Peter before, you would not have so clearly seen the mystery of the rock, and you would have thought that he was called so by chance, not by the providence of God; therefore God willed that he should be called first something else, that by the very change of name the reality of the sacrament might be commended to our notice.

15. And the day following He would go forth into Galilee, and finding Philip, He says unto him, Follow me. Now he was of the city of Andrew and Peter. And Philip finds Nathanael (Philip who had been already called by the Lord); and he said unto him, We have found Him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus, the son of Joseph. He was called the son of that man to whom His mother had been espoused. For that He was conceived and born while she was still a virgin, all Christians know well from the Gospel. This Philip said to Nathanael, and he added the place, from Nazareth. And Nathanael said unto him, From Nazareth something good can come. What is the meaning, brethren? Not as some read, for it is likewise wont to be read, Can any good thing come out of Nazareth? For the words of Philip follow, who says, Come and see. But the words of Philip can suitably follow both readings, whether you read it thus, as confirming, From Nazareth something good can come, to which Philip replies, Come and see; or whether as doubting, and making the whole a question, Can any good thing come out of Nazareth? Come and see. Since then, whether read in this manner or in that, the words following are not incompatible, it is for us to inquire which of the two interpretations we shall adopt.

16. What sort of a man this Nathanael was, we prove by the words which follow. Hear what sort of a man he was; the Lord Himself bears testimony. Great is the Lord, known by the testimony of John; blessed Nathanael, known by the testimony of the truth. Because the Lord, although He had not been commended by the testimony of John, Himself to Himself bore testimony, because the truth is sufficient for its own testimony. But because men were not able to receive the truth, they sought the truth by means of a lamp, and therefore John was sent to show them the Lord. Hear the Lord bearing testimony to Nathanael: Nathanael said unto him, Can any good thing come out of Nazareth? Philip says to him, Come and see. And Jesus sees Nathanael coming to Him, and says concerning him, Behold an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile. Great testimony! Not of Andrew, nor of Peter, nor of Philip was that said which was said of Nathanael, Behold an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile.

17. What do we then, brethren? Ought this man to be the first among the apostles? Not only is Nathanael not found as first among the apostles, but he is neither the middle nor the last among the twelve, although the Son of God bore such testimony to him, saying, Behold an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile. Is the reason asked for? In so far as the Lord intimates, we find a probable reason. For we ought to understand that Nathanael was learned and skilled in the law and for that reason was the Lord unwilling to place him among His disciples, because He chose unlearned persons, that He might by them confound the world. Listen to the apostle speaking these things: For you see, says he, your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: but God has chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; and base things of the world, and things that are despised, has God chosen, yea, and things which are not, as though they were things that are, to bring to nought things that are. 1 Corinthians 1:20-28 If a learned man had been chosen, perhaps he would have said that he was chosen for the reason that his learning made him worthy of choice. Our Lord Jesus Christ, wishing to break the necks of the proud, did not seek the orator by means of the fisherman, but by the fisherman He gained the emperor. Great was Cyprian as an orator, but before him was Peter the fisherman, by means of whom not only the orator, but also the emperor, should believe. No noble was chosen in the first place, no learned man, because God chose the weak things of the world that He might confound the strong. This man, then, was great and without guile, and for this reason only was not chosen, lest the Lord should seem to any to have chosen the learned. And from this same learning in the law, it came that when he heard from Nazareth,— for he had searched the Scripture, and knew that the Saviour was to be expected thence, what the other scribes and Pharisees had difficulty in knowing—this man, then, very learned in the law, when he heard Philip saying, We have found Him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph;— this man, who knew the Scriptures excellently well, when he heard the name Nazareth, was filled with hope, and said, From Nazareth something good can come.

18. Let us now see the rest concerning this man. Behold an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile. What is in whom is no guile? Perhaps he had no sin? Perhaps he was not sick? Perhaps he did not need a physician? God forbid. No one is born here in such fashion as not to need that Physician. What, then, is the meaning of the words, in whom is no guile? Let us search a little more intently— it will appear presently— in the name of the Lord. The Lord says dolus [guile]; and every one who understands Latin knows that dolus is when one thing is done and another feigned. Give heed, beloved. Dolus (guile) is not dolor (pain). I say this because many brethren, not well skilled in Latin, so speak as to say, Dolus torments him, using it for dolor. Dolus is fraud, it is deceit. When a man conceals one thing in his heart, and speaks another, it is guile, and he has, as it were, two hearts; he has, as it were, one recess of his heart where he sees the truth, and another recess where he conceives falsehood. And that you may know that this is guile, it is said in the Psalms, Lips of guile. What are lips of guile? It follows, In a heart and in a heart have they spoken evil. What is in a heart and in a heart, unless in a double heart? If, then, guile was not in Nathanael, the Physician judged him to be curable, not whole. A whole man is one thing, a curable another, an incurable a third: he who is sick, but not hopelessly sick, is called curable; he who is sick hopelessly, incurable; but he who is already whole does not need a physician. The Physician, then, who had come to cure, saw that he was curable, because there was no guile in him. How was guile not in him, if he is a sinner? He confesses that he is a sinner. For if he is a sinner, and says that he is a just man, there is guile in his mouth. Therefore in Nathanael He praised the confession of sin, He did not judge that he was not a sinner.

19. Wherefore, when the Pharisees, who seemed righteous to themselves, blamed the Lord, because, as physician, he mixed with the sick, and when they said, Behold with whom he eats, with publicans and sinners, the Physician replied to the madmen, They that are whole need not a physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners. Matthew 11:11-13 That is to say, because you call yourselves righteous when you are sinners, because you judge yourselves to be whole when you are languishing, you put away from you the medicine, and do not hold fast health. Hence that Pharisee who had asked the Lord to dinner, was whole in his own eyes; but that sick woman rushed into the house to which she had not been invited, and, made impudent by the desire of health, approached not the head of the Lord, nor the hands, but the feet; washed them with tears, wiped them with her hair, kissed them, anointed them with ointment—made peace, sinner as she was, with the footprints of the Lord. The Pharisee who sat at meat there, as though whole himself, blamed the Physician, and said within himself, This man, if he were a prophet, would have known what woman touched his feet. He suspected that He knew not, because He did not repulse her to prevent His being touched with unclean hands; but He did know, He permitted Himself to be touched, that the touch itself might heal. The Lord, seeing the heart of the Pharisee, put forth a parable: There was a certain creditor, which had two debtors; the one owed five hundred denars, and the other fifty; and when they had nothing to pay, he frankly forgave them both. Which of them loved him most? He answered, I suppose, Lord, he to whom he forgave most. And turning to the woman, He said unto Simon, Do you see this woman? I entered into your house, you gave me no water for my feet; but she has washed my feet with tears, and wiped them with the hairs of her head: you gave me no kiss; she has not ceased to kiss my feet: you gave me no oil; she has anointed my feet with ointment. Wherefore, I say unto you, to her are forgiven many sins, for she loved much; but to whom little is forgiven, the same loves little. Luke 7:36-47 That is to say, you are more sick, but you think yourself whole; you think that little is forgiven you when you owe more. Well did she, because guile was not in her, deserve medicine. What means, guile was not in her? She confessed her sins. This He also praises in Nathanael, that guile was not in him; for many Pharisees who abounded in sins said that they were righteous, and brought guile with them, which made it impossible for them to be healed.

20. Jesus then saw this man in whom was no guile, and said, Behold an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile. Nathanael says unto Him, Whence know Thou me? Jesus answered and said, Before that Philip called you, when you were under the fig (that is, under the fig-tree), I saw you. Nathanael answered and said unto Him, Rabbi, You are the Son of God; You are the King of Israel. Some great thing Nathanael may have understood in the saying, When you were under the fig-tree, I saw you, before that Philip called you; for his words, You are the Son of God, You are the King of Israel, were not dissimilar to those of Peter so long afterwards, when the Lord said unto him, Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, for flesh and blood has not revealed it unto you, but my Father which is in heaven. And there He named the rock, and praised the strength of the Church's support in this faith. Here already Nathanael says, You are the Son of God; You are the King of Israel. Wherefore? Because it was said to him, Before that Philip called you, when you were under the fig-tree, I saw you.

21. We must inquire whether this fig-tree signifies anything. Listen, my brethren. We find the fig-tree cursed because it had leaves only, and not fruit. Matthew 20:19 In the beginning of the human race, when Adam and Eve had sinned, they made themselves girdles of fig leaves. Genesis 3:7 Fig leaves then signify sins. Nathanael then was under the fig-tree, as it were under the shadow of death. The Lord saw him, he concerning whom it was said, They that sat under the shadow of death, unto them has light arisen. Isaiah 9:2 What then was said to Nathanael? You say to me, O Nathanael, Whence do you know me? Even now you speak to me, because Philip called you. He whom an apostle had already called, He perceived to belong to His Church. O you Church, O you Israel, in whom is no guile! If you are the people, Israel, in whom is no guile, you have even now known Christ by His apostles, as Nathanael knew Christ by Philip. But His compassion beheld you before you knew Him, when you were lying under sin. For did we first seek Christ, and not He seek us? Did we come sick to the Physician, and not the Physician to the sick? Was not that sheep lost, and did not the shepherd, leaving the ninety and nine in the wilderness, seek and find it, and joyfully carry it back on his shoulders? Was not that piece of money lost, and the woman lighted the lamp, and searched in the whole house until she found it? And when she had found it, Rejoice with me, she said to her neighbors, for I have found the piece of money which I lost. Luke 15:4-10 In like manner were we lost as the sheep, lost as the piece of money; and our Shepherd found the sheep, but sought the sheep; the woman found the piece of money, but sought the piece of money. What is the woman? The flesh of Christ. What is the lamp? I have prepared a lamp for my Christ. Therefore were we sought that we might be found; having been found, we speak. Let us not be proud, for before we were found we were lost, if we had not been sought. Let them then not say to us whom we love, and whom we desire to gain to the peace of the Catholic Church, What do you wish with us? Why seek you us if we are sinners? We seek you for this reason that you perish not: we seek you because we were sought; we wish to find you because we have been found.

22. When, then, Nathanael had said Whence know Thou me? the Lord said to him, Before that Philip called you, when you were under the fig-tree, I saw you. O you Israel without guile, whosoever you are; O people living by faith, before I called you by my apostles, when you were under the shadow of death, and you saw not me, I saw you. The Lord then says to him, Because I said unto you, I saw you under the fig-tree, you believe; you shall see a greater thing than these. What is this, you shall see a greater thing than these? And He says unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto you, you shall see heaven open, and angels ascending and descending upon the Son of man. Brethren, this is something greater than under the fig-tree I saw you. For it is more that the Lord justified us when called than that He saw us lying under the shadow of death. For what profit would it have been to us if we had remained where He saw us? Should we not be lying there? What is this greater thing? When have we seen angels ascending and descending upon the Son of man?

23. Already on a former occasion I have spoken of these ascending and descending angels; but lest you should have forgotten, I shall speak of the latter briefly by way of recalling it to your recollection. I should use more words if I were introducing, not recalling the subject. Jacob saw a ladder in a dream; and on a ladder he saw angels ascending and descending: and he anointed the stone which he had placed at his head. Genesis 28:12-18 You have heard that the Messias is Christ; you have heard that Christ is the Anointed. For Jacob did not place the stone, the anointed stone, that he might come and adore it: otherwise that would have been idolatry, not a pointing out of Christ. What was done was a pointing out of Christ, so far as it behooved such a pointing out to be made, and it was Christ that was pointed out. A stone was anointed, but not for an idol. A stone anointed; why a stone? Behold, I lay in Zion a stone, elect, precious: and he that believes in Him shall not be confounded. Why anointed? Because Christus comes from chrisma. But what saw he then on the ladder? Ascending and descending angels. So it is the Church, brethren: the angels of God are good preachers, preaching Christ; this is the meaning of, they ascend and descend upon the Son of man. How do they ascend, and how do they descend? In one case we have an example; listen to the Apostle Paul. What we find in him, let us believe regarding the other preachers of the truth. Behold Paul ascending: I know a man in Christ fourteen years ago was caught up into the third heaven (whether in the body, or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knows), and that he heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter. 2 Corinthians 12:2-4 You have heard him ascending, hear him descending: I could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal; as babes in Christ I have fed you with milk, not with meat. 1 Corinthians 3:1-2 Behold he descended who had ascended. Ask whether he ascended to the third heaven. Ask whether he descended to give milk to babes. Hear that he descended: I became a babe in the midst of you, even as a nurse cherishes her children. 1 Thessalonians 2:7 For we see both nurses and mothers descend to babes, and although they be able to speak Latin, they shorten the words, shake their tongues in a certain manner, in order to frame childish endearments from a methodical language; because if they speak according to rule, the infant does not understand nor profit. And if there be a father well skilled in speaking, and such an orator that the forum resounds with his eloquence, and the judgment-seats shake, if he have a little son, on his return home he puts aside the forensic eloquence to which he had ascended, and in child's language descends to his little one. Hear in one place the apostle himself ascending and descending in the same sentence: For whether, says he,we be beside ourselves, it is to God; or whether we be sober, it is for your cause. 2 Corinthians 5:13 What is we are beside ourselves? That we see those things which it is not lawful for a man to speak. What is we are sober for your cause? Have I judged myself to know anything among you, save Jesus Christ and Him crucified? If the Lord Himself ascended and descended, it is evident that His preachers ascend by imitation, descend by preaching.

24. And if we have detained you somewhat longer than is our wont, the design was that the dangerous hours might pass: we imagine that those people have now brought their vanity to a close. But let us, brethren, having fed upon the feasts of salvation, do what remains, that we may in a religious manner fill up the Lord's day with spiritual joys, and compare the joys of verity with the joys of vanity; and if we are horrified, let us grieve; if we grieve, let us pray; if we pray, may we be heard; if we are heard, we gain them also.

[AD 430] Augustine of Hippo on John 1:34

“John testified … that he was the Son of God.” Therefore, it was necessary that he [Jesus] baptize, who was the only Son of God, not an adopted [son]. The adopted sons are the ministers of the only Son. The only Son has power, the adopted sons have the ministry.

Source: TRACTATES ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 7.4

[AD 444] Cyril of Alexandria on John 1:34

Sure is the witness; who, what he hath actually seen, that he also speaketh. For haply he was not ignorant of that which is written, That which thine eyes have seen, tell. I saw then, says he, the sign, and understood That Which was signified by it. I bear record that this is the Son of God, Who was proclaimed by the Law that is through Moses, and heralded by the voice of the holy Prophets. The blessed Evangelist seems to me again to say with some great confidence, This is the Son of God, that is, the One, the Only by Nature, the Heir of the Own Nature of the Father, to Whom we too, sons by adoption, are conformed and through Whom we are called by grace to the dignity of sonship. For as from God the Father every family in Heaven and earth is named, from His being properly, and first, and truly Father, so is all sonship too from the Son, by reason of His being properly and Alone truly Son, not bastard nor falsely-called, but of the Essence of God the Father, not by off-cutting or emanation or division or severance (for the Divine Nature is altogether Impassible): but as One of One, ever Co-existing and Co-eternal and Innate in Him Who begat Him, being in Him, and coming forth from Him, Indivisible and without Dimensions; since the Divinity is neither after the manner of a body, nor bounded by space, nor of nature such as to make progressive footsteps. But like as from fire proceedeth the heat that is in it, appearing to be separate from it in idea, and to be other than it, though it is of it and in it by nature, and proceedeth from it without suffering any harm in the way of offcutting, division, or emanation (for it is preserved whole in the whole fire): so shall we conceive of the Divine Offspring too, thinking thereon in a manner most worthy of God, and believing that the Son subsists of Himself, yet not excluding Him from the One Ineffable Godhead, nor saying that He is Other in substance than the Father. For then would He no longer be rightly conceived of as Son, but something other than He, and a new god would arise, other than He That Only Is. For how shall not that which is not consubstantial with God by Nature, wholly fall away from being Very God? But since the blessed Baptist is both trustworthy, and of the greatest repute, and testifieth that This is the Son of God: we will confess the Son to be altogether Very God, and of the Essence of the Father. For this and nothing else, does the name of Sonship signify to us.

