The divinity and incarnation of Christ. John bears witness of him. He begins to call his disciples.
The preface of the Euangelist, commending Christ (as being God the Sonne incarnate) to the Gentils, and setting out the blindnes of the Ievves in not receiuing him. 19 Then, the testimonies of Iohn Baptist, first to the solemne legacie of the Ievves: 29 secondly, vvhen he savv IESVS come to him: 35 thirdly, to his ovvne Disciples also, putting them ouer from him self to IESVS. Vvho made it plainer to them that he is Christ, 40 and so began he also to haue Disciples.
1In the beginning was the Word: and the Word was with God: and the Word was God.Nel principio era il Verbo, e il Verbo era appresso Dio, e il Verbo era Dio.IN THE beginning vvas the WORD, and the WORD vvas vvith God, and God vvas the WORD.In principio erat Verbum, / et Verbum erat apud Deum, / et Deus erat Verbum. 2The same was in the beginning with God.Questo era nel principio appresso Dio.This vvas in the beginning vvith God.Hoc erat in principio apud Deum. 3All things were made by him: and without him was made nothing that was made.Per mezzo di lui furon fatte le cose tutte: e senza di lui nulla fu fatto di ciò, che è stato fatto.Al things vvere made by him: and vvithout him vvas made nothing. That vvhich vvas made',Omnia per ipsum facta sunt: / et sine ipso factum est nihil, quod factum est. 4In him was life: and the life was the light of men.In lui era la vita, e la vita era la luce degli uomini:in him vvas life, and the life vvas the light of men:In ipso vita erat, / et vita erat lux hominum: 5And the light shineth in darkness: and the darkness did not comprehend it.E la luce splende tra le tenebre, e le tenebre non la hanno ammessa.and the light shineth in darkenesse, and the darkenesse did not comprehend it.et lux in tenebris lucet, / et tenebræ eam non comprehenderunt. 6There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.Vi fu un uomo mandato da Dio, che chiamavasi Giovanni.There vvas a man sent from God, vvhose name vvas Iohn.Fuit homo / missus a Deo, / cui nomen erat Joannes. 7This man came for a witness, to give testimony of the light, that all men might believe through him.Questi venne qual testimone, affin di render testimonianza alla luce, onde per mezzo di lui tutti credessero:This man came for testimonie: to giue testimonie of the light, that al might beleeue through him.Hic venit in testimonium / ut testimonium perhiberet de lumine, / ut omnes crederent per illum. 8He was not the light, but was to give testimony of the light.Ei non era la luce; ma era per rendere testimonianza alla luce.He vvas not the light, but to giue testimonie of the light.Non erat ille lux, / sed ut testimonium perhiberet de lumine. 9That was the true light, which enlighteneth every man that cometh into this world.Quegli era la luce vera, che illumina ogni uomo, che viene in questo mondo.It vvas the true light, vvhich lighteneth euery man that commeth into this vvorld.Erat lux vera, / quæ illuminat omnem hominem / venientem in hunc mundum. 10He was in the world: and the world was made by him: and the world knew him not.Egli era nel mondo, e il mondo per lui fu fatto, e il mondo nol conobbe.He vvas in the vvorld, and the vvorld vvas made by him, and the vvorld knevv him not.In mundo erat, / et mundus per ipsum factus est, / et mundus eum non cognovit.
11He came unto his own: and his own received him not.Venne nella sua propria casa, e i suoi nol ricevettero.He came into his ovvne, and his ovvne receiued him not.In propria venit, / et sui eum non receperunt. 12But as many as received him, he gave them power to be made the sons of God, to them that believe in his name.Ma a tutti que', che lo ricevettero, die' potere di diventar figliuoli di Dio, a quelli che credono nel suo nome:But as many as receiued him, he gaue them povver to be made the sonnes of God, to those that beleeue in his name.Quotquot autem receperunt eum, / dedit eis potestatem filios Dei fieri, / his qui credunt in nomine ejus: 13Who are born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.I quali non per via di sangue, nè per volontà della carne, nè per volontà d'uomo, ma da Dio sono nati.Vvho, not of bloud, not of the vvil of flesh, nor of the vvil of man, but of God are borne.qui non ex sanguinibus, / neque ex voluntate carnis, / neque ex voluntate viri, / sed ex Deo nati sunt. 14And the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us (and we saw his glory, the glory as it were of the only begotten of the Father), full of grace and truth.E il Verbo si è fatto carne, e abitò tra noi: e abbiamo veduto la sua gloria, gloria come dell'Unigenito del Padre, pieno di grazia, e di verità,AND THE VVORD VVAS MADE FLESH, and dvvelt in vs (and vve savv the glorie of him, glorie as it vvere of the only-begotten of the Father) ful of grace and veritie.Et Verbum caro factum est, / et habitavit in nobis: / et vidimus gloriam ejus, / gloriam quasi unigeniti a Patre / plenum gratiæ et veritatis. 15John beareth witness of him and crieth out, saying: This was he of whom I spoke: He that shall come after me is preferred before me: because he was before me.Giovanni rende testimonianza di lui, e grida, dicendo: Questi è colui, del quale io diceva: Quegli, che verrà dopo di me, è da più di me; perchè era prima di me.Iohn giueth testimonie of him, and crieth saying, This vvas he of vvhom I spake, He that shal come after me, is made before me: because he vvas before me.Joannes testimonium perhibet de ipso, / et clamat dicens: / Hic erat quem dixi: / Qui post me venturus est, / ante me factus est: / quia prior me erat. 16And of his fulness we all have received: and grace for grace.E della pienezza di lui noi tutti abbiam ricevuto, e una grazia in cambio di un'altra:And of his fulnes al vve haue receiued, and grace for grace.Et de plenitudine ejus / nos omnes accepimus, et gratiam pro gratia: 17For the law was given by Moses: grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.Perché da Mosè fu data la legge: la grazia, e la venuta per Gesù Cristo fu fatta.For the lavv vvas giuen by Moyses, grace and veritie vvas made by IESVS Christ.quia lex per Moysen data est, / gratia et veritas per Jesum Christum facta est.
18No man hath seen God at any time: the only begotten Son who is in the Bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.Nissuno ha mai veduto Dio: l'unigenito Figliuolo, che è nel seno del Padre, egli ce lo ha rivelato.God no man hath seen at any time: the only begotten Sonne vvhich is in the bosome of the father, he hath declared.Deum nemo vidit umquam: / unigenitus Filius, qui est in sinu Patris, / ipse enarravit. 19And this is the testimony of John, when the Jews sent from Jerusalem priests and Levites to him, to ask him: Who art thou?Ed ecco la testimonianza, che rendè Giovanni, quando i Giudei mandarono da Gerusalemme i sacerdoti, e i Leviti a lui per dimandargli: Chi se' tu?And this is Iohns testimonie, vvhen the Ievves sent from Hierusalem Priests and Leuites to him, that they should aske him, Vvho art thou?Et hoc est testimonium Joannis, quando miserunt Judæi ab Jerosolymis sacerdotes et Levitas ad eum ut interrogarent eum: Tu quis es ? 20And he confessed and did not deny: and he confessed: I am not the Christ.Ed ei confessò, e non negò: e confessò: Non son io il Cristo.And he confessed, and did not denie: and he confessed, That I am not CHRIST.Et confessus est, et non negavit, et confessus est: Quia non sum ego Christus. 21And they asked him: What then? Art thou Elias? And he said: I am not. Art thou the prophet? And he answered: No.Ed essi gli dimandarono: E che adunque? Se' tu Elia? Ed ei rispose: Nol sono. Se' tu il profeta? Ed, ei rispose: No.And they asked him, Vvhat then? Art thou Elias? And he said, I am not. Art thou the Prophet? And he ansvvered, No.Et interrogaverunt eum: Quid ergo ? Elias es tu ? Et dixit: Non sum. Propheta es tu ? Et respondit: Non. 22They said therefore unto him: Who art thou, that we may give an answer to them that sent us? What sayest thou of thyself?Gli disser pertanto: Chi se' tu, affinchè possiam render risposta a chi ci ha mandato? Che dici di te stesso?They said therefore vnto him, Vvho art thou, that vve may giue an ansvver to them that sent vs? vvhat saiest thou of thy self?Dixerunt ergo ei: Quis es ut responsum demus his qui miserunt nos ? quid dicis de teipso ? 23He said: I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, make straight the way of the Lord, as said the prophet Isaias.Io son, disse, la voce di colui, che grida nel deserto: Raddirizzate la via del Signore, come ha detto il profeta Isaia.He said, I am the voyce of one crying in the desert, make straight the vvay of our Lord, as Esaie the Prophet said.Ait: Ego vox clamantis in deserto: Dirigite viam Domini, sicut dixit Isaias propheta.
24And they that were sent were of the Pharisees.E questi messi erano della setta de' Farisei.And they that vvere sent, vvere of the Pharisees.Et qui missi fuerant, erant ex pharisæis. 25And they asked him and said to him: Why then dost thou baptize, if thou be not Christ, nor Elias, nor the prophet?E lo interrogarono, dicendogli: Come adunque battezzi tu, se non sei il Cristo, né Elia, né il profeta?And they asked him, and said to him, Vvhy then doest thou baptize, if thou be not Christ, nor Elias, nor the Prophet?Et interrogaverunt eum, et dixerunt ei: Quid ergo baptizas, si tu non es Christus, neque Elias, neque propheta ? 26John answered them, saying: I baptize with water: but there hath stood one in the midst of you, whom you know not.Giovanni rispose loro, e disse: Io battezzo nell'acqua: ma v'ha in mezzo a voi uno, che voi non conoscete:Iohn ansvvered them, saying, I baptize in vvater: but there hath stood in the middes of you vvhom you knovv not.Respondit eis Joannes, dicens: Ego baptizo in aqua: medius autem vestrum stetit, quem vos nescitis. 27The same is he that shall come after me, who is preferred before me: the latchet of whose shoe I am not worthy to loose.Questi è quegli, che verrà dopo di me, il quale è da più di me: a cui io non son degno di sciogliere i legaccioli delle scarpe.The same is he that shal come after me, that is made before me: vvhose latcher of his shoe I am not worthie to vnloose.Ipse est qui post me venturus est, qui ante me factus est: cujus ego non sum dignus ut solvam ejus corrigiam calceamenti. 28These things were done in Bethania, beyond the Jordan, where John was baptizing.Queste cose successero a Betania di là dal Giordano, dove Giovanni stava battezzando.These things were done in Bethania beyond Iordan, vvhere Iohn vvas baptizing.Hæc in Bethania facta sunt trans Jordanem, ubi erat Joannes baptizans. 29The next day, John saw Jesus coming to him; and he saith: Behold the Lamb of God. Behold him who taketh away the sin of the world.Il giorno dopo Giovanni vide Gesù, che venivagli incontro, e disse: Ecco l'Agnello di Dio, ecco colui, che toglie i peccati del mondo.The next day Iohn savv IESVS cōming to him, and he saith, Behold the lambe of God, behold him that taketh avvay the sinne' of the vvorld.Altera die vidit Joannes Jesum venientem ad se, et ait: Ecce agnus Dei, ecce qui tollit peccatum mundi. 30This is he of whom I said: After me there cometh a man, who is preferred before me: because he was before me.Questi è colui, del quale ho detto: Dopo di me viene uno, che è da più di me: perché era prima di me:This is he of vvhom I said, After me there commeth a man, vvhich is made before me: because he vvas before me.Hic est de quo dixi: Post me venit vir qui ante me factus est: quia prior me erat:
31And I knew him not: but that he may be made manifest in Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water.E io nel conosceva; ma affinchè egli fosse riconosciuto in Israele, per questo son io venuto a battezzare nell'acqua.And I knevv him not, but that he may be manifested in Israel, therefore came I baptizing in vvater.et ego nesciebam eum, sed ut manifestetur in Israël, propterea veni ego in aqua baptizans. 32And John gave testimony, saying: I saw the Spirit coming down, as a dove from heaven; and he remained upon him.E Giovanni rendette testimonianza, dicendo: Ho veduto lo Spirito scendere dal cielo in forma di colomba, e si fermò sopra di lui.And Iohn gaue testimonie, saying, That I savv the Spirit descending as a doue from heauen, and he remained vpon him.Et testimonium perhibuit Joannes, dicens: Quia vidi Spiritum descendentem quasi columbam de cælo, et mansit super eum. 33And I knew him not: but he who sent me to baptize with water said to me: He upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending and remaining upon him, he it is that baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.E io nei conosceva: ma chi mandommi a battezzare nell'acqua, mi disse: Colui, sopra del quale vedrai discendere, e fermarsi lo Spirito, quegli è colui, che battezza nello Spirito santo.And I knevv him not: but he that sent me to baptize in vvater, he said to me, He vpō vvhom thou shalt see the Spirit descending and remaining vpon him, he it is that baptizeth in the holy Ghost.Et ego nesciebam eum: sed qui misit me baptizare in aqua, ille mihi dixit: Super quem videris Spiritum descendentem, et manentem super eum, hic est qui baptizat in Spiritu Sancto. 34And I saw: and I gave testimony that this is the Son of God.E io ho veduto: t'ho attestato, com'egli è il Figliuolo di Dio.And I savv: and I gaue testimonie that this is the sonne of God.Et ego vidi: et testimonium perhibui quia hic est Filius Dei. 35The next day again John stood and two of his disciples.Il dì seguente di nuovo trovandosi Giovanni con due de' suoi discepoli,The next day againe Iohn stoode, and tvvo of his disciples.Altera die iterum stabat Joannes, et ex discipulis ejus duo. 36And beholding Jesus walking, he saith: Behold the Lamb of God.E mirando Gesù, che passeggiava, disse: Ecco l'Agnello di Dio.And beholding IESVS vvalking, he saith, Behold the lambe of God.Et respiciens Jesum ambulantem, dicit: Ecce agnus Dei. 37And the two disciples heard him speak: and they followed Jesus.E udiron le sue parole i due discepoli, e seguitarmi Gesù.And the tvvo Disciples heard him speaking, and they folovved IESVS.Et audierunt eum duo discipuli loquentem, et secuti sunt Jesum. 38And Jesus turning and seeing them following him, saith to them: What seek you? Who said to him: Rabbi (which is to say, being interpreted, Master), where dwellest thou?E rivoltosi Gesù, e vedutili, che lo seguivano, disse loro: che cercate voi? Ed essi gli risposero: Rabbi (che vuol dir maestro), dov'è la tua abitazione?And IESVS turning, and seeing them folovving him, saith to them, Vvhat seeke you? Vvho said to him, Rabbi (vvhich is called by interpretation, Maister) vvhere dvvellest thou?Conversus autem Jesus, et videns eos sequentes se, dicit eis: Quid quæritis ? Qui dixerunt ei: Rabbi (quod dicitur interpretatum Magister), ubi habitas ?
39He saith to them: Come and see. They came and saw where he abode: and they stayed with him that day. Now it was about the tenth hour.Rispose loro: Venite, e vedete. Andarono, e videro, dove egli stava, e si stetter con lui per quel giorno: era allora circa la decima ora.He saith to them, Come and see. They came, and savv where he abode and they taried vvith him that day: and it vvas about the tenth houre.Dicit eis: Venite et videte. Venerunt, et viderunt ubi maneret, et apud eum manserunt die illo: hora autem erat quasi decima. 40And Andrew, the brother of Simon Peter, was one of the two who had heard of John and followed him.Andrea fratello di Simon Pietro era uno dei due, che avevan udito le parole di Giovanni, ed avean seguitato Gesù.And Andrevv the brother of Simon Peter vvas one of the tvvo that had heard of Iohn, and folovved him.Erat autem Andreas, frater Simonis Petri, unus ex duobus qui audierant a Joanne, et secuti fuerant eum. 41He findeth first his brother Simon and saith to him: We have found the Messias, which is, being interpreted, the Christ.Il primo, in cui questi s'imbattè, fu il suo fratello Simone, e dissegli: Abbiano trovato il Messia (che vuol dire il Cristo).He findeth first his brother Simon, and saith to him, Vve haue found MESSIAS, vvhich is being interpreted, CHRIST.Invenit hic primum fratrem suum Simonem, et dicit ei: Invenimus Messiam (quod est interpretatum Christus). 42And he brought him to Jesus. And Jesus looking upon him, said: Thou art Simon the son of Jona. Thou shalt be called Cephas, which is interpreted Peter.E lo condusse da Gesù. E Gesù fissato in lui lo sguardo, gli disse: Tu sei Simone, figliuolo di Giona: tu sarai chiamato Cepha (che si interpreta Pietra).And he brought him to IESVS. And IESVS looking vpon him, said, Thou art Simon the sonne of Iona: thou shalt be called Cephas, vvhich is interpreted, Peter.Et adduxit eum ad Jesum. Intuitus autem eum Jesus, dixit: Tu es Simon, filius Jona; tu vocaberis Cephas, quod interpretatur Petrus. 43On the following day, he would go forth into Galilee: and he findeth Philip, And Jesus saith to him: follow me.Il dì seguente Gesù volle andare nella Galilea, e trovò Filippo, e gli disse: Seguimi.On the morovv he vvould goe forth into Galilee, and he findeth Philippe. And IESVS saith to him, Folovv me.In crastinam voluit exire in Galilæam, et invenit Philippum. Et dicit ei Jesus: Sequere me. 44Now Philip was of Bethsaida, the city of Andrew and Peter.Filippo era di Betsaida, patria di Andrea, e di Pietro.And Philippe vvas of Bethsaida, the citie of Andrevv and Peter.Erat autem Philippus a Bethsaida, civitate Andreæ et Petri.
45Philip findeth Nathanael and saith to him: We have found him of whom Moses, in the law and the prophets did write, Jesus the son of Joseph of Nazareth.Filippo trovò Natanaele, e gli disse: Abbiam trovato quello, di cui scrisse Mosè nella legge, e i profeti, Gesù di Nazareth figliuolo di Giuseppe.Philippe findeth Nathanael, and saith to him, Him vvhom Moyses in the lavv, and the Prophets vvrote of: vve haue found IESVS the sonne of Ioseph, of Nazareth.Invenit Philippus Nathanaël, et dicit ei: Quem scripsit Moyses in lege, et prophetæ, invenimus Jesum filium Joseph a Nazareth. 46And Nathanael said to him: Can any thing of good come from Nazareth? Philip saith to him: Come and see.Natanaele gli rispose: Può egli mai uscir cosa buona da Nazareth? Filippo gli disse: Vieni, e vedi.And Nathanael said to him, From Nazareth can there be any good? Philippe saith to him, Come and see.Et dixit ei Nathanaël: A Nazareth potest aliquid boni esse ? Dicit ei Philippus: Veni et vide. 47Jesus saw Nathanael coming to him and he saith of him: Behold an Israelite indeed, in whom there is no guile.Vide Gesù Natanaele, il quale veniva a trovarlo, e disse di lui: Ecco un vero Israelita, in cui non è froda.IESVS savv Nathanael comming to him, and he saith of him, Behold an Israelite in very deede, in vvhom there is no guile.Vidit Jesus Nathanaël venientem ad se, et dicit de eo: Ecce vere Israëlita, in quo dolus non est. 48Nathanael saith to him: Whence knowest thou me? Jesus answered and said to him: Before that Philip called thee, when thou wast under the fig tree, I saw thee.Natanaele gli disse: Come mai mi conosci tu? Gesù gli rispose: Prima che Filippo ti chiamasse, io ti vidi, quando eri sotto il fico.Nathanael saith to him, Hovv knovvest thou me? IESVS ansvvered and said to him, Before that Philippe did cal thee, vvhen thou wast vnder the figtree, I saw thee.Dicit ei Nathanaël: Unde me nosti ? Respondit Jesus, et dixit ei: Priusquam te Philippus vocavit, cum esses sub ficu, vidi te. 49Nathanael answered him and said: Rabbi: Thou art the Son of God. Thou art the King of Israel.Natanaele rispose, e dissegli: Maestro, tu sei Figliuolo di Dio, tu sei il Re d'Israele.Nathanael ansvvered him, and saith, Rabbi, thou art the sonne of God, thou art the king of Israel.Respondit ei Nathanaël, et ait: Rabbi, tu es Filius Dei, tu es rex Israël. 50Jesus answered and said to him: Because I said unto thee, I saw thee under the fig tree, thou believest: greater things than these shalt thou see.Gesù gli rispose, e disse: Perché ti ho detto, che ti ho veduto sotto il fico, tu credi: vedrai cose maggiori di questa.IESVS ansvvered, and said to him, Because I said vnto thee, I savv thee vnder the figtree, thou beleeuest: greater then these things shalt thou see.Respondit Jesus, et dixit ei: Quia dixi tibi: Vidi te sub ficu, credis; majus his videbis.
51And he saith to him: Amen, amen, I say to you, you shall see the heaven opened and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man.E dissegli: In verità, in verità io vi dico, vedrete aperto il cielo, e gli Angeli di Dio andare, e venire il figliuolo dell'uomo.And he saith to him, Amen Amen I say to you, You shal see the heauen opened, and the Angels of God ascending and defcending, vpon the Sonne of man.Et dicit ei: Amen, amen dico vobis, videbitis cælum apertum, et angelos Dei ascendentes, et descendentes supra Filium hominis.
1:1
In the beginning was the word:[Ver. 1. Et Deus erat Verbum, kai theos en o logos. Logos was a word very proper to give all that should believe a right notion of the Messias, and of the true Son of God. Logos, according to St. Jerome, (Ep. ad Paulinum. tom. iv. part 2, p. 570. Ed. Ben.) signifies divers things; as, the wisdom of the Father, his internal word or conception; and, as it were, the express image of the invisible God. Here it is not taken for any absolute divine attribute or perfection; but for the divine Son, or the second Person, as really distinct from the other two divine Persons. And that by logos, was to be understood him that was truly God, the Maker and Creator of all things; the Jews might easily understand, by what they read and frequently heard in the Chaldaic Paraphrase, or Targum of Jonathan, which was read to them in the time of our Saviour, Christ, and at the time when St. John wrote his gospel. In this Paraphrase they were accustomed to hear that the Hebrew word Memreth, to which corresponded in Greek, logos, was put for him that was God: as Isaias xlv. 12, I made the earth; in this Targum, I, by my word, made the earth: Isaias xlviii. 13, My hand also hath founded the earth; in this Paraphrase, in my word I founded the earth: Genesis 3:8., They heard the voice of the Lord God; in the Paraphrase, the voice of the word of God. See Walton, prolog. xii, num. 18, p. 86.; Maldonatus on this place; Petavius, lib. vi. de Trin. John 1.; Dr. Pearson on the Creed, p. 11.; Dr. Hammond's note on St. Luke, ch. I, p. 203, etc. However, St. John shews us that he meant him who was the true God, by telling us that the world, and every thing that was made, was made by this word, or logos; that in this word was life; that he was in the world, and was the light of the world; that he had glory, as the glory of the only begotten of the Father, etc.] or rather, the word was in the beginning. The eternal word, the increated[uncreated?] wisdom, the second Person of the blessed Trinity, the only begotten Son of the Father, as he is here called (ver. 14.) of the same nature and substance, and the same God, with the Father and Holy Ghost. This word was always; so that it was never true to say, he was not, as the Arians blasphemed. This word was in the beginning. Some, by the beginning, expound the Father himself, in whom he was always. Others give this plain and obvious sense, that the word, or the Son of God, was, when all other things began to have a being; he never began, but was from all eternity.
And the word was with God; that is was with the Father; and as it is said, (ver. 18) in the bosom of the Father; which implies, that he is indeed a distinct person, but the same in nature and substance with the Father and the Holy Ghost. This is repeated again in the second verse, as repetitions are very frequent in St. John.
Witham
And the word was God. This without question is the construction; where, according to the letter we read, and God was the word. (Witham)
Bible de Vence
The Greek for the word is Logos, which signifies not only the exterior word, but also the interior word, or thought; and in this latter sense it is taken here. (Bible de Vence)
Philo Judaeus, in the apostolic age, uses the word Logos, p. 823, to personify the wisdom and the power of God. Logos estin eikon Theou di ou sumpas o Kosmos edemiourgeito. By a similar metonymy, Jesus Christ is called the way, the truth, the life, the resurrection.
Haydock
And the word was God. Here the eternity and the divinity of the second Person are incontrovertibly established; or, we must say that language has no longer a fixed meaning, and that it is impossible to establish any point whatever from the words of Scripture. (Haydock)
1:2
Witham
The same was in the beginning with God. In the text is only, "this was in the beginning;" but the sense and construction certainly is, this word was in the beginning. (Witham)
1:3
All things were made by him,[Ver. 3. Omnia per ipsum facta sunt: panta di autou egeneto: all things were made by him. Let not any one pretend that di autou, in this verse signifies no more than, that all creatures were made by the Word, or Son of God, ministerially, as if he was only the instrument of the eternal Father, and in a manner inferior to that by which they were created by the Father, the chief and principal cause of all things; of whom the apostle says, ex ou ta panta, ex ipso omnia.
Origen, unless perhaps his writings were corrupted by the Arians, seems to have given occasion to this leptologia, as St. Basil calls it, to groundless quibbling and squabbling about the sense of the prepositions; when he tells us, (tom. ii, in Joan. p. 55. Ed. Huetii.) the di ou never has the first place, but always the second place, meaning as to dignity: oudepote ten proten choran echei to di ou, deuteran de aei. It is like many other false and unwarrantable assertions in Origen; as when we find in the same commentary on St. John, that he says only God the Father is called o Theos. Origen may perhaps be excused as to what he writes about di ou and ex ou, as if he spoke only with a regard to the divine processions in God, in which the Father is the first person, from whom proceeds even the eternal Son, the second person. But whatever Origen thought, or meant, whom St. Epiphanius calls the father of Arius, whose works, as then extant, were condemned in the fifth General Council; it appears that the Arians, in particular Aetius, of the Eunomian sect, pretended that ex ou had always a more eminent signification, and was only applied to the Father; the Father, said he, being the true God, the only principal efficient cause of all things; and di ou was applied to the word, or Son of God, who was not the same true God, to signify his interior and ministerial production, as he was the instrument of the Father. Aetius, without regard to other places in the Scripture, as we read in St. Basil, (lib. de Sp. S. ch. II. p. 293. Ed. Morelli. an. 1637) produced these words of the apostle: (1 Corinthians 8:6.) eis Theos, pater, ex ou ta panta ... kai eis kurios, Iesous Christos; di ou panta: unus Deus, Pater, ex quo omnia, ... et unus Dominus Jesus Christus; per quem omnia. He concluded from hence, that as the prepositions were different, so were the natures and substance of the Father and of the Son.
But that no settled and certain rule can be built on these prepositions, and that di ou, in this third verse of the first chapter of St. John, has no diminishing signification, so that the Son was equally the proper and principal efficient cause of all things that were made and created, we have the authority of the greatest doctors, and the most learned and exact writers of the Greek Church, who knew both the doctrine of the Catholic Church, and the rules and use of the Greek tongue.
St. Basil (lib. de Spir. S. ch. III. et seq.) ridicules this leptologian, which, he says, had its origin from the vain and profane philosophy of the heathen writers, about the difference of causes. He denies that there is any fixed rule; and brings examples, in which di ou is applied to the Father, and ex ou to the Son.
St. Gregory of Nazianzus denies this difference, (Orat. xxxvii, p. 604. Ed. Morelli. Parisiis, ann. 1630) and affirms that ex ou, and di ou, in the Scripture, are said of all the three divine Persons.
St. Chrysostom says the same; and brings examples, to shew it on this verse of St. John; and tells us expressly that di ou, in this verse, has no diminishing nor inferior signification: ei de to di ou nomizeis elattoseos einai, etc.
St. Cyril of Alexandria, (lib. i. in Joan. p. 48.) makes the very same remark, and with the like examples. His words are: Quod si existiment (Ariani) per quem, di ou, substantiam ejus (Filii) de aequalitate cum Patre dejicere, ita ut minister sit potius quam Creator, ad se redeant insani, etc.
St. Ambrose, a doctor of the Latin Church, (lib. ii. de Sp. S. 10. p. 212. 213. Ed. Par. an. 1586.) confutes, with St. Basil, the groundless and pretended differences of ex quo and per quem.
I shall only here produce that one passage in Romans, (Chap. 11:36.) which St. Basil and St. Ambrose make use of, where we read: ex ipso, et per ipsum, et in ipso sunt omnia, (ex autou, kai di autou, kai eis auton ta panta) et in ipsum omnia. Now either we expound all the three parts of this sentence, as spoken of the Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, (as both St. Basil and St. Ambrose understand them) and then ex ou is applied to the Son; or we understand them of the Father, and di ou is applied to the first Person: or, in fine, as St. Augustine observes, (lib. i. de Trin. John 6.) we interpret them in such a manner, that the first part be understood of the Father, the second of the Son, the third of the Holy Ghost; and then the words that immediately follow in the singular number, to him be glory for ever, shew that all the three Persons are but one in nature, one God; and to all, and to each of the three Persons, the whole sentence belongs.
Witham
Had I not already said more than may seem necessary on these words, I might add all the Greek bishops in the council of Florence, when they came to an union with the Latin bishops about the procession of the Holy Ghost. After many passages had been quoted out of the ancient Fathers, some of which had said that the Holy Ghost proceeded from the Father and the Son, ek tou patros, kai ek tou uiou, many others had asserted that he proceeded ek tou Patros dia tou uiou; Bessarion, the learned Grecian bishop, in a long oration, (Sess. 25.) shewed that di uiou was the same as ek tou uiou. The Fathers, said he, shew, deiknusin isodunamousan te ek ten dia. See tom. xiii. Conc. Lab. p. 435. All the others allowed this to be true, as the emperor John Paleologus observed. (p. 487.) And the patriarch of Constantinople, when he was about to subscribe, declared the same: esti to dia tou uiou, tauton to ek tou uiou. Can any one imagine that none of these learned Grecians should know the force and use of these two prepositions, in their own language?] and without him was made nothing that was made. These words teach us, that all created being, visible, or invisible on earth, every thing that ever was made, or began to be, were made, produced, and created by this eternal word, or by the Son of God. The same is truly said of the Holy Ghost; all creatures being equally produced, created, and preserved by the three divine Persons as, by their proper, principal, and efficient cause, in the same manner, and by the same action: not by the Son, in any manner inferior to the Father; nor as if the Son produced things only ministerially, and acted only as the minister, and instrument of the Father, as the Arians pretended. In this sublime mystery of one God and three distinct Persons, if we consider the eternal processions, and personal proprieties, the Father is the first Person, but not by any priority of time, or of dignity; all the three divine Persons being eternal, or co-eternal, equal in all perfections, being one in nature, in substance, in power, in majesty: in a word, one and the same God. The Father in no other sense is called the first Person, but because he proceeds from none, or from no other person: and the eternal Son is the second Person begotten, and proceeding from him, the Father, from all eternity, proceeds now, and shall proceed from him for all eternity; as we believe that the third divine Person, the Holy Ghost, always proceeded without any beginning, doth now proceed, and shall proceed for ever, both from the Father and the Son. But when we consider and speak of any creatures, of any thing that was made, or had a beginning, all things were equally created in time, and are equally preserved, no less by the Son, and by the Holy Ghost, than by the Father. For this reason St. John tells us again in this chapter, (ver. 10.) that the world was made by the word. And our Saviour himself (John 5:19.) tells us, that whatsoever the Father doth, these things also in like manner, or in the same manner, the Son doth. Again the apostle, (Hebrews 1. ver. 2.) speaking of the Son, says, the world was made by him: and in the same chapter, (ver. 10.) he applies to the Son these words, (Psalm 101:26.) And thou, O Lord, in the beginning didst found the earth: and the heavens are the works of thy hands, etc. To omit other places, St. Paul again, writing to the Colossians, (Chap. 1:ver. 16, 17.) and speaking of God's beloved Son, as may be seen in that chapter, says, that in him all things were created, visible and invisible---all things were created in him, and by him, or, as it is in the Greek, unto him, and for him; to shew that the Son was not only the efficient cause, the Maker and Creator of all things, but also the last end of all. Which is also confirmed by the following words: And he is before all, and all things subsist in him, or consist in him; as in the Rheims and Protestant translations. I have, therefore, in this third verse, translated, all things were made by him, with all English translations and paraphrases, whether made by Catholics or Protestants; and not all things were made through him, lest through should seem to carry with it a different and a diminishing signification; or as if, in the creation of the world, the eternal word, or the Son of God, produced things only ministerially, and, in a manner, inferior to the Father, as the Arians and Eunomians pretended; against whom, on this very account, wrote St. Basil, lib. de spiritu Sto. St. Chrysostom, and St. Cyril, on this very verse; where they expressly undertake to shew that the Greek text in this verse no ways favours these heretics. The Arians, and now the Socinians, who deny the Son to be true God, or that the word God applies as properly to him as to the Father, but would have him called God, that is, a nominal god, in an inferior and improper sense; as when Moses called the god of Pharao; (Exodus 7:1.) or as men in authority are called gods; (Psalm 81:6.) pretend, after Origen, to find another difference in the Greek text; as if, when mention is made of the Father, he is styled the God; but that the Son is only called God, or a God. This objection St. Chrysostom, St. Cyril, and others, have shewn to be groundless: that pretended significant Greek article being several times omitted, when the word God is applied to God the Father; and being found in other places, when the Son of God is called God. See this objection fully and clearly answered by the author of a short book, published in the year 1729, against Dr. Clark and Mr. Whiston, p. 64, and seq. (Witham)
Were made, etc. Mauduit here represents the word: ---"1. As a cause, or principle, acting extraneously from himself upon the void space, in order to give a being to all creatures:" whereas there was no void space before the creation. Ante omnia Deus erat solus, ipse sibi et mundus et locus, et omnia. (Tertullian, lib. cont. Prax. ch. V.) And St. Augustine in Psalm cxxii. says: antequam faceret Deus Sanctos, ubi habitabat? In se habitabat, apud se habitabat.
Calmet
The creation of all things, visible and invisible, was the work of the whole blessed Trinity; but the Scriptures generally attribute it to the word; because wisdom, reason, and intelligence, which are the attributes of the Son, are displayed most in it. (Calmet)
1:4
In him: that is in this word, or Son of God, was life; because he gives life to every living creature. Or, as Maldonatus expounds it, because he is the author of grace, which is the spiritual life of our souls.
Witham
And the life was the light of men, whether we expound it of a rational soul and understanding, which he gives to all men; or of the spiritual life, and those lights of graces, which he gives to Christians. (Witham)
1:5
Witham
And the light shineth, or did shine, in darkness. Many understand this, that the light of reason, which God gave to every one, might have brought them to the knowledge of God by the visible effects of his Providence in this world: but the darkness did not comprehend it, because men, blinded by their passions, would not attend to the light of reason. Or we may again understand it, with Maldonatus, of the lights of grace, against which obstinate sinners wilfully shut their eyes. (Witham)
1:7
Witham
That all men might believe through him; that is by John the Baptist's preaching, who was God's instrument to induce them to believe in Jesus the Christ, or the Messias, their only Redeemer. (Witham)
1:8
Witham
He; that is John the Baptist, was not the true light: but the word was the true light. In the translation, it is necessary to express that the word was the true light, lest any one should think that John the Baptist was this light. (Witham)
1:10
Witham
He was in the world, etc. Many of the ancient interpreters understand this verse of Christ as God, who was in the world from its first creation, producing and governing all things: but the blind sinful world did not know and worship him. Others apply these words to the Son of God made man; whom even God's own chosen people, the Jews, at his coming, refused to receive and believe in him. (Witham)
1:11
Calmet
His own. This regards principally the Jews. Jesus came to them as into his own family, but they did not receive him. It may likewise be extended to the Gentiles, who had groaned so long a time in darkness, and only seemed to wait for the rising sun of justice to run to its light. They likewise did not receive him. These words, though apparently general, must be understood with restriction; as there were some, though comparatively few, of both Jews and Gentiles, who embraced the faith. (Calmet)
1:12
Witham
He gave to them power to be made the adoptive sons of God, and heirs of the kingdom of heaven. They are made the children of God by believing and by a new spiritual birth in the sacrament of baptism, not of blood; (literally, not of bloods) not by the will, and desires of the flesh, not by the will of men, nor by human generation, as children are first born of their natural parents, but of God, by faith and divine grace. (Witham)
1:14
And the word was made flesh. This word, or Son of God, who was in the beginning, from all eternity, at the time appointed by the divine decrees, was made flesh, that is became man, by a true and physical union of his divine person, (from which the divine nature was inseparable) to our human nature, to a human soul, and a human body, in the womb, and of the substance, of his virgin Mother. From the moment of Christ's incarnation, as all Christians are taught to believe, he that was God from eternity, became also true man. In Jesus Christ, our blessed Redeemer, we believe one divine Person with two natures, and two wills; the one divine, the other human: by which substantial union, one and the same Person became truly both God and man; not two persons, or two sons, as Nestorius, the heretic, pretended. By this union, and a mutual communication of the proprieties of each nature, it is true to say, that the Son of God, remaining unchangeably God, was made man; and therefore that God was truly conceived and born of the virgin Mary, who, on this account, was truly the Mother of God: that God was born, suffered, and died on the cross, to redeem and save us. The word, in this manner made man, dwelt in us, or among us, by this substantial union with our human nature, not morally only, nor after such a manner, as God is said to dwell in a temple; nor as he is in his faithful servants, by a spiritual union, and communication of his divine graces; but by such a real union, that the same person is truly both God and man.
Matthew xvii
And we saw his glory, manifested to the world by many signs and miracles; we in particular, who were present at his transfiguration. (Matthew xvii.)
Full of grace and truth. These words, in the construction, are to be joined in this manner: the word dwelt in us, full of grace and truth; and we have seen his glory, etc. This fulness of grace in Christ Jesus, infinitely surpassed the limited fulness, which the Scripture attributes to St. Stephen, (Acts 6:8.) or to the blessed virgin Mother: (Luke 1:28.) they are said to be full of grace, only because of an extraordinary communication and greater share of graces than was given to other saints. But Christ, even as man, had a greater abundance of divine graces: and being truly God as well as man, his grace and sanctity were infinite, as was his person.
Witham
As of the only begotten of the Father.[Ver. 14. Gloriam quasi Unigeniti, os monogenous. St. Chrysostom says, the word quasi, os, does no ways here diminish, be even confirms and increases the signification; as when we say of a king, that he carries himself like a king. To de os entauthen ouch omoioseos estin, alla bebaioseos.] If we consider Christ in himself, and not only as he was made known to men by outward signs and miracles, St. Chrysostom and others take notice that the word as, no ways diminisheth the signification; and that the sense is, we have seen the glory of him, who is truly from all eternity the only begotten Son of the Father: who, as the Scriptures assure us, is his true, his proper Son, his only begotten, who was sent into the world, who descended from heaven, and came from the Father, and leaving the world, returned where he was before, returned to his Father. We shall meet with many such Scripture texts, to shew him to be the eternal Son of his eternal Father; or to shew that the Father was always his Father, and the Son always his Son: as it was the constant doctrine of the Catholic Church, and as such declared in the general council of Nice, that this, his only Son, was born or begotten of the Father before all ages ... God from God, the true God from the true God. It was by denying this truth, "that the Son was the Son always, and the Father always, and from all eternity, the Father;" that the blaspheming Arius began his heresy in his letter to Eusebius of Nicomedia, against his bishop of Alexandria, St. Alexander. See the letter copied by St. Epiphanius, Haer. 69. p. 731. Ed. Petavii. (Witham)
Calmet
Dwelt among us. In a material body, like ours, clothed with our nature. He is become mortal, and like us in every thing, but sin and concupiscence. The Greek literally translated, is, he has pitched his tent amongst us, like a stranger and passenger, who makes no long stay in one place. The body in Scripture, is sometimes called a tent or tabernacle, in which the soul dwells, as 2 Peter 1:14. (Calmet)
1:15
Witham
Is preferred before me.[Ver. 15 and 27. Ante me factus est, emprosthen mou gegonen, is preferred before me: St. Chrysostom says, he is lamproteros, entimoteros, illustrios, honorabilior.] Literally, is made before me. The sense, says St. Chrysostom is, that he is greater in dignity, deserves greater honour, etc. though born after me, he was from eternity. (Witham)
1:16
And of his fulness we all have received; not only Jews, but also all nations.
Witham
And grace for grace.[Ver. 16. Gratiam pro gratia, charin anti charitos, gratiam; so Job 2:4. pellem pro pelle, that is omnem pellem.] It may perhaps be translated grace upon grace, as Mr. Blackwall observes, and brings a parallel example in Greek out of Theognis, p. 164. It implies abundance of graces, and greater graces under the new law of Christ than in the time of the law of Moses; which exposition is confirmed by the following verse. (Witham)
Calmet
Before the coming of the Messias all men had the light of reason. The Greeks had their philosophy, the Jews the law and prophets. All this was a grace and favour bestowed by God, the author of all good. But since the word was made flesh, God has made a new distribution of graces. He has given the light of faith, and caused the gospel of salvation to be announced to all men; he has invited all nations to the faith and knowledge of the truth. Thus he has given us one grace for another; but the second is infinitely greater, more excellent, and more abundant than the first. The following verse seems to insinuate, that the evangelist means the law by the first grace, and the gospel by the second. Compare likewise Romans 1:17. The Jews were conducted by faith to faith; by faith in God and the law of Moses, to the faith of the gospel, announced by Christ. (Calmet)
1:18
Witham
No man hath seen God. No mortal in this life by a perfect union and enjoyment of him. Nor can any creature perfectly comprehend his infinite greatness: none but his only begotten divine Son, who is in the bosom of his Father, not only by an union of grace, but by an union and unity of substance and nature; of which Christ said, (John 14:11.) I am in the Father, and the Father in me. (Witham)
1:19
Witham
The Jews sent, etc. These men, who were priests and Levites, seem to have been sent and deputed by the sanhedrim, or great council at Jerusalem, to ask of John the Baptist, who was then in great esteem and veneration, whether he was not their Messias; who, as they knew by the predictions of the prophets, was to come about that time. John declared to them he was not. To their next question, if he was not Elias? He answered: he was not: because in person he was not; though our Saviour (Matthew 11:14.) says he was Elias: to wit, in spirit and office only. Their third question was, if he was a prophet? He answered, no. Yet Christ (Matthew xi.) tells us, he was a prophet, and more than a prophet. In the ordinary acceptation only, they were called prophets who foretold things to come: John then, with truth, as well as humility, could say he was not a prophet; not being sent to foretell the coming of the Messias, but to point him out as already come, and present with the Jews. (Witham)
1:23
1:26
Denis the Carthusian
Hath stood. St. John the Baptist, by these words, which he spoke to the priests and Levites, sent to him by the Pharisees, did not mean to tell them, that Jesus was either at the present time standing amongst them, or that he had ever been in the presence of the self same people; but they may be understood two different ways, either with regard to his divinity; and in that sense, Jesus was always by his divine presence amongst them; or in regard to his humanity; either that he lived in the same country, and among their countrymen, or, that he stood actually amongst them, because Jesus was accustomed yearly to go up to Jerusalem on the festival of the Pasch. (Denis the Carthusian)
1:29
Witham
Behold the Lamb of God. John the Baptist let the Jews know who Jesus was, by divers testimonies. 1st, By telling them he was the Lamb of God who taketh away the sin, or sins of the world, who was come to be their Redeemer, and to free mankind from the slavery of sin; 2ndly, that he was greater than he, and before him, though born after him; 3rdly, that God had revealed to him that Jesus was to baptize in the Holy Ghost; 4thly, that he saw the Spirit descending upon him from heaven, and remaining upon him; 5thly, that he was the Son of God, ver. 34. (Witham)
Haydock
Who taketh away. It was only a being like Christ, in whose person the divine and human natures were united, that could effectually take away the sins of the world. As man, he was enabled to suffer; and as God, his sufferings obtained a value equal to the infinite atonement required. (Haydock)
1:39
Witham
Staid with him that day. Yet they did not continually remain with him, as his disciples, till he called them, as they were fishing. See the annotations, Matthew 4:18. (Witham)
1:42
Witham
Thou art Simon, the son of Jona, or of John. Jesus, who knew all things, knew his name, and at the first meeting told him he should hereafter be called Cephas, or Petrus, a rock, designing to make him the chief or head of his whole Church. See Matthew 16:18. (Witham)
Cephas is a Syriac word, its import is the same as rock or stone. And St. Paul commonly calleth him by this name: whereas others, both Greeks and Latins, call him by the Greek appellation, Peter; which signifies exactly the same thing. Hence St. Cyril saith, that our Saviour, by foretelling that his name should be now no more Simon, but Peter, did by the word itself aptly signify, that on him, as on a rock most firm, he would build his Church. (Lib. 2:chap. 12. in Joan.)
1:46
Witham
Can any thing of good come from Nazareth? Nathanael did not think it consistent with the predictions of the prophets, that the Messias, who was to be the Son of David, and to be born at Bethlehem, should be of the town of Nazareth; which he did not imagine could be the place of Jesus's birth. But when he came to Jesus, and found that he knew the truth of things done in private, and in his absence, he professed his belief in Jesus in these words: Rabbi, thou art the Son of God, thou art the king of Israel. We may here take notice, with Dr. Pearson, on the second article of the Creed, that the Jews, before the coming of Christ, were convinced that he was to be the Son of God; (though they have denied it since that time) for they interpreted, as foretold of their Messias, these words: (Psalm 2:7.) The Lord said to me, thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee: and this is what Nathanael here confessed. The same is confirmed by the famous confession of St. Peter, (Matthew 16:16.) Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God; by the words of Martha, (John 11:27.) I have believed that thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God, who art come into the world: In fine, by the question which the Jewish priest put to our Saviour, (Matthew 26:63.) I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ the Son of God. See also (John 6:70.; John 20:31.) (Witham)
1:50
Witham
Greater things than these. Greater miracles and proofs that I am the Messias, and the true Son of God. (Witham)
1:51
Witham
You shall see the heaven open, etc. It is not certain when this was to be fulfilled: St. Chrysostom thinks at Christ's ascension; others refer it to the day of judgment. (Witham)
1:1
1. Was the word,] The second Person in Trinitie which is the natural, onely, and eternal Sonne of God the Father, How God the Sonne is called the VVORD. is called the WORD: not as the holy Scriptures or speaches of the Prophets and Apostles (vvritten and spoken by Gods commaundement for the vttering of his diuine wil towards man) be called his word, but in a more diuine, eminent, and ineffable sort, to expresse vnto vs in a sort, by a terme agreable to our capacitie, that the Sonne of God so is, and so from euerlasting is borne of God the Father, as our prime concept (which is our internal and mental word) is and issueth out of our intelligence & minde. This VVORD then, Sonne, or second Person in the holy Trinitie, was and had his being then already, when other creatures (of what sort so euer) had but their beginning, The Platonikes. and therfore can not be a creature, as many Heretikes before the writing of this Gospel thought, August. de Ciu. Dei li. 10, c. 29. and as the Arrians after taught. And this first sentence of the Gospel not onely the faithful, but the Platonikes did so admire (as S. Augustine writeth) that they wished it to be written in gold.
1. With God.) The VVORD coeternal vvith the Father, distinct in person, and of the Father. Because a man might say, If the VVORD vvere before any thing vvas created, vvhere or hovv could he be? the Euangelist preuenting that carnal concept, saith first, that he vvas vvith God, vvhose being dependeth not vpon time, place, space, or any other creatures, al vvhich vvere made by him. secondly, he giueth vs to vnderstand, that the VVORD hath his proper subsistence or personalitle distincte frō God the Father, vvherby Sabellius the old Heretike is refuted, thirdly, here is insinuated the order of these tvvo persons, one tovvardes the other, to vvit, that the Sonne is with and of the Father, and not the Father of the Sonne. Fourthly, you may consute here the blasphemie of Caluin, Calu. inst. li. 1 c. 13. sect. 23 & 25. holding the second Person to be God, not as of God the Father, but as of him self. And yet such are the bookes that our youth now read commonly in England, and that by commaundement.
1. God vvas the VVord.] Lest any man vpon the premisses, which set forth the relation and distinction of the second Person from the first, The VVORD true God by nature. might thinke that the Father onely were God, the Euangelist expresly teacheth, the VVORD to be God. for though the wordes seeme to lie otherwise (because we haue of purpose so owed the elegancie which the Euangelist him self obserued in placing them so, and therfore they stand so both in Greeke and Latin) yet in deede the construction is thus, 1 Io. c. 5, 20. The VVORD vvas God, and (as in his first Epistle the same Apostle writeth) true God: lest any might say (as the Arians did) that he was God in deede, but not truely and naturally, but by common adoption or calling, The Protestants are like the vvrāgling Ariās. as good men in the Church be called the sonnes of God. What wonderful wrangling and tergiuersation the Arians vsed to auoid the euidence of this place, we see in S. Augustine li. 3 de Doct. Christ. c. 2. euen such as the Protestauts do, to auoid the like wordes, This is my body, concerning the B. Sacrament.
In the liturgy The Gospel at the third Masse vpō Christmas day. And euery day at the end of Masse.
1:3
3. By him.] The VVORD not a creature but the creator. Againe, by this he signifieth the eternitie, diuinitie, omaipotencie, and equalitie of the WORD or Sonne, with God the Father, because by him al things were created. al things he saith, both visible of this vvorld: and inuisible, as Angels and al spiritual creatures. Wherevpon it is euident also, that him self is no creature, being the creator of al: neither is sinne of his creation, being a defecte of a thing, rather then a thing it self, and therfore neither of nor by him.
nothing that was made.
1:12
1•. He gaue them povver.] Free-vvil. Free wil to receiue or acknowledge Christ, & power giuen to men, if they wil, to be made by Christ the sonnes of God: but not forced or drawen therevnto by any necessitie.