[AD 444] Cyril of Alexandria on John 1:34

A confident witness is one who not only sees but actually speaks about what he has seen. [John] surely was not ignorant of what was written, “Tell what your eyes have seen.” “I saw” then, he says, the sign, and I understood what was signified by it. I bear witness “that this is the Son of God,” who was proclaimed by the law through Moses and heralded by the voice of the holy prophets. The blessed Evangelist seems to me again to say with supreme confidence, “This is the Son of God,” that is, the one and only one who is by nature the unique73 heir of the Father to whom we too, sons by adoption, are conformed and through whom we are called by grace to the dignity of sonship.

Source: COMMENTARY ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 2.1

[AD 407] John Chrysostom on John 1:35

1. The nature of man is somehow a thing slothful, and easily declining to perdition, not by reason of the constitution of the nature itself, but by reason of that sloth which is of deliberate choice. Wherefore it needs much reminding. And for this cause Paul, writing to the Philippians, said, To write the same things to you, to me indeed is not grievous, but for you it is safe. Philippians 3:1

The earth when it has once received the seed, straightway gives forth its fruits, and needs not a second sowing; but with our souls it is not so, and one must be content, after having sown many times, and manifested much carefulness, to be able once to receive fruit. For in the first place, what is said settles in the mind with difficulty, because the ground is very hard, and entangled with thorns innumerable, and there are many which lay plots, and carry away the seed; afterwards, when it has been fixed and has taken root, it still needs the same attention, that it may come to maturity, and having done so may remain uninjured, and take no harm from any. For in the case of seeds, when the ear is fully formed and has gained its proper strength, it easily despises rust, and drought, and every other thing; but it is not so with doctrines; in their case after all the work has been fully done, one storm and flood often comes on, and either by the attack of unpleasant circumstances, or by the plots of men skilled to deceive, or by various other temptations brought against them, brings them to ruin.

I have not said this without cause, but that when you hear John repeating the same words, you may not condemn him for vain talking; nor deem him impertinent or wearisome. He desired to have been heard by once speaking, but because not many gave heed to what was spoken from the first, by reason of deep sleep, he again rouses them by this second call. Now observe; he had said, He that comes after me, is preferred before me: and that I am not worthy to unloose the latchet of His shoe; and that He baptizes with the Holy Ghost, and with fire; and that he saw the Spirit descending like a dove, and it abode upon Him, and he bare record that this is the Son of God. No one gave heed, nor asked, nor said, Why do you say these things? In whose behalf? For what reason? Again he had said, Behold the Lamb of God, which takes away the sin of the world; yet not even so did he touch their insensibility. Therefore, after this he is compelled to repeat the same words again, as if softening by tillage some hard and stubborn soil, and by his word as by a plow, disturbing the mind which had hardened into clods, so as to put in the seed deep. For this reason he does not make his discourse a long one either; because he desired one thing only, to bring them over and join them to Christ. He knew that as soon as they had received this saying, and had been persuaded, they would not afterwards need one to bear witness unto Him. As also it came to pass. For, if the Samaritans could say to the woman after hearing Him, Now we believe, not because of your saying, for we know that this is indeed the Christ, the Saviour of the world, the disciples would be much more quickly subdued, as was the case. For when they had come and heard Him but one evening, they returned no more to John, but were so nailed to Him, that they took upon them the ministry of John, and themselves proclaimed Him. For, says the Evangelist, He finds his own brother Simon, and says unto him, We have found the Messias, which is, being interpreted, the Christ. And observe, I pray you, this, how, when he said, He that comes after me is preferred before me; and that, I am not worthy to unloose the lachet of His shoe; he caught no one, but when he spoke of the Dispensation, and lowered his discourse to a humbler tone, then the disciples followed Him.

And we may remark this, not only in the instance of the disciples, but that the many are not so much attracted when some great and sublime thing is said concerning God, as when some act of graciousness and lovingkindness, something pertaining to the salvation of the hearers, is spoken of. They heard that He takes away the sin of the world, and straightway they ran to Him. For, said they, if it is possible to wash away the charges that lie against us, why do we delay? Here is One who will deliver us without labor of ours. Is it not extreme folly to put off accepting the Gift? Let those hear who are Catechumens, and are putting off their salvation to their latest breath.

Again, says the Evangelist, John stood, and says, Behold, the Lamb of God. Christ utters no word, His messenger says all. So it is with a bridegroom. He says not for a while anything to the bride, but is there in silence, while some show him to the bride, and others give her into his hands; she merely appears, and he departs not having taken her himself, but when he has received her from another who gives her to him. And when he has received her thus given, he so disposes her, that she no more remembers those who betrothed her. So it was with Christ. He came to join to Himself the Church; He said nothing, but merely came. It was His friend, John, who put into His the bride's right hand, when by his discourses he gave into His hand the souls of men. He having received them, afterwards so disposed them, that they departed no more to John who had committed them to Him.

2. And here we may remark, not this only, but something besides. As at a marriage the maiden goes not to the bridegroom, but he hastens to her, though he be a king's son, and though he be about to espouse some poor and abject person, or even a servant, so it was here. Man's nature did not go up, but contemptible and poor as it was, He came to it, and when the marriage had taken place, He suffered it no longer to tarry here, but having taken it to Himself, transported it to the house of His Father.

Why then does not John take his disciples apart, and converse with them on these matters, and so deliver them over to Christ, instead of saying publicly to them in common with all the people, 'Behold the Lamb of God?'? That it may not seem to be a matter of arrangement; for had they gone away from him to Christ after having been privately admonished by him, and as though to do him a favor, they would perhaps soon have started away again; but now, having taken upon them the following Him, from teaching which had been general, they afterwards remained His firm disciples, as not having followed Him in order to gratify the teacher, but as looking purely to their own advantage.

The Prophets and Apostles then all preached Him absent; the Prophets before His coming according to the flesh, the Apostles after He was taken up; John alone proclaimed Him present. Wherefore he calls himself the friend of the Bridegroom John 3:29, since he alone was present at the marriage, he it was that did and accomplished all, he made a beginning of the work. And looking upon Jesus walking, he says, Behold the Lamb of God. Not by voice alone, but with his eyes also he bore witness to, and expressed his admiration of, Christ, rejoicing and glorying. Nor does he for awhile address any word of exhortation to his followers, but only shows wonder and astonishment at Him who was present, and declares to all the Gift which He came to give, and the manner of purification. For the Lamb declares both these things. And he said not, Who shall take, or Who has taken; but, Who takes away the sins of the world; because this He ever does. He took them not then only when He suffered, but from that time even to the present does He take them away, not being repeatedly crucified, (for He offered One Sacrifice for sins,) but by that One continually purging them. As then The Word shows us His pre-eminence, and The Son His superiority in comparison with others, so The Lamb, The Christ, that Prophet, the True Light, the Good Shepherd, and whatever other names are applied to Him with the addition of the article, mark a great difference. For there were many Lambs, and Prophets, and Christs, and sons, but from all these John separates Him by a wide interval. And this he secured not by the article only, but by the addition of Only-Begotten; for He had nothing in common with the creation.

If it seems to any unseasonable that these things should be spoken at the tenth hour (that was the time of day, for he says, It was about the tenth hour— John 1:39, such an one seems to me to be much mistaken. In the case indeed of the many, and those who serve the flesh, the season after feasting is not very suitable for any matters of pressing moment, because their hearts are burdened with meats: but here was a man who did not even partake of common food, and who at evening was as sober as we are at morning, (or rather much more so; for often the remains of our evening food that are left within us, fill our souls with imaginations, but he loaded his vessel with none of these things;) he with good reason spoke late in the evening of these matters. Besides, he was tarrying in the wilderness by Jordan, where all came to his baptism with great fear, and caring little at that time for the things of this life; as also they continued with Christ three days, and had nothing to eat. Matthew 15:32 For this is the part of a zealous herald and a careful husbandman, not to desist before he see that the planted seed has got a firm hold. Why then did he not go about all the parts of Judæa preaching Christ, rather than stand by the river waiting for Him to come, that he might point Him out when He came? Because he wished that this should be effected by His works; his own object being in the mean time only to make Him known, and to persuade some to hear of eternal life. But to Him he leaves the greater testimony, that of works, as also He says, I receive not testimony of men. The works which My Father has given Me, the same bear witness of Me. c. v. 34, 36 Observe how much more effectual this was; for when he had thrown in a little spark, at once the blaze rose on high. For they who before had not even given heed to his words, afterwards say, All things which John spoke were true. John 10:41

3. Besides, if he had gone about saying these things, what was being done would have seemed to be done from some human motive, and the preaching to be full of suspicion.

And the two disciples heard him, and followed Jesus.

Yet John had other disciples, but they not only did not follow Jesus, but were even jealously disposed towards him. Rabbi, says one, He that was with you beyond Jordan, to whom you bore witness, behold, the same baptizes, and all men come unto him. John 3:26 And again they appear bringing a charge against him; Why do we fast, but your disciples fast not? Matthew 9:14 But those who were better than the rest had no such feeling, but heard, and at once followed; followed, not as despising their teacher, but as being most fully persuaded by him, and producing the strongest proof that they acted thus from a right judgment of his reasonings. For they did not do so by his advice, that might have appeared suspicious; but when he merely foretold what was to come to pass, that He should baptize with the Holy Ghost, [and with fire,] they followed. They did not then desert their teacher, but rather desired to learn what Christ brought with Him more than John. And observe zeal combined with modesty. They did not at once approach and question Jesus on necessary and most important matters, nor were they desirous to converse with Him publicly, while all were present, at once and in an off-hand manner, but privately; for they knew that the words of their teacher proceeded not from humility, but from truth.

[AD 407] John Chrysostom on John 1:35-36

(Hom. xviii. [al. xvii.] 1) Many not having attended to John's words at first, he rouses them a second time: Again the next day after John stood, and two of his disciples.

(Hom. xviii. [al. xvii.] c. 2) But wherefore went he not all about, preaching in every place of Judæa; instead of standing near the river, waiting for His coming, that he might point Him out? Because he wished this to be done by the works of Christ Himself. And observe how much greater an effort was produced; He struck a small spark, and suddenly it rose into a flame. Again, if John had gone about and preached, it would have seemed like human partiality, and great suspicion would have been excited. Now the Prophets and Apostles all preached Christ absent; the former before His appearance in the flesh, the latter after His assumption. But He was to be pointed out by the eye, not by the voice only; and therefore it follows: And looking upon Jesus us He walked, he saith, Behold the Lamb of God!

(Hom. xviii. 1. in Joan) He makes not a long discourse, having only one object before him, to bring them and join them to Christ; knowing that they would not any further need his witness. (c. 2.). John does not however speak to his disciples alone, but publicly in the presence of all. And so, undertaking to follow Christ, through this instruction common to all, they remained thenceforth firm, following Christ for their own advantage, not as an act of favour to their masterx. John does not exhort: he simply gazes in admiration on Christ, pointing out the gifty He came to bestow, the cleansing from sin: and the mode in which this would be accomplished: both of which the word Lamb testifies to. Lamb has the article affixed to it, as a sign of preeminence.

Source: Catena Aurea by Aquinas

[AD 407] John Chrysostom on John 1:35-36

“Again,” says the Evangelist, “John stood and said, ‘Behold, the Lamb of God.’ ” Christ says nothing; his messenger says it all. This is how it is with a bridegroom. He says nothing for awhile to the bride but remains there in silence while someone shows him to the bride and others give her into his hands. She merely appears, and he only takes her for himself when he has received her from another who gives her to him. And when he receives her given to him in this way he treats her in such a way that she no longer remembers those who betrothed her. So it was with Christ. He came to join to himself the church. He said nothing but merely came. It was his friend, John [the Baptist], who put into his hand the bride’s right hand when by his teaching he gave the souls of men and women into his hand. And after Christ received them, he treated them in such a way that they no longer left to see John, who had committed them to him.And there is something further here as well. Just like in a marriage, the bride does not go to the bridegroom; rather, he hurries to her, even if he is a king’s son and is about to marry some poor and abject person or even a servant. This is what was happening here. Human nature did not go up but, contemptible and poor as it was, [Christ] came to our human nature. And when the marriage had taken place, he no longer endured waiting. Instead, once he had taken [the bride] to himself, he then took her to the house of his Father.

Source: HOMILIES ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 18.1-2

[AD 407] John Chrysostom on John 1:35-36

Not by voice alone but with his eyes also [John] bore witness to and expressed his esteem and praise of Christ. At this point he addresses no word of exhortation to his followers either. Instead he only shows wonder and astonishment at the one who was present. John declares to everyone the gift that this one came to give. He also declares the manner of purification. For “the Lamb” declares both of these things. Notice also he did not say “who shall take” or “who has taken” but “who takes away the sins of the world,” because this is what he continually does. He took them not only then when he suffered, but from that time even to the present he takes them away. He is not repeatedly crucified (for he offered one sacrifice for sins) but by that one sacrifice continually purges them. As then the Word shows us his preeminence and the Son his superiority in comparison with others, so the lamb, the Christ, that prophet, the true light, the good shepherd and whatever other names are applied to him with the addition of the article, mark a great difference. For there were many “lambs” and “prophets” and “christs” and “sons.” But John separates [Christ] from all of these by a wide margin. He secured this not only by the article but by the addition of “only begotten,” since he had nothing in common with the creation.

Source: HOMILIES ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 18.2

[AD 430] Augustine of Hippo on John 1:35-36

(Tr. vii. c. 8) John was the friend of the Bridegroom; he sought not his own glory, but bare witness to the truth. And therefore he wished not his disciples to remain with him, to the hindrance of their duty to follow the Lord; but rather showed them whom they should follow, saying, Behold the Lamb of God.

(Tr. vii. c. 5) For He alone and singly is the Lamb without spot, without sin; not because His spots are wiped off, but because He never had a spot. He alone is the Lamb of God, for by His blood alone can men be redeemed. (c. 6). This is the Lamb whom the wolves fear; even the slain Lamb, by whom the lion was slain.

Source: Catena Aurea by Aquinas

[AD 735] Bede on John 1:35-36

(Hom. in Vigil. S. And.) John stood, because he had ascended that citadel of all excellences, from which no temptations could cast him down: his disciples stood with him, as stout-hearted followers of their master.

(Hom. 1) The Lamb therefore he calls Him; for that He was about to give us freely His fleece, that we might make of it a wedding garment; i. e. would leave us an example of life, by which we should be warmed into love.

(Hom. in Vigil. S. And.) The walking of Jesus has a reference to the economy of the Incarnation, by means of which He has condescended to come to us, and give us a pattern of life.

Source: Catena Aurea by Aquinas

[AD 804] Alcuin of York on John 1:35-36

John stands in a mystical sense, the Law having ceased, and Jesus comes, bringing the grace of the Gospel, to which that same Law bears testimony. Jesus walks, to collect disciples.

Source: Catena Aurea by Aquinas

[AD 1107] Theophylact of Ohrid on John 1:35-36

Looking he saith, as if signifying by his looks his love and admiration for Christ.

Source: Catena Aurea by Aquinas

[AD 258] Cyprian on John 1:36

That He will reign as a King for ever. In Zechariah: "Tell ye the daughter of Zion, Behold, thy King cometh unto thee: just, and having salvation; meek, sitting upon an as that hath not been tamed." Also in Isaiah: "Who will declare to you that eternal place? He that walketh in righteousness, and holdeth back his hands from gifts; stopping his ears. that he may not hear the judgment of blood; and closing his eyes, that he may not see unrighteousness: this man shall dwell in the lofty cavern of the strong rock; bread shall be given him, and his water shall be sure. Ye shall see the King with glory." Likewise in Malachi: "I am a great King, saith the Lord, and my name is illustrious among the nations." Also in the second Psalm: "But I am established as a King by Him upon His holy hill of Zion, announcing His empire." Also in the twenty-first Psalm: "All the ends of the world shall be reminded, and shall turn to the Lord: and all the countries of the nations shall worship in Thy sight. For the kingdom is the Lord's: and He shall rule over all nations." Also in the twenty-third Psalm: "Lift up your gates, ye princes; and be ye lifted up, ye everlasting doors; and the King of glory shall come in. Who is this King of glory? The Lord strong and mighty, the Lord strong in battle. Lift up your gates, O ye princes; and be ye lifted up, ye everlasting doors; and the King of glory shall come in. Who is this King of glory? The Lord of hosts, He is the King of glory." Also in the forty-fourth Psalm: "My heart hath breathed forth a good discourse: I tell my works to the king: my tongue is the pen of a writer intelligently writing. Thou art lovely in beauty above the children of men: grace is shed forth on Thy lips, because God hath blessed Thee for ever. Be girt with Thy sword on Thy thigh, O most mighty. To Thy honour and to Thy beauty both attend, and direct Thyself, and reign, because of truth, and meekness, and righteousness." Also in the fifth Psalm: "My King, and my God, because unto Thee will I pray. O Lord, in the morning Thou shalt hear my voice; in the morning I will stand before Thee, and will contemplate Thee." Also in the ninety-sixth Psalm: "The Lord hath reigned; let the earth rejoice; let the many isles be glad." Moreover, in the forty-fourth Psalm: "The queen stood at thy right hand in a golden garment; she is clothed in many colours. Hear, O daughter, and see, and incline thine ear, and forget thy people and thy father's house; for the King hath desired thy beauty, for He is thy Lord God." Also in the seventy-third Psalm: "But God is our King before the world; He hath wrought salvation in the midst of the earth." Also in the Gospel according to Matthew: "And when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judah in the days of Herod the king, behold, Magi from the east came to Jerusalem, saying, Where is He who is born King of the Jews? for we have seen His star in the east, and have come to worship Him." Also, according to John, Jesus said: "My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would be in trouble, that I should not be delivered to the Jews; but now is my kingdom not from hence. Pilate said, Art thou a king, then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. For this cause I was born, and for this cause I am come into the world, that I might bear testimony to the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice."

Source: Treatise XII Three Books of Testimonies Against the Jews

[AD 444] Cyril of Alexandria on John 1:36

Already had the blessed Baptist pointed Him out before; but lo, repeating again the same words, he points Jesus out to his disciples, and calls Him the Lamb of God, and says that He taketh away the sin of the world, all but bringing his hearers to remembrance of Him Who saith in the Prophets: I, even I, am He That blotteth out thy transgressions, and will not remember thy sins. But not in vain does the Baptist repeat the same account of the Saviour. For it belongs to skill in teaching, to infix in the souls of the disciples the not yet received word, not shrinking at repetition, but rather enduring it for the profit of the pupils. For therefore does the blessed Paul too say, To write the same things to you, to me indeed is not grievous, but for you it is safe.

[AD 253] Origen of Alexandria on John 1:37-40

(tom. ii. c. 29) Perhaps it is not without a reason, that after six testimonies John ceases to bear witness, and Jesus asks seventhly, What seek ye?

An avowal, befitting persons who came from hearing John's testimony. They put themselves under Christ's teaching, and express their desire to see the dwelling of the Son of God.

(tom. ii. c. 29) Or perhaps come, is an invitation to action; see, to contemplation.

Source: Catena Aurea by Aquinas

[AD 373] Ephrem the Syrian on John 1:37

Because the disciples of John heard him when he spoke about our Lord, they left their teacher and went after our Lord, because [John’s] voice was not able to keep the disciples with him [John], but it sent them to the Word. It was indeed right that when the light of the sun came into view, the light of the lamp should vanish. Truly for this reason John remained, that his baptism would be brought to an end by the baptism of our Lord. Soon he died, so that he might be foremost among the dead, just as he was a sign of Sheol in his mother’s womb.

Source: COMMENTARY ON TATIAN’S DIATESSARON 4.17

[AD 407] John Chrysostom on John 1:37-40

(Hom. xviii. 1 et sq.) Observe; when he said, He that cometh after me is made before me, and, Whose shoe's latchet I am not worthy to unloose, he gained over none; but when he made mention of the economy, and gave his discourse a humbler turn, saying, Behold the Lamb of God, then his disciples followed Christ. For many persons are less influenced by the thoughts of God's greatness and majesty, than when they hear of His being man's Helper and Friend; or any thing pertaining to the salvation of men. Observe too, when John says, Behold the Lamb of God, Christ says nothing. The Bridegroom stands by in silence; others introduce Him, and deliver the Bride into His hands; He receives her, and so treats her that she no longer remembers those who gave her in marriage. Thus Christ came to unite to Himself the Church; He said nothing Himself; but John, the friend of the Bridegroom, came forth, and put the Bride's right hand in His; i. e. by his preaching delivered into His hands men's souls, whom receiving He so disposed of, that they returned no more to John. And observe farther; As at a marriage the maiden goes not to meet the bridegroom, (even though it be a king's son who weds a humble handmaid,) but he hastens to her; so is it here. For human nature ascended not into heaven, but the Son of God came down to human nature, and took her to His Father's house. Again; There were disciples of John who not only did not follow Christ, but were even enviously disposed toward Him; but the better part heard, and followed; not from contempt of their former master, but by his persuasion; because he promised them that Christ would baptize with the Holy Ghost. And see with what modesty their zeal was accompanied. They did not straight way go and interrogate Jesus on great and necessary doctrines, nor in public, but sought private converse with Him; for we are told that Jesus turned, and saw them following, and saith unto them, What seek ye? Hence we learn, that when we once begin to form good resolutions, God gives us opportunities enough of improvement. Christ asks the question, not because He needed to be told, but in order to encourage familiarity and confidence, and show that He thought them worthy of His instructions.

(Hom. xviii. in Joan. sparsim) And besides following Him, their questions showed their love for Christ; They said unto Him, Rabbi, (which is, being interpreted, Master,) where dwellest Thou? They call Him, Master, before they have learnt any thing from Him; thus encouraging themselves in their resolution to become disciples, and to show the reason why they followed.

(Hom. xviii. [al. xvii.] 3) Christ does not describe His house and situation, but brings them after Him, showing that he had already accepted them as His own. He says not, It is not the time now, to-morrow ye shall hear if ye wish to learn; but addresses them familiarly, as friends who had lived with him a long time. But how is it that He saith in another place, The Son of man hath not where to lay His head? (Matt. 8:20) when here He says, Come and see where I live? His not having where to lay His head, could only have meant that He had no dwelling of His own, not that He did not live in a house at all: for the next words arc, They came and saw where He dwelt, and abode with Him that day. Why they stayed the Evangelist does not say: it being obviously for the sake of His teaching.

(Hom. xviii. 3) It showed a strong desire to hear Him, since even at sunset they did not turn from Him. To sensual persons the time after meals is unsuitable for any grave employment, their bodies being overloaded with food. But John, whose disciples these were, was not such an one. His evening was a more abstemious one than our mornings.

(Hom. xviii. 3) One of the two which heard John speak and followed Him was Andrew, Simon Peter's brother. Why is the other name left out? Some say, because this Evangelist himself was that other. Others, that it was a disciple of no eminence, and that there was no use in telling his name any more than those of the seventy-two, which are omitted.

Source: Catena Aurea by Aquinas

[AD 430] Augustine of Hippo on John 1:37-40

(Tr. vii. c. 9) What a blessed day and night was that! Let us too build up in our hearts within, and make Him an house, whither He may come and teach us.

(Tr. vii. c. 10) The number here signifies the law, which was composed of ten commandments. The time had come when the law was to be fulfilled by love, the Jews, who acted from fear, having been unable to fulfil it, and therefore was it at the tenth hour that our Lord heard Himself called, Rabbi; none but the giver of the law is the teacher1 of the law.

Source: Catena Aurea by Aquinas

[AD 444] Cyril of Alexandria on John 1:37

Seest thou the fruit, handmaid of teaching, yielded therefrom? Seest thou how great gain accrued from repetition? Let him then who is entrusted with teaching learn from this, to show himself superior to all indolence, and to esteem silence more hurtful to himself than to his hearers, and not to bury the Lord's talent in listless sloth, as in the earth, but rather to give His money to the exchangers. For the Saviour will receive His own with usury, and will quicken as seed the word cast in. You have here a most excellent proof of what has been said. For the Baptist, not shrinking from pointing out the Lord to his disciples, and from saying a second time, Behold the Lamb of God, is seen to have so greatly profited them, as to at length even persuade them to follow Him and already to desire discipleship under Him.

[AD 444] Cyril of Alexandria on John 1:37

Then Jesus turned and saw them following, and saith unto them, What seek ye?

Fitly does the Lord turn to them that follow Him, that thou mayest learn in act that which is sung, I sought the Lord, and He heard me. For while we do not yet seek the Lord by good habits and Tightness in believing, we are in some sort behind Him: but when, thirsting after His Divine law, we track the holy and choice way of righteousness, then at length will He look upon us, crying aloud what is written, Turn ye unto Me, and I will turn unto you, saith the Lord of Hosts. But He saith unto them, What seek ye? not as though ignorant (whence could it be so?), for He knoweth all things, as God; but making the question a beginning and root of His discourse.

[AD 735] Bede on John 1:37-40

(Hom. in Vigil. S. And.) The walking of Jesus has a reference to the economy of the Incarnation, by means of which He has condescended to come to us, and give us a pattern of life.

Source: Catena Aurea by Aquinas

[AD 735] Bede on John 1:37

From [John’s] disciples [Jesus] summoned two to follow him, and one of them, Andrew, led his brother Peter to him also. According to the spiritual sense, it is clear what it means to follow the Lord.… You follow the Lord if you imitate him. You follow the Lord if, insofar as human weakness allows, you do not abandon those examples of humility that, as a human being, the Son of God demonstrated. You follow [the Lord] if, by showing yourself to be a companion of his sufferings, you painstakingly long to attain communion in his resurrection and ascension.

Source: Homilies on the Gospels 1.17

[AD 804] Alcuin of York on John 1:37-40

John having borne witness that Jesus was the Lamb of God, the disciples who had been hitherto with him, in obedience to his command, followed Jesus: And the two disciples heard him speak, and they followed Jesus.

The disciples followed behind His back, in order to see Him, and did not see His face. So He turns round, and, as it were, lowers His majesty, that they might be enabled to behold His face.

They do not wish to be under His teaching for a time only, but enquire where He abides; wishing an immediate initiation in the secrets of His word, and afterwards meaning often to visit Him, and obtain fuller instruction. And, in a mystical sense too, they wish to know in whom Christ dwells, that profiting by their example they may themselves become fit to be His dwelling. Or, their seeing Jesus walking, and straightway enquiring where He resides, is an intimation to us, that we should, remembering His Incarnation, earnestly entreat Him to show us our eternal habitation. The request being so good a one, Christ promises a free and full disclosure. He saith unto them, Come and see: that is to say, My dwelling is not to be understood by words, but by works; come, therefore, by believing and working, and then see by understanding.

Or it would seem that the two disciples who followed Jesus were Andrew and Philip.

Source: Catena Aurea by Aquinas

[AD 1107] Theophylact of Ohrid on John 1:37-40

(in loc.) Observe then, that it was upon those who followed Him, that our Lord turned His face and looked upon them. Unless thou by thy good works follow Him, thou shalt never be permitted to see His face, or enter into His dwelling.

And it was about the tenth hour. The Evangelist mentions the time of day purposely, as a hint both to teachers and learners, not to let time interfere with their work.

Source: Catena Aurea by Aquinas

[AD 407] John Chrysostom on John 1:38

Hence we are taught, that God does not prevent our wills by His gifts, but that when we begin, when we provide the being willing, then He gives us many opportunities of salvation. What do you seek? How is this? He who knows the hearts of men, who dwells in our thoughts, does He ask? He does; not that He may be informed; how could that be? But that by the question He may make them more familiar, and impart to them greater boldness, and show them that they are worthy to hear Him; for it was probable that they would blush and be afraid, as being unknown to him, and as having heard such accounts of Him from the testimony of their teacher. Therefore to remove all this, their shame and their fear, he questions them, and would not let them come all the way to the house in silence. Yet the event would have been the same had He not questioned them; they would have remained by following Him, and walking in His steps would have reached His dwelling. Why then did He ask? To effect that which I said, to calm their minds, yet disturbed with shame and anxiety, and to give them confidence.

Nor was it by their following only that they showed their earnest desire, but by their question also: for when they had not as yet learned or even heard anything from Him, they call Him, Master; thrusting themselves as it were among His disciples, and declaring what was the cause of their following, that they might hear somewhat profitable. Observe their wisdom also. They did not say, Teach us of Your doctrines, or some other thing that we need to know; but what? Where dwellest Thou? Because, as I before said, they wished in quiet to say somewhat to Him, and to hear somewhat from Him, and to learn. Therefore they did not defer the matter, nor say, We will come tomorrow by all means, and hear you speak in public; but showed the great eagerness they had to hear Him, by not being turned back even by the hour, for the sun was already near its setting, (it was, says John, about the tenth hour.) And therefore Christ does not tell them the marks of His abode, nor its situation, but rather induces them to follow Him by showing them that He had accepted them. For this reason He did not say anything of this kind to them, It is an unseasonable time now for you to enter into the house, tomorrow you shall hear if you have any wish, return home now; but converses with them as with friends, and those who had long been with Him.