1:14
14. The Vvord made flesh.] Humble kneeling at the solemne wordes of Christs incarnation. This is the high and diuine testimonie of Christs incarnation and that he vouchsaued to become man, for the acknowledging of which inexplicable benefite and giuing humble thankes for the same, al Christian people in the world by tradition of the Fathers prostrate them selues or kneele downe, when they heare it sung or said at the holy Masse, either in this Gospel: or in the Crede by these wordes, ET HOMO FACTVS EST.
ET VERBVM CARO FACTVM EST.
1:15
He is preferred & made of more dignitie and excellencie then I, because he was before me & al things, eternal God.
1:18
1•. No man hath seen.] Neuer man in this mortalitie saw God in the very shape and natural forme of the diuine essence, How mortal men see God. but men see him onely in the shape of visible creatures, in or by which it pleaseth him to shew him self vnto many diuersly in this world: but neuer in such sort as vvhen he shevved him self in the person of the Sonne, of God, being made truely man and conuersing with men.
•2. The Spirit.] The B. Trinitie. Here is an euident testimonie of the third Person in Trinitie, which is the Holy Ghost: so that in this one Chapter we finde expresly against al Heretikes, Iewes, & Pagans, set furth the truth of the Churches doctrine concerning the whole Trinitie.
1:19
In the liturgy The Gospel vpō the 3 Sunday in Aduent.
1:21
Concordance Mal. 4, 5
Concordance Deu. 18, 15.
By like the Iewes ignorātly vnderstood not the place in Deuteronomie, of Christ, and therfore they aske also whether he be the Prophet there spoken of. See also c. 7, 40.
1:23
Concordance Esa. 40, 3.
1:25
Concordance Mt. 3, 11.
1:26
He doth oftē here signifie the great difference of his baptisme & of Christs, as of his person & Christs. See Annot. Mat. 3.
Concordance Mr. 1, 8.
Concordance Lu. 3, 16.
1:29
In the liturgy The Gospel on the octaue of the Epiphanie.
sinnes
AGNVS DEI at Masse.
1:35
In the liturgy The Gospel vpō S. Andrews eue.
1:41
Messias in Hebrue, in Greeke Christ, ī English Anointed, to witte, with the spiritual oile of grace aboue his brethren. Ps. 44.
1:42
42. Looking vpon him.] Peter by his new name designed to be the Rocke of the Church. This beholding of Simon, insmuateth Christs designement and preferring of him to be the cheefe Apostle, the Rocke of the Church, and his Vicar. and therfore vpon that Diuine prouidence and intention he accordingly changeth his name, Cephas. Petrus. calling him for Simon, Cephas, which is a Syriake word, as much to say as, Rocke or Stone. And S. Paul commonly calleth him by this name Cephas, Li. 2 c. 12 in Ioan. whereas other both Greekes and Latines call him altogether by the Greeke word, Peter, which signifieth the self same thing. vvhereof S. Cyril saith, that our Sauiour by foretelling that his name should no more novv be Simon, but Peter, did by the vvord it self aptly signifie, that on him, as on a rocke and stone most firme, he vvould build his Church.
Cephas in Syriake, & Peter in Greeke, in English, Rocke, See Mat. 16, 18.
1:46
In the liturgy The Gospel in a votiue Masse of the holy Angels.
1:51
Concordance Gen. 28, 12.
1:1
St Ignatius of Antioch † AD 108 Epistle to the Tarsians 6
… 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,
St Ignatius of Antioch † AD 108 Epistle to the Antiochians 4
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.”
Tatian † AD 180 The Diatessaron 1
[1] In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and God is the [2,3] Word. This was in the beginning with God. Everything was by his hand, and [4] without him not even one existing thing was made . In him was life, and the life [5] is the light of men. And the light shineth in the darkness, and the darkness apprehended it not.
St Irenaeus of Lyons † AD 202 Against Heresies 1.8.5
… Since, therefore, he treats of the first origin of things, he rightly proceeds in his teaching from the beginning, that is, from God and the Word. 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.”
St Irenaeus of Lyons † AD 202 Against Heresies 3.11.1
… “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. 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.”
St Irenaeus of Lyons † AD 202 Against Heresies 3.11.8
… And therefore the Gospels are in accord with these things, among which Christ Jesus is seated. 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.”
St Irenaeus of Lyons † AD 202 Against Heresies 5.18.2
… “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.”
Tertullian † AD 220 The Prescription Against Heretics 3
… 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,
Tertullian † AD 220 Against Hermogenes 18
… 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,”
Tertullian † AD 220 Against Hermogenes 20
… In conclusion, I will apply the Gospel as a supplementary testimony to the Old Testament. 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”
Tertullian † AD 220 Against Praxeas 7
… For although a thing may sometimes be made different from him by whom it is made, yet nothing can be made by that which is a void and empty thing. 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.”
Tertullian † AD 220 Against Praxeas 8
… “For what man knoweth the things which be in God, but the Spirit which is in Him?” But the Word was formed by the Spirit, and (if I may so express myself) the Spirit is the body of the Word. 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;”
Tertullian † AD 220 Against Praxeas 12
… and so God made a greater and a lesser light.” 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,) “The Word was God,”
Tertullian † AD 220 Against Praxeas 13
… (in the former expression in Thee , he means) in Christ, and (in the other he means) the Holy Ghost. 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.”
Tertullian † AD 220 Against Praxeas 15
… “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,
Tertullian † AD 220 Against Praxeas 16
… 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;”
Tertullian † AD 220 Against Praxeas 19
… It must also be He who says, “I am the First, and to all futurity I AM.” The Word, no doubt, was before all things. “In the beginning was the Word;”
Tertullian † AD 220 Against Praxeas 21
… And first of all there comes at once to hand the preamble of John to his Gospel, which shows us what He previously was who had to become flesh. “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.”
Tertullian † AD 220 On Monogamy 5
… so that every economy, ending in Him through whom it began,—through the Word of God, that is, who was made flesh,
St Hippolytus † AD 235 The Refutation of All Heresies 5.11
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.”
St Hippolytus † AD 235 Against the Heresy of One Noetus 12
… 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.”
Origen † AD 254 Origen De Principiis 1.7.1
… but although incorporeal, they were nevertheless created, because all things were made by God through Christ, as John teaches in a general way in his Gospel, 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. All things were made by Him, and without Him was nothing made.”
Origen † AD 254 Origen De Principiis 2.9.4
… all things were created by Him, and in Him;” and as in his Gospel John indicates the same thing, 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: all things were made by Him; and without Him was not anything made;”
Origen † AD 254 Origen Against Celsus 5.24
… But according to Celsus, God Himself is the reason of all things, while according to our view it is His Son, of whom we say in philosophic language, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God;”
Origen † AD 254 Origen Against Celsus 6.65
… If, however, we attend to the passage, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God,”
Origen † AD 254 Origen Against Celsus 8.6
… For the Lord of those who are “ambassadors for Christ” is Christ Himself, whose ambassadors they are, and who is “the Word, who was in the beginning, was with God, and was God.”
Origen † AD 254 Origen's Commentary on the Gospel of John 1.16
… we speak of a beginning in the case of a transition, and of a way and its length, and if we are told that the beginning of a good way is to do justice, then it concerns us to know in what manner every good way has for its beginning to do justice, and how after such beginning it arrives at contemplation, and in what manner it thus arrives at contemplation.
Origen † AD 254 Origen's Commentary on Matthew 10.14
… Wherefore, also, so far as Jesus Christ, “who was in the beginning with God, God the word,”
Origen † AD 254 Origen's Commentary on Matthew 13.2
… for these it is by which all things shall be restored, so that when they have been restored, and, as a result of that restoration, become capable of receiving the glory of Christ, the Son of God who shall appear in glory may sojourn with them. But if also Elijah be in some sort a word inferior to “the Word who was in the beginning with God, God the Word,”
St Cyprian of Carthage † AD 258 Three Books of Testimonies Against the Jews 2.4
… “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.”
St Cyprian of Carthage † AD 258 Three Books of Testimonies Against the Jews 2.7
… “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.”
Novatian † AD 258 A Treatise of Novatian Concerning the Trinity 13
… For the world was made by Him, and the world knew Him not.” Moreover, this Word “was in the beginning with God, and God was the Word.”
Novatian † AD 258 A Treatise of Novatian Concerning the Trinity 15
… And this, too, since it was not uttered without effect, reasonably makes all things: “For all things were made by Him, and without Him was nothing made.” But this Word whereby all things were made (is God). “And God,” says he, “was the Word.”
Novatian † AD 258 A Treatise of Novatian Concerning the Trinity 30
… And let us therefore believe this, since it is most faithful that Jesus Christ the Son of God is our Lord and God; because “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.”
St Dionysius of Alexandria † AD 265 Containing Various Sections of the Works 4.6
12. In the beginning was the Word . But that was not the Word which produced the Word. For “the Word was with God.” The Lord is Wisdom; it was not therefore Wisdom that produced Wisdom; for “I was that” says He, “wherein He delighted.” Christ is truth; but “blessed,” says He, “is the God of truth.”
St Gregory Thaumaturgus † AD 270 A Sectional Confession of Faith 7
… for the one divinity showing itself forth according to nature in the Trinity establishes the oneness of the nature; and thus there is a (divinity that is the) property of the Father, according to the word, “There is one God the Father;” and there is a divinity hereditary in the Son, as it is written, “The Word was God;”
St Gregory Thaumaturgus † AD 270 A Sectional Confession of Faith 15
… 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.”
St Gregory Thaumaturgus † AD 270 Four Homilies 4
… for such a thing abides possible with Thee, the Framer of nature. I am but a man, and am a partaker of the divine grace; but Thou art God, and also man to the same effect: for Thou art by nature man’s friend. 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;
St Methodius † AD 311 The Banquet of the Ten Virgins; or Concerning Chastity 3.6
Now, since He truly was and is, being in the beginning with God, and being God,
St Methodius † AD 311 Fragments 2
… of old He laid my foundation.” It was fitting and more seemly that all things which 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;”
St Alexander of Alexandria † AD 326 Epistles on the Arian Heresy and the Deposition of Arius 1.4
… All things were made by Him; and without Him was not anything made that was made.”
St Alexander of Alexandria † AD 326 Epistles on the Arian Heresy and the Deposition of Arius 2.3
… for the truth prevails, and there is no communion betwixt light and darkness, no concord between Christ and Belial. 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,”
Eusebius of Caesarea † AD 339 The Church History of Eusebius 1.2.3
… as it is said in regard to him in the mystical passages of Scripture which speak of his divinity: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”
Eusebius of Caesarea † AD 339 The Church History of Eusebius 7.25
18. For the Gospel and Epistle agree with each other and begin in the same manner. The one says, ‘In the beginning was the Word’;
Aphrahat † AD 346 Aphrahat: Select Demonstrations 1.10
… And furthermore David also said;— Thy word is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my paths . And also the word and discourse of the Lord is Christ, as is written in the beginning of the Gospel of our Saviour:— In the beginning was the Word .
Aphrahat † AD 346 Aphrahat: Select Demonstrations 8.15
… And this is the voice through which the dead shall live. Concerning it our Redeemer testifies, saying:— The hour shall come when even the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of Man and shall come forth from their tombs ; as it is written, In the beginning was the voice, that is the Word .
St Hilary of Poitiers † AD 367 De Synodis or On the Councils 1
… for contravening the teaching of the Gospel which scorned any interval of times between the being of the Father and the Son and faithfully has instructed us that In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God
St Hilary of Poitiers † AD 367 De Trinitate or On the Trinity 1.10
… But to as many as received Him He gave power to become sons of God, even to them that believe on His Name; which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of man, nor of the will of the flesh, but of God. And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, glory as of the Only-begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth
St Hilary of Poitiers † AD 367 De Trinitate or On the Trinity 2.13
… 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
St Hilary of Poitiers † AD 367 De Trinitate or On the Trinity 2.23
… We will bid him read again, Father, glorify Me with Thine own Self with that glory which I had with Thee before the world was , and In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God
St Hilary of Poitiers † AD 367 De Trinitate or On the Trinity 4.16
… Through whom? Hear the Evangelist: All things were made through Him . If you ask Who this is, the same Evangelist will tell you: 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 through Him
St Hilary of Poitiers † AD 367 De Trinitate or On the Trinity 7.9
9. Thus we have all these different assurances of the Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ:—His name, His birth, His nature, His power, His own assertion. As to the name, I conceive that no doubt is possible. It is written, In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God
St Hilary of Poitiers † AD 367 De Trinitate or On the Trinity 12.24
… that very quality the Gospels testify to be a property of God 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 Only-begotten is in the bosom of the Father
St Hilary of Poitiers † AD 367 De Trinitate or On the Trinity 12.56
… He speaks when He will, and what He will, and where He will. Since, then, the cause of His coming and going is unknown, though the watcher is conscious of the fact, shall I count the nature of the Spirit among created things, and limit Him by fixing the time of His origin? Thy servant John says, indeed, that all things were made through the Son
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 Against the Heathen (Contra Gentes) 40
… soul and has no power of reason or thought, but only works by external art, according to the skill of him that applies it,—nor such a word as belongs to rational beings and which consists of syllables, and has the air as its vehicle of expression,—but I mean the living and powerful Word of the good God, the God of the Universe, the very Word which is God
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 Against the Heathen (Contra Gentes) 42
… And, not to spend time in the enumeration of particulars, where the truth is obvious, there is nothing that is and takes place but has been made and stands by Him and through Him, as also the Divine
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 Deposition of Arius 3
… neither is there any “communion of light with darkness,” nor any “concord of Christ with Belial .” For who ever heard such assertions before ? or who that hears them now is not astonished and does not stop his ears lest they should be defiled with such language? Who that has heard the words of John, “In the beginning was the Word
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 Illud Omnia, &c. (On Luke x. 22.) 3
… For He was not man previously, but became man for the sake of saving man. And the Word was not in the beginning flesh, but has been made flesh subsequently (cf.
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 De Decretis. (Defence of the Nicene Definition.) 4
… the same was in the beginning with God: all things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 De Sententia Dionysii. (Defence of Dionysius.) 25
For with reference to the madness of Arius when he says that the Word which is in God is distinct from that one of which John said, ‘In the beginning was the Word’ (
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 To the Bishops of Egypt 2
… and they did so justly and rightly. For infidelity is coming in through these men, or rather a Judaism counter to the Scriptures, which has close upon it Gentile superstition, so that he who holds these opinions can no longer be even called a Christian, for they are all contrary to the Scriptures. John, for instance, saith, ‘In the beginning was the Word
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 Against the Arians. (Orationes contra Arianos IV.) 1.4
… Whence then this your discovery? Why do ye, as ‘the heathen, rage, and imagine vain phrases against the Lord and against His Christ?’ for no holy Scripture has used such language of the Saviour, but rather ‘always’ and ‘eternal’ and ‘coexistent always with the Father.’ For, ‘In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 Against the Arians. (Orationes contra Arianos IV.) 1.7
… Nay, one would fain not hear them disputing at all, that God was not always Father, but became so afterwards (which is necessary for their fantasy, that His Word once was not), considering the number of the proofs already adduced against them; while John besides says, ‘The Word was
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 Against the Arians. (Orationes contra Arianos IV.) 1.11
… or how is He exalted, being before His exaltation the Most High? or how did He receive the right of being worshipped, who before He now received it, was ever worshipped? It is not a dark saying but a divine mystery . ‘In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God;’ but for our sakes afterwards the ‘Word was made flesh
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 Against the Arians. (Orationes contra Arianos IV.) 2.18
… and another says in the Psalm, ‘With Thee is the well of life, and in Thy Light shall we see light,’ and ‘Thou madest all things in Wisdom ;’ and the Prophets say, ‘And the Word of the Lord came to me ;’ and John, ‘In the beginning was the Word;’ and Luke, ‘As they delivered them unto us which from the beginning were eye-witnesses and ministers of the Word
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 Against the Arians. (Orationes contra Arianos IV.) 2.19
… by nature (for we are His works, and it is ‘He that hath made us, and not we ourselves ’), so when the Son, on taking the servant’s form, says, ‘The Lord created me a beginning of His ways,’ let them not deny the eternity of His Godhead, and that ‘in the beginning was the Word,’ and ‘all things were made by Him,’ and ‘in Him all things were created
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 Against the Arians. (Orationes contra Arianos IV.) 2.20
… For He is the Father’s Radiance; and as the Father is, but not for any reason, neither must we seek the reason of that Radiance. Thus it is written, ‘In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 Against the Arians. (Orationes contra Arianos IV.) 2.21
… But to the Son contrariwise; for he has not said ‘I made,’ but ‘I begat ,’ and ‘He begets me,’ and ‘My heart uttered a good Word .’ And in the instance of the creation, ‘In the beginning He made;’ but in the instance of the Son, ‘In the beginning was the Word
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 Against the Arians. (Orationes contra Arianos IV.) 3.23.4
… So also the Godhead of the Son is the Father’s; whence also it is indivisible; and thus there is one God and none other but He. And so, since they are one, and the Godhead itself one, the same things are said of the Son, which are said of the Father, except His being said to be Father :—for instance , that He is God, ‘And the Word was God
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 Against the Arians. (Orationes contra Arianos IV.) 3.26
… The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him, and without Him was made not one thing
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 Against the Arians. (Orationes contra Arianos IV.) 3.30
… Son;’ and by David He said, ‘My heart uttered a good Word;’ and John He bade say, ‘In the beginning was the Word;’ and David says in the Psalm, ‘With Thee is the well of life, and in Thy light shall we see light;’ and the Apostle writes, ‘Who being the Radiance of Glory,’ and again, ‘Who being in the form of God,’ and, ‘Who is the Image of the invisible God
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 Against the Arians. (Orationes contra Arianos IV.) 4.1.1
1. The Word is God from God; for ‘the Word was God
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 Against the Arians. (Orationes contra Arianos IV.) 4.26
… this is the True God and Eternal Life .’ But if the Son is the Life, and the Life was with the Father, and if the Son was with the Father, and the same Evangelist says, ‘And the Word was with God
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 History of Arian Opinions 1
… exact Image of the Godhead, Essence, Will, Power and Glory of the Father; the first born of every creature, who was in the beginning with God, God the Word, as it is written in the Gospel, ‘and the Word was God’ (
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 On the Symbols 'Of the Essence' And 'Coessential.' 1
… For the Son Himself said, ‘All things that the Father hath are Mine’ ( John xvi. 15 ); and He says to the Father, ‘All Mine are Thine, and Thine are Mine’ ( John xvii. 10 ),—as for instance , the name God; for ‘the Word was God;’—Almighty, ‘Thus saith He that is, and that was, and that is to come, the Almighty’ (
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 Festal and Personal Letters of Athanasius 11
… For how could they have been believed, when writing respecting him who [was blind] from his mother’s womb, and those other blind men who recovered their sight, and those who rose from the dead, and the changing of water into wine, and those lepers who were cleansed; if they had not taught of Him as the Creator, writing, ‘In the beginning was the Word
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 Festal and Personal Letters of Athanasius 60
… But if they wish to abide by their impieties, let them alone take their fill of them, and let them gnash their teeth like their father the devil, because the Faith of the Catholic Church knows that the Word of God is creator and maker of all things; and we know that while ‘in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God
St Basil the Great † AD 379 De Spiritu Sancto 8
… At one time it uses terms descriptive of His nature, for it recognises the “name which is above every name,” the name of Son, and speaks of true Son, and only begotten God, and Power of God, and Wisdom, and Word.
St Basil the Great † AD 379 De Spiritu Sancto 16
… nor is the Spirit of His mouth a vapour, emitted by the organs of respiration; but the Word is He who “was with God in the beginning” and “was God,”
St Cyril of Jerusalem † AD 386 The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril 3.14
… If thou too hast unfeigned piety, the Holy Ghost cometh down on thee also, and a Father’s voice sounds over thee from on high—not, “ This is My Son ,” but, “This has now been made My son;” for the “ is ” belongs to Him alone, because In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God
St Cyril of Jerusalem † AD 386 The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril 11.10
… 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 . For, In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God
St Cyril of Jerusalem † AD 386 The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril 12.1
… Deemed worthy to partake of the flesh of the Spiritual Lamb , let us take the head together with the feet , the Deity being understood as the head, and the Manhood taken as the feet. Hearers of the Holy Gospels, let us listen to John the Divine . For he who said, In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God
St Gregory of Nazianzus † AD 389 Select Orations of Saint Gregory Nazianzen 29
XVII. For we have learnt to believe in and to teach the Deity of the Son from their great and lofty utterances. And what utterances are these? These: God—The Word—He That Was In The Beginning and With The Beginning, and The Beginning. “In the Beginning was The Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God,”
St Gregory of Nazianzus † AD 389 Select Orations of Saint Gregory Nazianzen 34
… With David be enlightened, who said to the Light, In Thy Light shall we see Light, that is, in the Spirit we shall see the Son; and what can be of further reaching ray? With John thunder, sounding forth nothing that is low or earthly concerning God, but what is high and heavenly, Who is in the beginning, and is with God, and is God the Word,
St Gregory of Nazianzus † AD 389 Select Orations of Saint Gregory Nazianzen 37
… perhaps He weeps that He may make tears blessed. He removeth from place to place, Who is not contained in any place; the timeless, the bodiless, the uncircumscript, 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.
St Gregory of Nyssa † AD 395 Against Eunomius 2.4
… For the Evangelist tells us that “the Word was with God, and the Word was God
St Gregory of Nyssa † AD 395 Against Eunomius 2.8
… Let the discerning reader consider whether these things agree with one another, when the term “first-born” necessarily implies brethren, and the term “Only-begotten” as necessarily excludes the notion of brethren. For when the Scripture says, “In the beginning was the Word
St Gregory of Nyssa † AD 395 Against Eunomius 2.9
… reader might not through inattention and unworthy conceptions sink to the common notion of “word,” so as to deem the Son to be merely a voice of the Father, he therefore affirms of the Word that He essentially subsisted in the first and blessed nature Itself, thus proclaiming aloud, “In the Beginning was the Word, and with God, and God, and Light, and Life
St Gregory of Nyssa † AD 395 Against Eunomius 2.12
… O Paul and John and all you others of the band of Apostles and Evangelists, who are they that arm their venomous tongues against your words? who are they that raise their frog-like croakings against your heavenly thunder? What then saith the son of thunder? “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God
St Gregory of Nyssa † AD 395 Against Eunomius 4.1
… but instead of “the Father,” he speaks of “the Beginning”: instead of “was begotten,” he says “was”: and instead of “the Son,” he says “the Word”: and declares “In the Beginning was the Word
St Gregory of Nyssa † AD 395 Against Eunomius 5.1
… If, on the other hand, one were to grant that this utterance is of the Son, the phrase, “None hath been before Me,” will be a clear intimation that He Whom we contemplate “in the Beginning
St Gregory of Nyssa † AD 395 Against Eunomius 5.2
… The very nature of things is repugnant to this; and it is expressly contradicted by that writer
St Gregory of Nyssa † AD 395 Against Eunomius 6.1
… We, then, neither attribute our own salvation to a man, nor admit that the incorruptible and Divine Nature is capable of suffering and mortality: but since we must assuredly believe the Divine utterances which declare to us that the Word that was in the beginning was God
St Gregory of Nyssa † AD 395 Against Eunomius 8.4
… For this reason he prepares us at his first proclamation to regard the Word as in essence, and not in any essence foreign to or dissevered from that essence whence It has Its being, but in that first and blessed Nature. For this is what he teaches us when he says the Word “was in the beginning
St Gregory of Nyssa † AD 395 Against Eunomius 8.5
… since John so declares in his preaching, “And the Word was with God, and the Word was God
St Gregory of Nyssa † AD 395 Against Eunomius 9.1
… “God is the most highly exalted of all goods.” Splendid acknowledgment! I suppose he will not bring a charge of unconstitutional conduct against the great John, by whom, in his lofty proclamation, the Only-begotten is declared to be God, Who was with God and was God
St Gregory of Nyssa † AD 395 Against Eunomius 10.4
… And herein the sublime John seems to me to have been prophetically moved, that the mouths of those fighters against Christ might be stopped, who on the ground of these additions deny the existence, in the strict sense, of the Christ, saying simply and without qualification “The Word was God,” and was Life, and was Light
St Gregory of Nyssa † AD 395 Against Eunomius 12.3
… Why so? and yet their argument is that the Godhead of the Father must be conceived to be greater and more exalted than that of the Son, because the one is called in the Gospel “true God ,” the other “God
St Gregory of Nyssa † AD 395 On the Faith 1
… It is clear then that however great the Person of the Father is, so great also is the express image of that Person; for it is not possible that the express image should be less than the Person contemplated in it. And this the great John also teaches when he says, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God
St Gregory of Nyssa † AD 395 On the Making of Man 5
2. And if you were to examine the other points also by which the Divine beauty is expressed, you will find that to them too the likeness in the image which we present is perfectly preserved. The Godhead is mind and word: for “in the beginning was the Word
St Gregory of Nyssa † AD 395 The Great Catechism 1
For not even by those who are external to our doctrine is the Deity held to be without Logos
St Ambrose of Milan † AD 397 On the Holy Spirit 1.11
120. Lastly, Wisdom so says that she came forth from the mouth of the Most High, as not to be external to the Father, but with the Father; for “the Word was with God;”
St Ambrose of Milan † AD 397 Exposition of the Christian Faith 1.2
16. Further, that none may fall into error, let a man attend to those signs vouchsafed us by holy Scripture, whereby we may know the Son. He is called the Word, the Son, the Power of God, the Wisdom of God.
St Ambrose of Milan † AD 397 Exposition of the Christian Faith 1.7
… Mark what manner of portrait is spoken of. It is Truth, Righteousness, the Power of God: not dumb, for it is the Word; not insensible, for it is Wisdom; not vain and foolish, for it is Power; not soulless, for it is the Life; not dead, for it is the Resurrection.
St Ambrose of Milan † AD 397 Exposition of the Christian Faith 1.8
56. “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.”
St Ambrose of Milan † AD 397 Exposition of the Christian Faith 1.19
123. Arius , then, says: “There was a time when the Son of God existed not,” but Scripture saith: “He was,” not that “He was not.” Furthermore, St. John has written: “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.”
St Ambrose of Milan † AD 397 Exposition of the Christian Faith 2.2
29. But perchance thou believest not others, nor the Son. Hear, then, the Father saying: “My heart hath brought forth out of its depth the good Word.” The Word, then, is good—the Word, of Whom it is written: “And the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”
St Ambrose of Milan † AD 397 Exposition of the Christian Faith 3.3
… Or, if we suppose some other light, beside the Light of the Godhead, to be the unapproachable Light, is, then, this Light better than the Father, so that He is not in that Light, Who, as it is written, is both with the Father and in the Father?
St Ambrose of Milan † AD 397 Exposition of the Christian Faith 3.8
… “A Child is born, a Son is given.” Though born of the Father, yet is He not born, but given to us, forasmuch as the Son is not for our sakes, but we for the Son’s. For indeed He was not born to us, being born before us, and the maker of all things created: nor is He now brought to life for the first time, Who was always, and was in the beginning;
St Ambrose of Milan † AD 397 Exposition of the Christian Faith 5.1
18. Therefore as the Evangelist forthwith at the outset joined the Word with God the Father in his devout confession of faith, saying: “And the Word was with God;”
St Ambrose of Milan † AD 397 Exposition of the Christian Faith 5.9
117. If we pay such excessive regard to order, then the Son ought not to sit at the right hand of the Father, nor ought He to call Himself the First and the Beginning. The Evangelist was wrong in beginning with the Word and not with God, where he says: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God.”
St Ambrose of Milan † AD 397 Concerning Virgins 3.1.2
… nor separated in power, not confused by extension of the Word or enlargement as though mingled with the Father, but distinguished from the Father by virtue of His generation. He is your Brother, without Whom neither things in heaven, nor things in the sea, nor things on earth consist. The good Word of the Father, Which was, it is said, “in the beginning,”
St Ambrose of Milan † AD 397 Selections from the Letters of St. Ambrose 22.5
5. Paul was a heaven, when he said: “Our conversation is in heaven.” James and John were heavens, and then were called “sons of thunder”; and John, being as it were a heaven, saw the Word with God.
St Ambrose of Milan † AD 397 Selections from the Letters of St. Ambrose 63.24
… begotten before the ages of the Father alone, born in this age of the Virgin alone, and certainly could have no beginning of days seeing He “was in the beginning.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 16
… For this cause many times, having in His own person said much that is lowly of Himself, the great things He leaves to be said by others. Thus He Himself indeed, reasoning with the Jews, said, “Before Abraham was, I Am :” but His disciple not thus, but, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Commentary on Galatians 1
… ii. 6 .) or which you afterwards declared in that to the Hebrews, “the effulgence of his glory, and the very image of His substance;” ( Heb. i. 3 .) or again, what in the opening of his Gospel the son of thunder sounded forth, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God;” (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 2
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God.” (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Epistle to the Hebrews 2
… But, how “He upholdeth by the word,” he hath not further added: for neither is it possible to know. Then he added concerning His majesty: for thus John also did: having said that “He is God” (
St Jerome † AD 420 The Letters of St. Jerome 53.4
4. But perhaps we ought to call Peter and John ignorant, both of whom could say of themselves, “though I be rude in speech, yet not in knowledge.” Was John a mere fisherman, rude and untaught? If so, whence did he get the words “In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God and the word was God.”
St Jerome † AD 420 The Letters of St. Jerome 108.10
… swaddling clothes and crying in the manger, the wise men worshipping Him, the star shining overhead, the virgin mother, the attentive foster-father, the shepherds coming by night to see “the word that was come to pass” and thus even then to consecrate those opening phrases of the evangelist John “In the beginning was the word” and “the word was made flesh.”
St Jerome † AD 420 Against Jovinianus 1.26
… The first has the face of a man, on account of the genealogical table; the second, the face of a calf, on account of the priesthood; the third, the face of a lion, on account of the voice of one crying in the desert, “Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make His paths straight.” But John like an eagle soars aloft, and reaches the Father Himself, and says,
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 The Confessions 7.9
… The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him; and without Him was not any thing made that was made.” That which was made by Him is “life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehendeth it not.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 The Confessions 7.19
… especially for that, being wonderfully born of a virgin, He seemed, through the divine care for us, to have attained so great authority of leadership,—for an example of contemning temporal things for the obtaining of immortality. But what mystery there was in, “The Word was made flesh,”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 The Confessions 11.7
9. Thou callest us, therefore, to understand the Word, God with Thee, God,
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Letters of St. Augustin 137.14
14. For I think that such signs of divine power are demanded by these objectors as were not suitable for Him to do when wearing the nature of men. The Word was in the beginning, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God, and by Him all things were made.
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Letters of St. Augustin 219.1
… was indeed not unimportant, seeing that he neither approved what is right nor perceived what is true in some things relating to the only-begotten Son of God, of whom it is written that, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God,” but that when the fulness of time had come, “the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us;”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 City of God 10.29
… The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him; and without Him was not anything 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.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On Christian Doctrine 3.2
3. Now look at some examples. The heretical pointing,
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On the Holy Trinity 1.6
… But herein is declared, not only that He is God, but also that He is of the same substance with the Father; because, after saying, “And the Word was God,” it is said also, “The same was in the beginning with God: all things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On the Holy Trinity 2.5
… Therefore, since without any commencement of time, the Word was in the beginning, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God, it was in the Word itself without any time, at what time the Word was to be made flesh and dwell among us.
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On the Holy Trinity 2.16
… And that mode of speech accordingly which was wrought in words, was so modified, as if it were of a friend speaking to a friend. Yet who sees God the Father with the eyes of the body? And that Word, which was in the beginning, the Word which was with God, the Word which was God, by which all things were made,
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On the Holy Trinity 4.2
… But for this partaking we were utterly unfit, and fell short of it, on account of the uncleanness of sins. Therefore we were to be cleansed. And further, the one cleansing of the unrighteous and of the proud is the blood of the Righteous One, and the humbling of God Himself;
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On the Holy Trinity 6.2
… But what wonder is there, if this can be said in the case of some twofold things widely different from each other? For what are so different as soul and body? Yet we can say the soul was with a man, that is, in a man; although the soul is not the body, and man is both soul and body together. So that what follows in the Scripture, “And the Word was God,”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On the Holy Trinity 6.10
… where there is prime and absolute life, to whom it is not one thing to live, and another to be, but the same thing to be and to live; and prime and absolute intellect, to whom it is not one thing to live, another to understand, but to understand is to live, and is to be, and all things are one: as though a perfect Word (
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On the Holy Trinity 7.1
… It is asked, then, whether the Father also by Himself is wise, and is Himself His own wisdom itself; or whether He is wise in the same way as He speaks. For He speaks by the Word which He begat, not by the word which is uttered, and sounds, and passes away, but by the Word which was with God, and the Word was God, and all things were made by Him:
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On the Holy Trinity 13.1.2
… which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. 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.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On the Holy Trinity 15.10
… it is which belongs to no tongue, to wit, of those which are called the tongues of nations, of which our Latin tongue is one;—whoever, I say, is able to understand this, is able now to see through this glass and in this enigma some likeness of that Word of whom it is said, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 The Enchiridion 35
Wherefore Christ Jesus, the Son of God, is both God and man; God before all worlds; man in our world: God, because the Word of God (for “the Word was God”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on Faith and the Creed 9
… Now all these have had a place given them, [certainly] not with the object of signifying an inequality of nature and substance; for to take them so would be to falsify a different class of statements, such as, “I and my Father are one” ( unum ); and, “He that hath seen me hath seen my Father also;” and, “The Word was God,”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Reply to Faustus the Manichæan 7
… Why then do they believe John when he says, "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,"
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Reply to Faustus the Manichæan 13.8
… He is man taking the form of a servant. And who shall know Him? For "He was in the form of God, and thought it not robbery to be equal to God." He is man, for "the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us." And who shall know Him? For "in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Reply to Faustus the Manichæan 22.58
… Rachel, too, in course of time, by the mercy of God, brings forth a child herself, but not till after some time; for it seldom happens that there is a sound, though only partial, apprehension, without fleshly ideas, of such sacred lessons of wisdom as this: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Concerning the Nature of Good, Against the Manichæans 24
… "I and the Father are one." But because the Son was not made, since through Him were all things made, thus it is written: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and God was the Word; this was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him was made nothing;"
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 The Correction of the Donatists 1
… And in all of them, as the Lord Christ is made manifest, whether in accordance with His Godhead, in which He is equal to the Father, so that, "In the beginning was the Word, and; the Word was with God, and the Word was God;" or according to the humility of the flesh which He took upon Him, whereby "the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us;"
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on the Merits and Forgiveness of Sins, and on the Baptism of Infants 1.60
… that they might not be regarded as if they were two Christs,—the one God, the other man, —but one and the same God and man,—God, because “in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God;”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on the Merits and Forgiveness of Sins, and on the Baptism of Infants 2.38
… because also God, who was born of God, by being afterwards born of the flesh, became flesh, and dwelt among us. For the Word, which became flesh, was in the beginning, and was God with God.
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on the Spirit and the Letter 58
… but he would do more than that,—he would vanquish that will, if he also escaped the mill. This, however, cannot possibly happen under the government of God. Whence it is written, “God hath spoken once,”—that is, irrevocably,—although the passage may refer also to His one only Word.
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on the Predestination of the Saints 2.40
… Although, in a certain manner of speaking, it might happen that what is said should be both milk to infants and meat for grown-up persons. As “in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God,”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 The Harmony of the Gospels 1.4
… their conversation in a certain manner with the man Christ on earth, in him you perceive one who has passed beyond the cloud in which the whole earth is wrapped, and who has reached the liquid heaven from which, with clearest and steadiest mental eye, he is able to look upon God the Word, who was in the beginning with God, and by whom all things were made.
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 The Harmony of the Gospels 4.10
… On the other hand, Christ’s divinity, in virtue of which He is equal to the Father, in accordance with which He is the Word, and God with God, and the Word that was made flesh in order to dwell among us,
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 28.5
… After the resurrection, what is the Law to thee? what Prophecy? Therefore neither Moses nor Elias is seen. He only remaineth to thee, “Who in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 30.5
… For He had nothing Himself, whereby He could die; nor had we anything whereby we could live. For what was He who had nothing whereby He could die? “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 41.2
… had they not closed their hearts against the Gospel, had they wished to have spiritual life in them, they would, as instructed in the faith of the Church, have made answer to this question and said, “Because in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God:”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 42.3
… Whoso confesseth that Christ is God equal with the Father and very man, that He truly suffered, truly shed His blood (for the Truth would not have set us free, if He had given a false price for us); whoso confesseth both, is a Catholic. He hath the country, he hath the way. He hath the country, “In the beginning was the Word;”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 47.4
… where the trial? where the victory, which no battle has preceded? “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 nothing made.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 54.3
… whom dost thou bury? In that world to come, these evils will not be; therefore these services will not be either. Well then did Martha, as touching the bodily—what shall I call it, want, or will, of the Lord?—minister to His mortal flesh. But who was He in that mortal flesh? “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God:”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 67.0
On the words of the Gospel, John i. 1 , “In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God,” etc. Against the Arians.
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 67.3
3. I am not now, brethren, discussing how the words, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God,”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 67.5
5. But thou art not able to conceive of any such thing. Such ignorance is more pious than presumptuous knowledge. For we are speaking of God. It is said, “And the Word was God.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 67.15
… For we are not God; but with the mind or the interior eye of the heart we can see God. Our eyes dulled by sins, blinded, enfeebled by infirmity, desire to see; but we are in hope, not yet in possession. We are the children of God. This saith John, who says, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God;”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 68
1. All ye who are looking for a man’s many words, understand the One Word of God, “In the beginning was the Word.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 69.2
2. “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 70.1
1. The beginning of John’s Gospel, “In the beginning was the Word.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 74.3
… if thou wouldest be made whole, descend. Well might piety be alarmed, if Christ in the flesh subject to change were only spoken of. But now the truth sets forth to thee, Christ Unchangeable in His Nature as the Word. For, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God;” not a word to sound, and so pass away; for “the Word was God.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 75.3
… the Jews would not have been enraged. But because they understand Him to call Himself the Son of God in another way, according to that, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God;”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 76.5
… Is the creation itself a small sign, a small indication of the Creator? He also came, He did miracles. Thou couldest not see God, a man thou couldest; so God was made Man, that in One thou mightest have both what to see, and what to believe. “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 76.6
… For He “who came forth as a Bridegroom out of His chamber,” that is, out of the virgin’s womb, where the holy nuptials were celebrated of the Word and the Flesh: He brought, I say, a temporal miracle; but He is Himself eternal, He is coeternal with the Father, He it is, who “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 76.12
… for that whatsoever the Father doeth, by Thee He doeth it. We have heard that Thou art the Word in the beginning;
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 83.6
… “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 was life, and the Life was the Light of men; And the Light shineth in darkness, and the darkness comprehended It not;”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 85.4
… “He was, He was, He was.” You hear, “He was;” believe. “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 85.8
… Him I ask; “Have ye sin or not?” He maketh answer and saith, “If we shall say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.” Now it is the same John who said, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 38.4
… All that are of the world come after the world, because the world preceded; and so man is of the world. But Christ was first, and then the world; and since Christ was before the world, before Christ there was nothing: because “In the beginning was the Word; all things were made by Him.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 40.4
… in the same will He yet come to judgment. For angel lips have declared in the Gospel, “He shall so come in like manner as ye have seen Him go into heaven.” When then you think of the servant-form in Christ, think of a human likeness, if you have faith; but when you think, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God,”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 43.17
… but “am” to the Divine essence. “He was made,” because Abraham was a creature. He did not say, Before Abraham was, I was; but, “Before Abraham was made,” who was not made save by me, “I am.” Nor did He say this, Before Abraham was made I was made; for “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth;” and “in the beginning was the Word.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 45.8
… God forbid. They did not come apart from Him, for they came with Him. When about to come, He sent heralds, but retained possession of the hearts of His messengers. Do you wish to know that they came with Him, who is Himself ever existent? Certainly He assumed human flesh at the time appointed. But what means that “ever”? “In the beginning was the Word.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 46.3
… Surely the shepherd is better than the rock that he sits upon; and yet Christ is both the Shepherd and the rock. All this by way of comparison. But if thou askest me for His peculiar personal quality: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 47.6
… nor a lamb, as it belongs to the flock. All such, then, are by way of comparison. But what is He properly? “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God [God was the Word].” And what, as He appeared in human nature? “And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us [in us].”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 47.10
… I see, indeed, that the Word was once without a human soul, but only so, when “in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” But from the time that the Word was made flesh, to dwell amongst us,
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 76.5
… And, perhaps, it was on account of some intended distinction that, when He said His own , He used “sayings” in the plural; but when He said that “the saying,” that is, the Word, was not His own, but the Father’s, He wished it to be understood of Himself. For in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 78.2
… For one they are, inasmuch as “The Word was God;” and greater is the Father, inasmuch as “the Word was made flesh.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 82.4
… For what are we to think of Him even as man, but that God is His lifter up? for the Word was God, the Only-begotten, co-eternal with Him that begat; but that He might be given to us as Mediator, by grace ineffable, the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us.
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 98.6
… so did also mother Wisdom herself, who is solid food in the lofty sphere of angels, condescend in a manner to become milk for babes, when the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us.
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 108.3
… For the Greek Gospel has λόγος , which is also the word that is found in the passage where it is said, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” And that Word at least we know to be the only begotten Son of God, which “was made flesh, and dwelt among us.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Ten Homilies on the First Epistle of John 1.1
… Now this Word which was made flesh that it might be handled, began to be flesh, of the Virgin Mary: but not then began the Word, for the Apostle saith, “That which was from the beginning.” See whether his epistle does not bear witness to his gospel, where ye lately heard, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Ten Homilies on the First Epistle of John 3.1
… Hence let him suck the milk of all the things that as signs of spiritual truths were done in time for our eternal salvation, that being nourished and strengthened, he may attain to the eating of solid meat, which is, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Ten Homilies on the First Epistle of John 4.5
… That which is called “Is,” and not only is called but is so, is unchangeable: It ever remaineth, It cannot be changed, It is in no part corruptible: It hath neither proficiency, for It is perfect; nor hath deficiency, for It is eternal. And what is this? “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Ten Homilies on the First Epistle of John 6.13
… If thou stop at tongues, why, thou shalt hear many a heresy confessing that Christ is come in the flesh: but the truth convicteth those men. Wherefore came Christ in the flesh? Was He not God? Is it not written of Him, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God?”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Ten Homilies on the First Epistle of John 9.9
… How find we Jesus beautiful? “Thou art beauteous in loveliness surpassing the sons of men; grace is poured upon thy lips.” Why so? Again see why it is that He is fair; “Beauteous in loveliness surpassing the sons of men:” because “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 10.15
… He teacheth then, in that place, the most true and pure faith, that He is both the Lord of king David, in that He is the Word in the beginning, God with God,
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 19.3
3. “Day unto day uttereth word” ( ver. 2 ). To the spiritual the Spirit giveth out the fulness of the unchangeable Wisdom of God, the Word which in the beginning is God with God.
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 47.7
… Nor only God before the flesh, but God before the earth whence flesh was made; nor only God before the earth whereof flesh was made, but even God before the Heaven which was first made; God before the day which was first made; God before Angels; the same Christ is God: for “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 49.1.5
… This manifestation is in a certain way familiar: He keepeth it for His own, He will not show it to the ungodly. Of what sort is the vision itself? Of what sort is Christ? Equal to the Father. Of what sort is Christ? “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 50.1
… Our Lord Jesus Christ then is the “God of gods;” because by Himself were all things made, and without Himself was nothing made. The Word of God, if He is God, is truly the God of gods; but whether He be God the Gospel answereth, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 51.17
17. “Give back to me the exultation of Thy salvation” ( ver. 12 ). “Give back” what I had; what by sinning I had lost: to wit, of Thy Christ. For who without Him can be made whole? Because even before that He was Son of Mary, “In the beginning He was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God;”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 55.3
… His being Son He denied not. Ye have heard “Lord;” say ye how He is his “Son:” ye have heard “Son;” say how He is “Lord.” This question the Catholic Faith solveth. How “Lord”? Because “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 55.19
… 19 ). For they rely on some leader or other of theirs that hath begun but yesterday. “He shall humble them That is before ages.” For even if with reference to time Christ is of Mary the Virgin, nevertheless before ages: “In the beginning He is the Word and the Word with God, and the Word God.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 68.18
… whence not in carnal concupiscence, but in spiritual belief, the Virgin conceived Christ. But the shadow consisteth of light and body: and further, The “Word” that “was in the beginning,”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 72.8
… which would have been understood by both with times and before times. That then which goeth before time is eternal: and that is truly to be held eternal which by no time is changed, as, “in the beginning was the Word.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 74.11
… “But God, our King before the worlds, hath wrought Salvation in the midst of the earth” ( ver. 12 ). On the one hand we cry, “No longer is there prophet, and us He will not know as yet:” but on the other hand, “our God, our King, who is before the worlds” (for He is Himself in the beginning of the Word
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 81.13
… 9 ). A “new god” is one made for the time: but our God is not new, but from eternity to eternity. And our Christ is new, perchance, as Man, but eternal God. For what before the beginning? And truly, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 104.12
… Therefore is it now treated, that there it may be held fast: therefore is it now divided by syllables, that there it may be contemplated whole and entire. The Word of God will not be wanting there: but yet not by letters, not by sounds, not by books, not by a reader, not by an expositor. How then? As, “In the beginning was the Word,” etc.
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 110.5
… “The Lord shall send the rod of Thy power out of Sion” ( ver. 2 ). It appeareth, brethren, it most clearly appeareth, that the Prophet is not speaking of that kingdom of Christ, in which He reigneth for ever with His Father, Ruler of the things which are made through Him: for when doth not God the Word reign, who is in the beginning with God?
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 119.6
… 42 ). It is doubtful whether it be “reproach me with a word;” or, “I will answer with a word;” but either signifieth Christ. They to whom Christ crucified is a stumbling-block or foolishness, reproach us with Him; ignorant that “the Word was made flesh, and dwelt in us;” the Word which “was in the beginning,” and “was with God, and was God.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 119.14
105. “Thy word is a lantern unto my feet, and a light unto my paths” ( ver. 105 ). The word “lantern” appears in the word “light;” “my feet” are also repeated in “my paths.” What then meaneth “Thy Word”?
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 130.5
… For He would not rise again, save He had died; and He could not have died, except He bore the flesh. What did the Lord assume from thee? The flesh. What was He that came Himself? The Word of God, who was before all things, through whom all things were made. But that He might receive something from thee, “The Word became flesh, and dwelt among us.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 145.5
… but that thou pourest forth, which thou hast first eaten. Finally, that most eager feaster John, to whom the very table of the Lord sufficed not, unless he leaned on the Lord’s breast, and of his inmost heart drank in divine secrets; what did he pour forth? “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 148.5
… He commanded, and they were created.” No wonder if the works praise the Worker, no wonder if the things that are made praise the Maker, no wonder if creation praise its Creator. In this Christ also is mentioned, though we seem not to have heard His Name.…By what were they made? By the Word?
Socrates Scholasticus † AD 440 The Ecclesiastical History of Socrates Scholasticus 1.6
… and ‘light has no fellowship with darkness, nor has Christ any concord with Belial.’ Who ever heard such blasphemies? or what man of any piety is there now hearing them that is not horror-struck, and stops his ears, lest the filth of these expressions should pollute his sense of hearing? Who that hears John saying, ‘In the beginning was the Word,’
Socrates Scholasticus † AD 440 The Ecclesiastical History of Socrates Scholasticus 2.10
… immutable and inconvertible; the unaltering image of the Divinity, Substance and Power, and Counsel and Glory of the Father; born ‘before all creation’; who was in the beginning with God, God the Word, according as it is declared in the Gospel,
Theodoret of Cyrus † AD 458 The Ecclesiastical History of Theodoret 1.3
… ‘ 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 any thing made that was made
Theodoret of Cyrus † AD 458 Dialogues. The “Eranistes” or “Polymorphus” of the Blessed Theodoretus, Bishop of Cyrus 1
“The scripture ‘in the beginning was the Word’
Theodoret of Cyrus † AD 458 Dialogues. The “Eranistes” or “Polymorphus” of the Blessed Theodoretus, Bishop of Cyrus 2
… Now these are angels’ voices. But before the Incarnation he was named God, son of God, only begotten, Lord, Divine Word, and Creator. For it is written “In the beginning was the Word, and the word was with God, and the word was God,”
Theodoret of Cyrus † AD 458 Dialogues. The “Eranistes” or “Polymorphus” of the Blessed Theodoretus, Bishop of Cyrus 3
Orth. —And so with the text, “In the beginning was the Word and the Word was God,”
Theodoret of Cyrus † AD 458 Letters of the Blessed Theodoret, Bishop of Cyprus 131
… But when relating the passion the divine Scripture nowhere uses the term God, since that is the name of the absolute nature. No one on hearing the words “In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God, and the Word was God”
Theodoret of Cyrus † AD 458 Letters of the Blessed Theodoret, Bishop of Cyprus 147
… The latter says “The book of the generation of Jesus Christ the son of David, the son of Abraham;” and the former when he shewed the things which were before the ages 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.”
Theodoret of Cyrus † AD 458 Letters of the Blessed Theodoret, Bishop of Cyprus 152
… That our Lord Jesus Christ is God is asserted by the blessed evangelist John “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 not anything made that was made.”
Pope St Leo I the Great † AD 461 Letters 124
… He is in Himself at once both rich and poor; rich, because “in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God , and God was the Word. This was in the beginning with God . All things were made through Him, and without Him was made nothing:” and poor because “the Word became flesh and dwelt in us
Pope St Leo I the Great † AD 461 Sermons 21
Therefore the Word of God , Himself God , the Son of God who “in the beginning was with God ,” through whom “all things were made” and “without” whom “was nothing made
Pope St Leo I the Great † AD 461 Sermons 27
… “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 through Him, and without Him was nothing made
Pope St Gregory I the Great † AD 604 Register of the Epistles of St. Gregory the Great 10.39
… For with what meaning can one that confesses that the very Wisdom of God was incarnate say that there is anything that the Wisdom of God is ignorant of? It is written, In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. All things were made by him (
Pseudo-Clement The Recognitions of Clement 8.34
… 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
1:2
Tatian † AD 180 The Diatessaron 1
[1] In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and God is the [2,3] Word.