How then says He in another place, But the Son of Man has not where to lay His head Luke 9:58, while here He says, Come and see John 1:39 where I abide? Because the expression has not where to lay His head, signifies that He had no dwelling place of His own, not that He did not abide in a house. And this too is the meaning of the comparison. The Evangelist has mentioned that they abode with Him that day, but has not added wherefore, because the reason was plain; for from no other motive did they follow Christ, and He draw them to Him, but only that they might have instruction; and this they enjoyed so abundantly and eagerly even in a single night, that they both proceeded straightway to the capture of others.

4. Let us then also learn hence to consider all things secondary to the hearing the word of God, and to deem no season unseasonable, and, though a man may even have to go into another person's house, and being a person unknown to make himself known to great men, though it be late in the day, or at any time whatever, never to neglect this traffic. Let food and baths and dinners and the other things of this life have their appointed time; but let the teaching of heavenly philosophy have no separate time, let every season belong to it. For Paul says, In season, out of season, reprove, rebuke, exhort 2 Timothy 4:2; and the Prophet too says, In His law will he meditate day and night Psalm 1:3; and Moses commanded the Jews to do this always. For the things of this life, baths, I mean, and dinners, even if they are necessary, yet being continually repeated, render the body feeble; but the teaching of the soul the more it is prolonged, the stronger it renders the soul which receives it. But now we portion out all our time for trifles and unprofitable silly talking, and we sit together idly during the morning and afternoon, midday and evening besides, and we have appointed places for this; but hearing the divine doctrines twice or thrice in the week we become sick, and thoroughly sated. What is the reason? We are in a bad state of soul; its faculty of desiring and reaching after these things we have relaxed altogether. And therefore it is not strong enough to have an appetite for spiritual food. And this among others is a great proof of weakness, not to hunger nor thirst, but to be disinclined to both. Now if this, when it takes place in our bodies, is a sure sign of grievous disease, and productive of weakness, much more is it so in the soul.

How then, says one, shall we be able to renew it, thus fallen and relaxed, to strength? What doing, what saying? By applying ourselves to the divine words of the prophets, of the Apostles, of the Gospels, and all the others; then we shall know that it is far better to feed on these than on impure food, for so we must term our unseasonable idle talking and assemblies. For which is best, tell me, to converse on things relating to the market, or things in the law courts, or in the camp, or on things in heaven, and on what shall be after our departure hence? Which is best, to talk about our neighbor and our neighbor's affairs, to busy ourselves in what belongs to other people, or to enquire into the things of angels, and into matters which concern ourselves? For a neighbor's affairs are not yours at all; but heavenly things are yours. But, says some one, a man may by once speaking finish these subjects altogether. Why do you not think this in matters on which you converse uselessly and idly, why though you waste your lives on this have you never exhausted the subject? And I have not yet named what is far more vile than this. These are the things about which the better sort converse one with the other; but the more indifferent and careless carry about in their talk players and dancers and charioteers, defiling men's ears, corrupting their souls, and driving their nature into mad excesses by these narratives, and by means of this discourse introducing every kind of wickedness into their own imagination. For as soon as the tongue has uttered the name of the dancer, immediately the soul has figured to itself his looks, his hair, his delicate clothing, and himself more effeminate than all. Another again fans the flame in another way, by introducing some harlot into the conversation, with her words, and attitudes, and glances, her languishing looks and twisted locks, the smoothness of her cheeks, and her painted eyelids. Were you not somewhat affected when I gave this description? Yet be not ashamed, nor blush, for the very necessity of nature requires this, and so disposes the soul according as the tendency of what is said may be. But if, when it is I that speak, you, standing in the church, and at a distance from these things, were somewhat affected at the hearing, consider how it is likely that they are disposed, who sit in the theater itself, who are totally free from dread, who are absent from this venerable and awful assembly, who both see and hear those things with much shamelessness. And why then, perhaps one of those who heed not may say, if the necessity of nature so disposes the soul, do you let go that, and blame us? Because, to be softened when one hears these things, is nature's work; but to hear them is not a fault of nature, but of deliberate choice. For so he who meddles with fire must needs be injured, so wills the weakness of our nature; yet nature does not therefore draw us to the fire and to the injury thence arising; this can be only from deliberate perversity. I beseech you, therefore, to remove and correct this fault, that you may not of your own accord cast yourself down the precipice, nor thrust yourselves into the pits of wickedness, nor run of yourselves to the blaze, lest we place ourselves in jeopardy of the fire prepared for the devil. May it come to pass, that we all being delivered both from this fire and from that, may go to the very bosom of Abraham, through the grace and lovingkindness of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom and with whom, to the Father and Holy Ghost, be glory for ever and ever. Amen.

[AD 428] Theodore of Mopsuestia on John 1:38

At once his disciples, who were present, after hearing his words, left John and hurried to go to Jesus about whom John testified. “When Jesus turned and saw them following, he said to them, ‘What are you looking for?’ ” He did not say this out of ignorance but rather in order to give them an occasion to trust him. They immediately called him “Rabbi” and showed their profound intention, that is, that they had been led to Jesus for no other reason but the desire to obey him as a teacher. And at the same time they asked him where he lived, as if they wanted to come to him often. He did not point out a house but told them to come along with him and see, by giving them the space for greater familiarity and trust toward him.

Source: COMMENTARY ON JOHN 1.1.38

[AD 444] Cyril of Alexandria on John 1:38

They said unto Him, Rabbi, where dwellest Thou?

Like people well instructed do they that are asked reply. For already do they call Him, Master, thereby clearly signifying their readiness to learn. Then they beg to know His home, as about therein to tell Him at a fit season of their need. For probably they did not think it right to make talk on needful subjects the companion of a journey. Be what is said again to us for a useful pattern.

[AD 444] Cyril of Alexandria on John 1:38

Those who are asked reply like people who are well instructed. Notice already how they call him “Rabbi,” thereby clearly signifying their readiness to learn. Then they beg to know where he lives, since they are looking for an appropriate time to tell him their concerns. They probably did not think it was right to talk about such vital topics as companions on a journey.

Source: COMMENTARY ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 2.1

[AD 373] Ephrem the Syrian on John 1:39-41

The statement “We have found the Messiah” affirms that the report about him was circulating and came from the time of the Magi; it was renewed by John who had baptized him, and by the witness of the Spirit. Then he was again left alone in his fast of forty days. For that reason, the souls of the chosen ones were filled with a desire for a report concerning him. They were indeed his instruments, as he said, “You were chosen by me before the world.” He chose Galileans, a people without education, whom the prophets proclaimed as “dwellers in darkness,” for they had seen the light, so that he could bring reproach on those who were learned in the law. “For he chose the foolish of the world, so that through them he might put the wise to shame.”

Source: COMMENTARY ON TATIAN’S DIATESSARON 4.18

[AD 407] John Chrysostom on John 1:39-41

Andrew, after having stayed with Jesus and after having learned what he did, did not keep the treasure to himself but hurries and races to his brother in order to let him know the good things Jesus has shared with him. But why hasn’t John mentioned what they talked about? How do we know this is why they “stayed with him”?… Observe what Andrew says to his brother, “We have found the Messiah, which is, being interpreted, the Christ.” You see how, in a short time, he demonstrates not only the persuasiveness of the wise teacher but also his own longing that he had from the beginning. For this word, “we have found,” is the expression of a soul that longs for his presence, looking for his coming from above, and is so ecstatic when what he is looking for happens that he hurries to tell others the good news. This is what brotherly affection, natural friendship, is all about when someone is eager to extend a hand to another when it comes to spiritual matters. Also see how he adds the article, for he does not say “Messiah” but “the Messiah.” They were expecting the Christ who would have nothing in common with the others.

Source: HOMILIES ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 19.1

[AD 428] Theodore of Mopsuestia on John 1:39-41

He says that one of those who followed him was Andrew, brother of Simon, without mentioning the other. Evidently this is the blessed John himself. He always appears to pass in silence over those things that concern him. And also whenever he relates something concerning himself, he avoids subscribing his name. If those who received the gospel had not indicated the writer with the prefixed title, we would not have known about whom the text is speaking.

Source: COMMENTARY ON JOHN 1.1.39-41

[AD 430] Augustine of Hippo on John 1:39-41

Do we think that it was not at all important for the Evangelist to tell us what hour it was? Is it possible that he wanted us to notice nothing there, to seek nothing? It was the tenth hour. This number signifies the law, for the law was given in Ten Commandments. But the time had come that the law was to be fulfilled through love because it could not be fulfilled by the Jews through fear. This is why the Lord says, “I have not come to destroy the law but to fulfill.”

Source: TRACTATES ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 7.10

[AD 444] Cyril of Alexandria on John 1:39

He saith unto them, Come and see.

He doth not point out the house, though asked to do it, but rather bids them come forthwith to it: teaching first, as by example, that it is not well to cast delays in the way of search after what is good (for delay in things profitable is altogether hurtful): and this too besides, that to those who are still ignorant of the holy house of our Saviour |150 Christ, that is, the Church, it will not suffice to salvation that they should learn where it is, but that they should enter into it by faith, and see the things mystically wrought therein.

[AD 444] Cyril of Alexandria on John 1:39

They came and saw where He dwelt, and abode with Him that day: for it was about the tenth hour.

Assiduously did the disciples apply themselves to the attainment of the knowledge of the Divine Mysteries. For I do not think that a fickle mind beseems those who desire to learn, but rather one most painstaking, and superior to feeble mindedness in good toils, so as during their whole life time to excel in perfect zeal. For this I think the words, they abode with Him that day, darkly signify. But when he says, it was about the tenth hour, we adapting our own discourse to each man's profit, say that in this very thing, the compiler of Divinity through this so subtle handling again teacheth us, that not in the beginning of the present world was the mighty mystery of our Saviour made known, but when time now draws towards its close. For in the last days, as it is written, we shall be all taught of God. Take again I pray as an image of what has been said about the tenth hour, the disciples cleaving to the Saviour, of whom the holy Evangelist says that having once become His guests they abode with Him: that they who through faith have entered into the holy house, and have run to Christ, may learn that it needs to abide with Him, and not to desire to be again estranged, either turning aside into sin, or again returning to unbelief.

[AD 407] John Chrysostom on John 1:40

Wherefore then has he not made known the name of the other also? Some say, because it was the writer himself that followed; others, not so, but that he was not one of the distinguished disciples; it behooved not therefore to say more than was necessary. For what would it have advantaged us to learn his name, when the writer does not mention the names even of the seventy-two? St. Paul also did the same. We have sent, says he, with him the brother, (who has often in many things been forward,) whose praise is in the Gospel. 2 Corinthians 8:18 Moreover, he mentions Andrew for another reason. What is this?  It is, that when you are informed that Simon having in company with him heard, Follow Me, and I will make you fishers of men Matthew 4:19, was not perplexed at so strange a promise, you may learn that his brother had already laid down within him the beginnings of the faith.

[AD 407] John Chrysostom on John 1:41

1. When God in the beginning made man, He did not suffer him to be alone, but gave him woman for a helpmate, and made them to dwell together, knowing that great advantage would result from this companionship. What though the woman did not rightly employ this benefit? Still if any one make himself fully acquainted with the nature of the matter, he will see, that to the wise great advantage arises from this dwelling together; not in the cause of wife or husband only, but if brothers do this, they also shall enjoy the benefit. Wherefore the Prophet has said, What is good, what is pleasant, but that brethren should dwell together? Psalm 133:1, Septuagint And Paul exhorted not to neglect the assembling of ourselves together. Hebrews 10:25 In this it is that we differ from beasts, for this we have built cities, and markets, and houses, that we may be united one with another, not in the place of our dwelling only, but by the bond of love. For since our nature came imperfect from Him who made it, and is not self-sufficient, God, for our advantage, ordained that the want hence existing should be corrected by the assistance arising from mutual intercourse; so that what was lacking in one should be supplied by another, and the defective nature thus be rendered self-sufficient; as, for instance, that though made mortal, it should by succession for a long time maintain immortality. I might have gone into this argument at greater length, to show what advantages arise to those who come together from genuine and pure intercourse with each other: but there is another thing which presses now, that on account of which we have made these remarks.

Andrew, after having tarried with Jesus and learned what He did, kept not the treasure to himself, but hastens and runs quickly to his brother, to impart to him of the good things which he had received. But wherefore has not John said on what matters Christ conversed with them? Whence is it clear that it was for this that they abode with Him? It was proved by us the other day; but we may learn it from what has been read today as well. Observe what Andrew says to his brother; We have found the Messias, which is, being interpreted, the Christ. You see how, as far as he had learned in a short time, he showed the wisdom of the teacher who persuaded them, and their own zeal, who cared for these things long ago, and from the beginning. For this word, we have found, is the expression of a soul which travails for His presence, and looks for His coming from above, and is made overjoyed when the looked-for thing has happened, and hastens to impart to others the good tidings. This is the part of brotherly affection, of natural friendship, of a sincere disposition, to be eager to stretch out the hand to each other in spiritual things. Hear him besides speak with the addition of the article; for he does not say Messias, but the Messias; thus they were expecting some one Christ, having nothing in common with the others. And behold, I beg of you, the mind of Peter obedient and tractable from the very beginning; he ran to Him without any delay; He brought him, says St. John, to Jesus. Yet let no one blame his easy temper if he received the word without much questioning, because it is probable that his brother had told him these things more exactly and at length; but the Evangelists from their care for conciseness constantly cut many things short. Besides, it is not said absolutely that he believed, but that he brought him to Jesus, to give him up for the future to Him, so that from Him he might learn all; for the other disciple also was with him, and contributed to this. And if John the Baptist, when he had said that He was the Lamb, and that He baptized with the Spirit, gave them over to learn the clearer doctrine concerning this thing from Him, much more would Andrew have done this, not deeming him self sufficient to declare the whole, but drawing him to the very fount of light with so much zeal and joy, that the other neither deferred nor delayed at all.

[AD 407] John Chrysostom on John 1:41-42

(Chrys. Hom. xix. 1) Andrew kept not our Lord's words to himself; but ran in haste to his brother, to report the good tidings: He first findeth his own brother Simon, and saith unto him, We have found the Messias, which is, being interpreted, the Christ.

(Hom. xix. [al. xviii.] 1) The Evangelist docs not mention what Christ said to those who followed Him; but we may infer it from what follows. Andrew declares in few words what he had learnt, discloses the power of that Master Who had persuaded them, and his own previous longings after Him. For this exclamation, We have found, expresses a longing for His coming, turned to exultation, now that He was really come.

(Hom. xix. 1, 2) And therefore he said not Messias, but the Messias. Mark the obedience of Peter from the very first; ho went immediately without delay, as appears from the next words: And he brought him to Jesus. Nor let us blame him as too yielding, because he did not ask many questions, before he received the word. It is reasonable to suppose that his brother had told him all, and sufficiently fully; but the Evangelists often make omissions for the sake of brevity. But, besides this, it is not absolutely said that he did believe, but only, He took him to Jesus; i. e. to learn from the mouth of Jesus Himself, what Andrew had reported. Our Lord begins now Himself to reveal the things of His Divinity, and to exhibit them gradually by prophecy. For prophecies are no less persuasive than miracles; inasmuch as they are preeminently God's work, and are beyond the power of devils to imitate, while miracles may be phantasy or appearance: the foretelling future events with certainty is an attribute of the incorruptible nature alone: And when Jesus beheld him, He said, Thou art Simon the son of Jonas; thou shall be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone.