Origen † AD 254 Origen's Commentary on Matthew 10.2
… And consider now, if in addition to what we have already recounted, you can otherwise take the good seed to be the children of the kingdom, because whatsoever good things are sown in the human soul, these are the offspring of the kingdom of God and have been sown by God the Word who was in the beginning with God,
St Ephrem the Syrian † AD 373 Ephraim Syrus: Three Homilies 1.7
… For Thou didst make as Thy sign the circumcision of the heart; by which the circumcised were made known, that they were not Thine. For Thou didst come to Thine own
St Gregory of Nazianzus † AD 389 Select Orations of Saint Gregory Nazianzen 32
… And what godly or learned man would disapprove of this, because in fact the adoration of One is the adoration of the Three, because of the equality of honour and Deity between the Three? So I will not be frightened by the argument that all things are said to have been made by the Son;
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Ten Homilies on the First Epistle of John 16
And if the Son be not of the same substance as the Father, then is He a made substance: if a made substance, then not “all things were made by Him:” but, “all things were made by Him;”
Theodoret of Cyrus † AD 458 Dialogues. The “Eranistes” or “Polymorphus” of the Blessed Theodoretus, Bishop of Cyrus 2
… By this word he declares the mystery of piety, for when he says ‘by the right hand of God exalted’ he plainly reveals the ineffable œconomy of the mystery that the right hand of God which created all things, which is the Lord by whom all things were made and without whom nothing consists of things that were made,
1:3
St Ignatius of Antioch † AD 108 Epistle to the Tarsians 6
Nor is He a mere man, by whom and in whom all things were made; for “all things were made by Him.”
Tatian † AD 180 The Diatessaron 1
[1] In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and God is the [2,3] Word. This was in the beginning with God.
St Irenaeus of Lyons † AD 202 Against Heresies 1.8.5
… “and the Word was with God,” for He was the beginning; “and the Word was God,” of course, for that which is begotten of God is God. “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;”
St Irenaeus of Lyons † AD 202 Against Heresies 1.22
… Thus saith the Scripture, to that effect: “By the Word of the Lord were the heavens established, and all the might of them, by the spirit of His mouth.” And again, “All things were made by Him, and without Him was nothing made.”
St Irenaeus of Lyons † AD 202 Against Heresies 2.2.5
… 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.”
St Irenaeus of Lyons † AD 202 Against Heresies 3.8.3
3. For that all things, whether Angels, or Archangels, or Thrones, or Dominions, were both established and created by Him who is God over all, through His Word, John has thus pointed out. 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.”
St Irenaeus of Lyons † AD 202 Against Heresies 3.21.10
… And as the protoplast himself Adam, had his substance from untilled and as yet virgin soil (“for God had not yet sent rain, and man had not tilled the ground” ), and was formed by the hand of God, that is, by the Word of God, for “all things were made by Him,”
St Irenaeus of Lyons † AD 202 Against Heresies 4.32
… But if any one believes in [only] one God, who also made all things by the Word, as Moses likewise says, “God said, Let there be light: and there was light;” and as we read in the Gospel, “All things were made by Him; and without Him was nothing made;”
Tertullian † AD 220 The Five Books Against Marcion 5.19
… because long before he wrote this we find a description of our God to this effect: “No man can see the Lord, and live.” 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;”
Tertullian † AD 220 Against Hermogenes 22
… “In the beginning,” then, “God made the heaven and the earth.” 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.
Tertullian † AD 220 Against Hermogenes 45
… They did not even mention any Matter, but (said) that Wisdom was first set up, the beginning of His ways, for His works. Then that the Word was produced, “through whom all things were made, and without whom nothing was made.”
Tertullian † AD 220 On the Resurrection of the Flesh 5
… And surely if the universe, after its ruin, is not to be formed again, why should a portion of it be? You are right, if a portion is on an equality with the whole. But we maintain that there is a difference. In the first place, because all things were made by the Word of God, and without Him was nothing made.
Tertullian † AD 220 Against Praxeas 7
… before all the hills did He beget Me.” 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;”
Tertullian † AD 220 Against Praxeas 12
… and so God made a greater and a lesser light.” 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.”
Tertullian † AD 220 Against Praxeas 15
… because “the Son can do nothing of Himself, but what He seeth the Father do” —“do” that is, in His mind and thought. 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 the Son, and without Him was not anything made.
Tertullian † AD 220 Against Praxeas 19
… There was therefore One who caused God to be not alone, except “alone” from all other gods . 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.
St Hippolytus † AD 235 The Refutation of All Heresies 5.3
… “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.”
St Hippolytus † AD 235 The Refutation of All Heresies 5.4
… 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.”
Origen † AD 254 Origen De Principiis pref.4
Secondly , That Jesus Christ Himself, who came (into the world), was born of the Father before all creatures; that, after He had been the servant of the Father in the creation of all things—“For by Him were all things made”
Origen † AD 254 Origen De Principiis 1.2.10
… Let him who is inclined to entertain this suspicion hear the undoubted declaration of Scripture pronouncing, “In wisdom hast Thou made them all,” and the teaching of the Gospel, that “by Him were all things made, and without Him nothing was made;”
Origen † AD 254 Origen De Principiis iv.section24
… all things were created by Him, and for Him; and He is before all, and all things consist by Him, who is the Head.” In conformity with which John also in his Gospel says: “All things were created by Him; and without Him was not anything made.”
Origen † AD 254 Origen Against Celsus 6.5
But that a light is suddenly kindled in the soul, as by a fire leaping forth, is a fact known long ago to our Scriptures; as when the prophet said, “Light ye for yourselves the light of knowledge.” John also, who lived after him, said, “That which was in the Logos was life, and the life was the light of men;”
Origen † AD 254 Origen's Commentary on the Gospel of John 1.22
… And there is no wonder, since, as we have said before, the Saviour is many good things, if He comprises in Himself thoughts of the first order, and of the second, and of the third. This is what John suggested when he said about the Word:
Origen † AD 254 Origen's Commentary on the Gospel of John 1.24
He said, then, that He was the light of the world; and we have to examine, along with this title, those which are parallel to it; and, indeed, are thought by some to be not merely parallel, but identical with it. He is the true light, and the light of the Gentiles. In the opening of the Gospel now before us He is the light of men: “That which was made,”
Origen † AD 254 Origen's Commentary on the Gospel of John 2.6
“ All things were made through Him. ” The “through
Novatian † AD 258 A Treatise of Novatian Concerning the Trinity 13
… “My heart has emitted a good word;” which word He subsequently calls by the name of the King inferentially, “I will tell my works to the King.” For “by Him were made all the works, and without Him was nothing made.”
Novatian † AD 258 A Treatise of Novatian Concerning the Trinity 15
… And this, too, since it was not uttered without effect, reasonably makes all things: “For all things were made by Him, and without Him was nothing made.”
Novatian † AD 258 A Treatise of Novatian Concerning the Trinity 17
… For He says the same that John and the rest say; nay, both John and the others are perceived to have received from Him what they say. For if John says, “All things were made by Him, and without Him was nothing made,”
Novatian † AD 258 A Treatise of Novatian Concerning the Trinity 21
… Or who says that He can again resuscitate and rebuild the destroyed temple of His body, except because He is the Word who is from the Father, who is with the Father, “by whom all things were made, and without whom nothing was made;”
St Alexander of Alexandria † AD 326 Epistles on the Arian Heresy and the Deposition of Arius 2.3
… 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,” 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;” and, “by Him were all things made,”
Constantine the Great † AD 337 The Oration of Constantine 3
… and this separation from and union with him is not local, but intellectual in its character. For this generation was accompanied by no diminution of the Father’s substance (as in the case of generation by seed); but by the determining act of foreknowledge God manifested a Saviour presiding over this sensible world, and all created things therein.
Eusebius of Caesarea † AD 339 The Church History of Eusebius 1.2.3
… as it is said in regard to him in the mystical passages of Scripture which speak of his divinity: “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.”
Eusebius of Caesarea † AD 339 The Oration of Eusebius 12.1
… but entirely independent of all things else, he pervades the depths of unexplored and secret wisdom. The sacred oracles teach us to acknowledge him as the only true God, apart from all corporeal essence, distinct from all subordinate ministration. Hence it is said that all things are from him, but not through him.
St Hilary of Poitiers † AD 367 De Trinitate or On the Trinity 2.23
… We will bid him read again, Father, glorify Me with Thine own Self with that glory which I had with Thee before the world was , and In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God , and All things were made through Him
St Hilary of Poitiers † AD 367 De Trinitate or On the Trinity 4.11
… For their depreciation of the might and majesty and Godhead of the Son they rely chiefly on His own words, The Father is greater than I . But they admit that He is not one of the common herd of creatures on the evidence of All things were made through Him
St Hilary of Poitiers † AD 367 De Trinitate or On the Trinity 12.12
12. On the other hand His works in creation are acts of making and not a birth through generation. For the heaven is not a son, neither is the earth a son, nor is the world a birth; for of these it is said, All things were made through Him
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 On the Incarnation of the Word 1
… Or if, in the words of John, who says, making no exception, “All things
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 Deposition of Arius 3
… Who that has heard the words of John, “In the beginning was the Word ,” will not denounce the saying of these men, that “there was a time when He was not?” Or who that has heard in the Gospel, “the Only-begotten Son,” and “by Him were all things made
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 Illud Omnia, &c. (On Luke x. 22.) 1
… For if when He was speaking they ‘were delivered’ to Him, clearly before He received them, creation was void of the Word. What then becomes of the text “in Him all things consist” ( Col. i. 17 )? But if simultaneously with the origin of the Creation it was all ‘delivered’ to Him, such delivery were superfluous, for ‘all things were made by Him’ (
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 Illud Omnia, &c. (On Luke x. 22.) 2
… far be the thought: but in order that as Saviour He might rather set all things right. For it was fitting that while ‘through Him’ all things came into being at the beginning, ‘in Him’ (note the change of phrase) all things should be set right (cf.
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 De Decretis. (Defence of the Nicene Definition.) 3
… Son it introduces not another, but the Father Himself saying, ‘I have begotten Thee from the womb before the morning star ;’ and again, ‘Thou art My Son, this day have I begotten Thee .’ And the Lord says of Himself in the Proverbs, ‘Before all the hills He begets me ;’ and concerning things originated and created John speaks, ‘All things were made by Him
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 De Sententia Dionysii. (Defence of Dionysius.) 2
… xlv. 1 , LXX), whom they allege to be in thought only, and originated from nothing. Further, whereas John once more says in the Gospel (
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 To the Bishops of Egypt 2
… Again, when the Father says, ‘This is My beloved Son ,’ and when the Scriptures say that ‘He is the Word’ of the Father, by whom ‘the heavens were established ,’ and in short, ‘All things were made by Him
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 Against the Arians. (Orationes contra Arianos IV.) 1.4
… Why imagine then times before the Son? or wherefore blaspheme the Word as after times, by whom even the ages were made? for how did time or age at all subsist when the Word, as you say, had not appeared, ‘through’ whom ‘all things have been made and without’ whom ‘not one thing was made
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 Against the Arians. (Orationes contra Arianos IV.) 1.6
… For in It were all things made, as David says in the Psalm, ‘In Wisdom hast Thou made them all ;’ and Solomon says, ‘The Lord by Wisdom hath formed the earth, by understanding hath He established the heavens .’ And this Wisdom is the Word, and by Him, as John says, ‘all things were made,’ and ‘without Him was made not one thing
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 Against the Arians. (Orationes contra Arianos IV.) 1.13
… And this again divine Scripture recognises; for it says in the case of things originate, ‘All things came to be through Him, and without Him nothing came to be
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 Against the Arians. (Orationes contra Arianos IV.) 2.14.5
… For if the Son be a creature, by what word then and by what wisdom was He made Himself ? for all the works were made through the Word and the Wisdom, as it is written, ‘In wisdom hast Thou made them all,’ and, ‘All things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 Against the Arians. (Orationes contra Arianos IV.) 2.17
… it were well to ask them also this question , for a still clearer refutation of their heresy;—Wherefore, when all things are creatures, and all are brought into consistence from nothing, and the Son Himself, according to you, is creature and work, and once was not, wherefore has He made ‘all things through Him’ alone, ‘and without Him was made not one thing
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 Against the Arians. (Orationes contra Arianos IV.) 2.18
… Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in His sight; but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of Him with whom we have to do. ’ He is then Framer of all, ‘and without Him was made not one thing
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 Against the Arians. (Orationes contra Arianos IV.) 2.21
… the heavens are the work of Thy hands ;’ and again, in the hundred and forty-second Psalm, ‘I do remember the time past, I muse upon all Thy works, yea I exercise myself in the works of Thy hands .’ Therefore if by the Hand of God the works are wrought, and it is written that ‘all things were made through the Word,’ and ‘without Him was not made one thing
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 Against the Arians. (Orationes contra Arianos IV.) 2.22
81. But since He proceeds to say, ‘When He prepared the heaven, I was present with Him ,’ we ought to know that He says not this as if without Wisdom the Father prepared the heaven or the clouds above (for there is no room to doubt that all things are created in Wisdom, and without It was made not even one
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 Against the Arians. (Orationes contra Arianos IV.) 4.1.4
… and it must be He of whom John says, ‘All things were made by Him,’ and the Psalmist, ‘In Wisdom hast Thou made them all
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 On the Symbols 'Of the Essence' And 'Coessential.' 1
… 10 ),—as for instance , the name God; for ‘the Word was God;’—Almighty, ‘Thus saith He that is, and that was, and that is to come, the Almighty’ ( John i. 1; Apoc. i. 8 ):—the being Light, ‘I am,’ He says, ‘the Light’ ( John viii. 12 ):—the Operative Cause, ‘All things were made by Him,’ and, ‘whatsoever I see the Father do, I do also’ (
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 Synodal Letter to the Bishops of Africa. (Ad Afros Epistola Synodica.) 4
… wise, and do not choose to speak of subsistence in God (for thus they wrote at Ariminum and at other synods of theirs), were surely with justice deposed, saying as they did, like the fool did in his heart , ‘God is not.’ And again the fathers taught at Nicæa that the Son and Word is not a creature, nor made, having read ‘all things were made through Him
St Basil the Great † AD 379 De Spiritu Sancto 8
… For if in essence He is without variation, so also is He without variation in power. And of those whose power is equal, the operation also is in all ways equal. And Christ is the power of God, and the wisdom of God. And so “all things are made through [by, A.V.] him,”
St Basil the Great † AD 379 The Letters 8.6
6. It is on thy account that He knows not the hour and the day of judgment. Yet nothing is beyond the ken of the real Wisdom, for “all things were made by Him;”
St Basil the Great † AD 379 The Letters 38.4
… for we are taught by Holy Scripture that “All things were made by Him,”
St Cyril of Jerusalem † AD 386 The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril 4.4
… There is then One Only God, the Maker both of souls and bodies: One the Creator of heaven and earth, the Maker of Angels and Archangels: of many the Creator, but of One only the Father before all ages,—of One only, His Only-begotten Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, by Whom He made all things visible and invisible
St Cyril of Jerusalem † AD 386 The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril 6.9
9. One He is, everywhere present, beholding all things, perceiving all things, creating all things through Christ: For all things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made
St Cyril of Jerusalem † AD 386 The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril 11.12
… Tell me first, O most daring man, wherein does Throne differ from Dominion, and then scrutinise what pertains to Christ. Tell me what is a Principality, and what a Power, and what a Virtue, and what an Angel: and then search out their Creator, for all things were made by Him
St Cyril of Jerusalem † AD 386 The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril 11.21
… For whether visible or invisible, whether thrones or dominions, or anything that is named, all things were made by Christ. He reigns over the things which have been made by Him, not having seized another’s spoils, but reigning over His own workmanship, even as the Evangelist John has said, All things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made
St Cyril of Jerusalem † AD 386 The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril 17.6
6. This is the Holy Ghost, who came upon the Holy Virgin Mary; for since He who was conceived was Christ the Only-begotten, the power of the Highest overshadowed her , and the Holy Ghost came upon her , and sanctified her, that she might be able to receive Him, by whom all things were made
St Gregory of Nazianzus † AD 389 Letters on the Apollinarian Controversy 101
… and, As is the Heavenly, such are they that are Heavenly; and, No man hath ascended up into Heaven save He which came down from Heaven, even the Son of Man which is in Heaven; and the like, are to be understood as said on account of the Union with the heavenly; just as that All Things were made by Christ,
St Gregory of Nyssa † AD 395 Against Eunomius 1-2.20
Thereby, too, the creation of all things by the Son
St Gregory of Nyssa † AD 395 Against Eunomius 2.7
… for the power and wisdom of God has no need of any external assistance. But Christ is “the Power of God and the Wisdom of God ,” by Whom all things were made and without Whom is no existent thing, as John testifies
St Gregory of Nyssa † AD 395 Against Eunomius 2.9
… For all things that come into being are unquestionably in brotherhood with each other, so far, I mean, as their coming into being is concerned. And from whom did He come into being? For assuredly all things that have ever come into being did so from the Son. For thus did John testify, saying, “All things were made by Him
St Gregory of Nyssa † AD 395 Against Eunomius 2.14
Let us however resume Eunomius’ statement in its entirety. “Having come into being from the only God through the Only-begotten, this Spirit also—” What proof is there of the statement that “this Spirit also” is one of the things that were made by the Only-begotten? They will say of course that “all things were made by Him
St Gregory of Nyssa † AD 395 Against Eunomius 3.1
… Enough for our purpose, with the others, and above the others, is the sublime John, where in the preface to his discourse on the Divinity of the Only-begotten he proclaims aloud the fact that there is none of the things that were made which was not made through Him
St Gregory of Nyssa † AD 395 Against Eunomius 3.2
… both that which says, “the Lord created me,” and that which adds, “the Lord made land, even uninhabited.” Thus the Lord will be the maker equally of both, of Wisdom herself, and of the inhabited and uninhabited land. What then are we to make of the saying, “All things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made
St Gregory of Nyssa † AD 395 On the Holy Spirit 1
“Yes,” replies one of them, “but we have been taught by Scripture that the Father is the Creator, and in the same way that it was ‘through the Son
St Ambrose of Milan † AD 397 On the Holy Spirit 1.2
27. This seems, gracious Emperor, to be a full account of our right feeling, but to the impious it does not seem so. Observe what they are striving after. For the heretics are wont to say that the Holy Spirit is to be reckoned amongst all things, because it is written of God the Son: “All things were made by Him.”
St Ambrose of Milan † AD 397 On the Holy Spirit 3.11
83. Let us investigate the force of that word and expression more diligently, and deduce its proper meaning from other passages. “Thou hast,” it is said, “made them all in wisdom.” Do we here understand that Wisdom was without a share in the things that were made? But “all things were made by Him.”
St Ambrose of Milan † AD 397 Exposition of the Christian Faith 1.2
… Truly, then, is the Son of God to be adored and worshipped, Who by the power of His Godhead hath laid the foundations of the world, and by His submission informed our affections.
St Ambrose of Milan † AD 397 Exposition of the Christian Faith 1.14
88. Who was it that led first into this error, of declaring Him Who created and made all things to be a creature? Did the Lord, I would ask, create Himself? We read that “all things were made by Him, and without Him was nothing made.”
St Ambrose of Milan † AD 397 Exposition of the Christian Faith 4.4
47. But neither did the Father make the earth without Thee, for it is written: “All things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made.”
St Ambrose of Milan † AD 397 Exposition of the Christian Faith 4.11
140. The Father is not “amongst” all things, for to Him it is confessed that “all things serve Thee.” Nor is the Son reckoned “amongst” all things, for “all things were made by Him,”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 16
… but His disciple, speaking plainly out, and suppressing nothing, affirms this once, twice, yea often: writing that “all things were made by Him;” and, “without Him was not one thing made;” and, He was in the world, and the world was made by Him.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 22
And yet surely all these things He Himself works. For “all things were made by Him, and without Him was not so much as one thing made.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 52
And these things I say, not dividing the works of Father and Son (“for all things are made by Him, and without Him was nothing made which was made”):
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 74
… But how He ought to judge He knoweth, and of the secrets of each He hath a full perception; and what is far more common than that, of this could He be ignorant? And how, if “all things were made by Him, and without Him was not even one thing made,”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 27
… But he himself offers glory up in their behalf, in order to bring them also to the same zeal. But when you hear him say, “to the only wise God,” think not that this is said in disparagement of the Son. For if all these things whereby His wisdom is made apparent were done (or made, see
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Homilies on Second Corinthians 11
… For He rendered not these things unto us, allowing us to continue enemies, but having made us friends unto Himself. But when I say that Christ is the cause of our reconciliation, I say the Father is so also: when I say that the Father gave, I say the Son gave also. “For all things were made by Him;” (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 38
… For who so wretched and miserable as to assert, that the Son learneth day by day what He must do? and how can that be true, “Thou art the same, and Thy years shall not fail”? ( Ps. cii. 27 ), or that other, “All things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made” (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 80
… since this was a stumblingblock to the hearers because as yet they imagined nothing great concerning Him. John, for example, when He speaks in his own person, doth not so, but leadeth up his language to greater sublimity, saying, “All things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made” (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Epistle to the Hebrews 2
… for neither is it possible to know. Then he added concerning His majesty: for thus John also did: having said that “He is God” ( John i. 1 ), he brought in the handiwork of the Creation. For the same thing which the one indirectly expressed, saying, “In the beginning was the Word,” and “All things were made by Him” (
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 The Confessions 5.3
… perverse blindness, they desire to impute to Thee what is their own, forging lies against Thee who art the Truth, and changing the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man, and to birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things, —changing Thy truth into a lie, and worshipping and serving the creature more than the Creator.
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 The Confessions 11.2
… I beseech, by our Lord Jesus Christ, Thy Son, “the Man of Thy right hand, the Son of man, whom Thou madest strong for Thyself,” as Thy Mediator and ours, through whom Thou hast sought us, although not seeking Thee, but didst seek us that we might seek Thee, —Thy Word through whom Thou hast made all things,
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On the Holy Trinity 1.7
… but in the form of God, in which also He was before He took the form of a servant, He is equal to the Father. In the form of God He is the Word, “by whom all things are made;”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On the Holy Trinity 1.11
… because He hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek He hath sent me to proclaim liberty to the captives,” etc.: for the doing of which things He therefore declares Himself to be “sent,” because the Spirit of God is upon Him. According to the form of God, all things were made by Him;
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On the Holy Trinity 2.8
… For these, with more audacity than religion, bring a very dull heart to the inquiry into divine things. For whereas the soul is a spiritual substance, and whereas itself also was made, yet could not be made by any other than by Him by whom all things were made, and without whom nothing is made,
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On the Holy Trinity 2.15
… as it were a paved work of a sapphire stone, and as it were the body of heaven in his clearness,” therefore we are to believe that the word and wisdom of God in His own substance stood within the space of an earthly place, who indeed “reacheth firmly from end to end, and sweetly ordereth all things;” and that the Word of God, by whom all things were made,
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On the Holy Trinity 4.20
… the one begetter, the other begotten; the one, He from whom He is who is sent; the other, He who is from Him who sends. For the Son is from the Father, not the Father from the Son. And according to this manner we can now understand that the Son is not only said to have been sent because “the Word was made flesh,”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 The Enchiridion 38
… Is it that He made Him, since our Lord Jesus Christ, though as God “all things were made by Him,”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on Faith and the Creed 2
3. As we believe, therefore, in God the Father Almighty , we ought to uphold the opinion that there is no creature which has not been created by the Almighty. And since He created all things by the Word,
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on Faith and the Creed 4
5. Wherefore The Only-Begotten Son of God was neither made by the Father; for, according to the word of an evangelist, “all things were made by Him:”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on Faith and the Creed 9
… for to take them so would be to falsify a different class of statements, such as, “I and my Father are one” ( unum ); and, “He that hath seen me hath seen my Father also;” and, “The Word was God,” for He was not made, inasmuch as “all things were made by Him;”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On the Morals of the Catholic Church 16
… and then, referring to teaching and the knowledge of the truth, he says, "The life was the light of men"
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On Two Souls, Against the Manichæans 7
They might have cited against me those words of the gospel: "Ye therefore do not hear, because ye are not of God;" "Ye are of your father the devil." I also should have cited: "All things were made by Him and without Him was not anything made,"
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Acts or Disputation Against Fortunatus the Manichaean 1.9
9. Augustin said: It is known to all that the Catholic faith is to the effect that our Lord, that is the Power and Wisdom of God, and the Word through whom all things have been made and without whom was not anything made,
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Reply to Faustus the Manichæan 26.7
… could be asked only by one who overlooked the fact that Adam died, though he was not born. Who will venture to say that the Son of God could not, if He had pleased, have made for Himself a true human body in the same way as He did for Adam; for all things were made by Him?
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On Marriage and Concupiscence 2.57
… Since, however, this would be a most manifest condemnation of marriage; remove, I pray you, this view from the midst of the churches, and really believe that all things were made by Jesus Christ, and that without Him nothing was made.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On Marriage and Concupiscence 2.60
… For, that this book may be now brought to a termination, since the dissertation of this man is ended, which was written on the short paper you sent me, I will close with his last words: “Really believe that all things were made by Jesus Christ, and that without Him nothing was made.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 2.4
… As concerning the Father and the Son, then, brethren, give ear. Doeth the Father anything without the Son? We answer, No. Do you doubt it? For what doeth He without Him “by Whom all things were made? All things,” saith the Scripture, “were made by Him.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 13.3
3. Now what I have said as to anger, hold fast as a rule in all your temptations. A temptation has sprung up; it is the wind; thou art disturbed; it is a wave. Awake up Christ then, let Him speak with thee. “Who is this, since the winds and the sea obey Him?” Who is this, whom the sea obeyeth? “The sea is His, and He made it.” “All things were made by Him.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 67.1
… when for less, it is below it; when for more, it exceeds it. But to the Word of God nothing can either be equalled, or to exchange can anything be below It, or above It. For all things can be below the Word of God, for that “all things were made by Him;”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 68
… If the Father is God and the Son God, do we make two Gods? God forbid. The Father is God, the Son God; but the Father and the Son One God. For the Only Son of God was not made, but born. “In the beginning God made the heaven and the earth;” but the Word was of the Father. Was the Word therefore made by the Father? No. “All things were made by Him.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 70.2
… But it seeks to go forth to you, and finds no meet vehicle. The vehicle of the word is the sound of the voice. What I am saying within mine own self I seek to say to you, and words fail. For I wish to speak of the Word of God. How great a Word, what kind of Word? “All things were made by Him.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 75.3
… For Angel in Greek is in Latin “messenger”. So you have the Lord saying that He announces to us the kingdom of Heaven. He then had come, the “Angel of the Great Counsel,” but the Lord of all the Angels. “Angel” on this account, because He took Flesh; the “Lord of Angels,” in that by “Him all things were made, and without Him was nothing made.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 76.9
… and that, some other thing like that which the Father had done. This which the Father hath done, by whom hath He done it? If not by the Son, if not by the Word, thou hast incurred the charge of blasphemy against the Gospel. “For all things were made by Him.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 76.12
… for that whatsoever the Father doeth, by Thee He doeth it. We have heard that Thou art the Word in the beginning; we have not seen, but believed. There too have we heard what follows, that ‘all things were made by Thee.’
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 77.4
… and the Son was always, always therefore begotten. Who can comprehend this “always begotten”? For when any man hears of one begotten, it occurs to him; “Therefore there was a time, when he who was begotten was not.” What say we then? Not so; there was no time before the Son, for that “all things were made by Him.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 5
… 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.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John chapter21.2
… What hath the Father made? He made the world. Hath He shown the world, when made, to the Son in such wise, that the Son also should make something like it? Then let us see the world which the Son made. Nevertheless, both “all things were made by Him, and without Him was nothing made,” and also “the world was made by Him.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 44.4
… For I think, Lord Jesus, nay I do not think, but believe and hold it sure, that Thou wast there when God said, “Let there be light, and there was light.” For if He made it by the Word, He made it by Thee: and therefore it is said, “All things were made by Him; and without Him was nothing made.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Ten Homilies on the First Epistle of John 2.5
… Why fathers? “Because ye have known Him that is from the beginning:” for the beginning hath relation unto fatherhood. Christ new in flesh, but ancient in Godhead. How ancient think we? how many years old? Think we, of greater age than His mother? Assuredly of greater age than His mother, for “all things were made by Him.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 45.4
… and thou praisest the fabric that as yet is not existing, not yet in the visible form of a building, but on the projecting of a design: nor does any one else praise thy design, unless either thou showest it to him, or he sees what thou hast done. If then by the Word “all things were made,”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 45.5
… For whatever God designed to make in the creation already existed in “the Word;” and would not exist in the reality, had it not existed in the Word, just as with you the thing would not exist in the building, had it not existed in your design: even as it is said in the Gospel: “That which was made in Him was life.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 55.3
… For after some sort He is Son of David, after some sort He is the Lord of David; Son of David after the flesh, Lord of David after the divinity. For if by Him have been made all things,
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 62.11
… Behold briefly I have spoken to your Love. Here among men, to men ofttimes, in many ways, in many quarters, through creatures of many forms God hath spoken: by Himself once God hath spoken, because One Word God hath begotten.…For it could not be but that God did Himself know that which by the Word He made:
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 69.5
… for iniquity is not a nature which God formed, but a perverseness which man made); the Son of God came to the clay of the deep, and was fixed; and that was no substance wherein He was fixed, because in the iniquity of them He was fixed. “All things by Him were made, and without Him there was made nothing.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 72.8
… the word cannot be expressed, in order that the sense at least might be translated, it hath been expressed by, “He shall endure with the sun.” For He shall co-endure to the sun is nothing else but, “He shall endure with the sun.” But what great matter is it for Him to endure with the sun, through whom all things were made, and without whom nothing was made,
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 73.25
… she perchance chooseth riches, and loveth his gold, and estates, and silver and cattle and horses, and household, and the like. Far be it. He doth love Him alone, for nought he doth love Him: because in Him he hath all things, for “by Him were made all things.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 74.16
16. “Thine own is the day and Thine own is the night” ( ver. 16 ). Who is ignorant of this, seeing that He hath Himself made all these things; for by the Word were made all things?
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 76.1
… But as regardeth the Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, wherein He is equal with the Father, He is not only before the Jews, but also before Abraham himself; nor only before Abraham, but also before Adam; nor only before Adam, but also before Heaven and earth and before ages: for all things by Himself were made, and without Him there was made nothing.
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 91.13
… that walking in Him, we may neither stray, nor faint nor fall among robbers, nor be caught in the snares that are set near our path. This character, then, we recognise in the whole Person of Christ, together with the Church.…He Himself is our Head, He is God, co-equal with the Father, the Word of God, by whom all things were made:
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 100.11
… ye have crucified Him, scourged Him, spit upon Him, crowned Him with thorns, clothed Him in a dress of infamy, hung Him upon the Cross, pierced Him with nails, wounded Him with a spear, placed guards at His tomb; He is God. “It is He that hath made us, and not we ourselves.” It is He that hath made us: “and without Him was not anything made that was made.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 104.4
… “It shall not be bowed forever and ever.” “He founded the earth on its firmness.” That is, He hath founded the Church upon Christ the foundation. The Church will totter if the foundation totter; but when shall Christ totter, before whose coming unto us, and taking flesh on Him, “all things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made;”
John Cassian † AD 435 The Conferences of John Cassian 8.7
… is spoken of by Moses, and which according to the historic and Jewish interpretation denotes the age of this world (without prejudice to our interpretation, according to which we explain that the “beginning,” of all things is Christ, in whom the Father created all things, as it is said “All things were made by him, and without Him was not anything made,”)
John Cassian † AD 435 The Seven Books of John Cassian on the Incarnation of the Lord, Against Nestorius 4.6
… There is then, he says, “one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things.” Notice how you read the same thing of the Word of the Father, which you read of Christ. For the gospel tells us that “All things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made.”
Theodoret of Cyrus † AD 458 The Ecclesiastical History of Theodoret 1.3
… and, therefore, he said, ‘that the Son is in the bosom of the Father.’ Moreover, the same John affirms that the Word of God is not classed among things created out of the non-existent, for, he says that ‘ all things were made by Him
Theodoret of Cyrus † AD 458 The Ecclesiastical History of Theodoret 2.6
… but we say that He was begotten before all things, whether visible or invisible; and that He is the Creator of archangels and angels, and of the world, and of the human race. It is written, ‘ Wisdom which is the worker of all things taught me ,’ and again, ‘ All things were made by Him
Theodoret of Cyrus † AD 458 Dialogues. The “Eranistes” or “Polymorphus” of the Blessed Theodoretus, Bishop of Cyrus 1
… For the words ‘The second man is from heaven,’ and ‘as is the heavenly such are they also that are heavenly’ and ‘no man hath ascended up to heaven but the son of man that came down from heaven,’ and any other similar passage, must be understood to be spoken on account of the union with man, as also the statement that ‘all things were made by Christ,’
Theodoret of Cyrus † AD 458 Dialogues. The “Eranistes” or “Polymorphus” of the Blessed Theodoretus, Bishop of Cyrus 2
… Now these are angels’ voices. But before the Incarnation he was named God, son of God, only begotten, Lord, Divine Word, and Creator. For it is written “In the beginning was the Word, and the word was with God, and the word was God,” and “all things were made by Him,”
Pope St Leo I the Great † AD 461 Letters 59
… For the Godhead of the Word is equal in all things, and consubstantial with the Father, and the power of the Begetter and the Begotten is one and the same always and eternally. Certainly, the Creator of all natures, since “through Him all things were made, and without Him was nothing made
Pope St Leo I the Great † AD 461 Sermons 23
… but in the form of God , in which He was before the ages, He is equal to the Father. In His human humiliation He was “made of a woman, made under the Law :” in His Divine majesty He abides the Word of God , “through whom all things were made
Pope St Leo I the Great † AD 461 Sermons 51
… “This is My Son,” Who is separated from Me, neither by Godhead, nor by power, nor by eternity. “This is My Son,” not adopted, but true-born, not created from another source, but begotten of Me: nor yet made like Me from another nature, but born equal to Me of My nature. “This is My Son,” “through Whom all things were made, and without Whom was nothing made
1:4
Tatian † AD 180 The Diatessaron 1
[1] In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and God is the [2,3] Word. This was in the beginning with God. Everything was by his hand, and [4] without him not even one existing thing was made .
Tertullian † AD 220 An Answer to the Jews 11
… and in those nations ye shall not be able to rest: and there shall be instability of 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
St Hilary of Poitiers † AD 367 De Trinitate or On the Trinity 2.21
21. This Life is the Light of men, the Light which lightens the darkness. To comfort us for that powerlessness to describe His generation of which the prophet speaks , the Fisherman adds, And the darkness comprehended Him not
St Gregory of Nazianzus † AD 389 Select Orations of Saint Gregory Nazianzen 40
… Receive then the Enlightenment in due season, that darkness pursue you not, and catch you, and sever you from the Illumining. The night cometh when no man can work after our departure hence. The one is the voice of David, the other of the True Light which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.
St Gregory of Nyssa † AD 395 Against Eunomius 10.2
… Where then is the majesty of the very life, if even the irrational creation share it? and how will the Word or Divine Reason be the same as the Life, if this finds a home, in virtue of the life which is but temporary, in irrational creatures? For if, according to the great John, the Word is Life
St Gregory of Nyssa † AD 395 Against Eunomius 12.3
… “The blessed John,” he says, “after saying that the Word was in the beginning, and after calling Him Life, and subsequently giving the Life the further title of ‘Light,’ says, a little later, ‘And the Word was made flesh
St Gregory of Nyssa † AD 395 On Infants' Early Deaths 1
… If, then, knowledge is not a substance, but a perfected operation of the soul, it must be conceded that ignorance must be much farther removed still from anything in the way of substance; but that which is not in that way does not exist at all; and so it would be useless to trouble ourselves about where it comes from. Now seeing that the Word
St Ambrose of Milan † AD 397 Exposition of the Christian Faith 3.6
41. We have no reason, therefore, to fear the argument which the Arians, in their reckless manner of expounding, use to construct, showing that the Word of God was “made,” for, say they, it is written: “That which has been made in Him is life.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 5
… But rouse yourselves, that what is said may not escape you; and come, let us read for a while after their fashion, for so its absurdity will be clearer to us. “What was made, in Him was Life.” They say that the Spirit is called “Life.” But this “Life” is found to be also “Light,” for he adds, “And the Life was the Light of men.” (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Epistle to the Hebrews 2
… xc. 2 ), and concerning the Son, that He is before all ages, and the maker of all things—what can they say? Nay rather, when the very thing which was spoken of the Father,—“He which was before the worlds,”—this one may see spoken of the Son also? And that which one saith, “He was life” (
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 91.4
4. But Christ, for that He is with the Father, the Truth, and Life, the Word of God, of whom it is said, “The Life was the Light of men;”
Theodoret of Cyrus † AD 458 Dialogues. The “Eranistes” or “Polymorphus” of the Blessed Theodoretus, Bishop of Cyrus 2
… Now these are angels’ voices. But before the Incarnation he was named God, son of God, only begotten, Lord, Divine Word, and Creator. For it is written “In the beginning was the Word, and the word was with God, and the word was God,” and “all things were made by Him,” and “He was life,”
1:5
Tatian † AD 180 The Diatessaron 1
[1] In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and God is the [2,3] Word. This was in the beginning with God. Everything was by his hand, and [4] without him not even one existing thing was made . In him was life, and the life [5] is the light of men.
St Irenaeus of Lyons † AD 202 Against Heresies 1.8.5
… And still further, he also indicated the first Tetrad. 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”
Origen † AD 254 Origen Against Celsus 7.51
… Our earnest desire then is both to see for ourselves, and to be leaders of the blind, to bring them to the Word of God, that He may take away from their minds the blindness of ignorance. And if our actions are worthy of Him who taught His disciples, “Ye are the light of the world,” and of the Word, who says, “The light shineth in darkness,”
Origen † AD 254 Origen's Commentary on the Gospel of John 2.18
The Saviour is here called simply light. But in the Catholic Epistle of this same John
Origen † AD 254 Origen's Commentary on the Gospel of John 2.20
… so that there are many darknesses, not one of which is in God. The saying of the Saviour could not be spoken of the Holy One, “Ye are the light of the world;” for the Holy One is light of the world (absolute, not particular), and there is not in Him any darkness.
Archelaus † fl. AD 278 The Acts of the Disputation with the Heresiarch Manes 13
… or our Saviour Jesus Christ, who says, as it is written in the book of the Gospels, “A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit,” and who in another place assures us that the “father of the devil is a liar and a murderer from the beginning,” and tells us again that men’s desire was for the darkness,
Archelaus † fl. AD 278 The Acts of the Disputation with the Heresiarch Manes 24
… For if that is possible, then the evil nature will be proved to be stronger than God. Furthermore, how can that being, seeing that he is pure and total darkness, surprise the light and apprehend it, while the evangelist gives us the testimony that “the light shineth in darkness, and the darkness comprehended it not?”
St Methodius † AD 311 Oration on the Palms 1
… But when thou hearest me say the city, understand the ancient and disorderly multitude of the synagogue. 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
Aphrahat † AD 346 Aphrahat: Select Demonstrations 1.10
… And also the word and discourse of the Lord is Christ, as is written in the beginning of the Gospel of our Saviour:— In the beginning was the Word . And with regard to the light there again he bore witness:— The light was shining in the darkness and the darkness comprehended it not .
St Gregory of Nazianzus † AD 389 Select Orations of Saint Gregory Nazianzen 39.5
… Therefore approach ye to Him and be enlightened, and let not your faces be ashamed, being signed with the true Light. It is a season of new birth, let us be born again. It is a time of reformation, let us receive again the first Adam. Let us not remain what we are, but let us become what we once were. The Light Shineth In Darkness,
St Gregory of Nyssa † AD 395 Against Eunomius 5.3
… And hence it is that all who preach the word point out the wonderful character of the mystery in this respect,—that “God was manifested in the flesh ,” that “the Word was made flesh ,” that “the Light shined in darkness
St Gregory of Nyssa † AD 395 Against Eunomius 12.3
… Nay, it is attested by the Gospel that, even when it had place in darkness, the light remained unapproachable by the contrary element: for “the Light,” he says, “shined in darkness, and the darkness comprehended it not
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Instructions to Catechumens 2.1
… On this account, too, thou art about to be called newly-enlightened, because thy light is ever new, if thou wilt, and is never quenched. For this light of day, whether we will or no, the night succeeds, but darkness knows not that light’s ray. “For the light shineth in the darkness, and the darkness apprehended it not.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 5
… but the preaching of Christ hath shone forth in the midst of prevailing error, and made it to disappear. And He by enduring death hath so overcome death, that He hath recovered those already held by it. Since then neither death overcame it, nor error, since it is bright everywhere, and shines by its proper strength, therefore he says,
St Jerome † AD 420 The Letters of St. Jerome 39.3
… “Woe is me that my pilgrimage is prolonged, that I have dwelt with them that dwell in Kedar, that my soul hath made a far pilgrimage.” Kedar means darkness, and darkness stands for this present world (for, we are told, “the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehendeth it not”
St Jerome † AD 420 The Letters of St. Jerome 108.1
… my soul hath been this long time a pilgrim.” It was no wonder that she sobbed out that even she was in darkness (for this is the meaning of the word Kedar) seeing that, according to the apostle, “the world lieth in the evil one;” and that, “as its darkness is, so is its light;” and that “the light shineth in darkness and the darkness comprehended it not.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On the Holy Trinity 4.20
… “For after that, in the wisdom of God, the world by wisdom knew not God” (since “the light shineth in darkness, and the darkness comprehended it not”), it “pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe,” and that the Word should be made flesh, and dwell among us.
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On the Holy Trinity 15.27
… Who would forbid this? Nay, who would not rather exhort them to it? But if they think they ought to deny that these things are, because they, with their blind minds, cannot discern them, they, too, who are blind from their birth, ought to deny that there is a sun. The light then shineth in darkness; but if the darkness comprehend it not,
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on Grace and Free Will 39
… Again, he says to the Ephesians, “Peace be to the brethren, and love with faith.” Great blessings these! Let him tell us, however, whence they come. “From God the Father,” says he immediately afterwards, “and the Lord Jesus Christ.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on Grace and Free Will 40
It is no wonder that light shineth in darkness, and the darkness comprehendeth it not.
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 The Harmony of the Gospels 3.25
… as they saw Him before, nor merely in the way in which, rising as He did with His wounds upon Him, He was to give Himself to be touched as well as seen by them, but in the character of that ineffable light, wherewith He enlightens every man that cometh into this world, and in virtue of which He shineth in darkness, and the darkness comprehends Him not.
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 2
… 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 shineth in darkness, and the darkness comprehended it not.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 35.4
… But how about the unbelievers? Is it not present to them? It is present also to them, but they have not eyes of the heart with which to see it. Hear the sentence fetched from the Gospel itself concerning them: “And the light shineth in darkness, and the darkness comprehended it not.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 47.14
… In this manner He gave Him equality with Himself, and yet begat Him not in a state of inequality. But while the Lord thus spake, for the light was shining in the darkness, and the darkness comprehended it not,
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 111.2
… Was it not truly said to God, “If I ascend into heaven, Thou art there; and if I go down into hell, Thou art present?” or is not Christ after all that Wisdom of God which “penetrateth everywhere because of its purity”? But the light shineth in darkness and the darkness comprehendeth it not.
Theodoret of Cyrus † AD 458 Dialogues. The “Eranistes” or “Polymorphus” of the Blessed Theodoretus, Bishop of Cyrus 4.1.7
… For that light nothing can dim. “For the light shineth in the darkness, and the darkness comprehendeth it not,”
1:6
St Irenaeus of Lyons † AD 202 Against Heresies 3.11.4
4. And that we may not have to ask, Of what God was the Word made flesh? he does himself previously teach us, saying, “There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. The same came as a witness, that he might bear witness of that Light. He was not that Light, but [came] that he might testify of the Light.”
Origen † AD 254 Origen's Commentary on the Gospel of John 2.24
“There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 5
… “What was made, in Him was Life.” They say that the Spirit is called “Life.” But this “Life” is found to be also “Light,” for he adds, “And the Life was the Light of men.” ( Ver. 4 .) Therefore, according to them the “Light of men” here means the Spirit. Well, but when he goes on to say, that “There was a man sent from God, to bear witness of that Light” (
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 The Confessions 7.17
… again, I passed on to the reasoning faculty, unto which whatever is received from the senses of the body is referred to be judged, which also, finding itself to be variable in me, raised itself up to its own intelligence, and from habit drew away my thoughts, withdrawing itself from the crowds of contradictory phantasms; that so it might find out that light
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 City of God 10.2
… the same came for a witness to bear witness of that Light, that through Him all might believe. He was not that Light, but that he might bear witness of the Light. That was the true Light which lighteth every man that cometh into the world;”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Reply to Faustus the Manichæan 22.85
… but for the sake of his feeble sheep he made use of the testimony in water. The name Iras, too, means, vision of my brother. So John saw his brother, a brother in the family of Abraham, and from the relationship of Mary and Elisabeth; and the same person he recognised as his Lord and his God, for, as he himself says, he received of His fullness.
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 The Harmony of the Gospels 2.6
… There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.
1:7
Tatian † AD 180 The Diatessaron 3
… John bare witness [Arabic, p. 14] of him, and cried, and said, This is he that I said cometh after me and [55] was before me, because he was before me. And of his fullness received [56] we all grace for grace. For the law was given through the mediation of Moses, but truth and grace were through Jesus Christ.
Origen † AD 254 Origen's Commentary on the Gospel of John 2.28
“He came for a witness that He might bear witness of the light, that all through Him might believe.”
Origen † AD 254 Origen's Commentary on the Gospel of John 2.29
Accordingly John came to bear witness of the light, and in his witness-bearing he cried, saying,
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 6
Ver. 7 . “The same came for a witness, to bear witness of that Light.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 The Confessions 7.9
… The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him; and without Him was not any thing made that was made.” That which was made by Him is “life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehendeth it not.” And that the soul of man, though it “bears witness of the light,”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Reply to Faustus the Manichæan 17.6
… "By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another." The law, then, is fulfilled both by the observance of its precepts and by the accomplishment of its prophecies. For "the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ."
1:8
Tatian † AD 180 The Diatessaron 3
[46] This man came to bear witness, that he might bear witness to the light, that [47] every man might believe through his mediation.
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 Against the Arians. (Orationes contra Arianos IV.) 4.15
19. This then being shewn, it follows that the Word is the Son. But if the Son is the Light, which 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
St Ambrose of Milan † AD 397 On the Holy Spirit 1.14
161. But the Son, too, is Light, because “the Life was the Light of men.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Two Homilies on Eutropius 2.6
… or of its purity a virgin, or of its magnificence a queen; or of its relationship to God a daughter; and to express its productiveness it calls her barren who has borne seven: in fact it employs countless names to represent its nobleness. For as the master of the Church has many names: being called the Father, and the way, and the life, and the light,
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 5
… However, let us examine the reading itself this way also. The creature is now called “life,” therefore, the same is “light,” and John came to witness concerning it. Why then is not he also “light”? He says that “he was not that light” (
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise Concerning Man’s Perfection in Righteousness 32
… For in a transcendent, and yet very proper sense, He said of Himself, “ I Am that I Am. ” The statement therefore before us, “None is good save one, that is, God,” is used in some such way as that which is said of John, “He was not that light;”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 17.9
9. So John also, the friend of the Bridegroom, was thought to be the Christ, was thought to be the Light. “He was not that Light, but that he might bear witness of the Light.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 71.3
… “If these shall hold their peace, the stones will cry out.” Who are stones, but they who worship stones? If the Jewish children shall hold their peace, the elder and the younger Gentiles shall cry out. Who are the stones, but they of whom speaketh that very John, who came “to bear witness of the Light”?
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 31.3
… but according to His divinity, “And I am not come of myself, but He that sent me is true, whom ye know not;” but yet that ye may know Him, believe on Him whom He has sent, and ye will know Him. For, “No man has seen God at any time, except the only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared Him:”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 7.8
… By which addition he shows that this very thing, that the soul is righteous and harmless, she has not by herself, but by God who giveth brightness and light. For of this he says in another Psalm, “Thou, O Lord, wilt light my candle.” And of John it is said, that “he was not the light, but bore witness of the light.”
1:9
St Ignatius of Antioch † AD 108 Epistle to the Tarsians 6
… 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?”
Tatian † AD 180 The Diatessaron 3
[46] This man came to bear witness, that he might bear witness to the light, that [47] every man might believe through his mediation. He was not the light, but that he [48] might bear witness to the light,
Tertullian † AD 220 Against Praxeas 12
… But in respect of the previous works of the world what says the Scripture? Its first statement indeed is made, when the Son has not yet appeared: “And God said, Let there be light, and there was light.” Immediately there appears the Word, “that true light, which lighteth man on his coming into the world,”
Tertullian † AD 220 On Baptism 10
… for it conveyed nothing celestial, but it fore-ministered to things celestial; being, to wit, appointed over repentance , which is in man’s power.
St Hippolytus † AD 235 The Refutation of All Heresies 5.4
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,”
St Hippolytus † AD 235 The Refutation of All Heresies 7.10
… 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.”
Origen † AD 254 Origen Against Celsus 6.59
… free from their bodies, liberates them at the same time from an existence upon earth, which in many parts of Scripture it is usual to call the “world.” In the Gospel according to John especially, we may frequently find the regions of earth termed “world,” as in the passage, “He was the true Light, which lighteneth every man that cometh into the ‘world;’”
Origen † AD 254 Origen's Commentary on the Gospel of John 1.24
… He is the true light, and the light of the Gentiles. In the opening of the Gospel now before us He is the light of men: “That which was made,” it says, “was life in Him, and the life was the light of men; and the light shines in darkness, and the darkness did not overtake it.” A little further on, in the same passage, He is called the true light:
St Cyprian of Carthage † AD 258 Three Books of Testimonies Against the Jews 1.8
In Isaiah: “Come ye, and let us walk in the light of the Lord. For He hath sent away His people, the house of Israel.” In His Gospel also, according to John: “That was the true light which lighteth every man that cometh into this world. He was in this world, and the world was made by Him, and the world knew Him not.”
St Gregory Thaumaturgus † AD 270 Four Homilies 4
… for Thou art by nature man’s friend. 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; Thou who art the brightness of the Father’s glory; Thou who art the perfect image of the perfect Father; Thou who art the true light that lighteneth every man that cometh into the world;
St Methodius † AD 311 Some Other Fragments of the Same Methodius 5
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,”
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 Against the Arians. (Orationes contra Arianos IV.) 1.11
… And He indeed has gained nothing from us for His own promotion: for the Word of God is without want and full; but rather we were promoted from Him; for He is the ‘Light, which lighteneth every man, coming into the world
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 Against the Arians. (Orationes contra Arianos IV.) 4.15
… ‘And this is the condemnation’ of him who believeth not on the Son, ‘that light hath come into the world,’ and they believed not in Him, that is, in the Son; for He must be ‘the Light which lighteth every man that cometh into the world
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 Festal and Personal Letters of Athanasius 3
… ‘For the holy Spirit of discipline will flee deceit, nor dwell in a body that is subject unto sin; but will remove from thoughts that are without understanding .’ Now they being without understanding, and deceitful, and lovers of sin, walk still as in darkness, not having that ‘Light which lighteth every man that cometh into the world
St Basil the Great † AD 379 De Spiritu Sancto 8
… Those that are confined in the darkness of ignorance He enlightens: for this reason He is true Light.
St Basil the Great † AD 379 De Spiritu Sancto 18
… that Jesus is the Lord but by the Holy Ghost.” For it is not said through the Spirit, but by the Spirit, and “God is a spirit, and they that worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth,” as it is written “in thy light shall we see light,” namely by the illumination of the Spirit, “the true light which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.”
St Gregory of Nazianzus † AD 389 Select Orations of Saint Gregory Nazianzen 32
… The Father was the True Light which lighteneth every man coming into the world. The Son was the True Light which lighteneth every man coming into the world. The Other Comforter was the True Light which lighteneth every man coming into the world.
St Gregory of Nazianzus † AD 389 Select Orations of Saint Gregory Nazianzen 39.5
… but a mystery lofty and divine, and allied to the Glory above. For the Holy Day of the Lights, to which we have come, and which we are celebrating to-day, has for its origin the Baptism of my Christ, the True Light That lighteneth every man that cometh into the world,
St Gregory of Nazianzus † AD 389 Select Orations of Saint Gregory Nazianzen 40
V. God is Light: the highest, the unapproachable, the ineffable, That can neither be conceived in the mind nor uttered with the lips, That giveth life to every reasoning creature.
St Gregory of Nyssa † AD 395 Against Eunomius 2.10
… But into these assertions he instils the poison of heresy. For when he speaks of the “life” as “generate” he makes a reservation by the implied opposition to the “ungenerate” life, and does not affirm the Son to be the very Life. Next he says:—“As Son of God, quickening the dead, the true light, the light that lighteneth every man coming into the world
St Gregory of Nyssa † AD 395 Against Eunomius 12.3
… For if they say that the Father is greater than the Son because He is true God, by the same showing the Son would be acknowledged to be greater than the Father, because the former is called “true Light
St Gregory of Nyssa † AD 395 Answer to Eunomius' Second Book 1
And Moses, seeing God in the light, and John calling Him the true Light
St Ambrose of Milan † AD 397 On the Holy Spirit 1.14
161. But the Son, too, is Light, because “the Life was the Light of men.” And the Evangelist, that he might show that he was speaking of the Son of God, says of John the Baptist: “He was not light, but [was sent] to be a witness of the Light. That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into this world.”
St Ambrose of Milan † AD 397 Exposition of the Christian Faith 2.2
24. Is He not good, Who exalted earth to heaven, so that, just as the bright companies of stars reflect His glory in the sky, as in a glass, so the choirs of apostles, martyrs, and priests, shining like glorious stars, might give light throughout the world.
St Ambrose of Milan † AD 397 Exposition of the Christian Faith 4.6
65. Now, did the Father say on that occasion, “Let there be such light as I Myself have made,” or “Let there be light”—light having as yet not existed; or did the Son ask what sort of light the Father made?
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 14.1
… Wherefore he also added, “They which sat in the region and shadow of death, to them light is sprung up.” For that thou mightest learn that neither the light nor the darkness which he speaks of are sensible, in discoursing of the light, he called it not merely light, but “a great light” which elsewhere he expresses by the word, True:
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 5
… This kind (of light) is the object not of the senses, but of the intellect, enlightening the soul herself. And since Christ should hereafter say, that “None can come unto Me except the Father draw him” ( c. vi. 44 ); the Apostle has in this place anticipated an objection, and declared that it is He (the Son) who “giveth light” (
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 The Confessions 4.15
… “For Thou wilt light my candle; the Lord my God will enlighten my darkness; and “of His fulness have all we received,” for “that was the true Light which lighted every man that cometh into the world;”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 The Confessions 7.9
… and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehendeth it not.” And that the soul of man, though it “bears witness of the light,” yet itself “is not that light; but the Word of God, being God, is that true light that lighteth every man that cometh into the world.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 The Confessions 8.10
… for that through a shocking arrogancy they went farther from Thee, “the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 The Confessions 9.4
… Oh, if only they were wearied out with their fasting, and said, “Who will show us any good?” And we would answer, and they hear, O Lord. The light of Thy countenance is lifted up upon us. For we are not that Light, which lighteth every man,
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 The Confessions 13.10
… that so the cause whereby it was made to be otherwise might appear,—that is to say, being turned to the unfailing Light it might become light. Let him who is able understand this; and let him who is not, ask of Thee. Why should he trouble me, as if I could enlighten any “man that cometh into the world?”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 City of God 11.9
… so that they, being illumined by the Light that created them, might themselves become light and be called “Day,” in participation of that unchangeable Light and Day which is the Word of God, by whom both themselves and all else were made. “The true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world,”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On the Holy Trinity 7.3
… For “with Thee,” He says, “is the fountain of life, and in Thy light shall we see light.” Because, “as the Father hath life in Himself, so hath He given to the Son to have life in Himself:” and, “He was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world:” and this light, “the Word,” was “with God;” but “the Word also was God;”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 The Enchiridion 103
… and that, therefore, we should pray Him to will our salvation, because if He will it, it must necessarily be accomplished. And it was of prayer to God that the apostle was speaking when he used this expression. And on the same principle we interpret the expression in the Gospel: “The true light which lighteth every man that cometh into the world:”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on Faith and the Creed 4
… We, on the other hand, are not the light by nature, but are enlightened by that Light, so that we may be able to shine in wisdom. For, as one says, “that was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Against the Epistle of Manichæus, Called Fundamental 2
… his Sun,—not that sun which you worship, and which shines with the brilliance of a heavenly body in the eyes of carnal men and of beasts,—but that of which it is written through the prophet, "The Sun of righteousness has arisen upon me;" and of which it is said in the gospel, "That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world."
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on the Merits and Forgiveness of Sins, and on the Baptism of Infants 1.36
Some, however, understand that as soon as children are born they are enlightened; and they derive this opinion from the passage: “That was the true Light, which lighteth every one that cometh into the world.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on the Merits and Forgiveness of Sins, and on the Baptism of Infants 1.37
That statement, therefore, which occurs in the gospel, “That was the true Light, which lighteth every one that cometh into the world,”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on the Merits and Forgiveness of Sins, and on the Baptism of Infants 1.38
But why, after saying, “which lighteth every man,” should he add, “that cometh into the world,”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on the Spirit and the Letter 11
… even as “John was a burning and a shining light,” who notwithstanding acknowledged the source of his own illumination in the words, “Of His fulness have all we received.” Whose, I would ask, but His, of course, in comparison with whom John indeed was no light at all? For “that was the true light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise Concerning Man’s Perfection in Righteousness 32
… “Ye are the light of the world: . . .neither do men light a lamp and put it under a bushel.” Still, in comparison with that light which is “the true light which lighteth every man that cometh into the world,”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 25.5
… but of that Light which none but the pure hearts of the faithful see; as it is written, “That was the true Light, which lighteneth every man that cometh into the world.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 28.2
2. The Lord Jesus Himself shone bright as the sun; His raiment became white as the snow; and Moses and Elias talked with Him. Jesus Himself indeed shone as the sun, signifying that “He is the light which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 83.6
… John: who? John the Baptist. For of him saith John the Evangelist, “He was not the Light;” of whom the Lord saith, “He was a burning, and a shining lamp.” But a lamp can be lighted, and extinguished. What then? whence drawest thou the distinction? of what place art thou enquiring? He to whom the lamp bare witness, “was the True Light.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 1.6
… 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,
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 7.5
… for the disciples were also called lambs: “Behold, I send you as lambs in the midst of wolves.” They were also called light: “Ye are the light of the world;” but in another sense is He called so, concerning whom it was said, “That was the true light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 11.5
5. Therefore mark, my brethren, what answer this man who came to Jesus by night makes. Although he came to Jesus, yet because he came by night, he still speaks from the darkness of his own flesh. He understands not what he hears from the Lord, understands not what he hears from the Light, “which lighteth every man that cometh into this world.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 23.3
… Of John the Baptist, indeed, it had been said, “He was not the light, but that he might bear witness of the light.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 99.4
… faculty in one uniform way, the different subjects of its knowledge are communicated by those five messengers, as it were, of the body, when it understands, chooses, and loves the unchangeable truth,—is said both to see the light, whereof it is said, “That was the true light;” and to hear the word, whereof it is said, “In the beginning was the Word;”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 68.18
… whence not in carnal concupiscence, but in spiritual belief, the Virgin conceived Christ. But the shadow consisteth of light and body: and further, The “Word” that “was in the beginning,” that true Light,
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 68.20
… ( ver. 16 ). “Why do ye imagine?” For as they are a light, because to themselves also hath been said, “Ye are the Light of the world,” but something different hath been called “the true Light which enlighteneth every man,”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 89.13
… “Thabor and Hermon shall rejoice in Thy name.” Thabor, when interpreted, signifies an approaching light. But whence comes the light of which it is said, “Ye are the light of the world,” unless from Him concerning whom it is written, “That was the true light, which lighteth every man coming into the world”?
Theodoret of Cyrus † AD 458 Letters of the Blessed Theodoret, Bishop of Cyprus 152
… He was in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him and without Him was not anything made that was made.” And again, “That was the true light which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.”
Pope St Leo I the Great † AD 461 Sermons 27
… and whatever in them is fair and wondrous, ascribe to the praise and glory of the Maker. Be not subject to that light wherein birds and serpents, beasts and cattle, flies and worms delight. Confine the material light to your bodily senses, and with all your mental powers embrace that “true light which lighteth every man that cometh into this world
1:10
Tatian † AD 180 The Diatessaron 3
[46] This man came to bear witness, that he might bear witness to the light, that [47] every man might believe through his mediation. He was not the light, but that he [48] might bear witness to the light, which was the light of truth, that giveth light to [49] every man coming into the world.
St Irenaeus of Lyons † AD 202 Against Heresies 3.11.2
2. 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 [things], and His own [people] received Him not.”
St Irenaeus of Lyons † AD 202 Against Heresies 5.18.2
… “He was in the world, and the world was made by Him, and the world knew Him not. To His own things He came, and His own people received Him not. 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.”
St Hippolytus † AD 235 Against the Heresy of One Noetus 12
… 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.”
Origen † AD 254 Origen's Commentary on Matthew 13.20
“ Woe unto the world because of occasions of stumbling. ” The expression “cosmos,” is used in itself and absolutely in the passage, “He was in the cosmos and the cosmos knew Him not,”
Novatian † AD 258 A Treatise of Novatian Concerning the Trinity 13
… For the world was made by Him, and the world knew Him not.”
St Hilary of Poitiers † AD 367 De Trinitate or On the Trinity 2.23
… We will bid him read again, Father, glorify Me with Thine own Self with that glory which I had with Thee before the world was , and In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God , and All things were made through Him , and He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world knew Him not
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 Against the Arians. (Orationes contra Arianos IV.) 4.15
… 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 lighteth every man that cometh into the world. For if ‘He was in the world, and the world was made by Him
St Cyril of Jerusalem † AD 386 The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril 11.24
24. Christ then is the Only-begotten Son of God, and Maker of the world. For He was in the world, and the world was made by Him; and He came unto His own , as the Gospel teaches us
St Ambrose of Milan † AD 397 Exposition of the Christian Faith 4.8
… for John saith that “He was in this world, and the world was made by Him, and the world knew Him not. He came to His own, and His own received Him not. But as many as received Him, to them gave He power to become sons of God, to them which believe in His Name.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 5
… The creature is now called “life,” therefore, the same is “light,” and John came to witness concerning it. Why then is not he also “light”? He says that “he was not that light” ( ver. 8 ), and yet he belonged to created things? How then is he not “light”? How was he “in the world, and the world was made by him”? (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 9
He (St. John) had said, speaking of the old times, that “the world knew him not” (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Epistle to the Hebrews 3
… For if according to John, “He was in the world, and the world was made by Him” (
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 The Confessions 4.12
… And He departed from our sight, that we might return to our heart, and there find Him. For He departed, and behold, He is here. He would not be long with us, yet left us not; for He departed thither, whence He never departed, because “the world was made by Him.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 The Confessions 7.9
… and the darkness comprehendeth it not.” And that the soul of man, though it “bears witness of the light,” yet itself “is not that light; but the Word of God, being God, is that true light that lighteth every man that cometh into the world.” And that “He was in the world, and the world was made by Him, and the world knew Him not.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On Christian Doctrine 1.12
… He had always been, seeing that “He was in the world, and the world was made by Him.” But, because men, who in their eagerness to enjoy the creature instead of the Creator had grown into the likeness of this world, and are therefore most appropriately named “the world,” did not recognize Him, therefore the evangelist says, “and the world knew Him not.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On the Holy Trinity 2.5
… “I,” He says, “came forth from the Father, and am come into the world.” Therefore, to be sent, is to come forth forth from the Father, and to come into the world. What, then, is that which the same evangelist says concerning Him, “He was in the world, and the world was made by Him, and the world knew Him not;” and then he adds, “He came unto His own?”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On the Holy Trinity 3.pref.3
… nor the Holy Spirit therefore less than both, because we read in the Gospel that He was sent both by the one and by the other; we undertook then to inquire, since the Son was sent thither, where He already was, for He came into the world, and “was in the world;”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On the Holy Trinity 7.3
… and “taking upon Him the form of a servant” He came to us into this world,” who “was in this world,” because “the world was made by Him;”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 31.3
… What needest thou more? Do this, and thou shalt live. The days of adversity shall not overwhelm thee; thou shall escape that which is said, “Woe unto the world because of offences.” For to what world is there woe because of offences, but to that of which it is said, “And the world knew Him not?”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 46.5
5. How then is the world evil, and He good by whom the world was made? How? “Since the world was made by Him, and the world knew Him not.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 58.1
… to the “form of a servant” then, which He took for our sakes, was He born at a certain time, and was slain, and rose again, and now “dieth no more, neither shall death have any more dominion over Him;” but according to His Divinity, wherein He was equal to the Father, was He already in this world, and “the world was made by Him, and the world knew Him not.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 71.0
On the words of the Gospel, John i. 10 , “The world was made through him,” etc.
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 71.1
1. By the Lord “was the world made, and the world knew Him not.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 40.6
… For it was not that the Father was absent from the place to which He sent the Son. For where is not the Maker of all things? Where is He not, who said, “I fill heaven and earth”? But perhaps the Father is everywhere, and the Son not so? Listen to the evangelist: “He was in this world, and the world was made by Him.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 79
… of which sort of world it was said, when we were lecturing on Christ the Word, “And the world was made by Him.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 95.4
… For it is not of the heavens and of the earth, and of all that is in them, that the devil is prince, in the sense in which the world is to be understood, when it is said, “And the world was made by Him;” but the devil is prince of that world, whereof in the same passage He immediately afterwards subjoins the words, “And the world knew Him not;”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Ten Homilies on the First Epistle of John 5.9
… Let then, even by thrusting it upon them, something stick fast in the hearts of them that hear. What is “the world”? The world, when put in a bad sense, is, lovers of the world: the world, when the word is used in praise, is heaven and earth, and the works of God that are in them; whence it is said, “And the world was made by Him.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 6.5
… For our perfected turning findeth God ready, as says the Prophet, “We shall find Him ready as the dawn.” Since it was not His absence who is everywhere present, but our turning away that made us lose Him; “He was in this world,” it is said, “and the world was made by Him, and the world knew Him not.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 143.11
… against these ye wrestle. Great is your conflict, not to see your enemies, and yet to conquer. Against the rulers of this world, of this darkness, the devil, that is, and his angels; not the rulers of that world, whereof is said, “the world was made by Him,” but that world whereof is said, “the world knew Him not.”
1:11
Tatian † AD 180 The Diatessaron 3
… He was not the light, but that he [48] might bear witness to the light, which was the light of truth, that giveth light to [49] every man coming into the world. He was in the world, and the world was made [50] by him, and the world knew [51] him not.
Tertullian † AD 220 Five Books in Reply to Marcion 5
Came he from high? If ’tis his own he seeks,
St Cyprian of Carthage † AD 258 On the Lord's Prayer 9
… 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.”
St Cyprian of Carthage † AD 258 Three Books of Testimonies Against the Jews 1.4
… “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.”
St Methodius † AD 311 Oration Concerning Simeon and Anna On the Day that They Met in the Temple 1
… for God Himself invites, and who will stand hesitating with fear? He says: “Come unto Me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden.” Who, then, will not run to Him? Let no Jew contradict the truth, looking at the type which went before the house of Obededom. The Lord has “ manifestly come to His own .”
Aphrahat † AD 346 Aphrahat: Select Demonstrations 1.10
… Clearly Christ, Whose light shone in the midst of the people of the house of Israel, and the people of the house of Israel did not comprehend the light of Christ, in that they did not believe on Him, as it is written:— He came unto His own, and His own received Him not.
St Cyril of Jerusalem † AD 386 The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril 12.8
… Behold our God! Behold! the Lord cometh with strength ! Again the Lord Himself saith, Behold! I come, and I will dwell in the midst of thee, saith the Lord. And many nations shall flee unto the Lord . The Israelites rejected salvation through Me: I come to gather all nations and tongues . For He came to His own and His own received Him not
St Gregory of Nazianzus † AD 389 Select Orations of Saint Gregory Nazianzen 40
… respect the Sacramental Table to which you have approached, the Bread of Which you have partaken, the Cup in Which you have communicated, being consecrated by the Sufferings of Christ. If a stranger fall at your feet, homeless and a foreigner, welcome in him Him who for your sake was a stranger, and that among His own,
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 16
… but that He, that is good, seeks what are another’s, and desires of a sudden to become a Saviour to them whose Creator He was not. Seest thou the children of the devil, how they speak out of the fountain of their father, alienating the work of creation from God: while John cries out, “He came unto His own,” and, “The world was made by Him?”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 30
… for, ‘He speaketh that He hath seen.’” Moreover he saith this to touch also the insensibility of the Jews. A charge which the Evangelist at commencing brought against them, saying, “He came unto His own, and His own received Him not.” For this is no reproach against Him, but an accusation of those who received Him not. (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 70
… St. John calls them “His own,” in respect of personal attachment, since he calls others also “His own,” in respect of the work of creation; as when he saith, “His own received Him not.” (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 83
… but that which is above is sufficient for itself, needing nothing. From this the heretics taking occasion say, that He is different from the Creator. What then, when it saith, “He came to His own”? (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Epistle to the Hebrews 26
In these words he encouraged them, by showing that even Christ suffered these things, and Moses also, two illustrious persons. So that this is rather “the reproach of Christ” than of Moses inasmuch as He suffered these things from “His own.” (
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 The Confessions 7.9
… but the Word of God, being God, is that true light that lighteth every man that cometh into the world.” And that “He was in the world, and the world was made by Him, and the world knew Him not.” But that “He came unto His own, and His own received Him not.
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On Two Souls, Against the Manichæans 7
… and so it was said: "Ye therefore hear not, because ye are not of God;" how would that saying of the apostle be true that occurs in the memorable beginning of the gospel: "He came unto his own things, and his own people did not receive him?"
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 53.2
… He did not fail in His power of feeding him, when He sent him to the widow; but He designed to bless the religious widow, by means of her pious office paid to His servant. Thus then was the Lord received as a guest, “who came unto 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:”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 69.4
… But as many as received Him, to them gave He power to become the sons of God.” “To become,” for they “were” not; but He “was” Himself in the beginning. “He gave them” then “power to become the sons of God, to them that believe in His Name; who were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 71.2
2. “He came unto His Own, and His Own received Him not.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 48.8
… Be thorns ungrateful, let them grow by the showers: for the fire they grow, not for the garner. In the midst of Thy people not receiving Thy mercy, we have received Thy mercy. For “He came unto His own, and His own received Him not,” yet, in the midst of them, “as many as received Him, to them gave He power to become the sons of God.”
John Cassian † AD 435 The Seven Books of John Cassian on the Incarnation of the Lord, Against Nestorius 4.7
… The Saviour then in the gospel says that “the Son of man is come to save what was lost.” And the Apostle says: “This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptation; that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am chief.” But the Evangelist John also says: “He came unto his own, and His own received Him not.”
John Cassian † AD 435 The Seven Books of John Cassian on the Incarnation of the Lord, Against Nestorius 4.13
… and in whose mouths are such words specially suitable, Jews or Gentiles? If you say Jews: certainly the Jews did not know Christ, as it is said, “But Israel hath not known Me, My people have not considered;” and, “The world was made by Him, and the world knew Him not. He came unto His own, and His own received Him not.”
1:12
Tatian † AD 180 The Diatessaron 3
… He was not the light, but that he [48] might bear witness to the light, which was the light of truth, that giveth light to [49] every man coming into the world. He was in the world, and the world was made [50] by him, and the world knew [51] him not. He came unto his own, and his own received him not.
St Irenaeus of Lyons † AD 202 Against Heresies 5.18.3
… “And His own peculiar people did not receive Him,” as Moses declared this very thing among the people: “And thy life shall be hanging before thine eyes, and thou wilt not believe thy life.” 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.”
Tertullian † AD 220 On Prayer 2
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.”
Archelaus † fl. AD 278 The Acts of the Disputation with the Heresiarch Manes 28
… For many have also perished after the period of Christ’s advent on to this present period, and many are still perishing,—those, to wit, who have not chosen to devote themselves to works of righteousness; whereas only those who have received Him, and yet receive Him, “have obtained power to become the sons of God.”
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 De Decretis. (Defence of the Nicene Definition.) 3
… sets before us in the Law, ‘When ye shall hearken to the voice of the Lord thy God, to keep all His commandments which I command thee this day, to do that which is right in the eyes of the Lord thy God, ye are children of the Lord your God ;’ as also in the Gospel, John says, ‘But as many as received Him, to them gave He power to become the sons of God
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 De Decretis. (Defence of the Nicene Definition.) 7
… For He has bid us be baptized, not in the name of Unoriginate and Originate, not into the name of Uncreate and Creature, but into the name of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit , for with such an initiation we too are made sons verily
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 Against the Arians. (Orationes contra Arianos IV.) 1.11
… For because of our relationship to His Body we too have become God’s temple, and in consequence are made God’s sons, so that even in us the Lord is now worshipped, and beholders report, as the Apostle says, that God is in them of a truth . As also John says in the Gospel, ‘As many as received Him, to them gave He power to become children of God
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 Against the Arians. (Orationes contra Arianos IV.) 2.21
… which were begotten not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 Against the Arians. (Orationes contra Arianos IV.) 3.25
… this is the true God and eternal life ’) and we are made sons through Him by adoption and grace, as partaking of His Spirit (for ‘as many as received Him,’ he says, ‘to them gave He power to become children of God, even to them that believe on His Name
St Cyril of Jerusalem † AD 386 The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril 7.13
… for Satan casteth not out Satan . Nor on the other hand would Paul have turned from persecuting to preaching. But the adoption is in our own power, as John saith, But as many as received Him, to them gave He power to become the children of God, even to them that believe in His name
St Cyril of Jerusalem † AD 386 The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril 11.9
… Not as ye, who are to be illuminated, are now becoming sons of God: for ye also become sons, but by adoption of grace, as it is written, But as many as received Him, to them gave He the right to become children of God, even to them that believe on His name: which were begotten not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God
St Gregory of Nazianzus † AD 389 Select Orations of Saint Gregory Nazianzen 29
But in opposition to all these, do you reckon up for me the expressions which make for your ignorant arrogance, such as “My God and your God,” or greater, or created, or made, or sanctified; Add, if you like, Servant and Obedient and Gave
St Gregory of Nyssa † AD 395 Against Eunomius 2.14
… For thus He expressly ascribes the birth of the children of God to the Spirit, saying, that as that which is born of the flesh is flesh, so that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. But as many as are born of the Spirit are called the children of God
St Gregory of Nyssa † AD 395 The Great Catechism 40
… “If a man think himself to be something, when he is nothing, he deceiveth himself .” For what you have not become, that you are not. “As many as received Him,” thus speaks the Gospel of those who have been born again, “to them gave He power to become the sons of God
St Ambrose of Milan † AD 397 On the Holy Spirit 2.7
62. So , then, the Father creates in good works, and the Son also, for it is written: “But as many as received Him, to them gave He power to become the sons of God, even to them who believe on His Name; who were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.”
St Ambrose of Milan † AD 397 Exposition of the Christian Faith 5.13
… “But as many as received Him,” as it is written, “to them gave He power to become the sons of God.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 9
… why dost thou bring me forward the nobleness of ancestors remote or near? For not under the old covenant only, but even under the new, one may find this rule to have held. For “as many as received Him,” it is said “to them gave He power to become the sons of God.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Homilies on Colossians 6
… And after he is formed, He bringeth to him, not beasts, but demons, and their prince, and saith, “Tread upon serpents and scorpions.” ( Luke x. 19 .) He saith not, “Let Us make man in our image, and after our likeness” ( Gen. i. 26 .), but what? “He giveth them to become the sons of God; but of God,” he saith, “they were born.” (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 5
… How then is he not “light”? How was he “in the world, and the world was made by him”? ( Ver. 10 .) Was the creature in the creature, and was the creature made by the creature? But how did “the world know him not”? How did the creature not know the creature? “But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God.” (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 10
… the Spirit at that time falling like fire into our souls, burning up the “image of the earthy” ( 1 Cor. xv. 49 ), and producing “the image of the heavenly,” fresh coined, bright and glittering, as from the furnace-mould.
St Jerome † AD 420 Against Jovinianus 2.10
… But, says our Lord: “Thou hast loved them as thou hast loved me.” You see, then, that we are privileged to partake of His essence, not in the realm of nature, but of grace, and the reason why we are beloved of the Father is that He has loved the Son; and the members are loved, those namely of the body.
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 The Confessions 7.9
… 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.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 The Confessions 8.4
… inflame us, and draw us to Thee; stir us up, and grow sweet unto us; let us now love Thee, let us “run after Thee.” Do not many men, out of a deeper hell of blindness than that of Victorinus, return unto Thee, and approach, and are enlightened, receiving that light, which they that receive, receive power from Thee to become Thy sons?
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On the Holy Trinity 5.16
… In us therefore some change does take place; for we were worse before we fled to Him, and we become better by fleeing to Him: but in Him there is no change. So also He begins to be our Father, when we are regenerated through His grace, since He gave us power to become the sons of God.
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On the Holy Trinity 13.9
… and it was further added in what way they are to become sons of God, viz ., “Which were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God;”—lest that infirmity of men which we all see and bear should despair of attaining so great excellence, it is added in the same place, “And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us;”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Of Holy Virginity 56
56. It is well that He seeks your beauty within, where He hath given unto you power to become daughters of God:
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on the Merits and Forgiveness of Sins, and on the Baptism of Infants 2.7
… “Order my steps in Thy word; and let not any iniquity have dominion over me.” From the thraldom of this execrable dominion they are liberated, to whom the Lord Jesus gave power to become the sons of God.
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on the Merits and Forgiveness of Sins, and on the Baptism of Infants 2.37
… Of these indeed it is written: “But as many as received Him, to them gave He power to become the sons of God; which were born, not of the flesh, nor of blood, nor of the will of man, nor of the will of the flesh, but of God.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on the Spirit and the Letter 56
… and yet not so as to cease to be slaves, but so as, while they are sons, still to serve their Lord and Father freely. For even this have they received; for the Only-begotten “gave them power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on His name;”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on Nature and Grace 77
… This indeed he, through grace, received from God, since he did not have it in a nature which had become corrupted and depraved,—even as we read in the Gospel, “But as many as received Him, to them gave He power to become the sons of God;”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On Marriage and Concupiscence 1.22
… Only original sin, therefore, remains, whereby they are made captive under the devil’s power, until they are redeemed therefrom by the laver of regeneration and the blood of Christ, and pass into their Redeemer’s kingdom,—the power of their enthraller being frustrated, and power being given them to become “sons of God” instead of children of this world.
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise Against Two Letters of the Pelagians 1.5
… “And as many as re ceived Him, to them gave He power to become the sons of God”?
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on the Predestination of the Saints 2.20
… things, they interpose things of time, they suggest voluptuous things, they inweave enticing things, and in the very moment when we are seeking to elevate our mind, we are for the most part filled with vain thoughts and cast down to earthly things.” Therefore it is not in the power of men, but in that of God, that men have power to become sons of God.
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Our Lord’s Sermon on the Mount 1.23
78. Then, as to the statement which follows, “that ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven,” it is to be understood according to that rule in virtue of which John also says, “He gave them power to become the sons of God.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Our Lord’s Sermon on the Mount 2.4
… those things being left out of account which are said in prophecy of a future Christian people, that they would have God as a Father, according to that gospel statement, “To them gave He power to become the sons of God.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 The Harmony of the Gospels 2.3
… For if we were sons by nature, we never could have been aught else. But when John said, “To them gave He power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on His name,” he proceeded at once to add these words, “which were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 22.2
2. But who was found good by the Lord, since “Christ died for the ungodly”? He found them all corrupt trees, but to those who “believed in His Name, He gave power to become the sons of God.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 31.6
… They are all gone out of the way, they are all together become unprofitable: there is none that doeth good, no not even one.” Why? Because they wished to be sons of men. But in order that he might deliver them from these iniquities, cure, heal, change, the sons of men; “he gave them power to become the sons of God.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 71.3
… So are all the worshippers of images. But grace has come to you. “But as many as received Him, to them gave He power to become the sons of God.” See ye have here some just now born: to them hath He “given power to become the sons of God.” To whom hath He given it? “To them that believe in His Name.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 93.2
… to wit, because by believing on Him all sins are loosed, He would have this one imputed by which the rest are bound. And because by believing they are born of God, and become children of God; “For,” saith he, “to them gave He power to become the sons of God, to them that believe on Him.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 53.8
… but “deliver us from evil!” Listen to the Lord, when He says, “I have prayed for thee, Peter, that thy faith fail not;” that we may never think of our faith as so lying in our free will that it has no need of the divine assistance. Let us listen also to the evangelist, when he says, “He hath given them power to become the sons of God;”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 54.2
… and in this way, he that believeth on the Father, must believe on the Son. But let no one believe about the only-begotten Son just what they believe about those who are called the sons of God by grace and not by nature, as the evangelist says, “He gave them power to become the sons of God,”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 85.3
… enter thou into the joy of thy lord;” but the servant who is characterized by the fear which love casteth out, of whom He elsewhere saith, “The servant abideth not in the house for ever, but the Son abideth ever.” Since, therefore, He hath given us power to become the sons of God,
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 50.2
… For He doth justify, who is just through His own self, and not of another; and He doth deify who is God through Himself, not by the partaking of another. But He that justifieth doth Himself deify, in that by justifying He doth make sons of God. “For He hath given them power to become the sons of God.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 73.22
… What was my right hand? That I was alway with Thee. Unto the left I was holding, because I became a beast, that is, because there was an earthly concupiscence in me: but the right was mine, because I was alway with thee. Of this my right hand Thou hast held the hand, that is, hast directed the power. What power? “He gave them power to become sons of God.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 114.6
… but he is a Jew which is one inwardly, and by circumcision of the heart.” Examine then your hearts, if faith hath circumcised them, if confession hath cleansed them; in you “Judah” hath become “His sanctuary,” in you “Israel” hath become “His dominion.” For “He gave” unto you “the power to become the sons of God.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 121.6
6. Let us now come to this verse of the Psalm: “The Lord is thy defence upon the hand of thy right hand” ( ver. 5 ). By hand he meaneth power. How do we prove this? Because the power of God also is styled the hand of God…Whereof John saith, “He gave unto them power to become the sons of God.”
Pope St Gregory I the Great † AD 604 The Book of Pastoral Rule 2.3
… For it is of this nobility of the spirit that it is said through Peter, Ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood ( 1 Pet. ii. 9 ). With respect also to this power, whereby we subdue vices, we are fortified by the voice of John, who says, As many as received Him, to them gave He power to become the sons of God (
St John of Damascus † AD 749 An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith 4.15
To the saints honour must be paid as friends of Christ, as sons and heirs of God: in the words of John the theologian and evangelist, As many as received Him, to them gave He power to became sons of God
St John of Damascus † AD 749 An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith 4.23
… But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth His Only-begotten Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law that we might receive the adoption of sons . For to as many of us as received Him, He gave power to become sons of God, even to them that believe on Him
1:13
Tatian † AD 180 The Diatessaron 3
… He was in the world, and the world was made [50] by him, and the world knew [51] him not. He came unto his own, and his own received him not. And those who received him, to them gave he the power that they might [52] be sons of God,—those which believe in his name:
St Irenaeus of Lyons † AD 202 Against Heresies 3.16.2
… 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;”
St Irenaeus of Lyons † AD 202 Against Heresies 3.19.2
2. For this reason [it is, said], “Who shall declare His generation?” since “He is a man, and who shall recognise Him?” But he to whom the Father which is in heaven has revealed Him, 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,”
St Irenaeus of Lyons † AD 202 Against Heresies 5.1.3
… For never at any time did Adam escape the hands of God, to whom the Father speaking, said, “Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness.” And for this reason in the last times ( fine ), not by the will of the flesh, nor by the will of man, but by the good pleasure of the Father,
Tertullian † AD 220 On the Flesh of Christ 19
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?”
Tertullian † AD 220 On the Flesh of Christ 24
… Having thus Marcion in his prophetic view, he says, “I am God, and there is none else; there is no God beside me.” 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 Æons. Again, there is an answer to Ebion in the Scripture: “Born,
Novatian † AD 258 A Treatise of Novatian Concerning the Trinity 13
And thus also John, describing the nativity of Christ, says: “The Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.”
St Gregory of Nyssa † AD 395 Against Eunomius 4.4
… For who knows not that it is generation that leads us back to the true and blessed life, not being the same with that which takes place “of blood and of the will of the flesh
St Gregory of Nyssa † AD 395 On Virginity 13
… then all calamity has been removed from life and “tears wiped from off all faces ;” conception is no more an iniquity, nor child-bearing a sin; and births shall be no more “of bloods,” or “of the will of man,” or “of the will of the flesh
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Against Publishing the Errors of the Brethren 3
3. Let us not therefore accuse riches, nor revile poverty absolutely, but those who do not will
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 2
Wherefore the birth was twofold, both made like unto us, and also surpassing ours. For to be born of a woman indeed was our lot, but “to be born not of blood, nor of the will of flesh, nor of man,” but of the Holy Ghost,
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 16
… For the womb was more chilled than any water owing to barrenness and to old age. Let us then gain accurate knowledge of our own nobility, and display a life worthy of it. For in it is nothing fleshly or earthy: hence neither let there be in us. For it was neither sleep, nor the will of the flesh (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Homilies on First Corinthians 5
The expression “of Him,” I suppose he uses here, not of our introduction into being, but with reference to the faith: that is, to our having become children of God, “not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh.” (St.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Homilies on Colossians 5
… For if man is the chief agent, and birth takes place without him, in a more excellent way, much rather, is One begotten of the Chiefest Agent. There is still another generation, which is a type of the Truth. I mean, ours by the Spirit. Of this again the barren a type, the fact that it is not of blood (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 10
… 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 hath begotten us, and for the future exhibit much earnestness.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 26
“That which is born of the Spirit is spirit.” Seest thou the dignity of the Spirit? It appears performing the work of God; for above he said of some, that, “they were begotten of God,” (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 68
That is, “My children.” Yet in the beginning the Evangelist saith, “Were born, not of bloods, nor of the will of the flesh, but of God” (
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 71.4
4. And how do they become the sons of God? “Who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of man, nor of the will of the flesh, but of God.”
Pope St Leo I the Great † AD 461 Letters 16
… John’s baptism on the same day, let him know that the grace of that baptism and the reason of it were quite different, and is not on an equal footing with the power by which they are re-born of the Holy Ghost, of whom it is said, “which were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God
Pope St Leo I the Great † AD 461 Letters 31
… and consequently, the Evangelist speaks of believers as those “who were born not of bloods, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God
Pope St Leo I the Great † AD 461 Sermons 26
They then who “are born not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man but of God
Pope St Leo I the Great † AD 461 Sermons 27
… of a new creation, and in the “form” of His birth started the spiritual life of mankind afresh, that to abolish the taint of our birth according to the flesh there might be a possibility of regeneration without our sinful seed for those of whom it is said, “Who were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God
Pope St Leo I the Great † AD 461 Sermons 63
… It is He Who, born of the Virgin Mother by the Holy Ghost, fertilizes His unpolluted Church with the same blessed Spirit, that by the birth of Baptism an innumerable multitude of sons may be born to God , of Whom it is said, “who were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God
St John of Damascus † AD 749 An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith 4.14
… But when the fulness of time was come, the messenger of the Lord was sent to her, with the good news of our Lord’s conception. And thus she conceived the Son of God, the hypostatic power of the Father, not of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man
1:14
St Barnabas † AD 61 The Epistle of Barnabas 6
… “Enter ye into the land flowing with milk and honey, and have dominion over it.” Behold, therefore, we have been refashioned, as again He says in another prophet, “Behold, saith the Lord, I will take away from these, that is, from those whom the Spirit of the Lord foresaw, their stony hearts, and I will put hearts of flesh within them,” because He
St Ignatius of Antioch † AD 108 Epistle to the Ephesians: Shorter and Longer Versions 7
… But our Physician is the only true God, the unbegotten and unapproachable, the Lord of all, the Father and Begetter of the only-begotten Son. 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.”
St Ignatius of Antioch † AD 108 Epistle to the Trallians: Shorter and Longer Versions 9
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,”
St Ignatius of Antioch † AD 108 Epistle to the Smyrnæans: Shorter and Longer Versions 2
… 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;”
St Ignatius of Antioch † AD 108 Epistle to the Antiochians 4
… “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.”
St Ignatius of Antioch † AD 108 Epistle to the Philippians 3
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.”
St Ignatius of Antioch † AD 108 Epistle to the Philippians 5
… 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,”
Tatian † AD 180 The Diatessaron 3
… He came unto his own, and his own received him not. And those who received him, to them gave he the power that they might [52] be sons of God,—those which believe in his name: which were born, not of blood, [53] nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of a man, but of God.
St Irenaeus of Lyons † AD 202 Against Heresies 1.8.5
… 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.”
St Irenaeus of Lyons † AD 202 Against Heresies 3.10.2
… “God hath made known His salvation ( salutare ) in the sight of the heathen.” For He is indeed Saviour, as being the Son and Word of God; but salutary, since [He is] Spirit; for he says: “The Spirit of our countenance, Christ the Lord.” But salvation, as being flesh: for “the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us.”
St Irenaeus of Lyons † AD 202 Against Heresies 3.11.2
… 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.”
St Irenaeus of Lyons † AD 202 Against Heresies 3.11.3
… but they maintain Him to have been neither born nor to have become incarnate; whilst others [hold] that He did not assume a human form at all, but that, as a dove, He did descend upon that Jesus who was born from Mary. Therefore the Lord’s disciple, pointing them all out as false witnesses, says, “And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us.”
St Irenaeus of Lyons † AD 202 Against Heresies 4.33.7
… 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,
St Irenaeus of Lyons † AD 202 Against Heresies 5.18.2
… To His own things He came, and His own people received Him not. 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.” And again, showing the dispensation with regard to His human nature, John said: “And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us.”
Tertullian † AD 220 On the Flesh of Christ 18
… 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.”
Tertullian † AD 220 On the Flesh of Christ 20
… Nay more, for the sake of greater emphasis, he uses the word “ made ” rather than born , although the use of the latter expression would have been simpler. But by saying “ made ,” he not only confirmed the statement, “The Word was made flesh,”
Tertullian † AD 220 On the Resurrection of the Flesh 37
… “He that heareth my words, and believeth on Him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation, but shall pass from death unto life.” 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,
Tertullian † AD 220 Against Praxeas 15
… For although the Word was God, yet was He with God, because He is God of God; and being joined to the Father, is with the Father. “And we have seen His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father;”
Tertullian † AD 220 Against Praxeas 21
… In that we called Him Another, we must needs imply that He is not identical—not identical indeed, yet not as if separate; Other by dispensation, not by division. 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;”
Tertullian † AD 220 Against Praxeas 26
… For just as, when John says, “The Word was made flesh,”
Tertullian † AD 220 On Modesty 6
… Universally inherent was the virus of lust—the dregs which are formed out of milk contain it—(dregs) fitted (for so doing), in that even the waters themselves had not yet been bathed. But when the Word of God descended into flesh,—(flesh) not unsealed even by marriage,—and “the Word was made flesh,”
Tertullian † AD 220 On Modesty 16
… God maketh a full end both of the one and of the others; but the body (is) not for fornication, but for God:” for “Let Us make man,” said God, “(conformable) to Our image and likeness.” “And God made man; (conformable) to the image and likeness of God made He him.” “The Lord for the body:” yes; for “the Word was made flesh.”
St Hippolytus † AD 235 On Proverbs 2
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.”
Origen † AD 254 Origen Against Celsus 6.68
… so that they, receiving the benefit, and ascending from their great introduction to Him, which was according to the flesh, say, “Even if we have known Christ after the flesh, yet henceforth know we Him no more.” Therefore He became flesh, and having become flesh, “He tabernacled among us,”
Origen † AD 254 Origen's Commentary on Matthew 11.14
… And these things indeed are said of the typical and symbolical body. But many things might be said about the Word Himself who became flesh,
Origen † AD 254 Origen's Commentary on Matthew 12.30
… that are perfect, you will see in what way the Word has the form of a slave to those who are learning the rudiments, so that they say, “We saw Him and He had no form or beauty.” But to the perfect He comes “in the glory of His own Father,” who might say, “and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only-begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.”
Origen † AD 254 Origen's Commentary on Matthew 14.17
… For because of her, He Himself also became flesh, when “the Word became flesh and dwelt among us,”
Novatian † AD 258 A Treatise of Novatian Concerning the Trinity 10
… nor, in short, any other who may have worn any other kind of fabulous body of heretical device. For all such fables as these are confuted as well by the nativity as by the death itself of our Lord. For John says: “The Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us;”
Novatian † AD 258 A Treatise of Novatian Concerning the Trinity 17
… And if He is the Word of God—“for my heart has uttered forth a good Word” —He shows that in the beginning the Word was, and that this Word was with the Father, and besides that the Word was God, and that all things were made by Him. Moreover, this “Word was made flesh and dwelt among us,”
Novatian † AD 258 A Treatise of Novatian Concerning the Trinity 24
… Whence, since no distinction is discerned between the Son of man and the Son of God, but the Son of man Himself is asserted to be the Son of God, the same Christ and the Son of God is asserted to be man only; by which they strive to exclude, “The Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us.”
Novatian † AD 258 A Treatise of Novatian Concerning the Trinity 30
… And let us therefore believe this, since it is most faithful that Jesus Christ the Son of God is our Lord and God; because “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.” And, “The Word was made flesh, and dwelt in us.”
St Dionysius of Alexandria † AD 265 Containing Various Sections of the Works 1.6
… For the Gospel and the Epistle agree with each other, and both commence in the same way. For the one opens thus, “In the beginning was the Word;” while the other opens thus, “That which was from the beginning.” 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.”
St Peter of Alexandria † AD 311 Fragments from the Writings of Peter 2
Since certainly “grace and truth came by Jesus Christ,” whence also by grace we are saved, according to that word of the apostle, “and that not of yourselves, nor of works, lest any man should boast;” by the will of God, “the Word was made flesh,”
St Peter of Alexandria † AD 311 Fragments from the Writings of Peter 9
In the meanwhile the evangelist says with firmness, “The Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us.”
Eusebius of Caesarea † AD 339 The Church History of Eusebius 7.25
18. For the Gospel and Epistle agree with each other and begin in the same manner. The one says, ‘In the beginning was the Word’; the other, ‘That which was from the beginning.’ The one: ‘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’;
Aphrahat † AD 346 Aphrahat: Select Demonstrations 6.10
… When He came to us, He had nothing of ours, and also we had nothing of His, though the two natures were His and His Father’s. For when Gabriel made announcement to the Blessed Mary who bore Him, the word from on high set out and came, and the word became flesh and dwelt in us.
Aphrahat † AD 346 Aphrahat: Select Demonstrations 8.15
… And this is the voice through which the dead shall live. Concerning it our Redeemer testifies, saying:— The hour shall come when even the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of Man and shall come forth from their tombs ; as it is written, In the beginning was the voice, that is the Word . Again He said, The Word became a body and dwelt amongst us.