(Hom. xix. [al. xviii. 2]) He changed the name too to show that He was the same who done so before in the Old Testament; who had called Abram Abraham, Sarai Sarah, Jacob Israel. Many He had named from their birth, as Isaac and Samson; others again after being named by their parents, as were Peter, and the sons of Zebedee. Those whose virtue was to be eminent from the first, have names given them from the first; those who were to be exalted afterwards, are named afterwards.

Source: Catena Aurea by Aquinas

[AD 430] Augustine of Hippo on John 1:41-42

(Tr. vii. c. 13) Messias in Hebrew, Christus in Greek, Unctus in Latin. Chrism is unction, and He had a special unction, which from Him extended to all Christians, as appears in the Psalm, God, even Thy God, hath anointed Thee with the oil of gladness above Thy fellows1. (Ps. 44, [45]) All holy persons arc partakers with Him; but He is specially the Holy of Holies, specially anointed.

(Tr. vii. c. 14) There was nothing very great in our Lord saying whose son he was, for our Lord knew the names of all His saints, having predestinated them before the foundation of the world. But it was a great thing for our Lord to change his name from Simon to Peter. Peter is from petra, rock, which rock is the Church: so that the name of Peter represents the Church. And who is safe, unless he build upon a rock? Our Lord here rouses our attention: for had he been called Peter before, we should not have seen the mystery of the Rock, and should have thought that he was called so by chance, and not providentially. God therefore made him to be called by another name before, that the change of that name might give vividness to the mystery.

(de Con. Evang. l. ii. c. 17) The account here of the two disciples on the Jordan, who follow Christ (before he had gone into Galilee) in obedience to John's testimony; viz. of Andrew bringing his brother Simon to Jesus, who gave him, on this occasion, the name of Peter; disagrees considerably with the account of the other Evangelists, viz. that our Lord found these two, Simon and Andrew, fishing in Galilee, and then bid them follow Him: unless we understand that they did not regularly join our Lord when they saw Him on the Jordan; but only discovered who He was, and full of wonder, then returned to their occupations. Nor must we think that Peter first received his name on the occasion mentioned in Matthew, when our Lord says, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build My Church; (Mat. 16:18) but rather when our Lord says, Thou shall be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone.

Source: Catena Aurea by Aquinas

[AD 444] Cyril of Alexandria on John 1:41

They who even now received the talent, straightway make traffic of their talent, and bring it to the Lord. For such are in truth obedient and docile souls, not needing many words for profit, nor bearing the fruit of their instruction, |151 after revolutions of years or months, but attaining the goal of wisdom along with the commencement of their instruction. For give, it says, instruction to a wise man, and he will be yet wiser: teach a just man, and he will increase in learning. Andrew then saves his brother (this was Peter), having declared the whole mystery in a brief summary. For we have found, he says, Jesus, as Treasure hid in a field, or as One Pearl of great price, according to the parables in the Gospels.

[AD 735] Bede on John 1:41-42

(Hom. in Vig. St. Andr.) This is truly to find the Lord; viz. to have fervent love for Him, together with a care for our brother's salvation.

(Hom. i. Temp. Hier. in Vig. S. Andr.) He beheld him not with His natural eye only, but by the insight of His Godhead discerned from eternity the simplicity and greatness of his soul, for which he was to be elevated above the whole Church. In the word Peter, we must not look for any additional meaning, as though it were of Hebrew or Syriac derivation; for the Greek and Latin word Peter, has the same meaning as Cephas; being in both languages derived from petra. He is called Peter on account of the firmness of his faith, in cleaving to that Rock, of which the Apostle speaks, And that Rock was Christ; (1 Cor. 10:4) which secures those who trust in it from the snares of the enemy, and dispenses streams of spiritual gifts.

Source: Catena Aurea by Aquinas

[AD 804] Alcuin of York on John 1:41-42

Or perhaps He does not actually give him the name now, but only fixes beforehand what He afterwards gave him when He said, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build My Church. And while about to change his name, Christ wishes to show that even that which his parents had given him, was not without a meaning. For Simon signifies obedience, Joanna grace, Jona a dove: as if the meaning was; Thou art an obedient son of grace, or of the dove, i. e. the Holy Spirit; for thou hast received of the Holy Spirit the humility, to desire, at Andrew's call, to see Me. The elder disdained not to follow the younger; for where there is meritorious faith, there is no order of seniority.

Source: Catena Aurea by Aquinas

[AD 407] John Chrysostom on John 1:42

2. He begins from this time forth to reveal the things belonging to His Divinity, and to open It out little by little by predictions. So He did in the case of Nathaniel and the Samaritan woman. For -->prophecies--> bring men over not less than miracles; and are free from the appearance of boasting. Miracles may possibly be slandered among foolish men, He casts out devils, said they, by Beelzebub Matthew 12:24, but nothing of the kind has ever been said of prophecy. Now in the case of Nathaniel and Simon He used this method of teaching, but with Andrew and Philip He did not so. Why was this? Because those (two) had the testimony of John, no small preparation, and Philip received a credible evidence of faith, when he saw those who had been present.

You are Simon, the son of Jonas. By the present, the future is guaranteed; for it is clear that He who named Peter's father foreknew the future also. And the prediction is attended with praise; but the object was not to flatter, but to foretell something future. Hear at least in the case of the Samaritan woman, how He utters a prediction with severe reproofs; You have had, he says, five husbands, and he whom thou now hast is not your husband. John 4:18 So also His Father makes great account of prophecy, when He sets Himself against the honor paid to idols: Let them declare to you, says He, what shall come upon you Isaiah 47:13; and again, I have declared, and have saved, and there was no foreign God among you Isaiah 43:12, Septuagint; and He brings this forward through all prophecy. Because prophecy is especially the work of God, which devils cannot even imitate, though they strive exceedingly. For in the case of miracles there may be delusion; but exactly to foretell the future belongs to that pure Nature alone. Or if devils ever have done so, it was by deceiving the simpler sort; whence their oracles are always easily detected.

But Peter makes no reply to these words; as yet he knew nothing clearly, but still was learning. And observe, that not even the prediction is fully set forth; for Jesus did not say, I will change your name to Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, but, You shall be called Cephas. The former speech would have expressed too great authority and power; for Christ does not immediately nor at first declare all His power, but speaks for a while in a humbler tone; and so, when He had given the proof of His Divinity, He puts it more authoritatively, saying, Blessed are you, Simon, because My Father has revealed it to you; and again, You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church. Matthew 16:17-18 Him therefore He so named, and James and his brother He called sons of thunder. Mark 3:17 Why then does He this? To show that it was He who gave the old covenant, that it was He who altered names, who called Abram Abraham, and Sarai Sarah, and Jacob Israel. To many he assigned names even from their birth, as to Isaac, and Samson, and to those in Isaiah and Hosea Isaiah 8:3; Hosea 1:4-9; but to others He gave them after they had been named by their parents, as to those we have mentioned, and to Joshua the son of Nun. It was also a custom of the Ancients to give names from things, which in fact Leah also has done; and this takes place not without cause, but in order that men may have the appellation to remind them of the goodness of God, that a perpetual memory of the prophecy conveyed by the names may sound in the ears of those who receive it. Thus too He named John early, because they whose virtue was to shine forth from their early youth, from that time received their names; while to those who were to become great at a later period, the title also was given later.

3. But then they received each a different name, we now have all one name, that which is greater than any, being called Christians, and sons of God, and (His) friends, and (His) Body. For the very term itself is able more than all those others to rouse us, and make us more zealous for the practice of virtue. Let us not then act unworthily of the honor belonging to the title, considering the excess of our dignity, we who are called Christ's; for so Paul has named us. Let us bear in mind and respect the grandeur of the appellation. 1 Corinthians 3:23 For if one who is said to be descended from some famous general, or one otherwise distinguished, is proud to be called this or that man's son, and deems the name a great honor, and strives in every way so as not to affix, by remissness of his own, reproach to him after whom he is called; shall not we who are called after the name, not of a general, nor any of the princes upon earth, nor Angel, nor Archangel, nor Seraphim, but of the King of these Himself, shall not we freely give even our very life, so as not to insult Him who has honored us? Do you not know what honor the royal bands of shield-bearers and spearmen that are about the king enjoy? So let us who have been deemed worthy to be near Him, and much closer, and as much nearer than those just named, as the body is closer to the head than they, let us, I say, use every means to be imitators of Christ.

What then says Christ? The foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests; but the Son of man has not where to lay His head. Luke 9:58 Now if I demand this of you, it will seem perhaps to most of you grievous and burdensome; because therefore of your infirmity I speak not of such perfection, but desire you not to be nailed to riches; and as I, because of the infirmity of the many, retire somewhat from (demanding) the excess of virtue, I desire that you do so and much more on the side of vice. I blame not those who have houses, and lands, and wealth, and servants, but wish them to possess these things in a safe and becoming way. And what is a becoming way? As masters, not as slaves; so that they rule them, be not ruled by them; that they use, not abuse them. This is why they are called, things to be used, that we may employ them on necessary services, not hoard them up; this is a domestic's office, that a master's; it is for the slave to keep them, but for the lord and one who has great authority to expend. You did not receive your wealth to bury, but to distribute. Had God desired riches to be hoarded, He would not have given them to men, but would have let them remain as they were in the earth; but because He wishes them to be spent, therefore He has permitted us to have them, that we may impart them to each other. And if we keep them to ourselves, we are no longer masters of them. But if you wish to make them greater and therefore keep them shut up, even in this case the best plan of all is to scatter and distribute them in all directions; because there can be no revenue without an outlay, no wealth without expenditure. One may see that it is so even in worldly matters. So it is with the merchant, so with the husbandman, who put forth the one his wealth, the other his seed; the one sails the sea to disperse his wares, the other labors all the year putting in and tending his seed. But here there is no need of any one of these things, neither to equip a vessel, nor to yoke oxen, nor to plough land, nor to be anxious about uncertain weather, nor to dread a fall of hail; here are neither waves nor rocks; this voyage and this sowing needs one thing only, that we cast forth our possessions; all the rest will that Husbandman do, of whom Christ says, My Father is the Husbandman. John 15:1 Is it not then absurd to be sluggish and slothful where we may gain all without labor, and where there are many toils and many troubles and cares, and after all, an uncertain hope, there to display all eagerness? Let us not, I beseech you, let us not be to such a degree senseless about our own salvation, but let us leave the more troublesome task, and run to that which is most easy and more profitable, that we may obtain also the good things that are to come; through the grace and lovingkindness of our Lord Jesus Christ, with whom to the Father and the Holy and quickening Spirit be glory, now and ever, and world without end.  Amen.

[AD 407] John Chrysostom on John 1:42

Why does he change their names? He does this to show that it was he who gave the old covenant, that it was he who altered names, who called Abram “Abraham,” and Sarai “Sarah” and Jacob “Israel.” To many he assigned names even from their birth, as with Isaac and Samson, and to those in Isaiah and Hosea. But to others, he gave them their names after they had been named by their parents, like those we have mentioned, as well as Joshua the son of Nun. It was also a custom of the ancients to give names from things, which in fact Leah did. By doing so, the parents have the appellation to remind them of the goodness of God, that a perpetual memory of the prophecy conveyed by the names may sound in the ears of those who receive it. And so too, he named John early, because those whose virtue was to shine forth from their early youth, from that time received their names, while to those who were to become great at a later period, the title also was given later.But then they each received a different name. Now we all have one name, that which is greater than any. We are called “Christians,” and “sons of God,” and “friends” and [his] “body.”

Source: HOMILIES ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 19.2-3

[AD 430] Augustine of Hippo on John 1:42

The Evangelist John, again, tells us that before Jesus went into Galilee, Peter and Andrew were with him one day. He also tells us that on that occasion the former had this name, Peter, given to him, while before that he was called Simon. Likewise, John tells us that on the day following, when Jesus now wanted to go up to Galilee, he found Philip and told him to follow him. In this way, too, the Evangelist comes to give the narrative about Nathanael. Further, he informs us that on the third day, when he was yet in Galilee, Jesus brought about the miracle of the turning of the water into wine at Cana. All these incidents are left unrecorded by the other Evangelists, who continue their narratives at once with the statement of the return of Jesus into Galilee. From this, we are to understand that there was an interval here of several days during which those incidents took place in the history of the disciples that are inserted at this point by John. Neither is there anything contradictory here to that other passage where Matthew tells us how the Lord said to Peter, “You are Peter, and on this rock will I build my church.” But we are not to understand that that was the time when he first received this name. We are rather to suppose that this took place on the occasion when it was said to him, as John mentions, “You shall be called Cephas, which is, by interpretation, ‘a rock.’ ” Thus the Lord could address him at that later period by this very name when he said, “You are Peter.” For he does not say then, “You shall be called Peter” but “You are Peter,” because on a previous occasion it had already been said, “You shall be called.”

Source: HARMONY OF THE GOSPELS 2.17.34

[AD 430] Augustine of Hippo on John 1:42

Is it a great thing that he changed his name and made him Peter from Simon? Now Peter is from the word for rock, but the rock is the church. Therefore, in the name of Peter the church was represented. And who is secure if not he who builds on a rock? And what does the Lord himself say? “He who hears these words of mine and does them, I shall liken him to a wise man who builds on rock.” He does not give in to temptation.…In this way he has drawn your attention. For if Peter had this name before, you would not in that case see the mystery of the rock, and you would think that he was called that name before by chance, not by the providence of God. This is why he wanted him to be called another name first, so that from the very change of name the vital force of the mystery might be commended.

Source: TRACTATES ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 7.14.1-4

[AD 444] Cyril of Alexandria on John 1:42

He after a Divine sort looketh upon him, Who seeth the hearts and reins; and seeth to how great piety the disciple will attain, of how great virtue he will be possessed, and at what consummation he will leave off. For He Who know-eth all things before they be is not ignorant of ought. And herein does He specially instruct him that is called, that being Very God, He hath knowledge untaught. For not having needed a single word, nor even sought to learn who or whence the man came to Him; He says of what father he was born, and what was his own name, and permits him to be no more called Simon, already exercising lordship and power over him, as being His: but changes it to Peter from Petra 4: for upon him was He about to found His Church.

[AD 407] John Chrysostom on John 1:43-45

Having then taken [Peter and the other disciple], Jesus next goes to the capture of the others and draws to him Philip and Nathanael. Now in the case of Nathanael this was not so amazing because the fame of Jesus had gone all over Syria. But it is truly remarkable concerning Peter, James and Philip, that they believed not only before the miracles, but that they did so being from Galilee, out of which “arises no prophet,” nor “can any good thing come.” The Galileans were somehow of a more boorish and dull disposition than others. But even in this Christ displayed his power. He selected his choicest disciples from a land that bore no fruit.