St Hilary of Poitiers † AD 367 De Synodis or On the Councils 1
XI. “If any man hearing The Word was made Flesh
St Hilary of Poitiers † AD 367 De Trinitate or On the Trinity 11.15
… Christ is the Firstborn among many brethren in the same sense in which He is Firstborn from the dead: and as the mystery of death concerns His body, so the mystery of brotherhood also refers to His flesh. Thus God has brethren according to His flesh, for the Word became flesh and dwelt amongst us
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 De Decretis. (Defence of the Nicene Definition.) 4
… We have learned from divine Scripture, that the Son of God, as was said above, is the very Word and Wisdom of the Father. For the Apostle says, ‘Christ the power of God and the Wisdom of God ;’ and John after saying, ‘And the Word was made flesh,’ at once adds, ‘And we saw His glory, the glory as of the Only-begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 De Sententia Dionysii. (Defence of Dionysius.) 26
… For whatever expressions are cited to distinguish between the Son and the Father are used of Him by reason of the flesh which He bore for our sake. For created things are distinct in nature from God. Accordingly since, the flesh being a created thing, ‘the Word,’ as John says, ‘was made flesh’ (
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 To the Bishops of Egypt 1.9
… Others indeed they deceived by these professions, but when our Lord became man they were not able to deceive Him; ‘for the Word was made Flesh,’ who ‘knoweth the thoughts of men that they are vain.’ Thus He exposed the carping of the Jews, saying, ‘If God were your Father, ye would love Me, for I proceeded forth from the Father, and am come to you
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 To the Bishops of Egypt 2
… But there is plainly a reasonable ground and cause , why such representations as these are given of Him in the Scriptures; and it is because He became man and the Son of man, and took upon Him the form of a servant, which is the human flesh: for ‘the Word,’ says John, ‘was made flesh
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 Against the Arians. (Orationes contra Arianos IV.) 1.7
… the Father and thus to inquire, is far greater madness, for it is to conceive of the Word of the Father as external to Him, and to idly call the natural offspring a work, with the avowal, ‘He was not before His generation.’ Nay, let them over and above take this answer to their question;—The Father who was, made the Son who was, for ‘the Word was made flesh
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 Against the Arians. (Orationes contra Arianos IV.) 1.11
… For because of our relationship to His Body we too have become God’s temple, and in consequence are made God’s sons, so that even in us the Lord is now worshipped, and beholders report, as the Apostle says, that God is in them of a truth
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 Against the Arians. (Orationes contra Arianos IV.) 1.13
60. (9.) Moreover the words ‘He is become surety’ denote the pledge in our behalf which He has provided. For as, being the ‘Word,’ He ‘became flesh
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 Against the Arians. (Orationes contra Arianos IV.) 2.14.1
… they would not have shut themselves up in the unbelief of the present Jews , but would have inquired and learned that, whereas ‘In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God,’ in consequence, it was when at the good pleasure of the Father the Word became man, that it was said of Him, as by John, ‘The Word became flesh
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 Against the Arians. (Orationes contra Arianos IV.) 2.18
… but as being the only Word of God was He preached by John, ‘The Word was made flesh,’ and ‘all things were made by Him
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 Against the Arians. (Orationes contra Arianos IV.) 2.19
… which It inspired the saints to use in prophecy, while soon after It doth Itself give the meaning of ‘He created’ in other but parallel expressions, saying, ‘Wisdom made herself a house .’ Now it is plain that our body is Wisdom’s house , which It took on Itself to become man; hence consistently does John say, ‘The Word was made flesh
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 Against the Arians. (Orationes contra Arianos IV.) 2.20
… For He is the Father’s Radiance; and as the Father is, but not for any reason, neither must we seek the reason of that Radiance. Thus it is written, ‘In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God ;’ and the wherefore it assigns not ; but when ‘the Word was made flesh
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 Against the Arians. (Orationes contra Arianos IV.) 2.21
… Accordingly it is nowhere written in the Scriptures, ‘the first-born of God,’ nor ‘the creature of God;’ but ‘Only-begotten’ and ‘Son’ and ‘Word’ and ‘Wisdom,’ refer to Him as proper to the Father . Thus, ‘We have seen His glory, the glory as of the Only-begotten of the Father
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 Against the Arians. (Orationes contra Arianos IV.) 2.22
… that by the faith in Him, henceforth all that believe may obtain salvation. However, it is the same Wisdom of God, which through Its own Image in the creatures (whence also It is said to be created), first manifested Itself, and through Itself Its own Father; and afterwards, being Itself the Word, has ‘become flesh
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 Against the Arians. (Orationes contra Arianos IV.) 3.26
… The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him, and without Him was made not one thing ;’ next, ‘And the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of one Only-begotten from the Father
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 Against the Arians. (Orationes contra Arianos IV.) 3.28
… And this again will be well seen by honestly examining into the occasion, when and to whom the Saviour spoke thus. Not then when the heaven was made by Him, nor when He was with the Father Himself, the Word ‘disposing all things ,’ nor before He became man did He say it, but when ‘the Word became flesh
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 Against the Arians. (Orationes contra Arianos IV.) 4.1.4
… and it must be He of whom John says, ‘All things were made by Him,’ and the Psalmist, ‘In Wisdom hast Thou made them all .’ And Christ will be found to speak untruly, ‘I in the Father,’ there being another in the Father. And ‘the Word became flesh
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 Against the Arians. (Orationes contra Arianos IV.) 4.6
… and, when the Word was in man, man himself received. Since then, the Word being in flesh, man himself was exalted, and received power, therefore these things are referred to the Word, since they were given on His account; for on account of the Word in man were these gifts given. And as ‘the Word became flesh
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 Against the Arians. (Orationes contra Arianos IV.) 4.26
… and as the Saviour says concerning the Spirit, ‘But the Paraclete which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in My Name ,’ speaking of One and Same, and not distinguishing, so John describes similarly when he says, ‘And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, glory as of one Only-begotten from the Father
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 History of Arian Opinions 1
(12.) Whosoever hearing ‘The Word was made flesh,’ (
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 Festal and Personal Letters of Athanasius 59
… For what John said, ‘The Word was made flesh
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 Festal and Personal Letters of Athanasius 60
… not nor understood,’ as it is written, ‘but go on still in darkness ,’ let them learn from your piety that this error of theirs belongs to Valentinus and Marcion, and to Manichæus, of whom some substituted [the idea of] Appearance for Reality, while the others, dividing what is indivisible, denied the truth that ‘the Word was made Flesh, and dwelt among us
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 Festal and Personal Letters of Athanasius 61
… for this was true of each of the prophets and of the other saints, and on that assumption He would clearly be born and die in the case of each one of them. But this is not so, far be the thought. But once for all ‘at the consummation of the ages , to put away sin’ ‘the Word was made flesh
St Basil the Great † AD 379 De Spiritu Sancto 6
… to the Lord Himself, distinctly setting forth the equal dignity of His glory with the Father, in His words, “He that hath seen me hath seen the Father;” and again, “When the Son cometh in the glory of his Father;” that they “should honour the Son even as they honour the Father;” and, “We beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father;”
St Basil the Great † AD 379 The Letters 8.5
… If then comparisons are made between things of the same species, and the Father by comparison is said to be greater than the Son, then the Son is of the same substance as the Father. But there is another sense underlying the expression. In what is it extraordinary that He who “is the Word and was made flesh”
St Cyril of Jerusalem † AD 386 The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril 11.6
… And again, He that believeth on the Son is not judged, but hath passed out of death into life . But he that believeth not the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him . And John testified concerning Him, saying, And we beheld His glory, glory as of the only-begotten from the father,—full of grace and truth
St Cyril of Jerusalem † AD 386 The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril 12.1
… Hearers of the Holy Gospels, let us listen to John the Divine . For he who said, In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God , went on to say, and the Word was made flesh
St Cyril of Jerusalem † AD 386 The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril 12.4
4. But remember thou what was said yesterday concerning His Godhead. Believe that He the Only-begotten Son of God—He Himself was again begotten of a Virgin. Believe the Evangelist John when he says, And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us
St Gregory of Nazianzus † AD 389 Letters on the Apollinarian Controversy 101
If, however, they rely on the passage, The Word was made Flesh and dwelt among us,
St Gregory of Nyssa † AD 395 Against Eunomius 2.8
… For when the Scripture says, “In the beginning was the Word ,” we understand the Only-begotten to be meant, and when it adds “the Word was made flesh
St Gregory of Nyssa † AD 395 Against Eunomius 2.13
… And if they allege the passage in the Gospel, “The Word was made flesh
St Gregory of Nyssa † AD 395 Against Eunomius 5.2
… Here the blessed John teaches us that God the Word, by Whom all things were made, has become incarnate, saying, ‘And the Word was made flesh
St Gregory of Nyssa † AD 395 Against Eunomius 5.3
… And hence it is that all who preach the word point out the wonderful character of the mystery in this respect,—that “God was manifested in the flesh ,” that “the Word was made flesh
St Gregory of Nyssa † AD 395 Against Eunomius 12.3
… And how is it that he also fails to observe this, that he who looked on the incarnate Word, Who was both Light and Life and God, recognized, through the glory which he saw, the Father of glory, and says, “We beheld His glory, the glory as of the Only-begotten of the Father
St Ambrose of Milan † AD 397 On the Decease of His Brother Satyrus 2.103
… For, “being made in the likeness of men, and being found in fashion as a man, He humbled Himself, becoming obedient even unto death,” in order that through that obedience we might see His glory, “the glory as of the Only-begotten of the Father,”
St Ambrose of Milan † AD 397 Exposition of the Christian Faith 1.14
89. We read that the Son is begotten, inasmuch as the Father saith: “I brought thee forth from the womb before the morning star.” We read of the “first-born” Son, of the “only-begotten”
St Ambrose of Milan † AD 397 Exposition of the Christian Faith 3.2
… and He who quickened, also pardoned sins; He who pardoned sins, also blotted out the handwriting; He Who blotted out the handwriting, also nailed it to the Cross: He who nailed it to the Cross, divested Himself of the flesh. But it was not the Father Who divested Himself of the flesh; for not the Father, but, as we read, the Word was made flesh.
St Ambrose of Milan † AD 397 Exposition of the Christian Faith 3.10
66. I have no fears of a certain objection they are likely to put forward, namely, that in the words cited we have “a man ”—for some have, “Who cometh after me.” But here, too, let them observe what precedes. “The Word,” it is said, “was made flesh.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 4
… If this were so, He hath nothing in common with us, but that flesh is of some other kind, and not of the mass which belongs to us. How then was He of the root of Jesse? How was He a rod? how Son of man? how was Mary His mother? how was He of David’s seed? how did he “take the form of a servant?” how “was the Word made flesh?”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Homilies on Ephesians 3
Not simply so set Him above them as to be honored above them, nor by way of comparison with them, but so that He should sit over them as His slaves. Amazing! Awful indeed are these things; every created power hath been made the slave of man by reason of God the Word dwelling in Him.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Homilies on Philippians 7
… he says, whilst He remained what He was, He took that which He was not, and being made flesh He remained God, in that He was the Word. (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Homilies on 1 Timothy 18
“Whom no man hath seen nor can see.” As, indeed, no one hath seen the Son, nor can see Him.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 4
… 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” (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 5
… Since, if “the Word was Life,” and “what was made in Him was Life”; according to this reading He is created in Himself and through Himself. Then after some words between, he has added, “And we beheld His glory, the glory as of the Only-Begotten of the Father.” (
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 The Confessions 7.9
14. In like manner, I read there that God the Word was born not of flesh, nor of blood, nor of the will of man, nor of the will of the flesh, but of God. But that “the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us,”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 The Confessions 7.18
… but I found it not until I embraced that “Mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus,” “who is over all, God blessed for ever,” calling unto me, and saying, “I am the way, the truth, and the life,” and mingling that food which I was unable to receive with our flesh. For “the Word was made flesh,”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 The Confessions 7.19
… especially for that, being wonderfully born of a virgin, He seemed, through the divine care for us, to have attained so great authority of leadership,—for an example of contemning temporal things for the obtaining of immortality. But what mystery there was in, “The Word was made flesh,”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 The Confessions 10.43
… else should I utterly despair. For numerous and great are my infirmities, yea, numerous and great are they; but Thy medicine is greater. We might think that Thy Word was removed from union with man, and despair of ourselves had He not been “made flesh and dwelt among us.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 City of God 10.24
… The Principle is neither the flesh nor the human soul in Christ but the Word by which all things were made. The flesh, therefore, does not by its own virtue purify, but by virtue of the Word by which it was assumed, when “the Word became flesh and dwelt among us.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 City of God 10.29
… But the proud scorn to take God for their Master, because “the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 City of God 14.2
… “No man shall be justified by the law;” and in the Epistle to the Galatians, “Knowing that man is not justified by the works of the law.” And so we understand the words, “And the Word was made flesh,”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On Christian Doctrine 1.13
In what way did He come but this, “The Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us”?
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On the Holy Trinity 2.6
… For the word in the flesh is one thing, and the Word made flesh is another; i.e. the word in man is one thing, the Word that is man is another. For flesh is put for man, where it is said, “The Word was made flesh;”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On the Holy Trinity 3.pref.3
… But if the Son was manifested at these times, why should He be said to be “sent” so long after, when the fullness of time was come that He should be born of a woman; since, indeed, He was sent before also, viz ., when He appeared corporeally in those forms? Or if He were not rightly said to be “sent,” except when the Word was made flesh;
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On the Holy Trinity 4.21
… showing of the Holy Spirit, whether by the shape of a dove, or by fiery tongues, when the subjected and subservient creature by temporal motions and forms manifested His substance co-eternal with the Father and the Son, and alike with them unchangeable, while it was not united so as to be one person with Him, as the flesh was which the Word was made;
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On the Holy Trinity 7.3
… but created or made, as in men, when they are converted to that Wisdom which is not created and made but begotten, and are so enlightened; for in these men themselves there comes to be something which may be called their wisdom: even as the Scriptures foretell or narrate, that “the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us;”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On the Holy Trinity 13.17
… because not even He Himself obtained by any precedent merits that He should be joined in such great unity with the true God, and should become the Son of God, one Person with Him; but from the time when He began to be man, from that time He is also God; whence it is said, “The Word was made flesh.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On the Holy Trinity 13.19
… And on account of this, the apostle goes on to say, “And we beheld His glory, the glory as of the Only-begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On the Holy Trinity 14.18
… For this, too, is called an image of the Son of God, in which we shall have, as He has, an immortal body, being conformed in this respect not to the image of the Father or of the Holy Spirit, but only of the Son, because of Him alone is it read and received by a sound faith, that “the Word was made flesh.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On the Holy Trinity 15.26
… but it had said, “And Simon, seeing that the Holy Spirit was given by the laying on of the apostles’ hands.” Therefore also the Lord Jesus Christ Himself not only gave the Holy Spirit as God, but also received it as man, and therefore He is said to be full of grace,
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 The Enchiridion 34
Now of this Mediator it would occupy too much space to say anything at all worthy of Him; and, indeed, to say what is worthy of Him is not in the power of man. For who will explain in consistent words this single statement, that “the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us,”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 The Enchiridion 36
… But, speaking of Christ Himself, the evangelist John, after saying, “The Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us,” adds, “and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only-begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on Faith and the Creed 4
6. But as “the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us,”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On Continence 11
… at any rate it is the belief of all of us, to whom to live is Christ, that Man was taken unto Himself by the Word of God, not surely without a rational soul, as certain heretics will have it; and yet we read, “The Word was made flesh.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Of Holy Virginity 37
… They are just: but they are not, are they, such as Thou, justifying the ungodly? They are chaste: but them in sins their mothers nurtured in their wombs. They are holy, but Thou art also Holy of Holies. They are virgins, but they are not also born of virgins. They are wholly chaste both in spirit and in flesh: but they are not the Word made flesh.
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Against the Epistle of Manichæus, Called Fundamental 37
… Accordingly in Scripture He is called both only-begotten and first-begotten; only-begotten of the Father, and first-begotten from the dead. "And we beheld," says John, "His glory, the glory as of the only-begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth."
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Reply to Faustus the Manichæan 19.14
… Is not the promise of eternal life by resurrection from the dead? This we see fulfilled in the flesh of Him of whom it is said, that the Word became flesh and dwelt among us.
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on the Merits and Forgiveness of Sins, and on the Baptism of Infants 1.60
… that they might not be regarded as if they were two Christs,—the one God, the other man, —but one and the same God and man,—God, because “in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God;” and man, inasmuch as “the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on the Merits and Forgiveness of Sins, and on the Baptism of Infants 2.31
… Sometimes, by a change in the terms, grace is put for merc y, as in the passage, “We beheld His glory, the glory as of the Only-begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on the Merits and Forgiveness of Sins, and on the Baptism of Infants 2.38
He goes on to add, “And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us;”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on the Spirit and the Letter 16
… Now He said, “I am not come to destroy the law, but to fulfil it,” of whom it was said, “We have seen His glory, the glory as of the only-begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on the Soul and its Origin 1.31
… from her husband’s soul, on the ground of its being only said, “Flesh of my flesh,” and not, “Soul of my soul,” do, in fact, argue in precisely the same manner as the Apollinarians argue, and all such gainsayers, in opposition to the Lord’s human soul, which they deny for no other reason than because they read in the Scripture, “The Word was made flesh.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on the Soul and its Origin 2.20
… for against one party, which maintains the opinion of the propagation of souls, those passages must not be adduced which mention only a part, inasmuch as the Scripture might mean by the part to imply the whole in all such passages; as, for instance, when we read, “The Word was made flesh,”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on Rebuke and Grace 30
… For there is no one blinded by such ignorance of this matter and the Faith as to dare to say that, although born of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary the Son of man, yet of His own free will by righteous living and by doing good works, without sin, He deserved to be the Son of God; in opposition to the gospel, which says, “The Word was made flesh.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 The Harmony of the Gospels 1.4
… And there, too, he can recognise Him who was made flesh in order that He might dwell amongst us;
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 The Harmony of the Gospels 2.3
… and secondly, that they were born of God. And in order the more plainly to show by what grace this is effected, he continued thus: “And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us,”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 1.32
… For of Him only is that said, which never has been or shall be able to be said of any holy man, however perfected in wisdom and righteousness, “The Word was made Flesh.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 30.5
… another gives wool, to receive a ready-made garment. And who can enumerate all these exchanges? But no one gives life to receive death. Not in vain then was the voice of the Physician as He hung upon the tree. For in order that He might die for us because the Word could not die, “The Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 41.2
… But because “The Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us;”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 42.3
… whoso confesseth both, is a Catholic. He hath the country, he hath the way. He hath the country, “In the beginning was the Word;” He hath the country, “Being in the form of God, He thought it not robbery to be equal with God.” He hath the way, “The Word was made flesh;”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 47.4
… All things were made by Him, and without Him was nothing made.” Could the Jews have crucified this Word? Could those impious men have mocked this Word? Could this Word have been buffeted? Could this Word have been crowned with thorns? But that He might suffer all this, “the Word was made flesh;”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 54.3
… Well then did Martha, as touching the bodily—what shall I call it, want, or will, of the Lord?—minister to His mortal flesh. But who was He in that mortal flesh? “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God:” see what Mary was listening to! “The Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us:”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 69.4
4. But in order to succour us, “The Word was made Flesh, and dwelt among us.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 71.5
5. Lo, they are born of God; whereby is it brought to pass that they should be born of God, who were first born of men? Whereby is it brought to pass, whereby? “And the Word was made Flesh, that It might dwell among us.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 74.2
… what stability the flower of grass?” it is said, “but the Word of the Lord endureth for ever.” And whence, you will say, is that Word to me? “The Word was made Flesh, and dwelt among us.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 77.9
… Son of God of That which is His Own, Son of Man of ours. That which is the less, took He from us; That which is the more, gave He to us. For thus He died in that He is the Son of Man, not in that He is the Son of God. Yet the Son of God died; but He died in respect to the flesh, not in respect to “the Word which was made flesh, and dwelt among us.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 83.6
… He to whom the lamp bare witness, “was the True Light.” Where John added, “the True,” there art thou looking out for a lie. But hear still the same Evangelist John pouring forth what he had drunk in; “And we beheld,” saith he, “His glory.” What did he behold? what glory beheld he? “The glory as of the Only-Begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 84.6
6. What meaneth this then thy senseless exultation, O thou that didst hold me captive, for that my Deliverer had mortal Flesh? See, if He had sin; if thou hast found anything of thine in Him, hold Him fast. “The Word was made Flesh.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 7.1
… “All flesh is grass, and all the goodliness thereof as the flower of the field: the grass withereth, the flower fadeth; but the word of the Lord abideth forever.” Behold what thou must love if thou dost desire to abide for ever. But thou hadst this to reply: How can I apprehend the word of God? “The Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John chapter21.9
… What so far apart as God and man? What so far as justice and iniquity? What so far as eternity and mortality? Behold, so far from us was the Word in the beginning, God with God, by whom all things were made. How, then, was He made near, that He might be what we are, and we in Him? “The Word was made flesh, and dwelt in (among) us.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 23.6
… There is nothing more powerful than this creature, which is called the rational mind, nothing more sublime: whatever is above this, is but the Creator. But I was saying that Christ is the Word, and Christ is the Word of God, and Christ the Word is God; but Christ is not only the Word, since “the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us:”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 40.4
… The human shape, the outlines of human limbs, the form of human flesh, the outward senses, stature and motions of the body, the functions of the tongue, the distinctions of sounds,—think not of such as existing in that Trinity, save as they pertain to the servant-form, which the only-begotten Son assumed, when the Word was made flesh to dwell among us.
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 44.2
2. The Lord came: what did He do? He set forth a great mystery. “He spat on the ground,” He made clay of His spittle; for the Word was made flesh.
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 49.18
… For the Word assumed soul and flesh, fitting on Himself our whole human nature in the oneness of His person. For the soul of the apostle was illuminated by the Word; so was the soul of Peter, the soul of Paul, of the other apostles, and the holy prophets,—the souls of all were illuminated by the Word; but of none was it said, “The Word was made flesh;”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 59.3
… And there might, indeed, be no impropriety in so understanding it, seeing that a twofold substance belongeth to the strong man, who hath rejoiced to run the race; for the Word was made flesh,
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Ten Homilies on the First Epistle of John 10.8
8. Let us run then, my brethren, let us run, and love Christ. What Christ? Jesus Christ. Who is He? The Word of God. And how came He to the sick? “The Word was made flesh, and dwelt in us.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Ten Homilies on the First Epistle of John 11
… as indeed it was concerning the worshipping of Him that the Lord was speaking, when He said, “God is a Spirit:” by the term, blood , the Son; because “the Word was made flesh:”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 3.9
… “But Thou, O Lord, art my taker;” in Christ of course. For into that flesh the Church too hath been taken by the Word, “who was made flesh, and dwelt in us;”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 19.7
… “And His meeting is even to the height of heaven.” And in the fulness of the Godhead He meets even to an equality with the Father. “And there is none that may hide himself from His heat.” But whereas, “the Word was even made flesh, and dwelt in us,”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 50.1
… 1 ). But in speaking, He hath done what? “He hath called the earth from the rising of the sun unto the going down.” He that “hath called the world from the rising of the sun unto the going down,” is Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, “the Word made Flesh,”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 50.5
… But flesh had risen, because flesh had been dead: Divinity which could not die, even still lay hid in the flesh of Him rising. Form could be seen, limbs held, scars handled: the Word by whom all things were made, who doth see? who doth hold? who doth handle? And yet “the Word was made flesh, and dwelled among us.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 55.3
… His being Son He denied not. Ye have heard “Lord;” say ye how He is his “Son:” ye have heard “Son;” say how He is “Lord.” This question the Catholic Faith solveth. How “Lord”? Because “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” How “Son”? Because “The Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 57.5
… The flesh itself crieth: “Have pity on Me, O God, have pity on me:” Man himself, soul and flesh. For whole Man did the Word take upon Him, and whole Man the Word became. Let it not therefore be thought that there Soul was not, because the Evangelist thus saith: “The Word was made flesh, and dwelled in us.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 68.18
… whence not in carnal concupiscence, but in spiritual belief, the Virgin conceived Christ. But the shadow consisteth of light and body: and further, The “Word” that “was in the beginning,” that true Light, in order that a noonday shadow might be made for us; “the Word,” I say, “was made Flesh, and dwelled in us.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 81.13
… 9 ). A “new god” is one made for the time: but our God is not new, but from eternity to eternity. And our Christ is new, perchance, as Man, but eternal God. For what before the beginning? And truly, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” And our Christ Himself is the Word made flesh, that He might dwell in us.
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 91.5
… but we know the hen to be a mother by the weakness of her voice, and the loosening of her feathers: she changes altogether from love for her chickens: she weakens herself because they are weak. Thus since we were weak, the Wisdom of God made Itself weak, when the Word was made flesh, and dwelt in us,
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 102.1
… In one so rich, how are we to recognise these words? “I have eaten ashes as it were bread: and mingled my drink with weeping.” Have these so great riches come to this? The former state is a very high one, this is a very lowly one.…Yet still examine whether this poor man be He; since, “The Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 103.20
20. “The wind shall go over on it, it shall not be; and the place thereof shall know it no more” ( ver. 16 ). For he is not speaking of grass, but of that for whose sake even the Word became grass. For thou art man, and on thy account the Word became man. “All flesh is grass:” “and the Word was made flesh.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 119.5
… but I find not save in Thee whence I may live. Christ is Thy righteousness, “Who of God is made unto us wisdom,” etc. And in Him I find Thy commandments, which I have coveted, that in Thy righteousness, that is, in Him, Thou mayest quicken me. For the Word Himself is God; and “the Word was made flesh,”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 119.6
… 42 ). It is doubtful whether it be “reproach me with a word;” or, “I will answer with a word;” but either signifieth Christ. They to whom Christ crucified is a stumbling-block or foolishness, reproach us with Him; ignorant that “the Word was made flesh, and dwelt in us;”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 119.14
… But this sense is a solitary one; for it cannot be divinely spoken of any of the saints, nor in any wise lawfully said of any, “The Word was made flesh,”
John Cassian † AD 435 The Conferences of John Cassian 4.10
We find that the word flesh is used in holy Scripture with many different meanings: for sometimes it stands for the whole man, i.e., for that which consists of body and soul, as here “And the Word was made flesh,”
John Cassian † AD 435 The Seven Books of John Cassian on the Incarnation of the Lord, Against Nestorius 1.5
… and we say that from the time when He took upon Him flesh all that belonged to God was given to man, as all that belonged to man was joined to God. And in this sense ‘the Word was made flesh:’
Socrates Scholasticus † AD 440 The Ecclesiastical History of Socrates Scholasticus 2.18
… If any one shall understand the text, “I am the first, and I am the last, and besides me there is no God,” which was spoken for the destruction of idols and false gods, in the sense the Jews do, as if it were said for the subversion of the only-begotten of God before the ages, let him be anathema. If any one hearing “the Word was made flesh,”
Theodoret of Cyrus † AD 458 Dialogues. The “Eranistes” or “Polymorphus” of the Blessed Theodoretus, Bishop of Cyrus 1
Orth. —How then do you advance the statement in the gospel “the word became flesh,”
Theodoret of Cyrus † AD 458 Dialogues. The “Eranistes” or “Polymorphus” of the Blessed Theodoretus, Bishop of Cyrus 2
… otherwise there would be no tabernacling. Nothing inhabits itself. I spoke of a distinction of substance. For by the union and the conjunction God the Word and the flesh are one without confusion or destruction of the substances, but by ineffable and indescribable union.”
Theodoret of Cyrus † AD 458 Dialogues. The “Eranistes” or “Polymorphus” of the Blessed Theodoretus, Bishop of Cyrus 4.1.4
4. It is written in the divine Scriptures that God the Word took flesh, and also a soul. And the most divine Evangelist says the Word was made flesh.
Theodoret of Cyrus † AD 458 Dialogues. The “Eranistes” or “Polymorphus” of the Blessed Theodoretus, Bishop of Cyrus 4.1.5
5. That which inhabits a tabernacle is distinct from the tabernacle which is inhabited. The Evangelist calls the flesh a tabernacle, and says that God the Word tabernacled therein. “The Word,” he says, “was made flesh and dwelt among us.”
Theodoret of Cyrus † AD 458 Dialogues. The “Eranistes” or “Polymorphus” of the Blessed Theodoretus, Bishop of Cyrus 4.1.7
7. The immutability of God the Word is plainly proclaimed by the most wise Evangelist, for after saying “the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us,” he immediately adds, “And we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only-begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.”
Theodoret of Cyrus † AD 458 Letters of the Blessed Theodoret, Bishop of Cyprus 83
So too the divine Evangelist exclaims, “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.”
Theodoret of Cyrus † AD 458 Letters of the Blessed Theodoret, Bishop of Cyprus 171
… and further that there is made one nature of both Godhead and manhood,—for so he explains “The Word was made flesh,”
Pope St Leo I the Great † AD 461 Letters 15
The fourth head deals with the fact that the Birth-day of Christ, which the catholic Church thinks highly of as the occasion of His taking on Him true man, because “the Word became flesh and dwelt in us
Pope St Leo I the Great † AD 461 Letters 124
… For as it cannot be denied that “the Word became flesh and dwelt in us
Pope St Leo I the Great † AD 461 Sermons 63
… But, when the evangelist says, “The Word became flesh and dwelt in us
Pope St Gregory I the Great † AD 604 Register of the Epistles of St. Gregory the Great 11.67
… of the Only-begotten—when they come to the Holy Catholic Church, are to be taught, by firm holding and profession of the true faith, to believe in one and the same Son of God and man, our Lord God Jesus Christ, the same existing in Divinity before the ages, and the same made man in the end of the ages, because The Word was made flesh and dwelt among us (
St John of Damascus † AD 749 An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith 3.11
… For He took on Himself the elements of our compound nature, and these not as having an independent existence or as being originally an individual, and in this way assumed by Him, but as existing in His own subsistence. For the subsistence of God the Word in itself became the subsistence of the flesh, and accordingly “the Word became flesh
St John of Damascus † AD 749 An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith 3.18
But if the Evangelist said that the Word was made flesh
St John of Damascus † AD 749 An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith 4.16
But besides this who can make an imitation of the invisible, incorporeal, uncircumscribed, formless God? Therefore to give form to the Deity is the height of folly and impiety. And hence it is that in the Old Testament the use of images was not common. But after God
1:15
Tatian † AD 180 The Diatessaron 3
… which were born, not of blood, [53] nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of a man, but of God. And the Word became flesh, and took up his abode among us; and we saw his glory as the glory [54] of the only Son from the Father, which is full of grace and equity.
St Irenaeus of Lyons † AD 202 Against Heresies 3.10.2
… This is He of whom I said, After me cometh a man who was made before me; because He was prior to me: and of His fulness have all we received.”
Origen † AD 254 Origen's Commentary on the Gospel of John 6.10
… and he thus brings help, both to those who have departed from God and to those who have lost the acuteness of their hearing. This, too, was the reason why “Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto Me and drink.” Hence, too,
Novatian † AD 258 A Treatise of Novatian Concerning the Trinity 14
… If Christ is only man, why may not Christ be denied without destruction of the soul, when it is said that a sin committed against man may be forgiven? If Christ is only man, how comes John the Baptist to testify and say, “He who cometh after me has become before me, because He was prior to me;”
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 Against the Arians. (Orationes contra Arianos IV.) 2.21
… if He is simply ‘First-born of the whole creation,’ then He is other than the whole creation; for he says not, ‘He is First-born above the rest of the creatures,’ lest He be reckoned to be as one of the creatures, but it is written, ‘of the whole creation,’ that He may appear other than the creation
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Epistle to the Hebrews 1
… for this was “made.” Nevertheless the discourse here is not about being called into existence. But just as John says, “He that cometh after me, is preferred before me” (
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 The Harmony of the Gospels 2.12
… “in the Holy Spirit and in fire.” The statements made by these three are attested by the evangelist John, when he says: “John bears witness of Him, and cries, saying, This was He of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me; for He was before me.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 9.4
… For earthly men are behind: but the heavenly man is preferred before, although he came after. For “the first man is of the earth, earthy: the second Man is from heaven, heavenly.” But from this stock he came by whom it was said, “He who cometh after me is preferred before me.”
John Cassian † AD 435 The Seven Books of John Cassian on the Incarnation of the Lord, Against Nestorius 6.23
… So also where Ahab sinned we are told that the people sinned. Where—though all are mentioned, a part is to be understood from the whole. John also the Lord’s forerunner says: “After me cometh a man who is preferred before me for He was before me.”
Theodoret of Cyrus † AD 458 Letters of the Blessed Theodoret, Bishop of Cyprus 83
And his namesake exclaimed, “After me cometh one who is preferred before me for He was before me.”
Ecumenical Councils The Nicene Creed 1
‘“We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible:—and in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the Word of God, God of God, Light of light, Life of life, the only-begotten Son, born before all creation,
1:16
Tatian † AD 180 The Diatessaron 3
… And the Word became flesh, and took up his abode among us; and we saw his glory as the glory [54] of the only Son from the Father, which is full of grace and equity. John bare witness [Arabic, p. 14] of him, and cried, and said, This is he that I said cometh after me and [55] was before me, because he was before me.
Tertullian † AD 220 On Baptism 5
… for whoever had been the first to descend into them, after his washing, ceased to complain. 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,
St Hippolytus † AD 235 On Genesis 1
… 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.”
Archelaus † fl. AD 278 The Acts of the Disputation with the Heresiarch Manes 45
… for their folly is manifest unto all men, as theirs also was.” Do you observe how he compares Jamnes and Mambres to men of corrupt mind, and reprobate concerning the faith; while he likens Moses, on the other hand, to the truth? But the holy John, the greatest of the evangelists, also tells us of the giving and diffusing of grace for grace;
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 De Sententia Dionysii. (Defence of Dionysius.) 10
… ii. 12, Ps. xxii. 22 ), ‘I will declare thy name unto my brethren.’ And just as the branches are of one essence with the vine, and are from it, so we also having our bodies homogeneous with the Lord’s body, receive of His fulness (
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 Against the Arians. (Orationes contra Arianos IV.) 1.12
… And therefore have we securely received it, He being said to be anointed in the flesh; for the flesh being first sanctified in Him , and He being said, as man, to have received for its sake, we have the sequel of the Spirit grace, receiving ‘out of His fulness
St Basil the Great † AD 379 De Spiritu Sancto 5
… him that holdeth “the head,” that is, Christ, “from which all the body by joints and bands having nourishment ministered increaseth with the increase of God.” And that Christ is the head of the Church we have learned in another passage, when the apostle says “gave him to be the head over all things to the Church,” and “of his fulness have all we received.”
St Ambrose of Milan † AD 397 On the Holy Spirit 2.9
… “Because they hold not the Head, from Whom all the body being supplied and joined together through joints and bands, increaseth to the increase of God.” For we said above that Christ is the Head of the Church. And in another place you read: “Of His fulness have all we received.”
St Ambrose of Milan † AD 397 Exposition of the Christian Faith 4.11
… “For from His fulness have we all received,” though, if we follow the Greek text of the Gospel, we ought to render “ of His fulness.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Homilies on 2 Timothy 2
… Consider how wide was the distance between John and Jesus. Hear John saying, “I have need to be baptized of Thee” ( Matt. iii. 14 .), and, “Whose shoe’s latchet I am not worthy to unloose.” ( John i. 27 .) Yet notwithstanding this difference, the Spirit descended. Which John had not. For “of His fullness,” it is said, “we all have received.” (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 75
… For afterwards He declares that He Himself sendeth Him, saying, “Receive ye the Holy Ghost” ( c. xx. 22 ); but in this place He telleth them that He asketh the Father, so as to render His discourse credible to them. Since John saith of Him, “Of His fullness have all we received” (
Rufinus of Aquileia † AD 411 The Apology of Rufinus. Addressed to Apronianus, in Reply to Jerome's Letter to Pammachius 1.42
“In the end of all things, when we shall have begun to know God face to face, and shall have come to the measure of the age of the fulness of Christ, of whose fulness we all have received,
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 The Confessions 4.15
… “For Thou wilt light my candle; the Lord my God will enlighten my darkness; and “of His fulness have all we received,”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 The Confessions 7.9
… and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father;” those books have not. For that before all times, and above all times, Thy only-begotten Son remaineth unchangeably co-eternal with Thee; and that of “His fulness” souls receive,
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 The Confessions 7.17
… again, I passed on to the reasoning faculty, unto which whatever is received from the senses of the body is referred to be judged, which also, finding itself to be variable in me, raised itself up to its own intelligence, and from habit drew away my thoughts, withdrawing itself from the crowds of contradictory phantasms; that so it might find out that light
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Letters of St. Augustin 75.14
… “Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill Him, because He had not only broken the Sabbath, but said also that God was His Father, making Himself equal with God.” Again: “Of His fulness have all we received, and grace for grace; for the law was given Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Letters of St. Augustin 82.18
… although we read that “the law and the prophets were until John,” and that “therefore the Jews sought the more to kill Him, because He not only had broken the Sabbath, but said also that God was His Father, making Himself equal with God,” and that “we have received grace for grace for the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ;”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 City of God 10.2
… That was the true Light which lighteth every man that cometh into the world;” a distinction which sufficiently proves that the rational or intellectual soul such as John had cannot be its own light, but needs to receive illumination from another, the true Light. This John himself avows when he delivers his witness: “We have all received of His fullness.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On Baptism, Against the Donatists 5.9
… as the same John says, "A man can receive nothing, except it be given him from heaven." And that he might not possibly seem to receive this from God the Father in such wise as not to receive it from the Son, speaking presently of Christ Himself, he says, "Of His fullness have all we received."
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on the Spirit and the Letter 11
… even as “John was a burning and a shining light,” who notwithstanding acknowledged the source of his own illumination in the words, “Of His fulness have all we received.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on Grace and Free Will 21
Perhaps you ask whether we ever read in the Sacred Scriptures of “ grace for grace .” Well you possess the Gospel according to John, which is perfectly clear in its very great light. Here John the Baptist says of Christ: “Of His fulness have we all received, even grace for grace .”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on Rebuke and Grace 41
… Because that saying is rightly understood which in the gospel is read, “grace for grace,”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 The Harmony of the Gospels 4.10
… as He also says of John the Baptist, that “he was a burning and shining light.” But He is Himself the beginning, of whom it is likewise declared, that “of His fulness have all we received.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 16.1
… not in preferring himself before Him. For so the whole train of attendants walks before the judge; yet they who walk before, are really after him. How signal a testimony then did John give to Christ? Even to saying that he “was not worthy to loose the latchet of His shoes.” And what more? “Of His fulness,” saith he, “have all we received.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 17.9
… “He was not that Light, but that he might bear witness of the Light.” But what was the Light? It was the true Light. What is the true Light? “That which lighteneth every man.” If that be the true Light which lighteneth every man, then it lightened John also, who professed and confessed rightly, “Of His fulness have all we received.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 1.6
… He also confessed, saying, “Since of His fullness have all we received.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 121.1
… let them now at length lift their eyes up to the hills, whence their help cometh…“Of His fulness have all we received,”
1:17
Tatian † AD 180 The Diatessaron 3
… and we saw his glory as the glory [54] of the only Son from the Father, which is full of grace and equity. John bare witness [Arabic, p. 14] of him, and cried, and said, This is he that I said cometh after me and [55] was before me, because he was before me. And of his fullness received [56] we all grace for grace.
Tertullian † AD 220 An Answer to the Jews 2
… 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”
Tertullian † AD 220 Appendix: Against All Heresies 3
After him brake out the heretic Cerinthus, teaching similarly. 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;
Tertullian † AD 220 On Patience 6
… Deservedly then was he “blessed,” because he was “faithful;” deservedly “faithful,” because “patient.” 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,
St Peter of Alexandria † AD 311 Fragments from the Writings of Peter 2
Since certainly “grace and truth came by Jesus Christ,”
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 De Sententia Dionysii. (Defence of Dionysius.) 11
… But writing to Jews, and comparing the human ministry of the Lord to Moses, he said, ‘having been made so much better than the angels,’ for by means of angels the law was spoken, because ‘the law was given by Moses, but grace came by Jesus Christ’ (
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 Against the Arians. (Orationes contra Arianos IV.) 1.13
… but now the Word has taken on Himself the judgment, and having suffered in the body for all, has bestowed salvation to all . With a view to this has John exclaimed, ‘The law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ
St Ambrose of Milan † AD 397 On the Mysteries 3
… And that miracle was wrought in a figure through Moses. If, then, the Spirit was in the figure, is He not present in the reality, since Scripture says to us: “For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.”
St Ambrose of Milan † AD 397 Concerning Repentance 1.12
… “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.”
St Ambrose of Milan † AD 397 Selections from the Letters of St. Ambrose 22.5
… and John, being as it were a heaven, saw the Word with God. The Lord Jesus Himself was a heaven of perpetual light, when He was declaring the glory of God, that glory which no man had seen before. And therefore He said: “No man hath seen God at any time, except the only-begotten Son, Who is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared Him.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 14
Ver. 17 . “The law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Epistle to the Hebrews 3
… What then is it? Either he means the Decalogue only (for there Moses spake, and God answered him— Ex. xix. 19 ),—or that angels were present, God disposing them in order,—or that he speaks thus in regard of all things said and done in the old Covenant, as if Angels had part in them. But how is it said in another place, “The Law was given by Moses” (
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 The Confessions 12.18
… But the law is good to edify, if a man use it lawfully; for the end of it “is charity out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and of faith unfeigned.” And well did our Master know, upon which two commandments He hung all the Law and the Prophets.
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Reply to Faustus the Manichæan 19.7
… It is a vain attempt that you make to escape by your three kinds of law and your three kinds of prophets. It is quite plain, and the New Testament leaves no doubt on the matter, what law and what prophets Christ came not to destroy, but to fulfill. The law given by Moses is that which by Jesus Christ became grace and truth.
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Reply to Faustus the Manichæan 19.8
… Thus the law, which was not fulfilled in the requirement of the letter, was fulfilled in the liberty of grace. In the same way, everything in the law that was prophetic of the Saviour’s advent, whether in words or in typical actions, became truth in Jesus Christ. For "the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ."
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Reply to Faustus the Manichæan 19.18
… Both are fulfilled in Christ, who has ever been the bestower of this grace, which is also now revealed in Him, and who now makes manifest the accomplishment of what He in former times promised; for "the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ."
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 45.7
… man, he says, “Fairer than the children of men.” Even though Himself “Man,” He is “fairer than the children of men;” though among the children of men, “fairer than the children of men:” though of the children of men, “fairer than the children of men.” “Grace is shed abroad on Thy lips.” “The Law was given by Moses. Grace and Truth came by Jesus Christ.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 74.1
… that they who worshipped not God were enriched with those things which he was looking for from God: and as though without cause he had served God, his feet tottered.…But opportunely it hath chanced not by our own but by God’s dispensation, that just now we heard out of the Gospel, that “the Law was given by Moses, Grace and Truth came by Jesus Christ.”
John Cassian † AD 435 The Seven Books of John Cassian on the Incarnation of the Lord, Against Nestorius 2.5
… Unless perhaps you want to take refuge in so utterly absurd and blasphemous a contradiction as to deny that she from whom God was born is the mother of God, while you cannot deny that He who was born is God. But, however, let us see what the gospel of God thinks about this same grace of our Lord: “Grace and truth,” it says, “came by Jesus Christ.”
Pope St Leo I the Great † AD 461 Letters 16
… And He ratified the power of re-birth on that occasion, when from His side flowed out the blood of ransom and the water of baptism . As, therefore, the Old Testament was the witness to the new, and “the law was given by Moses: but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ
Pope St Leo I the Great † AD 461 Sermons 51
… For the pages of both covenants corroborate each other, and He Whom under the veil of mysteries the types that went before had promised, is displayed clearly and conspicuously by the splendour of the present glory. Because, as says the blessed John, “the law was given through Moses: but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ
Pope St Leo I the Great † AD 461 Sermons 63
… because, although the severity of the mystic Law is done away, yet the benefits of its voluntary observance have increased, as the evangelist John says, “Because the Law was given through Moses, but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ
1:18
St Ignatius of Antioch † AD 108 Epistle to the Philadelphians: Shorter and Longer Versions 6
… 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
St Ignatius of Antioch † AD 108 Epistle to the Philippians 2
… 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.”
Tatian † AD 180 The Diatessaron 4
[1] No man hath seen God at any time; the only Son , God, which is in the bosom of his Father, he hath told of him .
St Irenaeus of Lyons † AD 202 Against Heresies 3.11.6
6. 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 [Him].”
St Irenaeus of Lyons † AD 202 Against Heresies 4.20.6
… for all things learn through His Word that there is one God the Father, who contains all things, and who grants existence to all, as is written in the Gospel: “No man hath seen God at any time, except the only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father; He has declared [Him].”
St Irenaeus of Lyons † AD 202 Against Heresies 4.20.11
11. 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.”
Tertullian † AD 220 Against Praxeas 8
… he longs, indeed, to know Him, but cannot; nay, he is almost swallowed up and dissolved into the rest of matter. With us, however, the Son alone knows the Father, and has Himself unfolded “the Father’s bosom.”
Tertullian † AD 220 Against Praxeas 15
… 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;”
Tertullian † AD 220 Against Praxeas 21
… Other by dispensation, not by division. 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. He “declared” (what was in) “the bosom of the Father alone;”
St Hippolytus † AD 235 Against the Heresy of One Noetus 5
… And who, again, is meant by Israel but a man who sees God? and there is no one who sees God except the Son alone, the perfect man who alone declares the will of the Father. For John also says, “No man hath seen God at any time; the only-begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared Him.”
Origen † AD 254 Origen De Principiis 1.1.8
… for the apostle does not say “the image of God invisible” to men or “invisible” to sinners, but with unvarying constancy pronounces on the nature of God in these words: “the image of the invisible God.” Moreover, John, in his Gospel, when asserting that “no one hath seen God at any time,”
Origen † AD 254 Origen De Principiis 2.4.3
… The following, then, are their declarations. It is written, that “no man hath seen God at any time.”
Origen † AD 254 Origen Against Celsus 2.71
Jesus taught us who it was that sent Him, in the words, “None knoweth the Father but the Son;” and in these, “No man hath seen God at any time; the only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared Him.”
Origen † AD 254 Origen Against Celsus 7.27
… For the Scriptures plainly speak of God as of a being without body. Hence it is said, “No man hath seen God at any time;”
St Gregory Thaumaturgus † AD 270 Fragment from the Discourse 1
… 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.”
Archelaus † fl. AD 278 The Acts of the Disputation with the Heresiarch Manes 5
… Yea, would that even this had been all the length to which they had gone with their silly efforts, and that they had not declared that the only-begotten Christ, who has descended from the bosom of the Father,
Archelaus † fl. AD 278 The Acts of the Disputation with the Heresiarch Manes 32
… Furthermore, there is but one only inconvertible substance, the divine substance, eternal and invisible, as is known to all, and as is also borne out by this scripture: “No man hath seen God at any time, save the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father.”
Archelaus † fl. AD 278 The Acts of the Disputation with the Heresiarch Manes 47
… Archelaus said : Are you not, then, of opinion that He was born of the Virgin Mary? Manes said : God forbid that I should admit that our Lord Jesus Christ came down to us through the natural womb of a woman! For He gives us His own testimony that He came down from the Father’s bosom;
St Methodius † AD 311 Concerning Free-Will 1
… Oh, concordant harmony, composed by the Divine Spirit! Oh, the comeliness of those who sing of the mysteries of God! Oh, that I also may join in these songs in my prayer. 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.
St Methodius † AD 311 From the Discourse on the Resurrection, Part III 2
… But if it sympathize with the body, as is proved by the testimony of those who appear, it cannot be incorporeal. Therefore God alone is celebrated, as the unbegotten, independent, and unwearied nature; being incorporeal, and therefore invisible; for “no man hath seen God.”
St Alexander of Alexandria † AD 326 Epistles on the Arian Heresy and the Deposition of Arius 1.4
4. But that the Son of God was not made “from things which are not,” and that there was no “time when He was not,” the evangelist John sufficiently shows, when he thus writes concerning Him: “The only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father.”
St Alexander of Alexandria † AD 326 Epistles on the Arian Heresy and the Deposition of Arius 2.3
… 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,” 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;”
St Hilary of Poitiers † AD 367 De Trinitate or On the Trinity 2.10
10. Listen then to the Unbegotten Father, listen to the Only-begotten Son. Hear His words, The Father is greater than I , and I and the Father are One , and He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father also , and The Father is in Me and I in the Father , and I went out from the Father , and Who is in the bosom of the Father
St Hilary of Poitiers † AD 367 De Trinitate or On the Trinity 2.23
… Let the preachers whose apostleship is of the newest fashion—an apostleship of Antichrist—come forward and pour their mockery and insult upon the Son of God. They must hear, I came out from the Father and The Son in the Father’s bosom
St Hilary of Poitiers † AD 367 De Trinitate or On the Trinity 4.8
… that He is immortal and invisible, as Paul says, Who only hath immortality, and dwelleth in light unapproachable, whom no man hath seen nor can see , and the Evangelist, No one hath seen God at any time, except the Only-begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father
St Hilary of Poitiers † AD 367 De Trinitate or On the Trinity 4.42
… Afterward did He shew Himself upon earth and dwelt among men . For previously he had said, And He is Man, and Who shall know Him ? Thus you have God seen on earth and dwelling among men. Now I ask you what sense you would assign to No one hath seen God at any time, save the Only-begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father
St Hilary of Poitiers † AD 367 De Trinitate or On the Trinity 5.33
… The Apostle, the Evangelist, the Prophet combine to silence your objections. Isaiah did see God; even though it is written, No one hath seen God at any time, save the Only-begotten Son Who is in the bosom of the Father; He hath declared Him
St Hilary of Poitiers † AD 367 De Trinitate or On the Trinity 6.39
… John, who was left behind and appointed to a destiny hidden in the counsel of God, for he is not told that he shall not die, but only that he shall tarry. Let him speak to us in his own familiar voice:— No one hath seen God at any time, except the Only-begotten Son, Which is in the bosom of the Father
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 Against the Heathen (Contra Gentes) 41
… but He is the unchanging Image of His own Father. For men, composed of parts and made out of nothing, have their discourse composite and divisible. But God possesses true existence and is not composite, wherefore His Word also has true Existence and is not composite, but is the one and only-begotten God
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 De Decretis. (Defence of the Nicene Definition.) 3
… star ;’ and again, ‘Thou art My Son, this day have I begotten Thee .’ And the Lord says of Himself in the Proverbs, ‘Before all the hills He begets me ;’ and concerning things originated and created John speaks, ‘All things were made by Him ;’ but preaching of the Lord, he says, ‘The Only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He declared Him
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 De Decretis. (Defence of the Nicene Definition.) 5
… ‘Not that anyone has seen the Father, save He which is from God, He hath seen the Father .’ And moreover, ‘I and My Father are one,’ and, ‘I in the Father and the Father in Me ,’ is equivalent to saying, ‘I am from the Father, and inseparable from Him.’ And John in saying, ‘The Only-begotten Son which is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared Him,
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 Against the Arians. (Orationes contra Arianos IV.) 2.21
… Moreover , as was before said, not in connection with any reason, but absolutely it is said of Him, ‘The Only-begotten Son which is in the bosom of the Father
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 Against the Arians. (Orationes contra Arianos IV.) 4.15
… but if the Son is not a work, then ever was the Father and ever the Son . But if the Son was ever, He must be the Word; for if the Word be not Son, and this is what a man waxes bold to say, either he holds that Word to be Father or the Son superior to the Word. For the Son being ‘in the bosom of the Father
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 Against the Arians. (Orationes contra Arianos IV.) 4.26
… And again, what is said in the same John, ‘The Only-begotten Son which is in the bosom of the Father
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 History of Arian Opinions 1
… Foreign from the Son in essence is the Father, for He is without beginning. Understand that the Monad was; but the Dyad was not, before it was in existence. It follows at once that, though the Son was not, the Father was God. Hence the Son, not being (for He existed at the will of the Father), is God Only-begotten
St Basil the Great † AD 379 De Spiritu Sancto 6
… of His glory with the Father, in His words, “He that hath seen me hath seen the Father;” and again, “When the Son cometh in the glory of his Father;” that they “should honour the Son even as they honour the Father;” and, “We beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father;” and “the only begotten God which is in the bosom of the Father.”
St Basil the Great † AD 379 De Spiritu Sancto 8
… It is on this account that we have not found Scripture describing the Lord to us by one name, nor even by such terms alone as are indicative of His godhead and majesty. At one time it uses terms descriptive of His nature, for it recognises the “name which is above every name,” the name of Son, and speaks of true Son, and only begotten God,
St Basil the Great † AD 379 De Spiritu Sancto 11
… For he who does not believe the Spirit does not believe in the Son, and he who has not believed in the Son does not believe in the Father. For none “can say that Jesus is the Lord but by the Holy Ghost,” and “No man hath seen God at any time, but the only begotten God which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.”
St Basil the Great † AD 379 De Spiritu Sancto 18
… because the honour paid to the image passes on to the prototype. Now what in the one case the image is by reason of imitation, that in the other case the Son is by nature; and as in works of art the likeness is dependent on the form, so in the case of the divine and uncompounded nature the union consists in the communion of the Godhead.
St Basil the Great † AD 379 The Letters 38.4
… Spirit dividing to every man severally as he will.” If we ask, if the supply of good things which thus comes to the saints has its origin in the Holy Ghost alone, we are on the other hand guided by Scripture to the belief that of the supply of the good things which are wrought in us through the Holy Ghost, the Originator and Cause is the Only-begotten God;
St Basil the Great † AD 379 The Letters 234
3. And the following counter question may also be put to them. “No man hath seen God at any time, the Only-begotten which is in the bosom hath declared him.”
St Cyril of Jerusalem † AD 386 The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril 6.5
… I am attempting now to glorify the Lord, but not to describe Him, knowing nevertheless that I shall fall short of glorifying Him worthily, yet deeming it a work of piety even to attempt it at all. For the Lord Jesus encourageth my weakness, by saying, No man hath seen God at any time
St Cyril of Jerusalem † AD 386 The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril 7.11
11. We believe then In One God the Father the Unsearchable and Ineffable, Whom no man hath seen , but the Only-begotten alone hath declared Him
St Cyril of Jerusalem † AD 386 The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril 9.1
1. To look upon God with eyes of flesh is impossible: for the incorporeal cannot be subject to bodily sight: and the Only begotten Son of God Himself hath testified, saying, No man hath seen God at any time
St Cyril of Jerusalem † AD 386 The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril 11.3
3. Our Lord Jesus Christ erewhile became Man, but by the many He was unknown. Wishing, therefore, to teach that which was not known, He called together His disciples, and asked them, Whom do men say that I, the Son of Man, am ? —not from vain-glory, but wishing to shew them the truth, lest dwelling with God, the Only-begotten of God
St Cyril of Jerusalem † AD 386 The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril 14
… but throughout His being (and His being is by an eternal generation ) He also sitteth together with the Father. And this throne the Prophet Esaias having beheld before the incarnate coming of the Saviour, says, I saw the Lord sitting on a throne, high and lifted up , and the rest. For the Father no man hath seen at any time
St Gregory of Nazianzus † AD 389 Select Orations of Saint Gregory Nazianzen 29
… “In the Beginning was The Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God,” and “With Thee is the Beginning,” and “He who calleth her The Beginning from generations.” Then the Son is Only-begotten: The only “begotten Son which is in the bosom of the Father, it says, He hath declared Him.”
St Gregory of Nyssa † AD 395 Against Eunomius 2.2
… But in fact the Deity is incapable of change and alteration. So, then, everything that is excellent and good is always contemplated in the fountain of excellency. But “the Only-begotten God, Who is in the bosom of the Father
St Gregory of Nyssa † AD 395 Against Eunomius 2.4
… For the name of “deity” is given, in an equivocal sense, to the idols of the heathen, seeing that “all the gods of the heathen are demons,” and in another sense marks the contrast of the one with the many, of the true with the false, of those who are not Gods with Him who is God . But if the contrast is one with the Only-begotten God
St Gregory of Nyssa † AD 395 Against Eunomius 2.12
… God the Word, Who was in the beginning, is “the seal of the energy”:—the Only-begotten God, Who is contemplated in the eternity of the Beginning of existent things, Who is in the bosom of the Father
St Gregory of Nyssa † AD 395 Against Eunomius 3.2
… For seeing that it is clear to all that God Who is over all has in Himself nothing as a thing created or imported, not power nor wisdom, nor light, nor word, nor life, nor truth, nor any at all of those things which are contemplated in the fulness of the Divine bosom (all which things the Only-begotten God is, Who is in the bosom of the Father
St Gregory of Nyssa † AD 395 Against Eunomius 7.4
… Let him then leave his accustomed language of fable, and show us the names which signify the essences, and then proceed further to divide the subject by the divergence of their names. But so long as the saying of the Scripture is true that Abraham and Moses were not capable of the knowledge of the Name, and that “no man hath seen God at any time
St Gregory of Nyssa † AD 395 Against Eunomius 10.1
… Which, then, of these is the essence of the Father supposed to be? For assuredly one cannot, by uttering all these phrases that disagree one with another in signification, intend to indicate by incompatible terms that Essence which is simple and uncompounded. And how can the word hold good, “No man hath seen God at any time
St Gregory of Nyssa † AD 395 Against Eunomius 12.1
… Or, again, whom does He Who did eat before the eyes of His disciples, and promised to go before them into Galilee and there be seen of them,—whom does He reveal Him to be Who should so appear to them? God, Whom no man hath seen or can see
St Gregory of Nyssa † AD 395 The Great Catechism 39
… For in things which equally imply the idea of a previous non-existence, though there be a difference between them in other respects, as regards this point we discover no variation of nature. If, then, man, who is himself a created being, thinks that the Spirit and the Only-begotten God
St Ambrose of Milan † AD 397 Exposition of the Christian Faith 3.3
24. Lest you should regard this argument as mere speculation take this sentence of authority. “No man,” saith the Scripture,
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Homilies on 1 Timothy 7
… Because they would not: but His part was done. His suffering was a “Testimony,” he says; for He came, it is meant, “to bear witness to the truth” of the Father, and was slain. Thus not only the Father bore witness to Him, but He to the Father. “For I came,” He saith, “in my Father’s name.” ( John v. 43 .) And again, “No man hath seen God at any time.” (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 74
… Wherefore Christ said, “No man hath seen God at any time” (
Rufinus of Aquileia † AD 411 The Apology of Rufinus. Addressed to Apronianus, in Reply to Jerome's Letter to Pammachius 1.17
… but he speaks quite distinctly of the nature of God in itself, where he says “The image of the invisible God.” John also says in his Gospel,
St Jerome † AD 420 Against the Pelagians 3.6
… And because he said that he had seen God, the Lord told him, “Thou canst not see My face. For man shall not see My face, and live.” Wherefore also the Apostle calls Him the only invisible God, Who dwells in light unapproachable, and Whom no man hath seen, nor can see. And the Evangelist John in holy accents testifies, saying,
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Letters of St. Augustin 148.10
… Our Ambrose says the same: “That the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, when visible, are seen under forms assumed by choice, not prescribed by the nature of Deity;” thus clearing the truth of the saying, “No man hath seen God at any time,”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On the Holy Trinity 6.2
… just as He is also the Son of the Father, for both together are not the Son). But in that which is added, “And the Word was with God,” there is much reason to understand thus: “The Word,” which is the Son alone, “was with God,” which is not the Father alone, but God the Father and the Son together.
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 47.3
… For He knoweth the Father by Himself, and we by Him. That He hath knowledge by Himself, we know already: that we also have knowledge by Him, we have like wise learned, for this also we have learned of Him. For He Himself hath said: “No one hath seen God at any time; but the only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared Him.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 89.30
… Yet it is from Christ: but from His members, His body which is the Church. For in this sense He speaks of it as a great thing that He will not take away His mercies from Him, supposing us not to recognise the only Son, who is in the bosom of the Father;
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 110.10
10. But this is put off, this will be granted afterwards: what is there now? “From the womb I have begotten Thee, before the morning star.” What is here? If God hath a Son, hath He also a womb? Like fleshly bodies, He hath not; for He hath not a bosom either; yet it is said, “He who is in the bosom of the Father, hath declared Him.”
Theodoret of Cyrus † AD 458 The Ecclesiastical History of Theodoret 1.3
… and hated iniquity, therefore thy God hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows .’ Now that the Son of God was not created out of the non-existent , and that there never was a time in which He was not, is expressly taught by John the Evangelist, who speaks of Him as ‘ the only begotten Son which is in the bosom of the Father
Theodoret of Cyrus † AD 458 Dialogues. The “Eranistes” or “Polymorphus” of the Blessed Theodoretus, Bishop of Cyrus 1
Orth. —But the Lord said again, “Not that any man hath seen the Father save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father.” Wherefore the evangelist plainly exclaims, “No man hath seen God at any time,”
Theodoret of Cyrus † AD 458 Letters of the Blessed Theodoret, Bishop of Cyprus 147
… The same teaching is given us in the Apostle’s words to the excellent Titus “Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ.” Here he calls the same both Saviour, and great God, and Jesus Christ. And in another place he writes, “In the kingdom of Christ and of God.”
St John of Damascus † AD 749 An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith 1.1
No one hath seen God at any time; the Only-begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared Him
St John of Damascus † AD 749 An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith 3.1
… and His wisdom is seen in His devising the most fitting solution of the difficulty . For by the good pleasure of our God and Father, the Only-begotten Son and Word of God and God, Who is in the bosom of the God and Father
Pseudo-Clement The Clementine Homilies 16.16
… “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?
1:19
Tatian † AD 180 The Diatessaron 4
… [9] John answered and said unto them, I baptize with water: among you is standing [10] one whom ye know not: this is he who I said cometh after me and was before [11] me, the latchets of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose. And that was in Bethany beyond Jordan, where John was baptizing.
Origen † AD 254 Origen's Commentary on the Gospel of John 6.2
… In the same way, also, the Apostles are not to be deemed wiser than the fathers, or than Moses and the prophets, than those in fact who, for their virtue, were found worthy of epiphanies and of divine manifestations and of revelations of mysteries.
Origen † AD 254 Origen's Commentary on the Gospel of John 6.4
Now let us consider John’s second testimony. Jews from Jerusalem,
Origen † AD 254 Origen's Commentary on the Gospel of John 6.6
Then the Jews sent priests and levites from Jerusalem to ask him, Who art thou? And he confessed and denied not; and he confessed, I am not the Christ.
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Our Lord’s Sermon on the Mount 2.20
… and if they had done this, they would certainly have answered themselves. For they themselves had sent to John, asking who he was; or rather they themselves, being priests and Levites, had been sent, supposing that he was the very Christ, but he said that he was not, and gave forth a testimony concerning the Lord:
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 109.2
… of Anna the prophetess; of Zachariah and Elisabeth, who prophesied of Him before He was born of the Virgin; of their son John, His forerunner, the friend of the Bridegroom, who both recognized Him in the Holy Spirit, and preached Him in His absence, and pointed Him out when He was present to the recognition of others;
1:20
Tatian † AD 180 The Diatessaron 4
[2] And this is the witness of John when the Jews sent to him from Jerusalem priests [3] and Levites to ask him, Who art thou?
St Hippolytus † AD 235 The Discourse on the Holy Theophany 3
… 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;”
Origen † AD 254 Origen's Commentary on the Gospel of John 5.3
… And Peter, on whom the Church of Christ is built, against which the gates of hell shall not prevail left only one epistle of acknowledged genuineness. Suppose we allow that he left a second; for this is doubtful. What are we to say of him who leaned on Jesus’ breast, namely, John, who left one Gospel, though confessing
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 16
Ver. 20 . “He confessed, and denied not; but confessed, I am not the Christ.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 2
… 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.
1:21
Tatian † AD 180 The Diatessaron 4
[2] And this is the witness of John when the Jews sent to him from Jerusalem priests [3] and Levites to ask him, Who art thou? And he acknowledged, and denied not; [4] and he confessed that he was not the Messiah.
Tertullian † AD 220 A Treatise on the Soul 35
… Baptist) as to make our Lord’s statement sponsor for their theory of transmigration, when He said, “Elias is come already, and they knew him not;” and again, in another passage, “And if ye will receive it, this is Elias, which was for to come.” Well, then, was it really in a Pythagorean sense that the Jews approached John with the inquiry, “Art thou Elias?”
Origen † AD 254 Origen's Commentary on the Gospel of John 6.7
… In fact the subject of the soul is a wide one, and hard to be unravelled, and it has to be picked out of scattered expressions of Scripture. It requires, therefore, separate treatment. The brief consideration we have been led to give to the problem in connection with Elijah and John may now suffice; we go on to what follows in the Gospel.
Origen † AD 254 Origen's Commentary on the Gospel of John 6.8
“Art thou that prophet? And he answered No.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 55
Wherefore the Samaritan woman also said, “Messiah cometh; when He is come, He will tell us all things:” and they themselves asked John, “Art thou Elias, or the Prophet?”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 16
Ver. 21 . “What then? art thou Elias? And he saith, I am not.”
1:22
Tatian † AD 180 The Diatessaron 4
[2] And this is the witness of John when the Jews sent to him from Jerusalem priests [3] and Levites to ask him, Who art thou? And he acknowledged, and denied not; [4] and he confessed that he was not the Messiah. And they asked him again, What then? Art thou Elijah? And he said, I am not he. Art thou a prophet? He [5] said, No.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 16
Ver. 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?”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Answer to the Letters of Petilian, the Donatist 3.29
… and he answers me, that both the baptizer and the baptized should be subjected to examination. And for the proof of this point, out of which no question arises, he adduces the example of John, in that he was examined by those who asked him who he claimed to be,
1:23
Tatian † AD 180 The Diatessaron 4
… And he acknowledged, and denied not; [4] and he confessed that he was not the Messiah. And they asked him again, What then? Art thou Elijah? And he said, I am not he. Art thou a prophet? He [5] said, No. They said unto him, Then who art thou? that we may answer them that [6] sent us. What sayest thou of thyself?
Origen † AD 254 Origen's Commentary on the Gospel of John 2.29
… To them he confesses and does not deny the truth, namely, that he is not the Christ, nor Elijah, nor the prophet, but “the voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make straight the way of the Lord, as saith Isaiah the prophet.”
St Ephrem the Syrian † AD 373 Ephraim Syrus: Nineteen Hymns on the Nativity of Christ in the Flesh 3
… Thee, Lord, let the voice of chaste women please, whose bodies Thou guardest holily. The day of Herod was like him: Thy day too is like Thee! The day of the troubled one was troubled with sin; and fair as Thou art is Thy fair day! The feast of the tyrant killed the preacher; in Thy feast every man preaches glory. On the day of the murderer, the Voice
St Gregory of Nazianzus † AD 389 Select Orations of Saint Gregory Nazianzen 21.3
… Men like Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, the twelve Patriarchs, Moses, Aaron, Joshua, the Judges, Samuel, David, to some extent Solomon, Elijah, Elisha, the Prophets before the captivity, those after the captivity, and, though last in order, first in truth, those who were concerned with Christ’s Incarnation or taking of our nature, the lamp
St Gregory of Nazianzus † AD 389 Select Orations of Saint Gregory Nazianzen 29
… but He redeems the world, and that at a great price, for the Price was His own blood. As a sheep He is led to the slaughter, but He is the Shepherd of Israel, and now of the whole world also. As a Lamb He is silent, yet He is the Word, and is proclaimed by the Voice of one crying in the wilderness.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 16
Ver. 23 . “I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make straight the way of the Lord, as said the prophet Esaias.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 The Harmony of the Gospels 2.12
… Luke, indeed, has likewise recorded some other words from the same prophet, which follow those already cited, when he gives his narrative of John the Baptist. The evangelist John, again, mentions that John the Baptist did also personally advance this same testimony of Isaiah regarding himself.
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 5
… 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.”
1:24
Tatian † AD 180 The Diatessaron 4
… And they asked him again, What then? Art thou Elijah? And he said, I am not he. Art thou a prophet? He [5] said, No. They said unto him, Then who art thou? that we may answer them that [6] sent us. What sayest thou of thyself? And he said, I am the voice that crieth in [7] the desert, Repair ye the way of the Lord, as said Isaiah the prophet.
Origen † AD 254 Origen's Commentary on the Gospel of John 6.5
… going on to the subsequent testimonies in which he points out Christ and witnesses to Him, let us look at the second and third, word for word, and let us, in the first place, observe that there are two embassies to the Baptist, one “from Jerusalem” from the Jews, who send priests and levites, to ask him, “Who art thou?” the second sent by the Pharisees,
Origen † AD 254 Origen's Commentary on the Gospel of John 6.13
And they that were sent were of the Pharisees. And they asked him, and said unto him,
Origen † AD 254 Origen's Commentary on the Gospel of John 6.14
… Coming now to the statement, “They were sent from the Pharisees and they asked Him,”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 11
So that from all these things it is manifest that they came indeed and were baptized, yet they did not abide in the belief of that which was preached. For John also points out their wickedness, by their sending unto the Baptist, and saying, “Art thou Elias? Art thou Christ?” wherefore he also added, “they which were sent were of the Pharisees.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 16
Ver. 24, 25 . “And [saith the Evangelist] they who were sent were of the Pharisees. And they asked him, and said unto him, Why baptizest thou then, if thou be not that Christ, neither Elias, neither that Prophet?”
1:25
Tatian † AD 180 The Diatessaron 4
… And he said, I am not he. Art thou a prophet? He [5] said, No. They said unto him, Then who art thou? that we may answer them that [6] sent us. What sayest thou of thyself? And he said, I am the voice that crieth in [7] the desert, Repair ye the way of the Lord, as said Isaiah the prophet. And they [8] that were sent were from the Pharisees.
Origen † AD 254 Origen's Commentary on the Gospel of John 6.4
… Now, they did not apply this name to the Christ, but supposed the prophet to be a second figure beside the Christ. But John, on the contrary, who knew that He whose forerunner he was was both the Christ and the prophet thus foretold, answered “No;” whereas, if they had asked if he was a prophet, he would have answered “Yes;”
Origen † AD 254 Origen's Commentary on the Gospel of John 6.5
Here the enquiry suggests itself whether the second testimony is concluded, and whether there is a third, addressed to those who were sent from the Pharisees. They wished to know why he baptized, if he was neither the Christ, nor Elijah, nor the prophet; and he said:
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 11
… This at any rate he hath declared by what follows; for on his not acknowledging any of the things which they expected, even so they take hold of him, saying, “Why baptizest thou then, if thou be not the Christ?”
1:26
Tatian † AD 180 The Diatessaron 4
… What sayest thou of thyself? And he said, I am the voice that crieth in [7] the desert, Repair ye the way of the Lord, as said Isaiah the prophet. And they [8] that were sent were from the Pharisees. And they asked him and said unto him, Why baptizest thou now, when thou art not the Messiah, nor Elijah, nor a prophet? [9]
Origen † AD 254 Origen De Principiis iv.section24
… For some such meaning seems to be indicated by John the Baptist, when he said to the multitude in the bodily absence of Jesus, “There standeth one among you whom ye know not: He it is who cometh after me, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose.”
Origen † AD 254 Origen Against Celsus 2.9
… John the Baptist, when predicting that the Son of God was to appear immediately, not in that body and soul, but as manifesting Himself everywhere, says regarding Him: “There stands in the midst of you One whom ye know not, who cometh after me.”
Origen † AD 254 Origen Against Celsus 5.12
… Another is made manifest by that John who wrote the Gospel, when, speaking in the person of John the Baptist, he said, “There standeth one among you whom ye know not; He it is who cometh after me.”
Origen † AD 254 Origen's Commentary on the Gospel of John 2.29
… that he is not the Christ, nor Elijah, nor the prophet, but “the voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make straight the way of the Lord, as saith Isaiah the prophet.” After this there is another testimony of the same Baptist to Christ, still teaching His superior nature, which goes forth into the whole world and enters into reasonable souls. He says,
Origen † AD 254 Origen's Commentary on the Gospel of John 6.15
… latchet of whose shoe I am not worthy to unloose.” By which he conveys, as in a riddle, that he is not fit to solve and to explain the argument about Christ’s assuming a human body, an argument tied up and hidden (like a shoe-tie) to those who do not understand it,—so as to say anything worthy of such an advent, compressed, as it was, into so short a space.
St Cyprian of Carthage † AD 258 Three Books of Testimonies Against the Jews 2.20
… “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.”
St Ambrose of Milan † AD 397 Selections from the Letters of St. Ambrose 63.4
4. Make yourselves then to appear worthy that Christ should be in your midst. For where peace is, there is Christ, for Christ is Peace; and where righteousness is, there is Christ, for Christ is Righteousness. Let Him be in the midst of you, that you may see Him, lest it be said to you also: “There standeth One in the midst of you, Whom ye see not.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 16
Ver. 26, 27 . “I,” saith he, “baptize with water: but there standeth one among you, whom ye know not; He it is, who coming after me is preferred before me, whose shoe’s latchet I am not worthy to unloose.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 1.18
… 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 cometh after me, whose shoe’s latchet I am not worthy to unloose.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 32.6
… that Anna the widow, a prophetess, also recognized Him; that John, who baptized Him, recognized Him;
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 35.2
… for He said, “Among them that are born of women, there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist.” Yet this man, than whom none was greater among those born of women, said of the Lord Jesus Christ, “I indeed baptize you in water; but He that is coming is mightier than I, whose shoe I am not worthy to loose.”
1:27
Tatian † AD 180 The Diatessaron 4
… And they [8] that were sent were from the Pharisees. And they asked him and said unto him, Why baptizest thou now, when thou art not the Messiah, nor Elijah, nor a prophet? [9] John answered and said unto them, I baptize with water: among you is standing [10] one whom ye know not:
St Hippolytus † AD 235 The Discourse on the Holy Theophany 3
… 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”
St Gregory of Nazianzus † AD 389 Select Orations of Saint Gregory Nazianzen 39.5
… and stirs up the son and the daughter and the bride against the father and the mother and the mother in law, the young and fresh against the old and shadowy. And what is the Latchet of the shoe, which thou John who baptizest Jesus mayest not loose?
St Ambrose of Milan † AD 397 Exposition of the Christian Faith 3.10
… “because He was before me,” because it was needful to teach the eternity of [Christ’s] Godhead; and this is the reason why St. John acknowledged Christ’s priority, that He, Who is His own Father’s eternal Power, may be presented as on that account duly preferred.
St Ambrose of Milan † AD 397 Exposition of the Christian Faith 5.19
… Thus it is written: “I raised mine eyes and saw and beheld a man, and in his hand there was a line of flax.” He was a man, for a type of the body that was to be assumed was thus shown. He was a man, of whom it was said: “There cometh a man after me, Whose shoe’s latchet I am not worthy to unloose.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 36
… And if yet thou didst not know that it is surely He, how thinkest thou thyself credible, affirming as thou dost concerning things, whereof thou art ignorant? For he that is to bear witness to others, must be first worthy of credit himself. Didst thou not say, “I am not meet to loose the latchet of His shoe?”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 64
… For if they had said, from heaven, He would have said unto them, why then did ye not believe him? For if they had believed, they would not have asked these things. For of Him John had said, “I am not worthy to loose the latchet of His shoe;” and, “Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sins of the world;” and, “This is the Son of God;”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Homilies on 2 Timothy 2
… All is of grace. His part is but to open his mouth, while God worketh all: the Priest only performs a symbol. Consider how wide was the distance between John and Jesus. Hear John saying, “I have need to be baptized of Thee” ( Matt. iii. 14 .), and, “Whose shoe’s latchet I am not worthy to unloose.” (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 29
“But how doth he who said, ‘whose shoe’s latchet I am not worthy to unloose,’
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On Baptism, Against the Donatists 5.9
… and that when John, than whom no greater had arisen among them that are born of women, bore such testimony to Christ, as to confess that he was not worthy to unloose the latchet of His shoe,
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 16.1
… but it was in obedience that he went before Him; not in preferring himself before Him. For so the whole train of attendants walks before the judge; yet they who walk before, are really after him. How signal a testimony then did John give to Christ? Even to saying that he “was not worthy to loose the latchet of His shoes.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 36.16
… they are driven out, and are not able to stand.” He first, who in the Truth stood not, then, through him, they whom God sent out of Paradise. Whence he, the humble, who said that he was not worthy to unloose His shoe’s latchet, is not driven out, but standeth and heareth Him, and rejoiceth greatly because of the Bridegroom’s voice;
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 78.8
… …For there was being figured how they were to be last that were first, and first were to be they that were last, through the Saviour’s coming, concerning whom hath been said, “He that is coming after me was made before me.”
1:28
Tatian † AD 180 The Diatessaron 4
… And they asked him and said unto him, Why baptizest thou now, when thou art not the Messiah, nor Elijah, nor a prophet? [9] John answered and said unto them, I baptize with water: among you is standing [10] one whom ye know not: this is he who I said cometh after me and was before [11] me, the latchets of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose.
Origen † AD 254 Origen's Commentary on the Gospel of John 6.24
“These things were done in Bethabara, beyond Jordan, where John was baptizing.”
Origen † AD 254 Origen's Commentary on Matthew 14.15
… But He came to the borders of Judæa, and not to the middle of it, but, as it were, to the outermost parts, where great multitudes followed Him, whom He healed at “the borders of Judæa beyond Jordan,”—where baptism had been given.
1:29
Tatian † AD 180 The Diatessaron 4
[28] Then came Jesus from Galilee to the Jordan to John, to be baptized of him. [29] And Jesus was about thirty years old, and it was supposed that he was the son of [30] Joseph.
St Irenaeus of Lyons † AD 202 Against Heresies 3.10.2
… This is He of whom I said, After me cometh a man who was made before me; because He was prior to me: and of His fulness have all we received.”
Tertullian † AD 220 An Answer to the Jews 9
… for David predicts, “I have prepared the lamp for my Christ;” and him Christ Himself, coming “to fulfil the prophets,” called so to the Jews. “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,”
Tertullian † AD 220 Against Praxeas 21
… 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,”
St Hippolytus † AD 235 On Daniel 2.15
… “Behold the Lamb of God, that taketh away the sin of the world!”
St Hippolytus † AD 235 Treatise on Christ and Antichrist 6
… 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;
St Hippolytus † AD 235 Treatise on Christ and Antichrist 45
… 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!”
Origen † AD 254 Origen's Commentary on the Gospel of John 1.5
… Must we also show that the old Scripture is not Gospel, since it does not point out the Coming One, but only foretells Him and heralds His coming at a future time; but that all the new Scripture is the Gospel. It not only says as in the beginning of the Gospel,
Origen † AD 254 Origen's Commentary on the Gospel of John 1.6
Now the Gospels are four. These four are, as it were, the elements of the faith of the Church, out of which elements the whole world which is reconciled to God in Christ is put together; as Paul says, “God was in Christ, reconciling the world to Himself;” of which world Jesus bore the sin; for it is of the world of the Church that the word is written,
Origen † AD 254 Origen's Commentary on the Gospel of John 1.23
… Thus John calls Him the Lamb of God, saying,
Origen † AD 254 Origen's Commentary on the Gospel of John 1.37
… For the death of Christ reduced to impotence those powers which war against the human race, and it set free from sin by a power beyond our words the life of each believer. Since, then, He takes away sin until every enemy shall be destroyed and death last of all, in order that the whole world may be free from sin, therefore John points to Him and says:
Origen † AD 254 Origen's Commentary on the Gospel of John 2.29
… John’s fourth testimony of Christ after these points to His human sufferings. He says,
Origen † AD 254 Origen's Commentary on the Gospel of John 6.30
“The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him.”
Origen † AD 254 Origen's Commentary on the Gospel of John 6.32
“And he sayeth, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.”
Origen † AD 254 Origen's Commentary on Matthew 13.8
… But another will say not merely that, but also collecting the passages together, will say that the Son is first delivered up by God,—then about to be tempted, then to be in conflict, then to suffer for men, or even for the whole world that He might take away its sin,
St Cyprian of Carthage † AD 258 Three Books of Testimonies Against the Jews 2.16
… 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!”
St Gregory Thaumaturgus † AD 270 Four Homilies 4
… 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!”
Eusebius of Caesarea † AD 339 The Oration of Eusebius 15.12
12. Thus, then, this salutary victim taken from among themselves, I mean the mortal body of the Word, was offered on behalf of the common race of men. This was that sacrifice delivered up to death, of which the sacred oracles speak: “Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.”
St Basil the Great † AD 379 The Letters 260.5
… from Cain to the flood, they say, seven generations passed by, and the punishment was brought on the whole earth, because sin was everywhere spread abroad. But the sin of Lamech requires for its cure not a Flood, but Him Who Himself takes away the sin of the world.
St Basil the Great † AD 379 The Letters 265.2
… He proclaims the renewal of the Temple, the observance of the worship of the Law, a typical high priest over again after the real High Priest, and a sacrifice for sins after the Lamb of God Who taketh away the sin of the world.
St Cyril of Jerusalem † AD 386 The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril 10.3
… we say “One,” that thou mayest not profanely diffuse the many names of His action among many sons. For He is called a Door ; but take not the name literally for a thing of wood, but a spiritual, a living Door, discriminating those who enter in. He is called a Way , not one trodden by feet, but leading to the Father in heaven; He is called a Sheep
St Cyril of Jerusalem † AD 386 The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril 13.3
… and to them that are perishing it is foolishness, but unto us which are being saved it is the power of God . For it was not a mere man who died for us, as I said before, but the Son of God, God made man. Further; if the lamb under Moses drove the destroyer far away, did not much rather the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world
St Cyril of Jerusalem † AD 386 The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril 13.19
… for He who said, Ye know that after two days comes the passover, and the Son of Man is betrayed to be crucified , did He not know?) I was like a harmless lamb led to be slaughtered; did I not know it? (but what sort of lamb? let John the Baptist interpret it, when he says, Behold the Lamb of God, that taketh away the sin of the world
St Ambrose of Milan † AD 397 Exposition of the Christian Faith 2.11
93. Let us bethink ourselves of the profitableness of right belief. It is profitable to me to know that for my sake Christ bore my infirmities, submitted to the affections of my body, that for me, that is to say, for every man, He was made sin, and a curse, that for me and in me was He humbled and made subject, that for me He is the Lamb, the Vine, the Rock,
St Ambrose of Milan † AD 397 Selections from the Letters of St. Ambrose 63.24
… but humbly bowed down to him, not indeed considering him the pitiless, the furious, the degenerate, but Him Whom he reverenced in him. And so he bowed down seven times, which is the number of remission, for he was not bowing down to man, but to Him Whom he foresaw in the Spirit, as hereafter to come in human flesh to take away the sins of the world.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 11
Wherefore he again cried out, saying, “Behold the Lamb of God, which beareth the sin of the world.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 27
… and He saith, that Esaias also spake of these things; “He took our infirmities, and bare our sicknesses.” He said not, “He did them away,” but “He took and bare them;” which seems to me to be spoken rather of sins, by the prophet, in harmony with John, where he saith, “Behold the Lamb of God, that beareth the sin of the world.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 36
… Didst thou not utterly forbid Him, saying, “I have need to be baptized of Thee?” Didst thou not say even to thy disciples, “He must increase, I must decrease?” Didst thou not teach all the people, that “He should baptize them with the Holy Ghost and with fire?” and that He “is the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world?”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Homilies on First Corinthians 38
… liii .) But if thou dost not endure the Old Testament, hear John crying out and declaring both, as well His slaughter in the body as the cause of it: thus, “Behold,” saith he, “the Lamb of God, Who taketh away the sin of the world:” (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Homilies on First Corinthians 39
“Ye are yet in your sins.” For if He was not raised, neither did He die; and if He died not, neither did He take away sin: His death being the taking away of sin. “For behold,” saith one, “the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.” (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 46
“But,” saith some one, “this doctrine was strange to them and unusual.” And yet John at an earlier period alluded to it by calling Him “Lamb.” (
St Jerome † AD 420 The Letters of St. Jerome 69.1
… What else is this but to say that Christ has died in vain? He has indeed died in vain if there are any whom He cannot make alive. When John the Baptist points to Christ and says: “Behold the lamb of God which taketh away the sins of the world”
St Jerome † AD 420 The Letters of St. Jerome 108.10
… whose fleece bright and clean was made wet with the dew of heaven when it was dry upon all the earth beside, and whose blood when sprinkled on the doorposts drove off the destroyer of Egypt and took away the sins of the world.
St Jerome † AD 420 The Dialogue Against the Luciferians 1
… What do we mean by saying that John in his baptism could not give the Holy Spirit to others, yet gave him to Christ? And who is that John? “The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make ye ready the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.” He who used to say,
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Letters of St. Augustin 55.11
… for such are borrowed from every created thing. Nor is there any reason for our incurring the sentence of condemnation which is pronounced by the apostle on some who worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. We do not adore sheep or cattle, although Christ is called both a Lamb,
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On the Holy Trinity 2.6
… in order to show that the Spirit was manifested by that fire, as by the dove; yet we cannot call the Holy Spirit both God and a dove, or both God and fire, in the same way as we call the Son both God and man; nor as we call the Son the Lamb of God; which not only John the Baptist says, “Behold the Lamb of God,”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On the Holy Trinity 15.24
… And for what demerit save that of sin is this evil inflicted on them? Wherefore, being warned by the magnitude of so great an evil, they ought to follow the Lamb that taketh away the sins of the world.
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Of Holy Virginity 37
… They are holy, but Thou art also Holy of Holies. They are virgins, but they are not also born of virgins. They are wholly chaste both in spirit and in flesh: but they are not the Word made flesh. And yet let them learn, not from those unto whom Thou forgivest sins, but from Thee Thyself, The Lamb of God Who takest away the sins of the world,
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Reply to Faustus the Manichæan 12.30
… In the passover a lamb is killed, representing Christ, of whom it is said in the Gospel, "Behold the Lamb of God, who taketh away the sin of the world!"
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Reply to Faustus the Manichæan 16.15
… These things are to some extent allied. But there is the greatest possible distance between the Son of God, by whom all things were made, and a beast or a stone. And yet in the Gospel we read, "Behold the Lamb of God,"
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On Baptism, Against the Donatists 5.10
… that "He hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus;" and again, "For we are saved by hope;" or as again John himself, while he says, "I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance, for the remission of your sins," yet says, on seeing our Lord, "Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world,"
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on the Merits and Forgiveness of Sins, and on the Baptism of Infants 1.33
… Now from this sin, from this sickness, from this wrath of God (of which by nature they are children who have original sin, even if they have none of their own on account of their youth), none delivers them, except the Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world;
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on the Merits and Forgiveness of Sins, and on the Baptism of Infants 1.40
… From the Gospel of John we have already ad duced some passages. However, I must also request your attention to the following: John Baptist says of Christ, “Behold the Lamb of God, Behold Him which taketh away the sin of the world;”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise Against Two Letters of the Pelagians 3.11
… “Behold the Lamb of God; behold Him who taketh away the sin of the world.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 The Harmony of the Gospels 2.4
… “Behold the Lamb of God, that taketh away the sin of the world!”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 16.2
… A Prophet? yea, and more than a Prophet.” Why “more than a Prophet”? The Prophets foretold that the Lord would come, whom they desired to see, and saw not; but to him was vouchsafed what they sought. John saw the Lord; he saw Him, pointed his finger toward Him, and said, “Behold the Lamb of God, who taketh away the sins of the world;”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 5
… 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 taketh away the sin of the world!”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 46.3
… True, the sheep is under the shepherd; yet He is both the Shepherd and a sheep. Where is He the Shepherd? Look, here thou hast it; read the Gospel: “I am the good Shepherd.” Where is He a sheep? Ask the prophet: “He was led as a sheep to the slaughter.” Ask the friend of the bridegroom: “Behold the Lamb of God, that taketh away the sin of the world.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 45.6
6. What follows then? “My tongue is the pen of a writer writing rapidly.” What likeness, my brethren, what likeness, I ask, has the “tongue” of God with a transcriber’s pen? What resemblance has “the rock” to Christ? What likeness does the “lamb” bear to our Saviour,
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 91.6
… If either were literally, how could the one be the same as the other? can wings be a shield or a shield wings? But all these expressions, indeed, are figuratively used through likenesses. If Christ were really a Stone, He could not be a Lion; if a Lion, He could not be a Lamb: but He is called both Lion, and Lamb,
John Cassian † AD 435 The Seven Books of John Cassian on the Incarnation of the Lord, Against Nestorius 4.12
… “for He it is that shall save His people from their sins.” But it does not lie in the power of a man to redeem his people from the captivity of sin,—a thing which is only possible for Him of whom it is said, “Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.”
John Cassian † AD 435 The Seven Books of John Cassian on the Incarnation of the Lord, Against Nestorius 7.11
… Most certainly not. But it was by the mighty evidence of signs, by mighty results of actions, by the words of the Truth Himself that he was driven to suspect and examine into this matter: inasmuch as he had already once heard from John: “Behold the Lamb of God, behold Him who taketh away the sin of the world.”
Theodoret of Cyrus † AD 458 Dialogues. The “Eranistes” or “Polymorphus” of the Blessed Theodoretus, Bishop of Cyrus 3
Eran. —Because John called the Lord “a lamb,”
Pope St Leo I the Great † AD 461 Letters 16
… As, therefore, the Old Testament was the witness to the new, and “the law was given by Moses: but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ ;” as the divers sacrifices prefigured the one Victim, and the slaughter of many lambs was ended by the offering up of Him, of whom it is said, “Behold the Lamb of God ; behold Him that taketh away the sin of the world
Pope St Leo I the Great † AD 461 Letters 124
… Without the power of the Word the Father’s voice uttered from the sky would not have said, “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased :” and without the reality of the flesh John would not have been able to point to Him and say: “Behold the Lamb of God , behold Him that beareth away the sins of the world
Pope St Leo I the Great † AD 461 Sermons 59
… Now, too, the variety of fleshly sacrifices has ceased, and the one offering of Thy Body and Blood fulfils all those different victims: for Thou art the true “Lamb of God , that takest away the sins of the world
1:30
Tatian † AD 180 The Diatessaron 4
[28] Then came Jesus from Galilee to the Jordan to John, to be baptized of him. [29] And Jesus was about thirty years old, and it was supposed that he was the son of [30] Joseph. And John saw Jesus coming unto him, and said, This is the Lamb of [31] God, that taketh on itself the burden of the sins of the world!
Origen † AD 254 Origen's Commentary on the Gospel of John 1.23
… Thus John calls Him the Lamb of God, saying, “Behold the Lamb of God which taketh away the sins of the world,” and in these words he declares Him as a man,
St Ambrose of Milan † AD 397 Exposition of the Christian Faith 3.10
63. But [say they] it is written: “After me cometh a Man, Who is made before me, because He was before me;”
St Ambrose of Milan † AD 397 Concerning Widows 7
… In order to accomplish her stratagem she put on that robe of mirth, wherewith in her husband’s lifetime she was wont to be clothed, as though she would give pleasure to her husband, if she freed her country. But she saw another man whom she was seeking to please, even Him, of Whom it is said: “After me cometh a Man Who is preferred before me.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 5
… You see with what advantage he combats, by turning what they said to an opposite bearing. For if it is by the Law you claim to be saved, in this respect, saith he, the Gentile will stand before you,
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Homilies on Ephesians 7
… “In God,” he continues, “who created all things by Jesus Christ.” And he does well to say “by Jesus Christ;” forasmuch as He who created all things by Him, revealeth also this by Him; for He hath made nothing without Him; for “without Him,” it is said, “was not any thing made.” (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 17
Ver. 30 . “This is He of whom I said, He that cometh after me is preferred before me.”
Rufinus of Aquileia † AD 411 The Apology of Rufinus. Addressed to Apronianus, in Reply to Jerome's Letter to Pammachius 1.42
… and shall have come to the measure of the age of the fulness of Christ, of whose fulness we all have received, so that Christ will not be in us in part but wholly, and, leaving the rudiments of babes, we shall have grown into the perfect man, of whom the Prophet says, “Behold the man whose name is the East,” and whom John the Baptist announces in the words:
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 1.6
… but still, since they were men who wrote the Scriptures, they did not shine of themselves, but “He was the true light, who lighteth every man that cometh into the world.” A mountain also was that John the Baptist, who said, “I am not the Christ,”
1:31
Tatian † AD 180 The Diatessaron 4
… [29] And Jesus was about thirty years old, and it was supposed that he was the son of [30] Joseph. And John saw Jesus coming unto him, and said, This is the Lamb of [31] God, that taketh on itself the burden of the sins of the world! This is he concerning whom I said, There cometh after me a man who was before me, because he was [32] before me.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 10
… The Baptist again makes this also plain to us, saying, “I knew Him not, but that He should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 17
Ver. 31 . “And I knew Him not,” he saith.
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 96.8
… Do ye then “ascribe unto the Lord worship and honour;” and say, “Not unto us, O Lord, not unto us: but unto Thy Name give the praise.” Put not your trust in man. If each of you is baptized, let him say: He baptizeth me, of whom the friend of the Bridegroom said, “He baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 127.8
… and, therefore, he who preacheth in the gate, saith, Trust not in me; for ye will not enter through me, but through the gate. While they who wish men to trust in themselves, wish them not to enter through the gate: it is no marvel if the gate be closed against them, and if they vainly knock for it to be opened.
1:32
Tatian † AD 180 The Diatessaron 4
… And when all the people were baptized, Jesus also [36] was baptized. And immediately he went up out of the water, and heaven opened [37] [Arabic, p. 17] to him, and the Holy Spirit descended upon him in the similitude of the [38] body of a dove; and lo, a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved [39] Son, in whom I am well pleased.
Origen † AD 254 Origen Against Celsus i.48
… And I knew Him not; but He that sent me to baptize with water, the same said to me, Upon whom you will see the Spirit descending, and abiding on Him, the same is He that baptizeth with the Holy Ghost. And I saw, and bear witness, that this is the Son of God.”
Origen † AD 254 Origen's Commentary on the Gospel of John 2.6
… He remained on Him, and did not pass Him by, as He might have done with men not able continuously to bear His glory. Thus John, when explaining how he knew who Christ was, spoke not only of the descent of the Spirit on Jesus, but also of its remaining upon him. For it is written that John said:
Origen † AD 254 Origen's Commentary on the Gospel of John 2.29
… He says, “Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world. This is He of whom I said, After me cometh a man who exists before me, for He was before me. And I knew Him not, but that He should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water.” And the fifth testimony is recorded in the words,
St Cyril of Jerusalem † AD 386 The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril 17.4
… and again, But when the Comforter is come whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of Truth . And He is called the Spirit of God, according as it is written, And I saw the Spirit of God descending
St Ambrose of Milan † AD 397 On the Holy Spirit 3.1.3
… He heard from God, he saw in the Lord, he believed that it was the Spirit Who was coming down from heaven. For it was not a dove that descended, but the Holy Spirit as a dove; for thus it is written: “I saw the Spirit descending from heaven as a dove.”
St Ambrose of Milan † AD 397 On the Mysteries 4
… He it is, then, Whose coming down was being waited for, of Whom the Father said to John the Baptist: “Upon Whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending and abiding upon Him, this is He Who baptizeth with the Holy Spirit.” And John bare witness of Him, and said: “I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove and abiding upon Him.”
St Ambrose of Milan † AD 397 Selections from the Letters of St. Ambrose 41.21
21. The Synagogue has not this oil, inasmuch as she has not the olive, and understood not that dove which brought back the olive branch after the deluge. For that Dove descended afterwards when Christ was baptized, and abode upon Him, as John testified in the Gospel, saying: “I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and He abode upon Him.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 17
… 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. And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 City of God 20.30
… The Holy Spirit was given to Him, and was manifested, as the evangelist testifies, in the form of a dove.
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On Baptism, Against the Donatists 5.13
… And I knew Him not: but He that sent me to baptizewith water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shall see the Spirit descending, and remaining on Him, the same is He which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost?"
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 94.4
… Who would venture to say so? Neither was it, that where He was, thence the Other had withdrawn, or that He had so come from the Father as that He did not still abide with the Father. And still further, how could He, even when having His own abode on earth, be unable to send Him, who we know came and remained upon Him at His baptism;
John Cassian † AD 435 The Seven Books of John Cassian on the Incarnation of the Lord, Against Nestorius 7.17
… Who also filled with righteousness (justitia) that which was created: for it says ‘He appeared in the flesh, was justified in the Spirit.’ Again: Who made Him also to be feared by the devils: ‘For I,’ He says, ‘by the Spirit of God cast out devils.’ Who also made His flesh a temple. ‘For I saw His spirit descending like a dove and abiding upon Him.’
John Cassian † AD 435 The Seven Books of John Cassian on the Incarnation of the Lord, Against Nestorius 7.21
But there follows in your blasphemy that His flesh was made a temple of the Holy Ghost, for this reason, that John has said: “For I saw the Spirit descending from heaven and abiding upon Him.”
1:33
Tatian † AD 180 The Diatessaron 4
… 17] to him, and the Holy Spirit descended upon him in the similitude of the [38] body of a dove; and lo, a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved [39] Son, in whom I am well pleased. And John bare witness and said, I beheld the [40] Spirit descend from heaven like a dove; and it abode upon him.
Tertullian † AD 220 On Baptism 10
… 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,)
Origen † AD 254 Origen's Commentary on the Gospel of John 2.24
… In the same passage it is added, “He came for witness, to bear witness of the light.” Now, if he came, where did he come from? To those who find it difficult to follow us, we point to what John says afterwards of having seen the Holy Spirit as a dove descending on the Saviour. “He that sent me,” he says,
St Basil the Great † AD 379 De Spiritu Sancto 16
… In the first place He was made an unction, and being inseparably present was with the very flesh of the Lord, according to that which is written, “Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending and remaining on Him, the same is”
St Cyril of Jerusalem † AD 386 The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril 3.14
… not that Jesus might see Him first, for He knew Him even before He came in a bodily shape, but that John, who was baptizing Him, might behold Him. For I , saith he, knew Him not: but He that sent me to baptize with water, He said unto me, Upon whomsoever thou shalt see the Spirit descending and abiding on Him, that is He
St Cyril of Jerusalem † AD 386 The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril 17.9
9. This Holy Ghost came down when the Lord was baptized, that the dignity of Him who was baptized might not be hidden; as John says, But He which sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whomsoever thou shalt see the Spirit descending and remaining upon Him, the same is He which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost
St Ambrose of Milan † AD 397 On the Duties of the Clergy 3.18
102. We form the congregation of the Lord. We recognize the propitiation of our Lord God, which our Propitiator wrought in His passion. I think, too, we cannot leave out of sight that fire when we read that the Lord Jesus baptizes with the Holy Spirit and with fire,
St Ambrose of Milan † AD 397 On the Holy Spirit 1.8
93. There was therefore a pouring out upon us of the Spirit, but upon the Lord Jesus, when He was in the form of man, the Spirit abode, as it is written: “Upon Whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending from heaven, and abiding upon Him, He it is Who baptizeth in the Holy Spirit.”
St Ambrose of Milan † AD 397 On the Holy Spirit 3.1.3
3. But if they believe not the Son, let them hear the Father also saying that the Spirit of the Lord is upon Christ. For He says to John: “Upon whomsoever thou shalt see the Spirit descending from heaven and abiding upon Him, He it is Who baptizeth with the Holy Spirit.”
St Ambrose of Milan † AD 397 On the Holy Spirit 3.1.5
5. And he said fittingly, “abiding upon Him,”
St Ambrose of Milan † AD 397 On the Holy Spirit 3.14
96. Who, then, do you think is here named Lord, except the Spirit? And has not God the Father been able to teach you, Who says: “Upon Whomsoever thou shalt see the Spirit descending and abiding upon Him, this is He Who baptizeth in the Holy Spirit”?
St Ambrose of Milan † AD 397 On the Mysteries 4
… He it is, then, Whose coming down was being waited for, of Whom the Father said to John the Baptist: “Upon Whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending and abiding upon Him, this is He Who baptizeth with the Holy Spirit.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 10
… And he himself too saith, “He that sent me to baptize with water, the same said to me, upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending like a dove, and remaining on Him, the same is He which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 11
… but by so great a gift of the Spirit that also was established. Therefore the Father also in sending John gave him, as you know , this as a first token of the dignity of Him that was come, saying, “Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending and remaining, the same is He which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 36
… Didst thou not say, “I am not meet to loose the latchet of His shoe?” Didst thou not say, “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 resting upon Him, the same is He which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost?”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 A Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles 6
… what great matter was this, to say that He was sent from God? For this was the point which on all occasions both He and John and the Apostles were studious to show. Thus hear John saying: “The same said unto me On whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and abiding on him, this is He.” (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 13
… 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,” saith he, “to baptize with water, the Same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit” of God “descending, the same is He.” (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 17
… 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 thou shalt see the Spirit descending and remaining on Him, the same is He which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.” (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 40
“Why then hast Thou brought forward that of John?” His testimony was not the “testimony of man,” for, saith he, “He that sent me to baptize with water, He said unto me.” (
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Letters of St. Augustin 51.5
… “All the kindreds of the nations shall worship before Thee”? Yet you accept the baptism of the former, while that of the latter is despised; whereas baptism belongs neither to the one nor to the other, but to Him of whom it was said: “This same is He that baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Letters of St. Augustin 89.5
… “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.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On Baptism, Against the Donatists 3.4
… And so how much was suggested to me on more diligent inquiry, even by the letter of Cyprian himself, in favor of the view which is now held by the Catholic Church, that the baptism of Christ is to be recognized and approved, not by the standard of their merits by whom it is administered, but by His alone of whom it is said, "The same is He which baptizeth,"
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On Baptism, Against the Donatists 4.11
… He is not, therefore, a "patron of heretics" who refuses to attribute to them what he knows not to belong to them, even though it be found among them. We do not grant baptism to be theirs; but we recognize His baptism of whom it is said, "The same is He which baptizeth,"
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On Baptism, Against the Donatists 5.12
… Is not the answer ready to this invidious question, Why do you think this unmeet, as though either John were dishonored, or the covetous man honored? But His baptism ought not to be repeated, of whom John says, "The same is He which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost."
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On Baptism, Against the Donatists 6.28
… Or how can they baptize any one in the name of Christ whom Christ Himself declares to be His enemies? For He says to all the unrighteous, "I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity;" and yet, when they baptize, it is not themselves that baptize, but He of whom John says, "The same is He which baptizeth."
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On Baptism, Against the Donatists 6.34
… But if he by whom he is baptized is such, but the man who is baptized is turned to the Lord with no false heart, he is not baptized by that dead person, but by that living One of whom it is said, "The same is He which baptizeth."
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On Baptism, Against the Donatists 7.14
… and the covetousness which was found in his colleagues, are in themselves opposed to one another, yet the baptism which Cyprian used to give was not contrary to the baptism which his colleagues who opposed him used to give, but one and the same with it, because in both cases it is He that baptizes of whom it is said, "The same is He which baptizeth."
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Answer to the Letters of Petilian, the Donatist 1.9
Chapter 9.— 10. Again, when he hears, "He that is washed by one dead, his washing profiteth him nought," he will answer, "Christ, being raised from the dead, dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over Him:" of whom it is said, "The same is He which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost."