Source: HOMILIES ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 20.1

[AD 407] John Chrysostom on John 1:43-45

“To every thoughtful person there is a benefit” … and Christ implied more than this when he said, “He that seeks finds.” This is why I no longer wonder how it was that Philip followed Christ. Andrew was persuaded when he heard from John, and Peter was persuaded when he heard from Andrew. But Philip, not having learned anything from anyone but Christ who said to him only this, “Follow me,” immediately obeyed and did not go back. In fact, he even became a preacher to others. For he ran to Nathanael and said to him, “We have found him of whom Moses in the Law and the Prophets wrote.” Do you see what a thoughtful mind he had, how assiduously he meditated on the writings of Moses, expecting the advent? For the expression “we have found” belongs always to those who are in some way seeking.

Source: HOMILIES ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 20.1

[AD 407] John Chrysostom on John 1:43-46

(Hom. xix) After gaining these disciples, Christ proceeded to convert others, viz. Philip and Nathanael: The day following, Jesus would go forth into Galilee.

(Hom. xx. 1) Observe, He did not call them, before some had of their own accord joined Him: for had He invited them, before any had joined Him, perhaps they would have started back: but now having determined to follow of their own free choice, they remain firm ever after. He calls Philip, however, because he would be known to him, from living in Galilee. But what made Philip follow Christ? Andrew heard from John the Baptist, and Peter from Andrew; he had heard from no one; and yet on Christ saying, Follow Me, was persuaded instantly. It is not improbable that Philip may have heard John: and yet it may have been the mere voice of Christ which produced this effect.

(Hom. xx. 1) The power of Christ appears by His gathering fruit out of a barren country. For from that Galilee, out of which there ariseth no prophet, He takes His most distinguished disciples.

(Hom. xx. 1) Philip is not persuaded himself, but begins preaching to others: Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith unto him, We have found Him of whom Moses in the Law, and the Prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the Son of Joseph. See how zealous he is, and how constantly he is meditating on the books of Moses, and looking for Christ's coming. That Christ was coming he had known before; but he did not know that this was the Christ, of whom Moses and the Prophets did write: He says this to give credibility to his preaching, and to show his zeal for the Law and the Prophets, and how that he had examined them attentively. Be not disturbed at his calling our Lord the Son of Joseph; this was what He was supposed to be.

(Hom. xx. 1, 2) Nathanael knew from the Scriptures, that Christ was to come from Bethlehem, according to the prophecy of Micah, And thou, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah,—out of thee shall come a Governor, that shall rule my people Israel. (Micah 5:2) On hearing of Nazareth, then, he doubted, and was not able to reconcile Philip's tidings with prophecy. For the Prophets call Him a Nazarene, only in reference to His education and mode of life. Observe, however, the discretion and gentleness with which he communicates his doubts. He does not say, Thou deceivest me, Philip; but simply asks the question, Can any good thing come out of Nazareth? Philip too in turn is equally discrete. He is not confounded by the question, but dwells upon it, and lingers in the hope of bringing him to Christ: Philip saith unto him, Come and see. He takes him to Christ, knowing that when he had once tasted of His words and doctrine, he will make no more resistance.

Source: Catena Aurea by Aquinas

[AD 407] John Chrysostom on John 1:43

1. To every careful thinker there is a gain Proverbs 14:23, Septuagint, says the proverb; and Christ implied more than this, when He said, He that seeks finds. Matthew 7:8 Wherefore it does not occur to me any more to wonder how Philip followed Christ. Andrew was persuaded when he had heard from John, and Peter the same from Andrew, but Philip not having learned anything from any but Christ who said to him only this, Follow Me, straightway obeyed, and went not back, but even became a preacher to others. For he ran to Nathanael and said to him, We have found Him of whom Moses in the Law and the Prophets did write. Do you see what a thoughtful mind he had, how assiduously he meditated on the writings of Moses, and expected the Advent? For the expression, we have found, belongs always to those who are in some way seeking. The day following Jesus went forth into Galilee. Before any had joined Him, He called no one; and He acted thus not without cause, but according to his own wisdom and intelligence. For if, when no one came to Him spontaneously, He had Himself drawn them, they might perhaps have started away; but now, having chosen this of themselves, they afterwards remained firm. He calls Philip, one who was better acquainted with Him; for he, as having been born and bred in Galilee, knew Him more than others. Having then taken the disciples, He next goes to the capture of the others, and draws to Him Philip and Nathanael.  Now in the case of Nathanael this was not so wonderful, because the fame of Jesus had gone forth into all Syria. Matthew 4:24 But the wonderful thing was respecting Peter and James and Philip, that they believed, not only before the miracles, but that they did so being of Galilee, out of which arises no prophet, nor can any good thing come; for the Galilæans were somehow of a more boorish and dull disposition than others; but even in this Christ displayed forth His power, by selecting from a land which bore no fruit His choicest disciples. It is then probable that Philip having seen Peter and Andrew, and having heard what John had said, followed; and it is probable also that the voice of Christ wrought in him somewhat; for He knew those who would be serviceable. But all these points the Evangelist cuts short. That Christ should come, he knew; that this was Christ, he knew not, and this I say that he heard either from Peter or John. But John mentions his village also, that you may learn that God has chosen the weak things of the world. 1 Corinthians 1:27

[AD 430] Augustine of Hippo on John 1:43-46

(Tr. vii. c. 15) The person to whom our Lord's mother had been betrothed. The Christians know from the Gospel, that He was conceived and born of an undefiled mother. He adds the place too, of Nazareth.

(Tr. vii. c. 15, 16, 17) However you may understand these words, Philip's answer will suit. You may read it either as affirmatory, Something good can come out of Nazareth; to which the other says, Come and see: or you may read it as a question, implying doubt on Nathanael's part, Can any good thing come out of Nazareth? Come and see. Since either way of reading agrees equally with what follows, we must inquire the meaning of the passage. Nathanael was well read in the Law, and therefore the word Nazareth (Philip having said that he had found Jesus of Nazareth) immediately raises his hopes, and he exclaims, Something good can come out of Nazareth. He had searched the Scriptures, and knew, what the Scribes and Pharisees could not, that the Saviour was to be expected thence.

Source: Catena Aurea by Aquinas

[AD 444] Cyril of Alexandria on John 1:43

Likeminded with those preceding was Philip, and very ready to follow Christ. For Christ knew that he would be good. Therefore also He says Follow Me, making the word a token of the grace that was upon him, and wherein he bid him follow, testifying to him that most excellent was his conversation. For Ho would not have chosen him, if he had not been altogether good.

[AD 804] Alcuin of York on John 1:43-46

Leaving, that is, Judæa, where John was baptizing, out of respect to the Baptist, and not to appear to lower his office, so long as it continued. He was going too to call a disciple, and wished to go forth into Galilee, i. e. to a place of "transition" or "revelation," that is to say, that as He Himself increased in wisdom or stature, and in favour with God and man, and as He suffered and rose again, and entered into His glory: so He would teach His followers to go forth, and increase in virtue, and pass through suffering to joy. He findeth Philip, and saith unto him, Follow Me. Every one follows Jesus who imitates His humility and suffering, in order to be partaker of His resurrection and ascension.

Bethsaida means house of hunters. The Evangelist introduces the name of this place by way of allusion to the characters of Philip, Peter, and Andrew, and their future office, i. e. catching and saving souls.

He who alone is absolutely holy, harmless, undefiled; of whom the prophet saith, There shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a branch (Nazaræus) shall grow out of his roots. (Isaiah 11:1) Or the words may be taken as expressing doubt, and asking the question.

Source: Catena Aurea by Aquinas

[AD 1107] Theophylact of Ohrid on John 1:43-46

For the voice of Christ sounded not like a common voice to some, that is, the faithful, but kindled in their inmost soul the love of Him. Philip having been continually meditating on Christ, and reading the books of Moses, so confidently expected Him, that the instant he saw, he believed. Perhaps too he had heard of Him from Andrew and Peter, coming from the same district; an explanation which the Evangelist seems to hint at, when he adds, Now Philip was of Bethsaida, the city of Andrew and Peter.

He was bred up there: the place of His birth could not have been known generally, but all knew that He was bred up in Nazareth.
And Nathanael said unto him, Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth.

Source: Catena Aurea by Aquinas

[AD 1107] Theophylact of Ohrid on John 1:43

Andrew, by listening to the Forerunner, and Peter, by listening to Andrew, both followed Christ. But it appears that Philip, without the prompting of another, obeyed Jesus at once when He said to him, Follow me. How was he convinced so instantaneously? It appears, first of all, that the voice of the Lord stung his soul with love. The sound of the Lord's voice was not like that of any other; for those who were worthy, it immediately kindled within them a burning love for Him. As Cleopas and the other disciple on the road to Emmaus said, Did not our heart burn within us, while He talked with us by the way? (Lk. 24:32) Furthermore, Philip had pondered earnestly within his heart, and continuously studied the books of Moses, and was always waiting for the coming of the Christ; therefore, as soon as he saw Him, he was convinced. This is why he said, We have found Him! which shows that he had always been seeking Him. Perhaps he had learned something about Christ from Andrew and Peter. Because they were of the same city, it is likely that they had talked together and discussed the Lord. The Evangelist seems to imply this when He says, Now Philip was of the city of Andrew and John. This was a very small city, more like a village. Therefore, we should marvel at Christ's power, that from such insignificant places He chose His pre-eminent disciples. Philip does not keep this good thing to himself, but shares it with Nathanael. Because Nathanael was a diligent student of the law and knew it thoroughly, Philip refers him to the law and the prophets. Philip calls the Lord the son of Joseph, because they thought He was his child. And he names Him of Nazareth, although He was, properly speaking, of Bethlehem. He was born in Bethlehem and raised in Nazareth. Because the manner of His birth was hidden from most, while His upbringing was apparent, they called Him Jesus of Nazareth.

[AD 407] John Chrysostom on John 1:45

He says this, to make his preaching credible, which it must be if it rests on Moses and the Prophets besides, and by this to abash his hearer. For since Nathanael was an exact man, and one who viewed all things with truth, as Christ also testified and the event showed, Philip with reason refers him to Moses and the Prophets, that so he might receive Him who was preached. And he not troubled though he called Him the son of Joseph; for still he was supposed to be his son. And whence, O Philip, is it plain that this is He? What proof do you mention to us? For it is not enough merely to assert this. What sign have you seen, what miracle? Not without danger is it to believe without cause in such matters. What proof then have you? The same as Andrew, he replies; for he though unable to produce the wealth which he had found, or to describe his treasure in words, when he had discovered it, led his brother to it. So too did Philip. How this is the Christ, and how the prophets proclaimed Him beforehand, he said not; but he draws him to Jesus, as knowing that he would not afterwards fall off, if he should once taste His words and teaching.

[AD 444] Cyril of Alexandria on John 1:45

Exceeding swift was the disciple unto the bearing fruit, that hereby he might show himself akin in disposition to them that had preceded. For he findeth Nathanael, not simply meeting him coming along, but making diligent search for him. For he knew that he was most painstaking and fond of learning. Then he says that he had found the Christ Who was heralded through all the Divine Scripture, addressing himself not as to one ignorant, but as to one exceedingly well instructed in the learning both of all-wise Moses and of the prophets. For a not true supposition was prevailing among the Jews as regards our Saviour Jesus Christ, that He should be of the city or village of Nazareth, albeit the Divine Scripture says that He is a Bethlehemite, as far as pertains to this. And thou, Bethlehem, it says, in the land of Judah, house of Ephrata, art little to be among the thousands of Judah, for out of thee shall He come forth unto Me That is to be ruler in Israel, Whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting. For He was brought up in Nazareth, as the Evangelist himself too somewhere testified, saying, And He came to Nazareth, where He had been brought up; but He was not thence, but whence we said before, yea rather, as the voice of the prophet affirmed. Philip therefore following the supposition of the Jews says, Jesus of Nazareth.

[AD 428] Theodore of Mopsuestia on John 1:46

This is not exactly the way this sentence appears, but rather it should be understood in a different and more doubtful sense, as in “How is it possible that anything good comes out of Nazareth?” In fact, among the Jews the name of that village was much despised, because a great number of its inhabitants were pagans, and it seemed impossible that anything good might come out from there. Therefore also the Pharisees said to Nicodemus, “Search and you will see that no prophet is to arise from Galilee.” And so it is only right that Philip says to Nathanael, “Come and see.” Since there is now a contrast to that old opinion, [he seems to be saying], I promise to show you the real facts. This was superfluous, otherwise, for someone who had once believed in the truth.

Source: COMMENTARY ON JOHN 1.1.46

[AD 430] Augustine of Hippo on John 1:46

[They refer to him as] “Jesus, the son of Joseph.” He was called the son of the man to whom his mother had been espoused. For all Christians know well from the Gospel that he was conceived and born while she was still a virgin. But this is what Philip said to Nathanael, and he added the place, “from Nazareth.” And Nathanael said to him, “From Nazareth something good can come.” What is the meaning here, brothers? Not as some read, for it could be read, “Can any good thing come out of Nazareth?” For the words of Philip follow, who says, “Come and see.” But the words of Philip can suitably follow both readings, whether you read it as a confirmation, that is, “from Nazareth something good can come,” to which Philip replies, “come and see”; or whether you read it as doubting, making the whole thing into a question, “Can any good thing come out of Nazareth? Come and see.”

Source: TRACTATES ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 7.15

[AD 444] Cyril of Alexandria on John 1:46

Come and see.

Sight will suffice for faith, says he, and having only conversed with. Him you will confess more readily, and will unhesitatingly say that He is indeed the Expected One. But we must believe that there was a Divine and Ineffable grace, flowing forth with the words of the Saviour, and alluring the souls of the hearers. For so it is written, that all wondered at the gracious words which proceeded out of His Mouth. For as His word is mighty in power, so too is it efficacious to persuade.

[AD 444] Cyril of Alexandria on John 1:46

Nathanael readily agrees that he expects great things to appear out of Nazareth. It is, I suppose, perfectly clear that not only did he take Nazareth as a pledge of what he sought but, bringing together knowledge from Moses and the prophets as one fond of learning, he gained a pretty quick understanding. “Come and see,” [Philip] says. Sight will suffice for faith. All you need to do is talk with him, and you will be all the more ready to confess and say without hesitation that he is indeed the expected One. But we must also believe that there was a divine and ineffable grace flowing from the words of our Savior that proved alluring for the souls of his hearers. … For since his word is mighty in power, it is also efficacious to persuade.

Source: COMMENTARY ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 2.1

[AD 1107] Theophylact of Ohrid on John 1:46

Philip had said that Christ was from Nazareth. But Nathanael, astute in the law, knew from the Scriptures that the Messiah should come from Bethlehem. This is why he said, Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth? Philip answered, Come and see, knowing that once he tasted Christ's words, he would never leave Him. Christ commends Nathanael for being a true Israelite, who said nothing either to curry favor or to cause enmity. Nathanael's words stemmed not from disbelief, but from a discerning mind well-versed in the law, which knew that the Christ would come from Bethlehem and not from Nazareth. How then does Nathanael respond to the Lord? Does he become conceited from these words of praise? Not in the least. Persisting in his desire to establish clearly and certainly the identity of this Man, he asks, Whence knowest Thou me? Then the Lord reveals His very divinity by speaking of things which no one could have known except Nathanael and Philip, because they had spoken and acted alone. Although He was not present, Christ knew all that had taken place when Philip spoke with Nathanael. This is why is He says, when thou wast under the fig tree. Before Philip drew near, the Lord spoke these words concerning Nathanael, lest anyone should suspect that Philip had told Him of the fig tree and his conversation with Nathanael. At once Nathanael understood Who the Lord was, and confessed Him to be the Son of God.