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Answer to the Letters of Petilian, the Donatist 2.2
… But when the water of baptism is given to any one in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, it is neither ours nor yours, but His of whom it was said to John, "Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on Him, the same is He which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost."
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Answer to the Letters of Petilian, the Donatist 3.49
… For when we say, Christ baptizes, we do not mean by a visible ministry, as Petilianus believes, or would have men think that he believes, to be our meaning, but by a hidden grace, by a hidden power in the Holy Spirit as it is said of Him by John the Baptist, "The same is He which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost."
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 The Harmony of the Gospels 2.15
… In this section, the question rises as to how it is said, “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 Spirit.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 79.7
… Thou coming I know not whence, yea, rather not coming, but wishing that I should come to thee, fixed in this place, sayest to me, ‘Thou wast not baptized duly, seeing I was not there.’ Consider who was there. What was said to John? ‘Upon whom thou shall see the Spirit descending like a dove, this is He which baptizeth.’
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 7.3
… 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 thou shalt see the Spirit descending as a dove, and abiding upon Him, this is He which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 13.10
… Now I see many adulterers who desire to get possession of the bride, purchased at so great a price, loved while deformed that she might be made fair, having been purchased and delivered and adorned by such an one; and those adulterers strive with their words to be loved instead of the bridegroom. Of that One it is said, “This is He that baptizeth.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Ten Homilies on the First Epistle of John 7.11
… Whence it came into my mind, my brethren, to tell you, that those violaters of charity are they that have made the schism: as they hate charity itself, so they hate also the dove. But the dove convicts them: it comes forth from heaven, the heavens open, and it abideth on the head of the Lord. Wherefore this? That John may hear, “This is He that baptizeth.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 96.8
… Do ye then “ascribe unto the Lord worship and honour;” and say, “Not unto us, O Lord, not unto us: but unto Thy Name give the praise.” Put not your trust in man. If each of you is baptized, let him say: He baptizeth me, of whom the friend of the Bridegroom said, “He baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 132.7
… but the friend of the bridegroom standeth and heareth him.” If he stand not, he heareth him not. Justly he standeth, because “he rejoiceth on account of the bridegroom’s voice.” Now therefore ye see why they fell, who rejoice because of their own voice. That friend of the Bridegroom said, “The same is He which baptizeth.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 132.20
… For horn signifieth height: and what sort of height? Not carnal. Therefore, while all the bones are wrapped up in flesh, the horn goeth beyond the flesh. Spiritual altitude is a horn. But what is spiritual loftiness, save to trust in Christ? not to say, It is my work, I baptize; but, “He it is who baptizeth.”
Theodoret of Cyrus † AD 458 Counter-statements of Theodoret 1
… And the Lord Himself in the Gospels says to the Jews, “If I with the spirit of God cast out devils, no doubt the kingdom of God is come upon you.” And John 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.”
1:34
Tatian † AD 180 The Diatessaron 4
… And John bare witness and said, I beheld the [40] Spirit descend from heaven like a dove; and it abode upon him. But I knew him not; but he that sent me to baptize with water, he said unto me, Upon whomsoever thou shalt behold the Spirit descending and lighting upon him, the same is he that [41] baptizeth with the Holy Spirit.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 11
… gave him, as you know , this as a first token of the dignity of Him that was come, saying, “Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending and remaining, the same is He which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.” Wherefore himself too saith, “I saw and bare record that this is the Son of God;” as though the one were to all time the clear evidence of the other.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 A Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles 1
… whereas the other appears to foolish persons mere parade and pretension. And therefore John also speaks thus: “I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God.” (
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 36.15
… And because pride had wounded us, humility maketh us whole. God came humbly, that from such great wound of pride He might heal man. He came, for “The Word was made Flesh, and dwelt among us.”
1:35
Tatian † AD 180 The Diatessaron 5
… and it was about the tenth hour. [9] One of the two which heard from John, and followed Jesus, was Andrew the [10] brother of Simon. And he saw first Simon his brother, and said unto him, We have [11] found the Messiah. And he brought him unto Jesus. And Jesus looked upon him and said, Thou art Simon, son of Jonah: thou shalt be called Cephas.
Origen † AD 254 Origen's Commentary on the Gospel of John 2.29
… And I have seen and borne witness that this is the Son of God.” In the sixth place John witnesses of Christ to the two disciples:
Origen † AD 254 Origen's Commentary on Matthew 10.1
… And, in my opinion, such things are indicated in the Gospel according to John in these words, “On the morrow again John was standing and two of his disciples.”
1:36
Tatian † AD 180 The Diatessaron 5
[4, 5] And next day John was standing, and two of his disciples;
St Cyprian of Carthage † AD 258 Three Books of Testimonies Against the Jews 2.30
… 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.”
St Jerome † AD 420 The Letters of St. Jerome 121
(1) How is Luke vii. 18, 19 , to be reconciled with
1:37
Tatian † AD 180 The Diatessaron 5
[4, 5] And next day John was standing, and two of his disciples; and he saw Jesus as [6] he was walking, and said, Behold, the Lamb of God!
1:38
Tatian † AD 180 The Diatessaron 5
[4, 5] And next day John was standing, and two of his disciples; and he saw Jesus as [6] he was walking, and said, Behold, the Lamb of God! And his two disciples heard [7] him saying this , and they followed Jesus.
Origen † AD 254 Origen's Commentary on Matthew 12.22
… But it is sufficient at present to bring forward this from the Gospel according to John, “Jesus turned and beheld them”—clearly, Peter and Andrew—“following, and saith unto them, What seek ye?”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans pref
With respect to Free-will, he has one or two passages, as in Hom. on the words of St. Paul, 2 Cor. iv. 13 . Ben. t. iii. p. 264. “That first believing, and obeying when called, is of our good will; but when the foundation of faith is laid, we need the assistance of the Spirit.” And on St.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 18
Ver. 38 . “Then Jesus turned, and saw them following, and saith unto them, What seek ye?”
1:39
Tatian † AD 180 The Diatessaron 5
[4, 5] And next day John was standing, and two of his disciples; and he saw Jesus as [6] he was walking, and said, Behold, the Lamb of God! And his two disciples heard [7] him saying this , and they followed Jesus. And Jesus turned and saw them coming after him, and said unto them, What seek ye? They said unto him, Our master, [8] where art thou staying?
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 18
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”—(
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 The Harmony of the Gospels 2.17
… Likewise John tells us, that on the day following, when Jesus was now desirous of going forth unto Galilee, He found Philip, and said to him that he should follow Him. Thus, too, the evangelist comes to give the narrative about Nathanael.
1:40
Tatian † AD 180 The Diatessaron 5
… And his two disciples heard [7] him saying this , and they followed Jesus. And Jesus turned and saw them coming after him, and said unto them, What seek ye? They said unto him, Our master, [8] where art thou staying? And he said unto them, Come and see. And they came and saw his place, and abode with him that day: and it was about the tenth hour. [9]
Origen † AD 254 Origen's Commentary on Matthew 10.1
… “One of the two that heard John speak and followed him was Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 A Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles 3
… In fact, from the very beginning there were many that then followed Him. Observe, for instance, how this appears in these words: “One of the two which heard John speak, and followed Jesus.—All the time,” he says, “that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John.” (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 18
Ver. 40 . “One of the two who heard, and followed Him, was Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 19
… Miracles may possibly be slandered among foolish men, (“He casteth out devils,” said they, “by Beelzebub”— Matt. xii. 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
1:41
Tatian † AD 180 The Diatessaron 5
… They said unto him, Our master, [8] where art thou staying? And he said unto them, Come and see. And they came and saw his place, and abode with him that day: and it was about the tenth hour. [9] One of the two which heard from John, and followed Jesus, was Andrew the [10] brother of Simon.
Origen † AD 254 Origen's Commentary on the Gospel of John 10.6
These examples may be serviceable to illustrate statements not only about the Saviour, but about the disciples too, for here also there is some discrepancy of statement. For there is a difference in thought perhaps between Simon who is found by his own brother Andrew, and who is addressed “Thou shalt be called Cephas,”
St Jerome † AD 420 The Letters of St. Jerome 122.1
… Not content with assuring her own salvation she has sought yours also, in former days at home and now in the holy places. She is anxious to emulate the thoughtfulness of the apostles Andrew and Philip; who after Christ had found them, desired in their turn to find, the one his brother Simon and the other his friend Nathanael.
1:42
Tatian † AD 180 The Diatessaron 5
… And he said unto them, Come and see. And they came and saw his place, and abode with him that day: and it was about the tenth hour. [9] One of the two which heard from John, and followed Jesus, was Andrew the [10] brother of Simon. And he saw first Simon his brother, and said unto him, We have [11] found the Messiah.
Origen † AD 254 Origen's Commentary on the Gospel of John 1.7
… But we hoped that it was He which should redeem Israel.” Again, Andrew the brother of Simon Peter found his own brother Simon and said to him,
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 14.3
… For there it is said, that they came to Him when “John was not yet cast into prison;” but here, after he was in confinement. And there Andrew calls Peter, but here Jesus calls both. And John saith, Jesus seeing Simon coming, saith, “Thou art Simon, the Son of Jona, thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, a stone.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 19
Ver. 42 . “And when Jesus beheld him,” saith the Evangelist, “He said, Thou art Simon, the son of Jonas; thou shalt be called Cephas, which is, by interpretation, a stone.”
St Jerome † AD 420 The Letters of St. Jerome 122.1
… She is anxious to emulate the thoughtfulness of the apostles Andrew and Philip; who after Christ had found them, desired in their turn to find, the one his brother Simon and the other his friend Nathanael. To the former of these it was said “Thou art Simon, the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas which is by interpretation a stone;”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 The Harmony of the Gospels 2.17
… but we are rather to suppose that this took place on the occasion when it was said to him, as John mentions, “Thou shall be called Cephas, which is, by interpretation, A stone.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 The Harmony of the Gospels 2.53
… “Thou shalt be called Cephas, which is, by interpretation, Peter.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 The Harmony of the Gospels 4.3
… Here, therefore, I repeat the caution, that no one should suppose Simon to have received the name Peter on this occasion for the first time, or fancy that Mark is here in any antagonism with John, who reports that disciple to have been addressed long before in these terms: “Thou shalt be called Cephas, which is, by interpretation, A stone.”
1:43
Tatian † AD 180 The Diatessaron 5
… thou art the King of Israel. Jesus said unto him, Because I said unto thee, I saw thee under the fig tree, hast thou believed? thou shalt see what is [20] greater than this. And he said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Henceforth ye shall see the heavens opened, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man.
1:44
Tatian † AD 180 The Diatessaron 5
[12] And on the next day Jesus desired to go forth to Galilee, and he found Philip, [13] [Arabic, p. 19] and said unto him, Follow me.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 37
Then, to show thee that they are not such by nature, He states also the name of the city out of which proceeded five apostles. For both Philip, and those two pairs of the chief apostles, were from thence.
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 78.15
… which is indeed the food of Angels, whom being incorruptible the Word of God doth incorruptibly feed: the which in order that man might eat, He became flesh, and dwelled in us.
1:45
Tatian † AD 180 The Diatessaron 5
[12] And on the next day Jesus desired to go forth to Galilee, and he found Philip, [13] [Arabic, p. 19] and said unto him, Follow me. Now Philip was of Bethsaida, of the city [14] of Andrew and Simon.
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 To the Bishops of Egypt 1.4
… And the disciples say that they have found Him, ‘of whom Moses and the Prophets did write
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 20
Ver. 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.”
St Jerome † AD 420 The Perpetual Virginity of Blessed Mary 18
… Seeing that you have been foolish enough to persuade yourself that the Greek manuscripts are corrupt, you will perhaps plead the diversity of readings. I therefore come to the Gospel of John, and there it is plainly written,
1:46
Tatian † AD 180 The Diatessaron 5
… 19] and said unto him, Follow me. Now Philip was of Bethsaida, of the city [14] of Andrew and Simon. And Philip found Nathanael, and said unto him, He of whom Moses did write in the law and in the prophets, we have found that [15] he is Jesus the son of Joseph of Nazareth.
Origen † AD 254 Origen's Commentary on the Gospel of John 1.7
… But we hoped that it was He which should redeem Israel.” Again, Andrew the brother of Simon Peter found his own brother Simon and said to him, “We have found the Messiah, which is, being interpreted, Christ.” And a little further on Philip finds Nathanael and says to him,
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 9
“Was not this then,” one may say, “casting a shade over the prophecy touching Bethlehem?” By no means: rather this very fact was sure greatly to stir up men, and to awaken them to the search of what was said of Him. Thus, for example, Nathanael too enters on the inquiry concerning Him, saying, “Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth?”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 16
… 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?”) ( Matt. xiii. 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?” (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 20
Ver. 46, 47 . “And Nathanael said unto him, Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth? Philip saith unto him, Come and see. Jesus saw Nathanael coming to Him, and saith of him, Behold an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 35
Seest thou that these men so ill spoken of are found most to come to Him? For one said, “Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth?” (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 51
… for not attentively did they listen to His words, nor for the sake of learning. Wherefore He maketh them no answer; yet they said, “Doth Christ come out of Galilee?” And He had praised, as being “an Israelite indeed,” Nathanael, who had said in a more forcible and striking manner, “Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth?” (
Socrates Scholasticus † AD 440 The Ecclesiastical History of Socrates Scholasticus 3.12
… Julian answered his reproaches by loading him with contumelious epithets: and he defended himself by words calling him ‘blind.’ ‘You blind old fool,’ said he, ‘this Galilæan God of yours will never cure you.’ For he was accustomed to term Christ ‘the Galilæan,’
1:47
Tatian † AD 180 The Diatessaron 5
… And Philip found Nathanael, and said unto him, He of whom Moses did write in the law and in the prophets, we have found that [15] he is Jesus the son of Joseph of Nazareth. Nathanael said unto him, Is it possible that there can be any good thing from Nazareth? Philip said unto him, Come and [16] see.
St Irenaeus of Lyons † AD 202 Against Heresies 3.11.6
… Wherefore they know Him to whom the Son reveals Him; and again, the Father, by means of the Son, gives knowledge of His Son to those who love Him. By whom also Nathanael, being taught, recognised [Him], he to whom also the Lord bare witness, that he was “an Israelite indeed, in whom was no guile.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 27
And in the opposite cases too He doth so; as in that of Nathanael, saying, “Behold an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile.”
St Jerome † AD 420 The Letters of St. Jerome 122.1
… To the former of these it was said “Thou art Simon, the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas which is by interpretation a stone;” while the latter, whose name Nathanael means the gift of God, was comforted by Christ’s witness to him: “behold an Israelite indeed in whom is no guile.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 City of God 16.38
… But since the name of Christ comes from the chrism or anointing, something pertaining to the great mystery was certainly represented in this. And the Saviour Himself is understood to bring this latter to remembrance in the gospel, when He says of Nathanael, “Behold an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile!”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On Christian Doctrine 3.3
… “That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness;” it would not be in harmony with the succeeding context. But with whatever tone of voice one may choose to pronounce that saying of Nathanael’s, “Can any good thing come out of Nazareth?”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Against Lying 34
… What of her in Jericho? Could she do this? Would she not, if she did not by telling a lie deceive the inquiring citizens, by speaking truth betray the lurking guests? Or could she say to their questionings, I know where they are; but I fear God, I will not betray them? She could indeed say this, were she already a true Israelitess in whom was no guile:
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Reply to Faustus the Manichæan 12.26
… On this occasion the Lord made appropriate mention of what Jacob saw in his dream "Verily I say unto you, Ye shall see heaven opened, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man."
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On Baptism, Against the Donatists 3.19
… yet whom else are the false Christians (such as are all heretics and schismatics) wont to imitate, except false Israelites? For there were also true Israelites, as the Lord Himself bears witness to Nathanael, "Behold an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile."
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on the Spirit and the Letter 46
… “If,” says he, “the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision?” And therefore in the house of the true Israel, in which is no guile,
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 39.5
… Accordingly in the Gospel, when the Lord saw Nathanael, He said, “Behold an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile.” And that Israelite not yet knowing who it was that talked with him, answered, “Whence knewest Thou me?” And the Lord said to him, “When thou wast under the fig-tree I saw thee;”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 72.5
… then shall the Lord see him in the person of this holy Nathanael, and shall say, “Behold an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 68.39
… Whence he saith, “See ye Israel after the flesh.” “For not they that are sons of the flesh, are sons of God, but sons of promise are counted for a seed.” Therefore at that time when without any intermixture of evil men His people shall be, like a heap purged by the fan, like Israel in whom guile is not,
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 74.1
… For they are not of the chaff, but perchance of the grain; not of the broken branches, but perchance of those that are strengthened. “For not all that are of Israel are Israelites.” …There are therefore certain Israelites, of whom was he concerning whom was said, “Behold an Israelite indeed, in whom guile is not.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 76.2
… For what is Israel said to be? One seeing God. And how have they seen God, among whom He walked in the flesh; and while they supposed Him to be man, they slew Him?…“In Israel great is His Name.” Wilt thou be Israel? Observe that man concerning whom the Lord saith, “Behold an Israelite indeed, in whom guile is not.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 79.2
… hence John Baptist the friend of the Bridegroom, and his parents Zacharias and Elisabeth: hence Symeon the old, and Anna the widow, who heard not Christ speaking by the sense of the body; but while yet an infant not speaking, by the Spirit perceived Him: hence the blessed Apostles: hence Nathanael, in whom guile was not:
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 88.1
… Æman is said to mean, “his brother:” for Christ deigns to make those His brethren, who understand the mystery of His Cross, and not only are not ashamed of it, but faithfully glory in it, not praising themselves for their own merits, but grateful for His grace: so that it may be said to each of them, “Behold an Israelite indeed, in whom there is no guile,”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 103.12
… To the true children of Israel; yea, to all the children of Israel. For the treacherous, the insidious, the hypocrites, are not children of Israel. And who are the children of Israel? “Behold an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 122.8
… “A testimony unto Israel.” Hear, brethren, what this meaneth. “A testimony to Israel:” that is, whereby it may be known that it is truly Israel…He is such in whom there is no guile. And what did the Lord say, when He saw Nathanael? “Behold an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile.”
1:48
Tatian † AD 180 The Diatessaron 5
… Nathanael said unto him, Is it possible that there can be any good thing from Nazareth? Philip said unto him, Come and [16] see. And Jesus saw Nathanael coming to him, and said of him, This is indeed a [17] son of Israel in whom is no guile.
St Ambrose of Milan † AD 397 Concerning Virgins 1.1.3
3. But these things are gained by holy men. Would that Jesus would cast a glance upon me still lying under that barren fig-tree,
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 20
Ver. 48 . “Whence knowest Thou me?” He replies, “Before that Philip called thee, when thou wast under the fig-tree, I saw thee.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 19.4
… but by well-living thou art both seen and seest. For with how much more tender nearness will He who crowneth the worthy look on thee, who in His pity saw thee that He might call thee when unworthy? Nathanael said to the Lord whom as yet he did not know, “Whence knewest thou me?” The Lord said unto him, “When thou wast under the fig-tree I saw thee.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 72.0
On the words of the Gospel, John i. 48 ,“When thou wast under the fig tree, I saw thee,” etc.
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 72.1
… If iniquity had not gone before, nakedness would never have been put to the blush. For “they were naked, and were not ashamed.” For they had committed nothing to be ashamed for. But why have I said all this? That we may understand that by the fig-tree sin is signified. What then is, “when thou wast under the fig-tree, I saw thee”?
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 72.5
… But after this he was called Israel; that is, some little time after as he came from Mesopotamia, and on his journey. If then Jacob saw the ladder, and he is also called Israel; and this Nathanael is an “Israelite indeed in whom is no guile;” therefore when he wondered because the Lord. said to him, “I saw thee under the fig-tree;”
1:49
Tatian † AD 180 The Diatessaron 5
… Philip said unto him, Come and [16] see. And Jesus saw Nathanael coming to him, and said of him, This is indeed a [17] son of Israel in whom is no guile. And Nathanael said unto him, Whence knowest thou me? Jesus said unto him, Before Philip called thee, while thou wast under the [18] fig tree, I saw thee.
St Irenaeus of Lyons † AD 202 Against Heresies 3.11.6
… I will put my Spirit upon Him, and He shall show judgment to the Gentiles. He shall not strive, nor cry; neither shall any man hear His voice in the streets. A bruised reed shall He not break, and smoking flax shall He not quench, until He send forth judgment into contention; and in His name shall the Gentiles trust.”
Tertullian † AD 220 Against Praxeas 21
… “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 . He is, no doubt, ever the Son of God, but yet not He Himself of whom He is the Son. This (divine relationship) Nathanæl at once recognised in Him,
Tertullian † AD 220 Against Praxeas 23
Again, when Martha in a later passage acknowledged Him to be the Son of God, she no more made a mistake than Peter and Nathanæl
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 52
And Nathanael too said, “Rabbi, Thou art the Son of God, Thou art the King of Israel;”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 20
Ver. 49 . “He answered and saith unto Him, Rabbi, Thou art the Son of God, Thou art the King of Israel:”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 72.1
… He was not there, that is, by His Bodily Presence; but by His knowledge in the Spirit where is He not? And because he knew that he was under the fig-tree alone, where the Lord Christ was not; when He said to him, “When thou wast under the fig-tree, I saw thee;” he both acknowledged the Divinity in Him, and cried out, “Thou art the King of Israel.”
1:50
Tatian † AD 180 The Diatessaron 5
… And Nathanael said unto him, Whence knowest thou me? Jesus said unto him, Before Philip called thee, while thou wast under the [18] fig tree, I saw thee. Nathanael answered and said unto him, My Master, thou art [19] the Son of God; thou art the King of Israel.
St Irenaeus of Lyons † AD 202 Against Heresies 4.9.2
… but He does not change God, nor proclaim another Father, but that very same one, who always has more to measure out to those of His household. And as their love towards God increases, He bestows more and greater [gifts]; as also the Lord said to His disciples: “Ye shall see greater things than these.”
Tertullian † AD 220 Against Praxeas 21
… This (divine relationship) Nathanæl at once recognised in Him, even as Peter did on another occasion: “Thou art the Son of God.” And He affirmed Himself that they were quite right in their convictions; for He answered Nathanæl: “Because I said, I saw thee under the fig-tree, therefore dost thou believe?”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 52
And Nathanael too said, “Rabbi, Thou art the Son of God, Thou art the King of Israel;” and so far from being blessed, he is even reproved by Him, as having said what was far short of the truth. He replied at least, “Because I said unto thee, I saw thee under the fig-tree, believest thou? thou shalt see greater things than these.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 47
This also He doth in the case of Nathanael, saying, “Because I said unto thee, I saw thee under the fig-tree, believest thou? Thou shalt see greater things than these.” (
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 72.2
2. The Lord said, “Because I said unto thee, I saw thee when thou wast under the fig-tree, marvellest thou? thou shalt see greater things than these.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 72.5
… If then Jacob saw the ladder, and he is also called Israel; and this Nathanael is an “Israelite indeed in whom is no guile;” therefore when he wondered because the Lord. said to him, “I saw thee under the fig-tree;” did He say to him, “Thou shalt see greater things than these.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 73.3
… and here He is needy in His poor. Yesterday too I set this forth to your Affection by occasion of what He said to Nathanael, “Thou shalt see a greater thing than this. For I say unto you, Ye shall see Heaven open, and the Angels of God ascending and descending unto the Son of Man.”
1:51
Tatian † AD 180 The Diatessaron 5
… Jesus said unto him, Before Philip called thee, while thou wast under the [18] fig tree, I saw thee. Nathanael answered and said unto him, My Master, thou art [19] the Son of God; thou art the King of Israel. Jesus said unto him, Because I said unto thee, I saw thee under the fig tree, hast thou believed? thou shalt see what is [20] greater than this.
Origen † AD 254 Origen Against Celsus i.48
… But with respect to this opening of the heavens, the Saviour, foretelling to His disciples that it would happen, and that they would see it, says, “Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye shall see the heavens opened, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 21
Ver. 51 . “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.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 28
… For Nicodemus made this his work, and the season which others used for rest he made a season for hearing; but Nathanael came at the instance of another. Yet not even him did Jesus entirely pass by, for to him He saith, “Hereafter ye shall see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of Man.” (
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 72.2
2. The Lord said, “Because I said unto thee, I saw thee when thou wast under the fig-tree, marvellest thou? thou shalt see greater things than these.” What are these greater things? And He said, “Ye shall see heaven open, and the Angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of Man.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 72.5
… To whom did He announce it? To him whom He called “an Israelite, in whom was no guile.” As if He had said, “His dream, by whose name I have called thee, shall be manifested in thee; make no haste to wonder, “thou shalt see greater things than these. Ye shall see heaven open, and the Angels of God ascending and descending unto the Son of Man.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 57.2
… for it is along the earth she has to come to Him, who is still on earth, because refusing to leave His own who are stationed here. Is it not He that saith, “Lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world”? Is it not He that saith, “Ye shall see the heavens opened, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man”?
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 45.18
18. This was figured in Jacob’s placing a stone at his head, and so sleeping. The patriarch Jacob had placed a stone at his head: sleeping with that stone at his head, he saw heaven opened, and a ladder from heaven to earth, and Angels ascending and descending;
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 45.25
… “Come” (He says), “ye blessed of My Father.” Why? “I was an hungred, and ye gave Me meat,” etc. These are the gifts with which the daughters of Tyre worship the King; for when they said, “When saw we Thee?” He who is at once above and below (whence those “ascending” and “descending” are spoken of
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 75.3
3. But that there is a strengthening of the sense in repetition, by many passages of the Scriptures we are taught. Thence is that which the Lord saith, “Verily, Verily.”
1:1
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 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.
St Augustine † AD 430 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.
St Augustine † AD 430 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.
St Basil the Great † AD 379 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.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 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 shew 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.
St Basil the Great † AD 379 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.
St Augustine † AD 430 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.
St Augustine † AD 430 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.
St Basil the Great † AD 379 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.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 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.
Origen † AD 253 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.
St Augustine † AD 430 de Trin. vi. c. 3 [ii]
Or, In the beginning, as if it were said, before all things.
St Basil the Great † AD 379 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.
St Hilary † AD 367 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.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 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.
St Augustine † AD 430 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.
The Council of Ephesus † AD 431 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 shew 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.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 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.
Origen † AD 253 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.
St Hilary † AD 367 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.
Alcuin † AD 804
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.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 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.
St Hilary † AD 367 ii. de Trin
From the beginning He is with God: and though independent of time, is not independent of an Author.
St Basil the Great † AD 379 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.
Origen † AD 253 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.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 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.
Theophylact † 1107 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
St Hilary † AD 367 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.
St Hilary † AD 367 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.
St Basil the Great † AD 379 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.
Theophylact † 1107
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 shew that Father and Son are of One Nature, being of One Godhead.
Origen † AD 253 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.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 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.
The Latin text
Chrysostomus in Ioannem
Omnibus aliis Evangelistis ab incarnatione incipientibus, Ioannes transcurrens conceptionem, nativitatem, educationem, augmentationem, mox de aeterna nobis generatione narrat, dicens in principio erat verbum
Augustinus Lib. 83 quaest
Quod Graece logos dicitur, Latine et rationem et verbum significat; sed hoc melius verbum interpretatur, ut significetur non solum ad patrem respectus, sed ad illa etiam quae per verbum facta sunt operativa potentia. Ratio autem, etsi nihil per eam fiat, recte ratio dicitur
Augustinus in Ioannem
Quotidie autem dicendo verba viluerunt nobis, quia sonando et transeundo viluerunt. Est verbum et in ipso homine quod manet intus: nam sonus procedit ex ore. Est verbum quod vere specialiter dicitur illud quod intelligis de sono, non ipse sonus
Augustinus de Trin
Quisquis autem potest intelligere verbum, non solum antequam sonet, verum etiam antequam sonorum eius imagines cogitatione volvantur, iam potest videre per hoc speculum atque in hoc aenigmate aliquam verbi similitudinem, de quo dictum est in principio erat verbum. Necesse est enim cum id quod scimus loquimur, ut ex ipsa scientia quam memoria tenemus, nascatur verbum, quod eiusmodi sit omnino cuiusmodi est illa scientia de qua nascitur. Formata quippe cogitatio ab ea re quam scimus, verbum est, quod in corde dicimus; quod nec Graecum est, nec Latinum, nec linguae alicuius. Sed cum id opus est in eorum quibus loquimur proferre notitiam, aliquod signum quo significetur assumitur. Proinde verbum quod foris sonat, signum est verbi quod intus latet, cui magis verbi competit nomen: nam illud quod profertur carnis ore, vox verbi est, verbumque et ipsum dicitur propter illud a quo ut foris appareat sumptum est
Basilius
Hoc autem verbum non est humanum verbum. Quomodo enim erat in principio humanum verbum, ultimo loco accipiente homine generationis principium? Non igitur in principio verbum erat humanum, sed nec Angelorum: omnis enim creatura infra saeculorum terminos est, a creatore essendi sumens principium. Sed audi Evangelium decenter: ipsum enim, unigenitum verbum dixit
Chrysostomus in Ioannem
Si autem quis dixerit: cur patrem dimittens, mox nobis de filio loquitur? Quoniam ille quidem manifestus omnibus erat, etsi non ut pater, sed ut Deus, unigenitus autem ignorabatur: ideo decenter eam, quae de isto est, cognitionem confestim initio studuit imponere his qui nesciebant eum; sed neque patrem in his quae de filio sunt sermonibus tacuit. Propter hoc autem et verbum eum vocavit. Quia enim docturus erat quod hoc verbum unigenitus est filius Dei; ut non passibilem aestimet quis generationem, praeveniens verbi nuncupatione, destruit perniciosam suspicionem, esse ex Deo filium impassibiliter ostendens. Secunda vero ratio est, quia ea quae sunt patris nobis annuntiare debebat. Non simpliciter vero eum verbum dixit, sed cum articuli adiectione, a reliquis ipsum separans. Consuetudo enim est Scripturae verba vocare leges Dei et praecepta: hoc autem verbum substantia quaedam est, hypostasis, ens, ex ipso proveniens impassibiliter patre
Basilius
Quare igitur verbum? Quia impassibiliter natum est; quia est generantis imago, totum in seipso generantem demonstrans, nihil inde separans, sed in seipso perfectum existens
Augustinus de Trin
Sicut enim scientia nostra illi scientiae Dei, sic nostrum verbum quod nascitur de nostra scientia, dissimile est illi verbo Dei, quod natum est de patris essentia. Tale est autem, ac si dicerem de patris scientia, de patris sapientia; vel, quod est expressius, de patre scientia, de patre sapientia. Verbum ergo Dei patris unigenitus filius, per omnia patri similis et aequalis: hoc enim est omnino quod pater, non tamen pater: quia iste filius, ille pater: ac per hoc novit omnia quae novit pater; sed ei nosse de patre est, sicut esse: nosse enim et esse ibi unum est; et ideo patri, sicut esse non est a filio, ita nec nosse. Proinde, tamquam seipsum dicens, pater genuit verbum sibi aequale per omnia: non enim seipsum integre perfecteque dixisset, si aliquid minus aut amplius esset in eius verbo quam in seipso. Nostrum autem verbum interius, quod invenimus esse utcumque illi simile, quantum sit etiam dissimile, non pigeat intueri. Est enim verbum mentis nostrae quandoque formabile, nondum formatum, quiddam mentis nostrae, quod hac atque hac volubili quadam motione iactamus, cum a nobis nunc id, nunc illud, sicut inventum fuerit vel occurrerit, cogitatur; et tunc fit verum verbum quando illud quod nos diximus volubili motione iactare, ad id quod scimus pervenit, atque inde formatur, eius omnimodam similitudinem capiens; ut quomodo res quaeque scitur, sic etiam cogitetur. Quis non videat quanta sit hic dissimilitudo ab illo Dei verbo, quod in forma Dei sic est ut non ante fuerit formabile, postea formatum, non aliquando possit esse informe, sed sit forma simplex, et simpliciter aequalis ei de quo est? Quapropter ita dicitur illud Dei verbum, ut Dei cogitatio non dicatur; ne aliquid esse quasi volubile dicatur in Deo, quod nunc habeat, nunc accipiat formam ut verbum sit, eamque possit amittere, atque informiter quodammodo volutari
Augustinus de Verb. Dom
Est enim verbum Dei forma quaedam non formata, sed forma omnium formarum, forma incommutabilis, sine lapsu, sine defectu, sine tempore, sine loco, superans omnia, existens in omnibus fundamentum quoddam, in quo sunt, et fastigium sub quo sunt
Basilius
Habet autem et verbum nostrum exterius divini verbi similitudinem quamdam: nam nostrum verbum totam declarat mentis conceptionem: quae namque mente concepimus, ea verbo proferimus. Et quidem cor nostrum quasi fons quidam est: verbum vero prolatum quasi quidam rivulus manans ex ipso
Chrysostomus in Ioannem
Considera etiam in Evangelista prudentiam spiritualem. Noverat homines id quod antiquius est et quod est ante omnia maxime honorantes et ponentes Deum: propter hoc primum dicit principium: in principio, inquit, erat verbum
Origenes in Ioannem
Plura autem sunt signata ab hoc nomine principium. Est enim principium, sicut itineris et longitudinis, secundum illud: initium boni itineris iustorum exercitium. Est autem principium et generationis, iuxta illud: hoc est principium creaturae domini. Sed etiam Deum non enormiter asseret aliquis omnium principium. Illud etiam ex quo sicut ex praeiacente materia alia fiunt, principium est penes eos qui credunt illam ingenitam. Est enim principium secundum speciem; sicut Christus principium eorum est qui secundum imaginem Dei formati sunt. Est etiam principium disciplinae, secundum illud: cum deberetis esse magistri propter tempus, rursus indigetis ut doceamini quae sunt elementa exordii sermonum Dei. Duplex enim est documenti principium: hoc quidem natura, hoc vero quoad nos; ut si dicatur, initium sapientiae fore natura quidem Christum, inquantum sapientia et verbum Dei est; quoad nos vero inquantum verbum caro factum est. Tot igitur significatis ad praesens nobis de principio occurrentibus, potest accipi illud ex quo quid est agens. Conditor enim Christus est velut principium, secundum quod sapientia est; ut verbum in principio, quasi in sapientia sit. Plura enim bona de salvatore dicuntur. Velut igitur vita in verbo est, sic verbum in principio, idest in sapientia erat. Considera vero si possibile est secundum hoc significatum accipere nos principium, prout secundum sapientiam, et exempla quae in ea sunt, fiunt omnia; vel quia principium filii pater est, et principium creaturarum, et omnium entium; per illud in principio erat verbum, verbum filium intelligas in principio, idest in patre, dictum fore
Augustinus de Trin
Aut in principio sic dictum est ac si diceretur: ante omnia
Basilius
Praevidit enim spiritus sanctus futuros quosdam invidentes gloriae unigeniti, qui praeferrent sophismata ad subversionem auditorum: quia si genitus est, non erat; et antequam genitus esset, non erat. Ne igitur talia garrire praesumant, spiritus sanctus ait in principio erat verbum
Hilarius de Trin
Transeunt tempora, transeunt saecula, tolluntur aetates: pone aliquid quod voles tuae opinionis principium: non tenes tempore: erat enim unde tractatur
Chrysostomus in Ioannem
Sicut autem quis cum stat in navi secus littus, videt civitates et portus, cum vero eum aliquis in medium pelagi duxerit, a prioribus quidem desistere facit, non tamen alicubi defigit ei oculum, ita Evangelista hic super omnem nos ducens creaturam, suspensum dimittit oculum, non dans suspicere aliquem finem ad superiora: hoc enim in principio erat semper et infinite essendi significativum est
Augustinus de Verb. Dom
Sed dicunt: si filius est, natus est; hoc fatemur. Adiungunt deinde: si natus est patri filius, erat pater antequam ei filius nasceretur; hoc respuit fides. Ergo ait: rationem mihi redde quomodo et filius nasci potuit patri, ut coaevus esset ei a quo natus est. Post patrem enim nascitur filius, utique patri morituro successurus. Similitudines adhibent de creaturis; et nobis laborandum est ut et nos inveniamus similitudines earum rerum quas astruimus. Sed quomodo possumus in creatura invenire coaeternum, quando in creatura nil invenimus aeternum? Sed si possunt inveniri haec duo coaeva, generans et generatum, ibi intelligimus coaeterna. Ipsa quidem sapientia dicta est in Scripturis candor lucis aeternae, dicta est imago patris. Hinc capiamus similitudinem, ut inveniamus coaeva, ex quibus intelligamus coaeterna. Nemo autem dubitat, quod splendor de igne exit. Ponamus ergo ignem patrem illius splendoris: mox quidem ut lucernam accendo, simul cum igne et splendor existit. Da mihi hic ignem sine splendore, et credo tibi patrem sine filio fuisse. Imago existit de speculo, hominis intuentis speculum; existit imago mox ut aspector extiterit: sed ille qui inspicit erat antequam accederet ad speculum. Ponamus ergo aliquid natum super aquam, ut virgultum, aut herbam: nonne cum imagine sua nascitur? Si ergo semper esset virgultum, semper esset et imago de virgulto. Quod autem de alio est, utique natum est. Potest ergo semper esse generans, et semper cum illo quod de eo natum est. Sed dicet aliquis: ecce intellexi aeternum patrem, coaeternum filium; tamen sicut effusum splendorem minus igne lucentem, aut sicut effusam imaginem minus quam virgultum existentem dicimus. Non, sed aequalitas omnimoda est. Non credo, ait, quia non invenisti similitudinem. Fortassis autem invenimus in creatura quomodo intelligamus filium et coaeternum patri, et nequaquam minorem; sed non illud possumus invenire in uno genere similitudinum. Iungamus ergo ambo genera: unum unde ipsi dant similitudines, et alterum unde nos dedimus. Dederunt enim illi similitudinem ex his quae praeceduntur tempore ab his a quibus nascuntur, sicut homo de homine; sed tamen homo et homo sunt eiusdem substantiae. Laudamus ergo in ista nativitate aequalitatem naturae: deest aequalitas temporis. In illo autem genere similitudinum quod nos dedimus de splendore ignis et de imagine virgulti, aequalitatem naturae non invenis, invenis coaevitatem. Totum ergo ibi quod hic ex partibus singulis et rebus singulis invenitur; et non hoc solum quod in creaturis, totum invenio ibi sed tamquam in creatore
Ex gestis Conc. Ephes
Propterea alicubi quidem filium appellat patris, alicubi autem verbum nominat, alicubi autem splendorem vocat Scriptura divina; singula horum nominum de ipso dicens, ut intelligas ea quae de Christo dicuntur, esse contra blasphemiam: quia enim tuus filius eiusdem tibi naturae fit, volens sermo ostendere unam substantiam patris et filii, dicit filium patris, qui ex eo natus est unigenitus. Deinde quoniam nativitas et filius apud nos ostentationem praebent passionis; ideo hunc filium appellat et verbum, impassibilitatem nativitatis eius nomine isto demonstrans. Sed quoniam pater quispiam factus ut homo, indubitanter senior filio suo demonstratur; ne hoc ipsum etiam de divina natura putares, splendorem vocat unigenitum patris: splendor enim nascitur quidem ex sole, non autem intelligitur sole posterior. Coexistere ergo semper patri filium splendor tibi denuntiet; impassibilitatem nativitatis ostendat verbum; consubstantialitatem filii nomen insinuet
Chrysostomus in Ioannem
Sed dicunt illi, quoniam hoc, idest in principio, non aeternitatem ostendit simpliciter: etenim et de caelo istud et de terra dictum. In principio, inquit Genesis, fecit Deus caelum et terram. Sed quid commune habet erat ad fecit? Sicut enim quod est, cum de homine quidem dicitur, tempus praesens significat tantum; cum autem de Deo, id quod est semper et aeternaliter; ita et erat de nostra quidem cum dicitur natura, praeteritum significat tempus; cum autem de Deo, aeternitatem ostendit
Origenes
Sum enim verbum duplicem habet significationem: aliquando enim temporales motus secundum analogiam aliorum verborum declarat, aliquando substantiam uniuscuiusque rei, de qua praedicatur, sine temporali motu ullo designat; ideo et substantivum vocatur
Hilarius de Trin
Respice igitur ad mundum, intellige quid de eo scriptum est: in principio fecit Deus caelum et terram. Fit ergo in principio quod creatur, et aetates continet quod in principio continetur ut fieret. Piscator autem illitteratus, indoctus, liber a tempore, solutus a saeculis est, vicit omne principium: erat enim quod est, neque in tempore aliquo concluditur ut coeperit quod erat potius in principio quam fiebat
Alcuinus
Contra eos ergo qui propter temporalem nativitatem dicebant Christum non semper fuisse, incipit Evangelista de aeternitate verbi, dicens in principio erat verbum
Chrysostomus in Ioannem
Quia maxime Dei hoc est proprium, aeternum et sine principio esse; hoc primum posuit: deinde ne quis audiens in principio erat verbum, ingenitum verbum dicat, confestim hoc removit dicens et verbum erat apud Deum
Hilarius de Trin
Sine principio enim est apud Deum, et qui abest a tempore, non abest ab auctore
Basilius
Rursus hoc dicit propter blasphemantes quod non erat. Ubi ergo erat verbum? Non in loco incircumscriptibilia continentur. Sed ubi erat? Apud Deum: neque pater loco, neque filius circumscriptione aliqua continentur
Origenes in Ioannem
Utile est etiam inducere, quod verbum dicitur ad aliquos fieri, puta ad Osee, vel Isaiam, aut Ieremiam: ad Deum autem non fit, quasi prius non ens apud ipsum: ex eo igitur quod iugiter est in eo, dicitur et verbum erat apud Deum: quia nec a principio a patre separatus est
Chrysostomus in Ioannem
Non etiam dixit: in Deo erat, sed apud Deum erat, eam quae secundum hypostasim eius est aeternitatem nobis ostendens
Theophylactus
Videtur autem mihi quod Sabellius ex hoc dicto subversus est. Ipse enim dicebat, quod pater et filius et spiritus sanctus una est persona, quae aliquando ut pater apparuit, aliquando ut filius, aliquando ut spiritus sanctus. Manifeste vero confunditur ex hoc verbo: et verbum erat apud Deum. Hic enim Evangelista alium declarat esse filium, alium Deum, scilicet patrem
Hilarius de Trin
Dices: verbum sonus vocis est, enuntiatio negotiorum, et elocutio cogitationum: hoc verbum in principio apud Deum erat, quia sermo cogitationis aeternus est, cum qui cogitat sit aeternus. Sed quomodo in principio erat quod neque ante tempus, neque post tempus est? Et nescio an ipsum possit esse in tempore. Loquentium enim sermo neque est antequam loquantur, et cum locuti erunt, non erit: in eo enim ipso quod loquuntur, dum finiunt, iam non erit id unde coeperunt. Sed si primam sententiam rudis auditor admiseras, in principio erat verbum, de sequenti quid quaeris: et verbum erat apud Deum? Numquid audieras de Deo, ut sermonem reconditae cogitationis acciperes; aut fefellerat Ioannem quid esset momenti inter inesse et adesse? Id enim quod in principio erat, non in altero esse, sed cum altero praedicatur. Statum igitur verbi et nomen expecta; dicit namque et Deus erat verbum. Cessat sonus vocis et cogitationis eloquium. Verbum hic res est, non sonus; natura, non sermo; Deus, non inanitas est
Hilarius de Trin
Simplex autem nuncupatio est, et caret offendiculo adiectionis alienae. Ad Moysen dictum est: dedi te Deum Pharaoni: sed numquid non adiecta nominis causa est, cum dicitur Pharaoni? Moyses enim Pharaoni Deus datus est, dum timetur, dum oratur, dum punit, dum medetur. Et aliud est Deum dari, et aliud Deum esse. Memini quoque et alterius nuncupationis, ubi dicitur: ego dixi: dii estis; sed in eo indulti nominis significatio est; et ubi refertur ego dixi, loquentis potius sermo est, quam rei nomen. Cum autem audio et Deus erat verbum, non dictum solum audio verbum, sed demonstratum esse intelligo quod Deus est
Basilius
Sic igitur excludens accusationem blasphemantium et quaerentium quid est verbum, respondet et Deus erat verbum
Theophylactus
Vel aliter continua. Postquam verbum erat apud Deum, manifestum est quod duae personae erant, quamvis una natura in duabus existat; unde dicitur et Deus erat verbum; ita ut una natura sit patri et filio, cum sit una deitas
Origenes
Adiciendum etiam, quod verbum in eo quod fit ad prophetas, illustrat prophetas sapientiae lumine: apud Deum vero est verbum obtinens ab eo quod sit Deus; unde praelocavit hoc quod est verbum erat apud Deum, ei quod est Deus erat verbum
Chrysostomus in Ioannem
Et non ut Plato, hoc quidem intellectum quemdam, hoc vero animam mundi esse dicens: haec enim procul sunt a divina natura. Sed dicunt: pater cum articuli adiectione dictus est Deus, filius autem sine hac. Quid ergo, cum apostolus dicat: magni Dei et salvatoris nostri Iesu Christi; et rursus: qui est super omnia Deus; sed et Romanis scribens dicit: gratia vobis, et pax a Deo patre nostro sine adiectione articuli. Sed et superfluum erat hic apponere superius continue adiectum. Non igitur etsi non est adiectus filio articulus, propter hoc filius minor est Deus
1:2
St Hilary † AD 367 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.
Theophylact † 1107
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.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 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.
Origen † AD 253 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 shew 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)
Alcuin † AD 804
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.
The Latin text
Hilarius de Trin
Quia dixerat Deus erat verbum, trepido in dicto, et me insolens sermo commovet, cum unum Deum prophetae nuntiaverunt. Sed ne quo ultra trepidatio mea progredi possit, reddit sacramenti tanti piscator dispensationem, et refert ad unum omnia, sine contumelia, sine abolitione, sine tempore, dicens hoc erat in principio apud Deum: apud unum ingenitum Deum, ex quo ipse unius unigenitus Deus est, praedicatur
Theophylactus
Et rursus ne suspicio diabolica aliquos conturbaret, ne forte cum verbum Deus sit, insurrexerit contra patrem, ut aliqui fabulantur gentilium, et separatus a patre fuerit ipsi patri contrarius, dicit hoc erat in principio apud Deum; quasi dicat: hoc Dei verbum nunquam a Deo extitit separatum
Chrysostomus in Ioannem
Vel ne audiens in principio erat verbum, aeviternum quidem aestimes, seniorem vero spatio aliquo patris vitam suscipias, induxit hoc erat in principio apud Deum: non enim fuit unquam solitarius ab illo; sed semper Deus apud Deum erat. Vel quia dixerat Deus erat verbum, ut non aestimet quis minorem esse deitatem filii, confestim cognoscitiva propriae deitatis ponit, et aeternitatem assumens, cum dicit hoc erat in principio apud Deum; et quod factum est adiciens omnia per ipsum facta sunt
Origenes
Vel aliter. Postquam praemiserat tres propositiones Evangelista, resumit tria in unum, dicens hoc erat in principio apud Deum. In primo enim trium didicimus in quo erat verbum, quia in principio erat; in secundo apud quem, quia apud Deum; in tertio quid erat verbum, quia Deus. Velut ergo demonstrans verbum praedictum, Deum, per hoc quod dicit hoc, et colligens in propositionem quartam hoc quod est in principio erat verbum, et verbum erat apud Deum, et Deus erat verbum, ait hoc erat in principio apud Deum. Quaerat autem aliquis, cur non est dictum: in principio erat verbum Dei, et verbum Dei erat apud Deum, et Deus erat verbum Dei. Quisquis autem unicam veritatem fatebitur esse; palam est quoniam et demonstratio eius, quae est sapientia, una est. Sed si veritas una, et sapientia una, verbum quoque quod veritatem enuntiat, et sapientiam expandit in his qui susceptibiles sunt, unum siquidem erit. Nec hoc dicimus inficiantes verbum Dei fore, sed ostendentes utilitatem omissionis huius vocabuli Dei. Ipse quoque Ioannes in Apocalypsi dicit: et nomen eius verbum Dei
Alcuinus
Qualiter autem ponit substantivum verbum erat? Ut intelligeres omnia tempora praevenisse coaeternum Deo patri verbum
1:3
Alcuin † AD 804
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.
St Hilary † AD 367 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.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 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.
St Augustine † AD 430 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.
St Augustine † AD 430 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.
St Augustine † AD 430 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.
Theophylact † 1107 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.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 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.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 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)
Origen † AD 253 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
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 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.
St Hilary † AD 367 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.
Origen † AD 253 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.
St Augustine † AD 430 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?
Origen † AD 253 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.
St Augustine † AD 430 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.
Origen † AD 253 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!’
St Augustine † AD 430 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.
Origen † AD 253 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.