[AD 202] Irenaeus on John 1:47

By whom also Nathanael, being taught, recognised

[AD 215] Clement of Alexandria on John 1:47

In the Church far on high, in which are gathered the philosophers of God, "who are Israelites indeed, who are pure in heart, in whom there is no guile; "

[AD 373] Ephrem the Syrian on John 1:47

Because the prophet had said that a ruler and governor would arise from Bethlehem, but Nathanael heard that he [our Lord] was from Nazareth, he thus asked, “Can a good leader come forth who is from Nazareth?” For this was not what was written. Thus, when our Lord saw him [Nathanael], he gave excellent testimony about him, that he was not like the scribes who were being deceitful about the readings [from Scripture], striving to establish their interpretations according to their own will. He said, “This is a scribe of Israel in whom no deceit is seen,” because before he knew [our Lord], he asked if Nazareth could bring forth a leader as Bethlehem [was able].

Source: COMMENTARY ON TATIAN’S DIATESSARON 4.19

[AD 407] John Chrysostom on John 1:47

He praises and approves the man because he had said, “Can any good thing come out of Nazareth?” And yet, shouldn’t have Jesus rather found fault in him? Surely not; for the words are not those of an unbeliever or one deserving blame, but praise. How can you say that? Because Nathanael had considered the writings of the prophets more than Philip. For he had heard from the Scriptures that Christ must come from Bethlehem, and from the village in which David was. This belief at least prevailed among the Jews, and the prophet had proclaimed it of old. … And so when he heard that Jesus was “from Nazareth,” he was confounded and doubted, not finding the announcement of Philip to agree with the prediction of the prophet.

Source: HOMILIES ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 20.1

[AD 407] John Chrysostom on John 1:47-51

(Hom. xx. 1, 2) Nathanael knew from the Scriptures, that Christ was to come from Bethlehem, according to the prophecy of Micah, And thou, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah,—out of thee shall come a Governor, that shall rule my people Israel. (Micah 5:2) On hearing of Nazareth, then, he doubted, and was not able to reconcile Philip's tidings with prophecy. For the Prophets call Him a Nazarene, only in reference to His education and mode of life. Observe, however, the discretion and gentleness with which he communicates his doubts. He does not say, Thou deceivest me, Philip; but simply asks the question, Can any good thing come out of Nazareth? Philip too in turn is equally discrete. He is not confounded by the question, but dwells upon it, and lingers in the hope of bringing him to Christ: Philip saith unto him, Come and see. He takes him to Christ, knowing that when he had once tasted of His words and doctrine, he will make no more resistance.

(Hom. xix) Nathanael, in difficulty as to Christ coming out of Nazareth, showed the care with which he had read the Scriptures: his not rejecting the tidings when brought him, showed his strong desire for Christ's coming. He thought that Philip might be mistaken as to the place. It follows, Jesus saw Nathanael coming to Him, and saith of him, Behold an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile! There was no fault to be found with him, though he had spoken like one who did not believe, because he was more deeply read in the Prophets than Philip. He calls him guileless, because he had said nothing to gain favour, or gratify malice.

(Hom. xx) He asks as man, Jesus answers as God: Jesus answered and said unto him, Before that Philip called thee, when thou wast under the fig tree, I saw thee: not having beheld him as man, but as God discerning him from above. I saw thee, He says, that is, the character of thy life, when thou wast under the fig tree: where the two, Philip and Nathanael, had been talking together alone, nobody seeing them; and on this account it is said, that on seeing him a long way off, He said, Behold an Israelite indeed; whence it appears that this speech was before Philip came near, so that no suspicion could attach to Christ's testimony. Christ would not say, I am not of Nazareth, as Philip told you, but of Bethlehem; in order to avoid an argument: (ἀμφισβητήσιμον λόγον.) and because it would not have been sufficient proof, had He mentioned it, of His being the Christ. He preferred rather proving this by His having been present at their conversation.

(Hom. xx) That our Lord then had this knowledge, had penetrated into his mind, had not blamed but praised his hesitation, proved to Nathanael that He was the true Christ: Nathanael answered and saith unto Him, Rabbi, Thou art the Son of God, Thou art the King of Israel: as if he said, Thou art He who was expected, thou art He who was sought for. Sure proof being obtained, he proceeds to make confession; herein showing his devotion, as his former hesitation had shown his diligence.

(Hom. xxi. [al. xx.] 1) Many when they read this passage, are perplexed at finding that, whereas Peter was pronounced blessed for having, after our Lord's miracles and teaching, confessed Him to be the Son of God, Nathanael, who makes the same confession before, has no such benediction. The reason is this. Peter and Nathanael both used the same words, but not in the same meaning. Peter confessed our Lord to be the Son of God, in the sense of very God; the latter in the sense of mere man; for after saying, Thou art the Son of God, he adds, Thou art the King of Israel; whereas the Son of God was not the King of Israel only, but of the whole world. This is manifest from what follows. For in the case of Peter Christ added nothing, but, as if his faith were perfect, said, that he would build the Church upon his confession; whereas Nathanael, as if his confession were very deficient, is led up to higher things: Jesus answered and said unto him, Because I said unto thee, I saw thee under the fig tree, believest thou? Thou shalt see greater things than these. As if He said, What I have just said has appeared a great matter to thee, and thou hast confessed Me to be King of Israel; what wilt thou say when thou seest greater things than these? What that greater thing is He proceeds to shew: And He saith unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Hereafter ye shall see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man. See how He raises him from earth for a while, and forces him to think that Christ is not a mere man: for how could He be a mere man, whom angels ministered to? It was, as it were, saying, that He was Lord of the Angels; for He must be the King's own Son, on whom the servants of the King descended and ascended; descended at His crucifixion, ascended at His resurrection and ascension. Angels too before this came and ministered unto Him, and angels brought the glad tidings of His birth. Our Lord made the present a proof of the future. After the powers He had already shown, Nathanael would readily believe that much more would follow.

Source: Catena Aurea by Aquinas

[AD 430] Augustine of Hippo on John 1:47

“Behold, truly an Israelite in whom there is no guile” is something said neither to Andrew, nor Peter nor to Philip. It was said to Nathanael.… What do we make of it then, brothers? Ought he to have been first among the apostles? Not only is he not found to be first among the apostles, but Nathanael is neither in the middle nor last among the Twelve, Nathanael, to whom the Son of God bore such great witness, saying, “Behold, truly an Israelite in whom there is no guile.”Is the reason asked? As far as the Lord makes known, we find a probable answer. For we ought to understand that Nathanael himself was educated and skilled in the law. Therefore the Lord did not wish to place him among the disciples because he chose unlearned men whereby he might confound the world.

Source: TRACTATES ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 7.16.2-17.2

[AD 430] Augustine of Hippo on John 1:47-51

(Tr. vii. c. 19) What meaneth this, In whom is no guile? Had he no sin? Was no physician necessary for him? Far from it. No one was ever born, of a temper not to need the Physician. It is guile, when we say one thing, and think another. How then was there no guile in him? Because, if he was a sinner, he confessed his sin; whereas if a man, being a sinner, pretends to be righteous, there is guile in his mouth. Our Lord then commended the confession of sin in Nathanael; He did not pronounce him not a sinner.

(Tr. vii. c. 21) Has this fig tree any meaning? We read of one fig tree which was cursed, because it had only leaves, and no fruit. Again, at the creation, Adam and Eve, after sinning, made themselves aprons of fig leaves. Fig leaves then signify sins; and Nathanael, when he was under the fig tree, was under the shadow of death: so that our Lord seemeth to say, O Israel, whoever of you is without guile, O people of the Jewish faith, before that I called thee by My Apostles, when thou wert as yet under the shadow of death, and sawest Me not, I saw thee.

(Serm. 40. [122.]) Nathanael remembered that he had been under the fig tree, where Christ was not present corporeally, but only by His spiritual knowledge. Hence, knowing that he had been alone, he recognised our Lord's Divinity.

(in Verb. Dom.) Let us recollect the Old Testament account. Jacob saw in a dream a ladder reaching from earth to heaven; the Lord resting upon it, and the angels ascending and descending upon it. Lastly, Jacob himself understanding what the vision meant, set up a stone, and poured oil upon it. (Gen. 28:12.) When he anointed the stone, did he make an idol? No: he only set up a symbol, not an object of worship. Thou seest here the anointing; see the Anointed also. He is the stone which the builders refused. If Jacob, who was named Israel, saw the ladder, and Nathanael was an Israelite indeed, there was a fitness in our Lord telling him Jacob's dream; as if he said, Whose name thou art called by, his dream hath appeared unto thee: for thou shalt see the heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man. If they descend upon Him, and ascend to Him, then He is both up above and here below at the same time; above in Himself, below in His members.

(Tr. vii. in Joan. c. 23) Good preachers, however, who preach Christ, are as angels of God; i. e. they ascend and descend upon the Son of man; as Paul, who ascended to the third heaven, and descended so far even as to give milk to babes. He saith, We shall see greater things than these: (2 Cor. 12:2. 1 Cor. 3:2) because it is a greater thing that our Lord has justified us, whom He hath called, than that He saw us lying under the shadow of death. For had we remained where He saw us, what profit would it have been? (c. 17.). It is asked why Nathanael, to whom our Lord bears such testimony, is not found among the twelve Apostles. We may believe, however, that it was because he was so learned, and versed in the law, that our Lord had not put him among the disciples. He chose the foolish, to confound the world. Intending to break the neck of the proud, He sought not to gain the fisherman through the orator, but by the fisherman the emperor. The great Cyprian was an orator; but Peter was a fisherman before him; and through him not only the orator, but the emperor, believed.

Source: Catena Aurea by Aquinas

[AD 444] Cyril of Alexandria on John 1:47

Not having yet used proof by means of signs, Christ endeavoured in another way to persuade both His own disciples, and the wiser of those that came to Him, that He was by Nature Son and God, but for the salvation of all was come in human Form. What then was the mode that led to faith? God-befitting knowledge. For knowledge of all things befitteth God Alone. He receiveth therefore Nathanael, not hurrying him by flatteries to this state, but by those things whereof he was conscious, giving him a pledge, that he knoweth the hearts, as God.

[AD 604] Gregory the Dialogist on John 1:47

When you were under the fig tree, I saw you; i.e. when you were yet under the shade of the law, I chose you.

[AD 604] Gregory the Dialogist on John 1:47-51

(xviii. Mor. c. xxxviii. [59.]) When thou wast under the fig tree, I saw thee; i. e. when thou wast yet under the shade of the law, I chose thee.

Source: Catena Aurea by Aquinas

[AD 1107] Theophylact of Ohrid on John 1:47-51

Nathanael however, notwithstanding this praise, does not acquiesce immediately, but waits for further evidence, and asks, Whence knowest Thou me?

Source: Catena Aurea by Aquinas

[AD 397] Ambrose of Milan on John 1:48

Would that Jesus would cast a glance on me still lying under that barren fig tree, and that my fig tree might also after three years bear fruit. But how can sinners have that kind of hope? If only that gospel dresser of the vineyard, perhaps already bidden to cut down my fig tree, would at least let it alone this year also, until he digs around it and fertilizes it so that he may by some chance lift the helpless out of the dust and lift the poor out of the mire. … The fig tree, that is, the tempting attraction of the pleasures of the world, still overshadows me, low in height, brittle for working, soft for use and barren of fruit.

Source: Concerning Virginity 1.1.3-4

[AD 407] John Chrysostom on John 1:48

Observe a man firm and steady. When Christ had said, Behold an Israelite indeed, he was not made vain by this approbation, he ran not after this open praise, but continues seeking and searching more exactly, and desires to learn something certain. He still enquired as of a man, but Jesus answered as God. For He said, I have known you from the first, (him and the candor of his character, this He knew not as a man, from having closely followed him, but as God from the first,) and but now I saw you by the fig-tree; when there was no one present there but only Philip and Nathanael who said all these things in private. It is mentioned, that having seen him afar off, He said, Behold an Israelite indeed; to show, that before Philip came near, Christ spoke these words, that the testimony might not be suspected. For this reason also He named the time, the place, and the tree; because if He had only said, Before Philip came to you, I saw you, He might have been suspected of having sent him, and of saying nothing wonderful; but now, by mentioning both the place where he was when addressed by Philip, and the name of the tree, and the time of the conversation, He showed that His foreknowledge was unquestionable.

And He did not merely show to him His foreknowledge, but instructed him also in another way. For He brought him to a recollection of what they then had said; as, Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth? And it was most especially on this account that Nathanael received Him, because when he had uttered these words, He did not condemn, but praised and approved him. Therefore he was assured that this was indeed the Christ, both from His foreknowledge, and from His having exactly searched out his sentiments, which was the act of One who would show that He knew what was in his mind; and besides, from His not having blamed, but rather praised him when he had seemed to speak against Himself. He said then, that Philip had called him; but what Philip had said to him or he to Philip, He omitted, leaving it to his own conscience, and not desiring farther to rebuke him.

3. Was it then only before Philip called him that He saw him? Did He not see him before this with His sleepless eye? He saw him, and none could gainsay it; but this is what it was needful to say at the time. And what did Nathanael? When he had received an unquestionable proof of His foreknowledge, he hastened to confess Him, showing by his previous delay his caution, and his fairness by his assent afterwards. For, said the Evangelist,

[AD 430] Augustine of Hippo on John 1:48

Now Jacob had been called in Scripture a man without guile. Jacob himself, as you know, was surnamed Israel. That is why in the Gospel, when the Lord saw Nathanael, he said, “Behold, an Israelite indeed in whom there is no guile.” And that Israelite, not yet knowing who was speaking to him, replied, “How do you know me?” And the Lord said to him, “While you were under the fig tree I saw you,” as though to say, “While you were under the shadow of sin, I predestined you.” And Nathanael, remembering he had been under the fig tree where the Lord had not been, recognized the divinity in him and answered, “You are the Son of God, you are the king of Israel.” Though he was under the fig tree, he did not become a withered fig tree; he acknowledged Christ. And the Lord said to him, “Because I said, While you were under the fig tree I saw you, is that why you believe? You shall see greater things than that.”What are these greater things? “Amen, I tell you.” Because that man is an Israelite in whom there is no guile, look back to Jacob, in whom there is no guile, and recollect, when Jesus tells you, the stone at his head, the vision in his sleep, the stairs from earth to heaven, the beings coming down and going up; and then see what the Lord says to the Israelite without guile: “You shall see heaven opened”—listen, guileless Nathanael, to what guileless Jacob saw—“and angels going up and coming down”—to whom?—“to the Son of man.”

Source: SERMON 89.5

[AD 430] Augustine of Hippo on John 1:48

You know from what the first sinners, Adam and Eve, made themselves aprons. When they had sinned, they made themselves aprons from fig leaves and covered their shameful parts, because it was by sinning that they caused themselves to feel shame about them. So if the first sinners made themselves aprons, the couple from whom we derive our origins, in whom we had gotten lost so that he would come to seek and to save what had gotten lost—if they made them out of fig leaves to cover their shameful parts, what else could it mean, “When you were under the fig tree I saw you,” but “You would not have come to the cleanser of sin unless he had first seen you in the shadow of sin”? In order for us to see, we have been seen; in order for us to love, we have been loved.

Source: SERMON 174.4

[AD 444] Cyril of Alexandria on John 1:48

Whence knowest thou me?

Nathanael begins to wonder, and is called to a now firm faith: but desires yet to learn, whence He has the knowledge concerning him. For very accurate are learning-seeking and pious souls. But perhaps he supposed that somewhat of him had been shown to the Lord by Philip.

[AD 444] Cyril of Alexandria on John 1:48

Before that Philip called thee, when thou wast under the fig-tree, I saw thee.

The Saviour undid his surmise, saying that even before his meeting and conversing with Philip, He had seen him under the fig-tree, though not present in Body. Very profitably are both the fig-tree and the place named, pledging to him the truth of his having been seen. For he that has already accurate knowledge of what was with him, will readily be admitted.

[AD 202] Irenaeus on John 1:49

And in His name shall the Gentiles trust."

[AD 220] Tertullian on John 1:49

He is, no doubt, ever the Son of God, but yet not He Himself of whom He is the Son. This (divine relationship) Nathanµl at once recognised in Him, even as Peter did on another occasion: "Thou art the Son of God.

Source: Against Praxeas

[AD 220] Tertullian on John 1:49

Again, when Martha in a later passage acknowledged Him to be the Son of God, she no more made a mistake than Peter and Nathanµl had; and yet, even if she had made a mistake, she would at once have learnt the truth: for, behold, when about to raise her brother from the dead, the Lord looked up to heaven, and, addressing the Father, said-as the Son, of course: "Father, I thank Thee that Thou always hearest me; it is because of these crowds that are standing by that I have spoken to Thee, that they may believe that Thou hast sent me.

Source: Against Praxeas

[AD 407] John Chrysostom on John 1:49

Do you see how his soul is filled at once with exceeding joy, and embraces Jesus with words? You are, says he, that expected, that sought-for One. Do you see how he is amazed, how he marvels? How he leaps and dances with delight?

So ought we also to rejoice, who have been thought worthy to know the Son of God; to rejoice, not in thought alone, but to show it also by our actions. And what must they do who rejoice? Obey Him who has been made known to them; and they who obey, must do whatever He wills. For if we are going to do what angers Him, how shall we show that we rejoice? Do you not see in our houses when a man entertains one whom he loves, how gladly he exerts himself, running about in every direction, and though it be needful to spend all that he has, sparing nothing so that he please his visitor? But if one who invites should not attend to his guest, and not do such things as would procure him ease, though he should say ten thousand times that he rejoices at his coming, he could never be believed by him. And justly; for this should be shown by actions. Let us then, since Christ has come to us, show that we rejoice, and do nothing that may anger him; let us garnish the abode to which He has come, for this they do who rejoice; let us set before Him the meal which He desires to eat, for this they do who hold festival. And what is this meal? He says Himself; My meat is, that I may do the will of Him that sent me. John 4:34 When He is hungry, let us feed Him; when He is thirsty, let us give Him drink: though thou give Him but a cup of cold water, He receives it; for He loves you, and to one who loves, the offerings of the beloved, though they be small, appear great. Only be not thou slothful; though you cast in but two farthings, He refuses them not, but receives them as great riches. For since He is without wants, and receives these offerings, not because He needs them, it is reasonable that all distinction should be not in the quantity of the gifts, but the intention of the giver. Only show that you love Him who has come, that for His sake you are giving all diligence, that you rejoice at His coming. See how He is disposed toward you. He came for you, He laid down His life for you, and after all this He does not refuse even to entreat you. We are ambassadors, says Paul, for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us. 2 Corinthians 5:20 And who is so mad, says some one, as not to love his own Master? I say so too, and I know that not one of us would deny this in words or intention; but one who is beloved desires love to be shown, not by words only, but by deeds also. For to say that we love, and not to act like lovers, is ridiculous, not only before God, but even in the sight of men. Since then to confess Him in word only, while in deeds we oppose Him, is not only unprofitable, but also hurtful to us; let us, I entreat you, also make confession by our works; that we also may obtain a confession from Him in that day, when before His Father He shall confess those who are worthy in Christ Jesus our Lord, by whom and with whom, to the Father and the Holy Ghost be glory, now and ever, and world without end. Amen.

[AD 407] John Chrysostom on John 1:49

1. Beloved, we need much care, much watchfulness, to be able to look into the depth of the Divine Scriptures. For it is not possible to discover their meaning in a careless way, or while we are asleep, but there needs close search, and there needs earnest prayer, that we may be enabled to see some little way into the secrets of the divine oracles. Today, for instance, here is no trifling question proposed to us, but one which requires much zeal and enquiry. For when Nathanael said, You are the Son of God, Christ replies, Because I said unto you, I saw you under the fig-tree, do you believe? You shall see greater things than these.

Now what is the question arising from this passage? It is this. Peter, when after so many miracles and such high doctrine he confessed that, You are the Son of God Matthew 16:16, is called blessed, as having received the revelation from the Father; while Nathanael, though he said the very same thing before seeing or hearing either miracles or doctrine, had no such word addressed to him, but as though he had not said so much as he ought to have said, is brought to things greater still. What can be the reason of this? It is, that Peter and Nathanael both spoke the same words, but not both with the same intention. Peter confessed Him to be The Son of God but as being Very God; Nathanael, as being mere man. And whence does this appear? From what he said after these words; for after, You are the Son of God, he adds, You are the King of Israel. But the Son of God is not King of Israel only, but of all the world.

And what I say is clear, not from this only, but also from what follows. For Christ added nothing more to Peter, but as though his faith were perfect, said, that upon this confession of his He would build the Church; but in the other case He did nothing like this, but the contrary. For as though some large, and that the better, part were wanting to his confession He added what follows. For what says He?

[AD 407] John Chrysostom on John 1:49

Many, when they read this passage, are perplexed at finding that Peter was pronounced blessed for having, after our Lord’s miracles and teaching, confessed him to be the Son of God. Nathanael, who makes the same confession before Peter, receives no such blessing. The reason is this: Peter and Nathanael both used the same words but not in the same way. Peter confessed our Lord to be the Son of God, in the sense of him being very God. Nathanael confessed him to be the Son of God only as a mere man. For after saying, “You are the Son of God,” he adds, “You are the King of Israel.” But the Son of God was not only the King of Israel but of the whole world.This is clear from what follows. For in the case of Peter, Christ added nothing, but, as if his faith were already perfect, told him that he would build the church on his confession. In the case of Nathanael, he treats his confession as deficient and needing to progress further upwards.

Source: HOMILIES ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 21.1

[AD 428] Theodore of Mopsuestia on John 1:49

Therefore Nathanael, convinced by those deeds, said to him, “Rabbi, you are the Son of God. You are the king of Israel,” that is, you are the Messiah who was already announced. The Messiah was certainly expected by them as God to appear before everybody, as a king of Israel, even though they conceived him in a more obscure and material way. It was not possible then that the Jews knew how he was the Son of God or the king of Israel. Evidently also Nathanael did not say he was the Son of God by divine generation but by familiarity, as those people who came to God through his virtue were called sons of God. It was not possible that Nathanael immediately knew what we see and that the apostles themselves came to know after a long time. Those things that were said to him by the Lord could not be sufficient to demonstrate his other nature.

Source: COMMENTARY ON JOHN 1.1.49

[AD 444] Cyril of Alexandria on John 1:49

He knows that God Alone is Searcher of hearts, and giveth to none other of men to understand the mind, considering as is likely that verse in the Psalms, God trieth the hearts and reins. For as accruing to none else, the Psalmist hath attributed this too as peculiar to the Divine Nature only. When then he knew that the Lord saw his thoughts revolving in his mind in yet voiceless whispers, straightway he calls Him Master, readily entering already into discipleship under Him, and confesses Him Son of God and King of Israel, in Whom are inexistent the Properties of Divinity, and as one well instructed he affirms Him to be wholly and by Nature God.

[AD 1107] Theophylact of Ohrid on John 1:49

Prophecy has great power, even greater than miracles, to move a man to believe. The demons are able to simulate miracles and appear to do them. But no one can have clear foreknowledge of future events, and predict them accurately, not even an angel, and even less so, the demons. Therefore the Lord drew Nathanael to Himself by telling him the place where he had been standing, and that Philip had called to him, and that he was a true Israelite. When he heard these things Nathanael sensed the greatness of the Lord, as much as he was able to at that time, and confessed Him to be the Son of God. Yet his confession was not the same as Peter's (See Mt. 16:16-18). Peter confessed Him to be the Son of God, that is, true God. Therefore the Lord blessed Peter, and entrusted the Church to him. But Nathanael confesses Him to be merely a man Who by grace and His own virtue has been adopted as a son of God. This is made clear by what he says next, Thou art the King of Israel. Do you see? Nathanael has not yet attained to the perfect knowledge of the true divinity of the Only-begotten. He believes in Him as a man beloved by God, and as the King of Israel. If he had confessed Him to be truly God, he would not have called Him the King of Israel, but the King of all. Therefore the Lord does not bless him, as He did Peter, but corrects him, and leads his thoughts upwards to comprehend something of His divinity. Ye shall see, He says, the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of Man. He is saying, "Do not understand Me to be merely a man, but rather the Master of the angels." He Whom the angels serve cannot be merely a man, but only true God.
All these things did, in fact, take place at His Crucifixion and Ascension. As the time of His Passion approached, an angel from heaven strengthened Him; at His Tomb there was an angel, and again at His Ascension, as Luke relates (see Acts 1:10-11). Some have understood the fig tree to represent the law. Like the fig, the law contains sweetness, but it is hard to get at, covered over, as with leaves, by the harshness of the legal observations and the difficulty of the commandments. They say, then, that the Lord saw Nathanael, that is, looked down graciously upon him, and knew his thoughts, while he was still under the law. Consider this interpretation as well, O reader, if you find it pleasing: the Lord saw Nathanael under the fig tree, that is, under the law, or, within the law, searching out its depths. If he had not been searching out the depth of the law, the Lord would not have seen him. Know this as well, that Galilee means "rolling down." The Lord, then, went forth to that place in this world which is sunk low, that is to say, to our human nature. And while we were still under the fig tree, under the sway of sweet sin, which is mixed with much bitterness on account of the regret and the punishments which follow, the Lover of man saw us, and chose those who confess Him to be the Son of God and the King of each one who sees God (for Israel means "seeing God"). Indeed, if we persevere with zeal, He will count us worthy to see greater things than these. We shall behold angels ascending to the height of divine knowledge of Him, and descending again, because they cannot know His unknowable essence. In another sense, a man ascends when he immerses himself in the study of the divinity of the Only-begotten, and he descends when he delights in the contemplation of His Incarnation and descent into hades.

[AD 202] Irenaeus on John 1:50

And as their love towards God increases, He bestows more and greater

Source: Against Heresies Book IV

[AD 220] Tertullian on John 1:50

And He affirmed Himself that they were quite right in their convictions; for He answered Nathanµl: "Because I said, I saw thee under the fig-tree, therefore dose thou believe?" And in the same manner He pronounced Peter to be "blessed," inasmuch as "flesh and blood had not revealed it to him"-that he had perceived the Father-"but the Father which is in heaven.

Source: Against Praxeas

[AD 300] Ammonius of Alexandria on John 1:50-51

Sometimes our Savior said “amen” once, at other times twice, when he wished to confirm what he was saying. This is a Hebrew manner of speaking, revealing that which was taking place, such as that “you have been found trustworthy” so as to see “the heavens opened,” and so on. He says that it is possible to see the heavens opened not in a manner open to the senses but only by a mind observing the angels coming to serve Jesus. The word amen is used instead of “really and truthfully” and is more fitting here.

Source: FRAGMENTS ON JOHN 53

[AD 397] Ambrose of Milan on John 1:50-51

Jacob set out and slept—evidence of tranquility of spirit—and saw angels of God ascending and descending. This means he foresaw Christ on earth; the band of angels was descending to Christ and ascending to him, so as to render service to their rightful master in loving service.

Source: JACOB AND THE HAPPY LIFE 2.4.16

[AD 407] John Chrysostom on John 1:50-51

Do you see how he leads him up little by little from the earth and causes him no longer to imagine him as merely a man? For one to whom angels minister and on whom angels ascend and descend, how could he be a man? This is why he said, “You shall see greater things than these.” And to prove this, he introduces the ministry of angels. What he means is something like this: Does this, O Nathanael, seem to you a great matter, and have you for this confessed me to be King of Israel? What then will you say when you see “angels ascending and descending on me”? He persuades him by these words to receive him as Lord also of the angels. For on him as on the king’s own son, the royal ministers ascended and descended, once at the season of the crucifixion, again at the time of the resurrection and the ascension, and before this also, when they “came and ministered to him.” They also ascended and descended when they proclaimed the good news of his birth and cried, “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace,” when they came to Mary and also when they came to Joseph.…Our Lord made the present a proof of the future. After the powers he had already shown, Nathanael would readily believe that much more would follow.

Source: HOMILIES ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 21.1

[AD 428] Theodore of Mopsuestia on John 1:50-51

The Lord shows that nothing he had said was so great or sufficient enough to demonstrate all of what he really was. So then he declares what the greater things are that Nathanael would have seen.… He spoke of angels ascending and descending on him, because they assist him in dealing with the whole of creation.

Source: COMMENTARY ON JOHN 1.1.50-51

[AD 430] Augustine of Hippo on John 1:50-51

There is something greater than “I saw you under the fig tree.” [Jesus said, “We shall see greater things than these,”] because it is a greater thing that our Lord has justified us, whom he has called, than that he saw us lying under the shadow of death. For what profit would it have been to us if we had remained where he saw us? Should we not be lying there? And so, what is this greater thing? When have we seen angels ascending and descending upon the Son of man?…Good preachers who preach Christ are like angels of God; that is, they ascend and descend on the Son of man.… Take for instance Paul, who ascended to the third heaven … and descended so far that he even gave milk to babies. … Take for instance the father who is well skilled in speaking, who is such an orator that the forum resounds with his eloquence and the judgment seats shake—if he has a little son, on his return home he puts aside the forensic eloquence to which he had ascended and in child’s language descends to his little one.… If the Lord himself ascended and descended, it is evident that his preachers ascend by imitation and descend by preaching.

Source: TRACTATES ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 7.22-23

[AD 444] Cyril of Alexandria on John 1:50

Thou shalt be firmer unto faith, saith He, when thou seest greater things than these. For he that believed one sign, how shall he not by means of many be altogether bettered, especially since they shall be more wonderful than those now wondered at?

[AD 444] Cyril of Alexandria on John 1:51

Common now to all is the word which seals the faith of Nathanael. But in saying that angels shall be seen speeding up and down upon the Son of Man, that is, ministering and serving His commands, for the salvation of such as shall believe, He says that then especially shall He be revealed as being by Nature Son of God. For it is not one another that the rational powers serve but surely God. And this does not take away subjection among the angels (for this will not be reasonably called bondage). But we have heard of the Holy Evangelists, that angels came to our Saviour Christ, and ministered unto Him.