The Latin text
Alcuinus
Postquam dixit de natura filii, de operatione eius subiungit, dicens omnia per ipsum facta sunt; idest, quidquid est, sive in substantia, sive in aliqua proprietate
Hilarius de Trin
Vel aliter. Erat quidem verbum in principio, sed potuit non esse ante principium. Sed quid ille? Omnia per ipsum facta sunt. Infinitum est per quod fit omne quod factum est; et cum ab eo sint omnia, et tempus ab eo est
Chrysostomus in Ioannem
Moyses quidem incipiens Scripturam veteris testamenti, de sensibilibus nobis loquitur, et haec enumerat per multa: in principio enim fecit Deus caelum et terram. Deinde inducit, quoniam et lux facta est, et firmamentum et stellarum naturae, et genera animalium. Evangelista vero haec omnia excedens uno verbo comprehendit, ut cognita auditoribus, ad altiorem festinans materiam, totum hunc librum instituens non de operibus, sed de conditore
Augustinus super Genesim
Cum enim dicitur omnia per ipsum facta sunt, satis ostenditur et lux per ipsum facta, cum dixit Deus: fiat lux; et similiter de aliis. Quod si ita est, aeternum est, quod ait Deus: fiat lux, quia verbum Dei, Deus apud Deum, patri coaeternus est, quamvis creatura temporalis facta sit. Cum enim verba sint temporis, cum dicimus: quando et aliquando; aeternum tamen est in verbo Dei, quando aliquid fieri debeat; et tunc fit quando fieri debuisse in illo verbo est, in quo non est quando et aliquando: quoniam totum illud verbum aeternum est
Augustinus super Ioannem
Quomodo ergo potest fieri ut verbum Dei factum sit, quando Deus per verbum fecit omnia? Si et verbum ipsum factum est, per quod aliud verbum factum est? Si hoc dicis, quia est verbum verbi, per quod factum est illud; ipsum dico ego unigenitum filium Dei. Si autem non dicis verbum Dei, concede non factum verbum per quod facta sunt omnia
Augustinus de Trin
Et si factum non est, creatura non est; si autem creatura non est, eiusdem cum patre substantiae est, omnis enim substantia quae Deus non est, creatura est: et quae creatura non est, Deus est
Theophylactus
Solent autem Ariani dicere, quod sicut per serram ostium fieri dicimus, quasi per organum, sic et per filium omnia facta fuisse dicuntur, non quod ipse sit factor, sed organum; et sic facturam aiunt filium, tamquam factum ad hoc ut per eum omnia fierent. Nos autem ad huiusmodi fictores mendacii simpliciter respondemus. Si enim, ut dicitis, pater creasset ad hoc filium ut eo tamquam organo uteretur, videretur quod inhonorabilior sit filius quam quae facta sunt; sicut ea quae per serram sunt facta, ipso organo nobiliora existunt; nam serra propter ipsa facta est. Sic et propter ipsa quae facta sunt, ut aiunt, pater creavit filium; tamquam si non deberet Deus cuncta creare, nequaquam filium produxisset. Quid his verbis insanius? Sed aiunt: quare non dixit quod omnia verbum fecit; sed usus est hac praepositione per? Ne filium ingenitum intelligeres, et sine principio, et Dei conditorem
Chrysostomus in Ioannem
Sed si praepositio per conturbat te, et quaeris in Scriptura quod ipsum verbum omnia faceret, audi David: initio tu, domine, terram fundasti, et opera manuum tuarum sunt caeli. Quod autem hoc de unigenito dixerit, addisces ab apostolo utente hoc verbo in epistola ad Hebraeos de filio. Si vero de patre hoc prophetam dixisse dicis, Paulum vero filio adaptasse; idem fit rursus. Neque enim id filio convenire dixisset, nisi vehementer consideraret quoniam quae sunt dignitatis, cohonorabilia sunt utrique. Si rursus per praepositio aliquam subiectionem tibi videtur inducere, cur Paulus eam de patre ponit? Fidelis dominus, per quem vocati sumus in societatem filii eius. Et iterum: Paulus apostolus per voluntatem Dei
Origenes
Erravit etiam in hoc Valentinus, dicens verbum esse quod mundanae creationis praestitit causam creatori. Sed si sic se habet veritas rerum, prout ipse intelligit, oportebat scriptum fore per creatorem universa consistere a verbo, non autem e contra per verbum a creatore
Chrysostomus in Ioannem
Ut non aestimes, dum dicit omnia per ipsum facta sunt, illa omnia solum dicere eum quae a Moyse dicta sunt, convenienter inducit et sine ipso factum est nihil, sive visibile quid, sive intelligibile. Vel aliter. Ne hoc quod dixit omnia per ipsum facta sunt, de signis suspiceris nunc dici, de quibus reliqui Evangelistae locuti sunt, inducit et sine ipso factum est nihil
Hilarius de Trin
Vel aliter. Hoc quod dicitur, omnia per ipsum facta sunt, non habet modum: est ingenitus qui factus a nemine est, est et ipse genitus ab innato. Reddidit auctorem cum socium professus est, dicens sine ipso factum est nihil; cum enim nihil sine eo, intelligo non esse solum: quia alius est per quem, alius sine quo non
Origenes
Vel aliter. Ne existimares ea quae per verbum facta sunt, per se existentia, non contenta a verbo, ait et sine ipso factum est nihil; hoc est, nihil factum est extra ipsum; quia ipse ambit omnia, conservans ea
Augustinus de quaest. Nov. et Vet. Testam
Vel dicens sine ipso factum est nihil, nullo modo ipsum facturam esse suspicari debere edocuit. Quomodo enim potest dici: ipse est factura, cum nihil dicatur Deus sine ipso fecisse?
Origenes super Ioannem
Vel aliter. Si omnia per verbum facta sunt: de numero vero omnium est malitia, et totus fluxus peccati; et haec per verbum facta sunt; et hoc est falsum. Quantum igitur ad significata, nihil et non ens, unum sunt. Videtur autem apostolus non entia prava dicere: vocat Deus ea quae non sunt tamquam ea quae sunt. Totaque pravitas nihil dicitur, dum absque verbo facta est
Augustinus in Ioannem
Peccatum enim non per ipsum factum est: et manifestum est quia peccatum nihil est, et nihil fiunt homines cum peccant. Et idolum non per verbum factum est: habet quidem formam quamdam humanam, et ipse homo per verbum factus est; sed forma hominis in idolo non per verbum facta est: scriptum est enim: scimus quod nihil est idolum. Ergo ista non sunt facta per verbum; sed quaecumque facta sunt naturaliter, universa natura rerum, omnis omnino creatura ab Angelo usque ad vermiculum
Origenes
Valentinus autem exclusit ab omnibus per verbum factis quae sunt in saeculis facta, quae credit ante verbum extitisse, praeter evidentiam loquens; siquidem quae putantur ab eo divina, removentur ab omnibus, quae autem, velut ipse putat, penitus destruuntur, vere dicuntur omnia. Quidam enim falso dicunt Diabolum non esse creaturam Dei: inquantum enim Diabolus est, creatura Dei non est: is autem cui accidit esse Diabolum, divina est creatura; ac si diceremus, homicidam creaturam Dei non esse, qui tamen in eo quod homo est, creatura Dei est
Augustinus de natura boni
Non autem sunt audienda deliramenta hominum, qui nihil hoc loco aliquid intelligendum esse putant, quia ipsum nihil in fine sententiae positum est; nec intelligunt nihil interesse utrum dicatur: sine ipso nihil factum est, an sine ipso factum est nihil
Origenes
Si accipiatur verbum pro eo quod in quolibet hominum est, quia et ipsum insitum est cuilibet ab eo quod in principio erat verbum, etiam sine hoc verbo nihil committimus, simpliciter accipiendo quod dicitur nihil. Ait enim apostolus quod sine lege peccatum mortuum erat; adveniente vero mandato peccatum revixit: non enim reputatur peccatum, lege non existente; sed nec peccatum erat, non existente verbo: quia dominus dicit: si non venissem et essem illis locutus, peccatum non haberent. Quaelibet enim excusatio deficit volenti dare responsum de crimine, dum verbo praesente ac iudicante quid est agendum, non obedit quis illi. Nec propter hoc inculpandum est verbum, sicut nec magister, per cuius disciplinam non remanet locus excusationis discipulo delinquenti velut de ignorantia. Omnia ergo per verbum facta sunt, non solum naturalia, sed etiam quae ab irrationabilibus fiunt
1:4
St Bede † AD 735 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 shew 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.
St Augustine † AD 430 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.
Origen † AD 253 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.
St Hilary † AD 367
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.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 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.
Origen † AD 253 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.
Theophylact † 1107 in loc.
He had said, In him was life, that you might not suppose that the Word was without life. Now he shews 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.
St Augustine † AD 430 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.
Theophylact † 1107
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.
Origen † AD 253 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.
The Latin text
Beda in Ioannem
Quia Evangelista dixit omnem creaturam factam esse per verbum, ne quis forte crederet mutabilem eius voluntatem, quasi qui subito vellet facere creaturam quam ab aeterno nunquam ante fecisset, ideo docere curavit, factam quidem creaturam in tempore; sed in aeterna creatoris sapientia, quando et quos crearet semper fuisse dispositum; unde dicit quod factum est in ipso, vita erat
Augustinus in Ioannem
Potest autem sic punctari: quod factum est in ipso; et postea dicatur vita erat. Ergo totum vita est, si sic pronuntiaverimus: quid enim non in illo factum est? Ipse est enim sapientia Dei, et dicitur in Psalmo 103, 24: omnia in sapientia fecisti. Omnia igitur sicut per illum, ita et in illo facta sunt. Si ergo quod in illo factum est, vita est, ergo et terra vita est, et lapis vita est. Inhonestum est sic intelligere, ne nobis subrepat secta Manichaeorum, et dicat quia habet vitam lapis, et habet vitam paries: solent enim ista delirantes dicere; et cum reprehensi fuerint ac repulsi, quasi de Scripturis proferunt dicentes: ut quid dictum est: quod factum est in ipso, vita erat? Pronuntia ergo sic quod factum est: hic subdistingue; et deinde infer in ipso vita erat. Facta est enim terra; sed ipsa terra quae facta est non est vita. Est autem in ipsa Dei sapientia spiritualiter ratio quaedam qua terra facta est; haec vita est. Sicut arca in omni opere non est vita; arca in arte vita est, quia vivit anima artificis. Sic ergo quia sapientia Dei, per quam facta sunt omnia, secundum artem continet omnia quae fiunt per ipsam artem, non haec continuo sunt vita; sed quidquid factum est, vita est in illo
Origenes
Potest autem et sic distingui sine errore: quod factum est in ipso, et postea dicatur vita erat; ut sit sensus: omnia quae per ipsum et in ipso facta sunt, in ipso vita sunt, et unum sunt. Erant enim, hoc est in ipso subsistunt causaliter, priusquam sint in seipsis effective. Sed si quaeris, quomodo et qua ratione omnia quae per verbum facta sunt, in ipso vitaliter et uniformiter et causaliter subsistunt, accipe exempla ex creaturarum natura. Conspice quomodo omnium rerum quas mundi huius sensibilis globositas comprehendit, causae simul et uniformiter in isto sole, qui est maximum mundi luminare, subsistunt; quomodo numerositas herbarum et fructuum in singulis seminibus simul continetur; quomodo multiplices regulae in arte artificis unum sunt, et in animo disponentis vivunt; quomodo infinitus linearum numerus in uno puncto unum subsistit; et huiusmodi varia perspice exempla, ex quibus velut physicae theoriae pennis poteris arcana verbi mentis acie inspicere, et quantum datur humanis rationibus, videre quomodo omnia quae per verbum sunt facta, in ipso vivunt et facta sunt
Hilarius de Trin
Vel aliter potest legi: in eo quod dixerat sine ipso factum est nihil, posset aliquis perturbatus dicere: est ergo aliquid per alterum factum, quod tamen non sit sine eo factum; et si aliquid per alterum, licet non sine eo, iam non per eum omnia; quia aliud est fecisse, aliud est intervenisse facienti. Enarrat ergo Evangelista quid non sine eo factum sit, dicens quod factum est in eo. Hoc igitur non sine eo quod in eo factum est: nam id quod in eo factum est, etiam per eum factum est: omnia enim per ipsum et in ipso creata sunt. In ipso autem creata, quia nascebatur creator Deus; sed ex hoc sine eo nihil factum est, quod tamen in eo factum est, quia nascens Deus vita erat, et qui vita erat, non posteaquam natus erat, factus est vita. Nihil ergo sine eo fiebat ex his quae in eo fiebant, quia vita est in quo fiebant; et Deus qui ab eo natus est, non posteaquam natus est, sed nascendo quoque extitit
Chrysostomus in Ioannem
Vel aliter. Non apponemus finale punctum, ubi dicitur sine ipso factum est nihil, secundum haereticos. Illi enim volentes spiritum sanctum creatum dicere, aiunt quod factum est in ipso, vita erat. Sed ita non potest intelligi. Primum quidem neque tempus erat hic spiritus sancti meminisse; sed si de sancto spiritu hoc dictum est, age, secundum eorum interim legamus modum: ita enim nobis hoc inconveniens erit; cum enim dicitur quod factum est in ipso, vita erat, spiritum sanctum dicunt dictum esse vitam; sed vita haec et lux invenitur esse; inducit enim vita erat lux hominum. Quocirca, secundum eos, lucem omnium hunc spiritum dicit. Quod autem superius verbum dicit, hic consequenter et Deum et vitam et lucem nominat. Verbum autem caro factum est: erit igitur spiritus sanctus incarnatus, non filius. Ideo dimittentes hunc modum legendi, ad decentem veniamus lectionem et expositionem; hoc autem est cum dicitur omnia per ipsum facta sunt, et sine ipso factum est nihil quod factum est; ibi quiescere fac sermonem; deinde ab ea quae deinceps est dictione incipe, quae dicit in ipso vita erat; ac si dicat sine eo factum est nihil quod factum est, idest factibilium. Vides qualiter hac brevi adiectione omnia correxit supervenientia inconvenientia. Inducens enim sine eo factum est nihil, et adiciens quod factum est, et intelligibilia comprehendit, et spiritum sanctum excepit: spiritus enim sanctus factibilis non est. Haec igitur quae dicta sunt, de conditione rerum dixit Ioannes. Inducit autem et eum qui est de providentia sermonem, dicens in ipso vita erat. Quemadmodum in fonte qui generat abyssos, et in nullo minoratur fons; ita et in operatione unigeniti quaecumque credas per eum facta esse, non minor ipse factus est. Nomen autem vitae hic non solum conditionis est, sed et providentiae rerum, quae est secundum permanentiam earum. Cum autem audis quoniam in ipso vita erat, ne compositum aestimes: sicut enim pater habet vitam in seipso, ita dedit et filio vitam habere. Ergo sicut patrem non utique dices compositum esse, ita nec filium
Origenes in Ioannem
Vel aliter. Oportet scire, quod salvator quaedam dicit non sibi esse, sed aliis; quaedam vero et sibi et aliis. In hoc ergo quod dicitur quod factum est in verbo, vita erat, scrutandum est an sibi et aliis vita est, vel aliis tantum; et si aliis, quibus aliis. Idem autem est vita et lux; lux autem hominum est: fit itaque hominum vita, quorum est lux; et sic in eo quod dicitur vita, salvator dicitur non sibi, sed aliis. Haec quidem vita verbo praeexistenti aderit, ex eo quod expiata a peccatis anima sit serena, et vita inseratur ei qui verbi Dei se susceptibilem statuit. Unde verbum quidem in principio non dixit factum: non enim erat quando principium verbo careret. Vita autem hominum non semper erat in verbo; sed haec vita hominum facta est, eo quod vita est lux hominum: cum enim homo non erat, nec lux hominum erat, luce secundum habitudinem ad homines intellecta; et ideo dicit quod factum est in verbo, vita erat; non autem: quod erat in verbo, vita erat. Invenitur autem alia littera non incongrue habens: quod factum est in eo, vita est. Si autem intelligamus vitam hominum quae in verbo fit, eum esse qui dixit: ego sum vita, fatebimur neminem infidelium Christi vivere, sed cunctos esse mortuos qui non vivunt in Deo
Theophylactus
Dixerat in ipso vita erat, ne putares quod absque vita sit verbum; nunc ostendit quod vita sit spiritalis, et lux rationalibus cunctis; unde dicitur et vita erat lux hominum; quasi dicat: lux ista non est sensibilis, sed intellectualis, illuminans ipsam animam
Augustinus super Ioannem
Ex ipsa enim vita illuminantur homines, pecora non illuminantur, quia non habent rationales mentes, quae possint videre sapientiam; homo autem factus ad imaginem Dei, habet rationalem mentem, per quam possit percipere sapientiam. Ergo illa vita per quam facta sunt omnia, lux est, et non quorumcumque animalium, sed hominum
Theophylactus
Non autem dixit: lux est solum Iudaeis, sed omnium hominum; omnes enim homines, inquantum intellectum et rationem recepimus ab eo quod nos condidit verbo, intantum ab eo illuminari dicimur: nam ratio nobis tradita, per quam rationales dicimur, lux est ad operanda nos dirigens et non operanda
Origenes in Ioannem
Non est autem praetermittendum quod vitam praemittit luci hominum: inconsequens enim erat illuminari non viventem, et advenire illuminationi vitam. Si autem idem est vita erat lux hominum, quod solum hominum, erit Christus lux atque vita solorum hominum. Hoc autem opinari haereticum est. Non igitur quidquid dicitur aliquorum, illorum solum est: scriptum est enim de Deo, quod sit Deus Abraham, Isaac et Iacob; non tamen istorum tantum patrum dictus est Deus. Non ergo ex eo quod dicitur lux hominum, excluditur quin sit aliorum. Alius vero contendit ex eo quod scriptum est: faciamus hominem ad imaginem nostram: quod quidquid ad imaginem ac similitudinem Dei factum est, intelligi debet per hominem. Sic igitur lux hominum lux cuiuslibet rationalis creaturae est
1:5
St Augustine † AD 430 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.
Origen † AD 253 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)
Origen † AD 253 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.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 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.
Origen † AD 253 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.)
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 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.
Origen † AD 253 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.
St Augustine † AD 430 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.
St Bede † AD 735 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.
The Latin text
Augustinus in Ioannem
Quia vita illa est lux hominum, sed stulta corda capere istam lucem non possunt, quia peccatis suis aggravantur, ut eam videre non possint; ne ideo cogitent quasi absentem esse lucem, quia eam videre non possunt, sequitur et lux in tenebris lucet, et tenebrae eam non comprehenderunt. Quomodo enim homo positus in sole caecus, praesens est illi sol, sed ipse soli absens est; sic omnis stultus caecus est, et praesens est illi sapientia. Sed cum caeco praesens est, oculis eius absens est: non quia illa ipsi absens est, sed quia ipse absens est ab illa
Origenes in Ioannem
Tenebrae autem huiusmodi hominum non natura sunt, secundum illud Pauli: eramus aliquando tenebrae, nunc autem lux in domino
Origenes
Vel aliter. Lux in tenebris fidelium animarum lucet, a fide inchoans, ad spem trahens. Imperitorum vero cordium perfidia et ignorantia lucem verbi Dei in carne fulgentis non comprehenderunt. Sed iste sensus moralis est. Physica vero horum verborum theoria talis est. Humana natura, etsi non peccaret, suis propriis viribus non lucere posset: non enim naturaliter lux est, sed particeps lucis: capax siquidem sapientiae est, non ipsa sapientia. Sicut ergo aer per semetipsum non lucet, sed tenebrarum vocabulo nuncupatur; ita nostra natura dum per seipsam consideratur, quaedam tenebrosa substantia est, capax ac particeps lucis sapientiae: et sicut aer dum solares radios participat, non dicitur per se lucere, sed solis splendor in eo apparere; ita rationabilis nostrae naturae pars, dum praesentiam verbi Dei possidet, non per se res intelligibiles et Deum suum, sed per insitum sibi divinum lumen cognoscit. Lux itaque in tenebris lucet: quia Dei verbum vita et lux hominum in nostra natura, quae per se investigata et considerata, informis quaedam tenebrositas invenitur, lucere non desinit: et quoniam ipsa lux omni creaturae est incomprehensibilis, tenebrae eam non comprehenderunt
Chrysostomus in Ioannem
Vel aliter totum ab illo loco et vita erat lux hominum. Primum nos de conditione docuerat; deinde dicit et quae secundum animam bona praebuit nobis veniens verbum; unde dicit et vita erat lux hominum. Non dicit: lux Iudaeorum; sed universaliter hominum: non enim Iudaei solum, sed et gentes ad hanc venerunt cognitionem. Non autem adiecit: et Angelorum; quoniam ei de natura humana sermo est, quibus verbum venit evangelizans bona
Origenes
Quaerunt autem quare non verbum lux hominum dictum est, sed vita quae in verbo fit; quibus respondemus: quia vita quae ad praesens, non ea quae communis est rationalium et irrationalium dicitur, sed quae adiungitur verbo quod in nobis fit per participationem verbi primarii, ad discernendum apparentem vitam et non veram, et cupiendam veram vitam. Prius ergo participamus vitam quae apud quosdam quidem est potentia, non actu lux; qui scilicet non sunt avidi perquirere quae ad scientiam pertinent; apud quosdam vero et actu lux efficitur, qui, secundum apostolum, aemulantur dona meliora, scilicet verbum sapientiae. Si tamen et tunc idem est vita et lux hominum, nullus manens in tenebris perfecte vivere comprobatur, nec quisquam viventium consistit in tenebris
Chrysostomus in Ioannem
Vita enim adveniente nobis, solutum est mortis imperium; et luce lucente nobis, non ultra sunt tenebrae; sed semper manet vita quam mors superare non potest, nec tenebrae lucem; unde sequitur et lux in tenebris lucet. Tenebras mortem et errorem dicit: nam lux quidem sensibilis non in tenebris lucet, sed sine illis; praedicatio vero Christi in medio erroris regnantis fulsit; et eum disparere fecit, et in vitam mortem fecit mortuus Christus, ita eam superans ut eos qui detinebantur reduceret. Quia igitur neque mors eam superavit, neque error; sed fulgida est eius praedicatio ubique, et lucet cum propria fortitudine; propterea subdit et tenebrae eam non comprehenderunt
Origenes
Est etiam sciendum, quod sicut lux hominum nomen est duarum spiritualium rerum, sic et tenebrae: dicimus enim hominem lucem possidentem, opera lucis perficere, et etiam cognoscere quasi illustratum lumine scientiae; et e contrario tenebras dicimus illicitos actus, et eam quae videtur scientia, non est autem. Sicut autem pater lux est, et in eo tenebrae non sunt ullae, sic et salvator. Sed quia similitudinem carnis peccati subiit, non incongrue de eo dicitur, quod tenebrae in eo sunt aliquae, ipso in se suscipiente nostras tenebras ut eas dissiparet. Haec igitur lux, quae facta est vita hominum, radiat in tenebris animarum nostrarum, et venit ubi princeps tenebrarum harum cum genere bellat humano. Hanc lucem persecutae sunt tenebrae: quod patet ex his quae salvator et eius filii sustinent, pugnantibus tenebris contra filios lucis. Verum quia Deus patrocinatur, non invalescunt; unde non apprehendunt lucem, vel quia celeritatem cursus lucis subsequi non valent propter propriam tarditatem, vel quia si supervenientem expectant, fugantur luce appropinquante. Oportet autem id considerare, quod non semper tenebrae in sinistra parte sumuntur, sed quandoque in bona, posuit tenebras latibulum suum, dum ea quae sunt erga Deum, ignota et imperceptibilia sunt. De hac ergo laudata caligine dicam, quoniam versus lucem pergit, illamque apprehendit: quia quod erat caligo, dum ignorabatur, in lucem cognitam vertitur ei qui didicit
Augustinus de Civ. Dei
Hoc autem initium sancti Evangelii quidam Platonicus aureis litteris perscribendum, et per omnes Ecclesias in locis eminentissimis proponendum esse dicebat
Beda in Ioannem
Nam alii Evangelistae Christum in tempore natum describunt, Ioannes vero eumdem in principio testatur fuisse, dicens in principio erat verbum. Alii inter homines eum subito apparuisse commemorant; ille ipsum apud Deum semper fuisse testatur, dicens et verbum erat apud Deum. Alii eum verum hominem, ille verum confirmat Deum, dicens et Deus erat verbum. Alii hominem apud homines eum temporaliter conversatum; ille Deum apud Deum in principio manentem ostendit, dicens hoc erat in principio apud Deum. Alii magnalia quae in homine gessit perhibent; ille quod omnem creaturam per ipsum Deus pater fecerit, docet, dicens omnia per ipsum facta sunt, et sine ipso factum est nihil
1:6
St Augustine † AD 430 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.
Theophylact † 1107
Not an Angel, as many have held. The Evangelist here refutes such a notion.
St Augustine † AD 430 Tr. ii
And how could he declare the truth concerning God, unless he were sent from God.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 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)
St Augustine † AD 430 Tr. ii
What was he called? whose name was John?
Alcuin † AD 804
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.
St Augustine † AD 430 Tr. ii. c. 6
Wherefore came he? The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light.
Origen † AD 253 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.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 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.
St Bede † AD 735 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.
Theophylact † 1107
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.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 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.
Theophylact † 1107
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.
The Latin text
Augustinus in Ioannem
Ea quae dicta sunt superius, de divinitate Christi dicta sunt, qui sic venit ad nos secundum quod apparuit homo. Quia igitur sic erat homo ut lateret in illo Deus, missus est ante illum magnus homo, per cuius testimonium inveniretur plusquam homo. Et quis est hic? Fuit homo
Theophylactus
Non Angelus, ut suspicionem multorum destrueret
Augustinus
Et quomodo posset iste verum de Deo dicere, nisi missus a Deo?
Chrysostomus in Ioannem
Nihil de reliquo humanum esse aestimo eorum quae dicuntur ab illo: non enim quae eius sunt, sed quae mittentis omnia loquitur: ideo et Angelus nuncupatus est a propheta dicente: ego mitto Angelum meum. Angeli enim virtus est nihil proprium dicere. Hoc autem quod dicit fuit missus, non eius qui ad esse processus ostensivum est. Sicut autem Isaias missus fuit non aliunde quam a mundo, sed a statu quo vidit dominum sedentem super solium excelsum et elevatum, ad plebem; sic et Ioannes a deserto ad baptizandum mittitur; ait enim: qui misit me baptizare, ille mihi dixit: super quem videris spiritum descendentem et manentem super eum, hic est qui baptizat in spiritu sancto
Augustinus
Quid vocabatur? Cui nomen erat Ioannes
Alcuinus
Idest gratia Dei, vel in quo est gratia, qui gratiam novi testamenti, idest Christum, suo testimonio primum mundo innotuit. Vel Ioannes interpretatur cui donatum est, quia per gratiam Dei donatum est illi regem regum non solum praecurrere, sed etiam baptizare
Augustinus in Ioannem
Quare venit? Hic venit in testimonium, ut testimonium perhiberet de lumine
Origenes in Ioannem
Quidam improbare nituntur edita de Christo testimonia prophetarum, dicentes non egere testibus Dei filium habentem credulitatis sufficientiam tum in his quae protulit salubribus verbis, tum in mirabilibus operibus suis. Siquidem et Moyses credi meruit per verbum et virtutes, non egens praeviis testibus. Ad hoc dicendum est, quod multis existentibus causis inducentibus ad credendum, plerumque quidam ex hac demonstratione non admirantur, ex alia vero habent causam ut credant. Deus autem est qui pro cunctis hominibus homo factus est. Constat igitur quosdam ex dictis propheticis ad Christi admirationem coactos, mirantes tot prophetarum ante eius adventum voces, constituentes nativitatis eius locum, et alia huiusmodi. Illud quoque advertendum, quod prodigiosae virtutes ad credendum provocare poterant eos qui tempore Christi erant, non autem post longa tempora: nam fabulosa quaedam aestimata fuerunt: plus enim peractis virtutibus facit ad credulitatem quae cum virtutibus quaeritur prophetia. Est autem et tale quid dicere, quod quidam in hoc quod testimonium perhibent Deo, honorati sunt. Privare vult ergo chorum prophetarum ingenti gratia qui dicit, illos non oportere de Christo testimonium exhibere. Accessit autem his Ioannes, ut testimonium de luce perhibeat
Chrysostomus in Ioannem
Non ea indigente testimonio, sed propter quid, ipse Ioannes docet, dicens ut omnes crederent per illum. Sicut enim carnem induit, ne omnes perderet; ita et praeconem hominem misit, ut cognatam audientes vocem, facilius advenirent
Beda
Non autem ait: ut omnes crederent in illum: maledictus enim homo qui confidit in homine; sed ut omnes crederent per illum; hoc est, per illius testimonium crederent in lucem
Theophylactus
Si vero aliqui non crediderint, excusabilis permanet ipse: nam sicut si aliquis includens se in domo caliginis, et ipsum solis radius non illustret, ipse causam tribuit, et non sol; sic Ioannes, ut omnes crederent, missus fuit; sed si minime consecutum est, ipse huius rei causa non extitit
Chrysostomus
Quia vero multum apud nos maior qui testatur, eo cui testimonium perhibet, et dignior fide esse videtur; ne quis et de Ioanne hoc suspicetur, hanc suspicionem destruit, dicens non erat ille lux; sed ut testimonium perhiberet de lumine. Si vero non huic instans opinioni hoc resumpsit ut testimonium perhiberet de lumine, superfluum esset quod dicitur, et magis iteratio sermonis quam explanatio doctrinae
Theophylactus
Sed dicet aliquis: ergo neque Ioannem, neque sanctorum quempiam lucem esse vel fuisse dicemus. Sed si sanctorum aliquem lucem velimus dicere, ponemus lucem absque articulo; ut si interrogatus fueris utrum Ioannes est lux sine articulo, secure concedas; si vero cum articulo, non concedas. Non enim est ipsa lux principalior; sed lux dicitur quia secundum participationem lucem habeat a vero lumine
1:9
St Augustine † AD 430 in Joan. Tr. ii
What Light it is to which John bears witness, he shews himself, saying, That was the true Light.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 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.
St Augustine † AD 430 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.
Theophylact † 1107 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.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 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.
St Augustine † AD 430 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.
St Bede † AD 735
Including both natural and divine wisdom; for as no one can exist of himself, so no one can be wise of himself.
Origen † AD 253 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.
Theophylact † 1107 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.
The Latin text
Augustinus in Ioannem
De quo lumine Ioannes testimonium perhibeat, ostendit dicens erat lux vera
Chrysostomus in Ioannem
Vel aliter. Quia superius de Ioanne dixerat, quod venit et missus est ut testetur de luce, ne quis hoc audiens propter testantis recentem praesentiam, de eo cui testimonium perhibetur, talem quamdam suspicionem accipiat, reduxit mentem, et ad eam quae supra omne principium est, transmisit existentiam, dicens erat lux vera
Augustinus
Quare additum est vera? Quia et homo illuminatus dicitur lux; sed vera lux illa est quae illuminat; nam et oculi nostri dicuntur lumina, et tamen nisi aut per noctem lucerna accendatur, aut per diem sol exeat, lumina illa sine causa patent; unde subdit quae illuminat omnem hominem. Si omnem hominem, ergo et ipsum Ioannem. Ipse ergo illuminabat, a quo se demonstrari volebat. Quomodo enim plerumque fit ut in aliquo corpore radiato cognoscatur ortus esse sol quem oculis videre non possumus; quia etiam qui saucios habet oculos, idonei sunt videre parietem illuminatum, aut aliquid huiusmodi; sic omnes ad quos venerat Christus, minus erant idonei eum videre. Radiavit Ioannem, et per illum confitentem se illuminatum cognitus est ille qui illuminat. Dicit autem venientem in hunc mundum, nam si illinc non recederet, non esset illuminandus; sed ideo hic illuminandus, quia illinc recessit ubi homo poterat esse illuminatus
Theophylactus
Erubescat Manichaeus, qui conditoris maligni et tenebrosi nos asserit creaturas: non enim illuminaremur, si veri luminis creaturae non essemus
Chrysostomus in Ioannem
Ubi sunt etiam qui non dicunt eum verum Deum? Hic enim lux vera dicitur. Sed si illuminat omnem hominem venientem in hunc mundum, qualiter tot sine lumine permanserunt? Non enim omnes cognoverunt Christi culturam. Illuminat igitur omnem hominem quantum ad eum pertinet; si autem quidam mentis oculos claudentes noluerunt recipere lucis huius radios, non a lucis natura obtenebratio est eis, sed a malitia eorum, qui voluntarie privant seipsos gratiae dono: nam gratia quidem ad omnes effusa est; qui vero nolunt dono hoc frui, sibi ipsis hanc imputent caecitatem
Augustinus Enchir
Vel quod dicitur illuminat omnem hominem, sic intelligimus: non quia nullus est hominum qui non illuminetur; sed quia nisi ab ipso nullus illuminatur
Beda
Sive naturali ingenio, sive sapientia divina: sicut enim nemo a seipso esse, sic etiam nemo a seipso sapiens esse potest
Origenes
Vel aliter. Non de his qui de occultis seminum causis in species corporales procedunt, debemus intelligere quod illuminat omnem hominem venientem in hunc mundum; sed de his qui spiritualiter per regenerationem gratiae, quae datur in Baptismate, in mundum veniunt invisibilem. Eos itaque vera lux illuminat qui in mundum virtutum veniunt, non eos qui in mundum vitiorum ruunt
Theophylactus
Vel aliter. Intellectus nobis traditus, ac nos dirigens, qui et naturalis ratio nominatur, dicitur lux tradita nobis a Deo. Sed quidam male ratione utentes, seipsos obscuraverunt
1:10
St Augustine † AD 430 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.
Origen † AD 253 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.
St Augustine † AD 430 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.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 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.
Theophylact † 1107 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.
St Augustine † AD 430 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.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 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.
The Latin text
Augustinus in Ioannem
Lux quae illuminat omnem hominem venientem in hunc mundum, huc venit per carnem: quia dum hic esset per divinitatem, a stultis, caecis et iniquis videri non poterat, de quibus supra dictum est tenebrae eam non comprehenderunt: et ideo dicitur in mundo erat
Origenes
Ut enim qui loquitur, dum loqui cessat, vox eius esse desinit, et evanescit, sic caelestis pater, si verbum suum loqui cessaverit, effectus verbi, hoc est universitas verbo condita, non subsisteret. Non autem putes quia sic erat in mundo quomodo in mundo est terra, pecora, et homines; sed quomodo artifex regens quod fecit; unde sequitur et mundus per ipsum factus est. Non enim sic fecit quomodo facit faber: qui enim fabricat, extrinsecus est ad illud quod fabricat. Deus autem infusus mundo, fabricat ubique positus, et non recedit ab aliquo: praesentia maiestatis facit quod facit, et gubernat quod facit. Sic ergo erat in mundo, quomodo per quem factus est mundus
Chrysostomus
Et iterum, quia in mundo erat, sed non ut mundi contemporaneus, propter hoc induxit et mundus per ipsum factus est; per hoc et rursus te deducens ad aeternam existentiam unigeniti; qui enim audierit quoniam opus eius hoc totum, et si valde insensibilis fuerit, cogetur concedere ante opera esse factorem
Theophylactus
Simul autem hic et Manichaei subvertit rabiem, qui malignum conditorem cuncta produxisse dicebat; necnon et Arii, qui filium Dei dicebat creaturam
Augustinus
Quid est autem mundus per ipsum factus est? Caelum, terra, mare et omnia quae in eis sunt, mundus dicitur. Iterum in alia significatione, dilectores mundi mundus dicuntur; de quo sequitur et mundus eum non cognovit. Num enim caeli, aut Angeli, aut sidera non cognoverunt creatorem, quem confitentur Daemonia, omnia undique testimonium perhibuerunt? Sed qui non cognoverunt eum? Qui amando mundum, dicti sunt mundus: amando enim mundum, habitamus corde in mundo: nam qui non diligunt mundum, carne versantur in mundo, sed corde inhabitant caelum; sicut apostolus dicit: nostra conversatio in caelis est. Amando igitur mundum, hoc appellari meruerunt ubi habitant. Quomodo enim cum dicimus: mala est illa domus aut bona, non parietes incusamus aut laudamus, sed inhabitantes, sic et mundum dicimus qui inhabitant mundum amando
Chrysostomus in Ioannem
Qui autem Dei erant amici, eum cognoverunt, etiam ante corporalem praesentiam: unde et Christus ait quoniam Abraham pater vester exultavit ut videret diem meum. Cum ergo nos interpellant gentiles, dicentes: quid est quod in ultimo tempore venit nostram operaturus salutem, tanto tempore negligens nos? Dicimus, quoniam et ante hoc in mundo erat, et providebat operibus suis, et omnibus dignis cognitus erat: et si eum mundus non cognovit, hi tamen quibus mundus non erat dignus, eum cognoverunt. Dicens autem mundus eum non cognovit, breviter causam ignorantiae praebuit. Mundum enim vocat homines qui soli mundo affixi sunt, et quae mundi sunt sapiunt. Nihil autem ita turbat mentem, ut liquefieri amore praesentium
1:11
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 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.
St Augustine † AD 430 in Joan. Tr. i
Because all things were made by Him.
Theophylact † 1107
By his own, understand either the world, or Judæa, which He had chosen for His inheritance.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 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.
St Augustine † AD 430 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.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 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.
St Augustine † AD 430 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.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 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: shewing that there is need of much care, to preserve the image, which is formed by our adoption in Baptism, untarnished: and shewing 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 shew 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.
Theophylact † 1107
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.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 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.
St Augustine † AD 430 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.
St Bede † AD 735
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).
St Augustine † AD 430 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.
St Bede † AD 735
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.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 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 shew forth much zeal.
The Latin text
Chrysostomus in Ioannem
Dixit quod mundus eum non cognovit, de superioribus loquens temporibus; sed de reliquo sermonem induxit ad praedicationis tempora, et ait in propria venit
Augustinus in Ioannem
Quia scilicet omnia per ipsum facta sunt
Theophylactus
Vel per propria mundum intelligas, sive Iudaeam, quam pro hereditate elegerat
Chrysostomus in Ioannem
In propria ergo venit, non gratia suae necessitatis, sed gratia beneficii suorum. Sed unde venit qui omnia implet, et ubique adest? Ea quidem quae ad nos condescensione hoc operatus est: quia enim in mundo existens, non putabatur adesse, eo quod nondum cognoscebatur, dignatus est induere carnem. Manifestationem vero hanc et condescensionem adventum vocat. Misericors autem existens Deus omnia facit, ut nos secundum virtutem splendeamus; et propter hoc quidem nullum necessitate, suasione vero et beneficiis volentes ad se attrahit; et propterea venientem eum hi quidem susceperunt, alii vero non receperunt. Nullum enim vult invitum neque coactum habere famulatum: invitum enim trahi, par est cum eo qui totaliter non servit; unde sequitur et sui eum non receperunt. In Ioannem. Iudaeos nunc suos dicit, ut populum peculiarem; sed et omnes homines ut ab ipso factos: et sicut superius pro communi verecundatus natura dicebat, quoniam mundus per ipsum factus conditorem non cognovit, ita et hic rursus pro Iudaeorum anxius indevotione gravius ponit accusationem, dicens et sui eum non receperunt
Augustinus
Si autem omnino nullus recepit, nullus ergo salvus factus est. Nemo enim salvus fiet, nisi qui Christum receperit venientem; et ideo addit quotquot autem receperunt eum
Chrysostomus in Ioannem
Sive sint servi sive liberi, sive Graeci sive barbari, sive insipientes sive sapientes, sive mulieres sive viri, sive pueri, sive senes, omnes eodem digni facti sunt honore, de quo sequitur dedit eis potestatem filios Dei fieri
Augustinus
Magna benevolentia. Unicus natus est, et noluit manere unus; non timuit habere coheredes, quia hereditas eius non fit angusta, si eam multi possederint
Chrysostomus
Non autem dixit, quoniam fecit eos filios Dei fieri; sed dedit eis potestatem filios Dei fieri; ostendens quoniam multo opus est studio, ut eam, quae in Baptismo adoptionis formata est, imaginem incontaminatam semper custodiamus: simul autem ostendens quoniam potestatem hanc nullus nobis auferre poterit, nisi nos ipsi auferamus. Si enim qui ab hominibus dominium aliquarum rerum suscipiunt, tantum habent robur quantum fere hi qui dederunt; multo magis nos qui a Deo potimur hoc honore. Simul autem ostendere vult quoniam haec gratia advenit volentibus et studentibus: etenim in potestate est liberi arbitrii et gratiae operatione filios Dei fieri
Theophylactus
Vel quia in resurrectione filiationem perfectissimam consequemur, secundum quod apostolus dicit: adoptionem filiorum Dei expectantes redemptionem corporis nostri. Dedit ergo potestatem filios Dei fieri, idest hanc gratiam in futura gratia consequendi
Chrysostomus
Et quia in his ipsis ineffabilibus bonis, hoc quidem est Dei, scilicet dare gratiam; illud vero hominis, idest praebere fidem, subiungit his qui credunt in nomine eius. Quid igitur non dicis nobis, o Ioannes, quod eorum sit supplicium qui eum non receperunt? Quia numquid isto supplicio fiet maius quando praeiacente eis potestate filios Dei fieri, non fiant, sed volentes seipsos tanto privant honore? Sed etiam inextinguibilis eos suscipiet ignis, quod postea manifestius revelabit
Augustinus
Credentes ergo quia filii Dei fiunt et fratres Christi, utique nascuntur; nam si non nascuntur, filii quomodo esse possunt? Sed filii hominum nascuntur ex carne et sanguine, et ex voluntate viri, et complexu coniugii. Illi autem quomodo nascuntur subdit qui non ex sanguinibus, tamquam maris et feminae. Sanguina vel sanguines non est Latinum; sed quia Graece positum est pluraliter, maluit ille qui interpretabatur, sic ponere, et quasi minus Latine loqui secundum grammaticos, et tamen explicare veritatem secundum auditum infirmorum. Ex sanguinibus enim maris et feminae homines nascuntur
Beda
Sciendum etiam est, quia in Scripturis sanctis sanguis, cum dicitur pluraliter, peccatum significare solet; unde: libera me de sanguinibus
Augustinus in Ioannem
In eo autem quod sequitur neque ex voluntate carnis, neque ex voluntate viri, carnem pro femina posuit: quia de costa facta cum esset, Adam dixit: hoc nunc os de ossibus meis, et caro de carne mea. Ponitur ergo caro pro uxore quomodo aliquando spiritus pro marito: quia ille imperare debet, ista servire. Quid enim peius est domo ubi femina habet imperium super virum? Hi ergo neque ex voluntate carnis, neque ex voluntate viri, sed ex Deo nati sunt
Beda
Carnalis enim singulorum generatio a complexu coniugii duxit originem: at vero spiritualis spiritus sancti gratia ministratur
Chrysostomus
Hoc autem narrat Evangelista, ut vilitatem et humilitatem prioris partus, qui est per sanguinem et voluntatem carnis, addiscentes, et altitudinem secundi, qui per gratiam et nobilitatem est, cognoscentes, magnam quamdam hic suscipiamus intelligentiam et dignam dono ipsius qui genuit, et multum post hoc studium demonstremus
1:14
St Augustine † AD 430 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.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 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.
St Augustine † AD 430 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.
The Council of Ephesus † AD 431 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.
Alcuin † AD 804 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.
Theophylact † 1107 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.
St Augustine † AD 430 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.
Theophylact † 1107 in loc.
The Evangelist intends by making mention of the flesh, to shew 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.
St Cyril of Alexandria † AD 444 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.
Theophylact † 1107 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.
St Hilary † AD 367 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.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 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.
Alcuin † AD 804
Or, dwelt among us, means, lived amongst men. 14. And we saw his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 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.
St Augustine † AD 430 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.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 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.
St Gregory the Great † AD 604 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.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 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?
Origen † AD 253 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.
Theophylact † 1107 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.
The Latin text
Augustinus in Ioannem
Cum dixisset ex Deo nati sunt, quasi ne miraremur et horreremus tantam gratiam, et nobis incredibile videretur, quia homines ex Deo nati sunt; quasi securitatem faciens, ait et verbum caro factum est. Quid ergo miraris quia homines ex Deo nascuntur? Attende ipsum Deum ex hominibus natum
Chrysostomus in Ioannem
Vel aliter. Cum dixisset quoniam ex Deo nati sunt qui susceperunt eum, huius honoris posuit causam, hoc scilicet verbum fieri carnem: factus est enim proprius filius Dei hominis filius, ut filius hominum faciat filios Dei. Cum autem audieris quoniam verbum caro factum est, ne turberis: neque enim substantiam convertit in carnem; hoc enim vere impium est intelligere; sed manens quod est, servi formam assumpsit. Quia enim sunt qui dicunt, quoniam phantasmata quaedam fuerint omnia quae incarnationis sunt; eorum blasphemiam destruens, hanc dictionem factum est posuit, non transmutationem substantiae, sed carnis verae assumptionem repraesentare volens. Si vero dixerint: quoniam Deus omnipotens est, quare et in carnem transmutari non potuit? Dicemus quod transmutari ab illa incommutabili natura omnino procul est
Augustinus de Trin
Sicut autem verbum nostrum vox quodammodo corporis fit assumendo eam in qua manifestatur sensibus hominum, sic verbum Dei caro factum est, assumendo eam in qua et ipsum manifestaretur sensibus hominum. Et sicut verbum nostrum fit vox, nec mutatur in vocem, ita verbum Dei caro quidem factum est; sed absit ut mutaretur in carnem: assumendo quippe illam, non in eam se consumendo, et hoc nostrum vox fit, et illud caro factum est
Ex gestis Concilii Ephesini
Sermo etiam quem proferimus, quo in alterutris locutionibus utimur, sermo est incorporeus, non aspectui subiectus, non tactu tractabilis; sed cum sermo induerit litteras et elementa, visibilis fit, aspectu comprehenditur, tactu tractatur, sic et verbum Dei, quod naturaliter invisibile est, visibile fit; et quod natura incorporeum est, invenitur esse tractabile
Alcuinus
Cum etiam credamus animam incorpoream corpori coniungi, ut ex his duobus fiat unus homo, facilius possumus credere divinam substantiam incorpoream animae in corpore coniungi in unionem personae; ita ut verbum in carnem non sit conversum, nec caro in verbum; cum nec corpus in animam, nec anima convertatur in corpus
Theophylactus
Apollinarius autem Laodicensis in hoc verbo haeresim statuit: dicebat enim, quod Christus animam rationalem non habuit sed tantum carnem; habens divinitatem pro anima, quae corpus dirigit et gubernat
Augustinus contra Serm. Arian
Si autem moventur in eo quod scriptum est, quod verbum caro factum est, nec ibi anima nominatur; intelligant carnem pro homine positam, a parte totum, figuratae locutionis modo, sicuti est: ad te omnis caro veniet; item quod ex operibus legis non iustificabitur omnis caro; quod apertius alio loco dicitur: non iustificabitur homo ex operibus legis. Sic itaque dictum est verbum caro factum est; ac si diceret: verbum homo factum est
Theophylactus
Evangelista volens ostendere inenarrabilem Dei condescensum, carnem commemorat, ut illius admiremur misericordiam, quoniam propter nostram salutem quod omnino remotum et distans est ab eius natura, assumpsit, scilicet carnem; anima namque habet aliquam propinquitatem ad Deum. Si autem verbum incarnatum est, et humanam animam non assumpsit; sequeretur quod adhuc animae nostrae curatae non essent: quod enim non assumpsit, non sanctificavit. Et qualis derisio, cum anima prius peccaverit, ut carnem assumendo sanctificaverit, id quod est principalius infirmum reliquerit? Subvertitur ex hoc dicto Nestorius, qui dicebat quod non Deus verbum ipse idem factus est homo ex sacro conceptus sanguine virginis; sed virgo peperit hominem qui omnis virtutis dotatus erat specie, et Dei verbum illi erat coniunctum: et ex hoc duos filios asserebat: unum natum de virgine, scilicet hominem; alterum de Deo, scilicet Dei filium, homini illi coniunctum secundum gratiae habitudinem et amorem. Contra quem Evangelista dixit, quod ipsum verbum factum est homo, non quod verbum inveniens hominem virtuosum, se sibi coniunxerit
Cyrillus ad Nestorium
Carnem enim animatam anima rationali uniens verbum sibi secundum subsistentiam, ineffabiliter et inintelligibiliter factus est homo, et appellatus est filius hominis, non secundum voluntatem solam aut beneplacitum, sed neque in assumptione personae solius. Diversae quidem quoad unionem collatae naturae; unus autem ex ambabus Christus et filius; non quasi differentia naturarum interempta propter adunationem
Theophylactus
Addiscimus ergo per hoc quod dicitur verbum caro factum est, quia ipsum verbum est homo, et filius Dei existens factus est filius mulieris; quae principaliter Dei genitrix nuncupatur, tamquam Deum in carne genuerit
Hilarius de Trin
Quidam autem volentes unigenitum Deum, qui in principio apud Deum erat Deus verbum, non substantivum Deum esse, sed sermonem vocis emissae, ut quod loquentibus verbum suum, hoc sit patri Deo filius, argute subrepere volunt, ne subsistens verbum Deus, et manens in forma Dei Christus homo natus sit: ut cum hominem illum humanae potius originis causa quam spiritualis conceptionis sacramentum animaverit, non Deus verbum hominem se ex partu virginis efficiens extiterit; sed, ut in prophetis spiritus prophetiae, ita in Iesu verbum Dei fuerit. Et arguere nos solent, quod Christum dicamus esse natum non nostri corporis atque animae hominem, cum nos verbum carnem factum, nostrae similitudinis natum hominem praedicemus, ut vere Dei filius vere filius hominis natus sit; et ut per se sibi assumpsit ex virgine corpus, ita ex se sibi animam assumpsit; quae utique ab homine numquam gignentium originibus praebetur: et cum ipse ille filius hominis sit, quam ridicule praeter Dei filium, qui verbum caro factum est, alium nescio quem tamquam prophetam verbo Dei animatum praedicabimus, cum dominus Iesus Christus et Dei filius et hominis filius sit?
Chrysostomus
Ne autem ab eo quod dictum est verbum caro factum est, inconvenienter suspiceris versionem illius incorruptibilis naturae, subdit et habitavit in nobis. Quod enim habitat, non idem est cum habitaculo, sed aliud: aliud autem dico secundum naturam: unione vero et copulatione unum est Deus verbum caro, neque confusione facta, neque destructione substantiarum
Alcuinus
Vel habitavit in nobis, idest inter homines conversatus est
Chrysostomus in Ioannem
Cum dixisset, quod filii Dei facti sumus, et non aliter quam per hoc quod verbum caro factum est; rursus ipsius dicit et aliud lucrum et vidimus gloriam eius: quam utique non vidissemus, nisi per consortium humanitatis visus esset nobis. Si enim Moysi non sustinuerunt faciem glorificatam videre, sed velamine opus fuit; qualiter divinitatem nudam existentem, inaccessibilem etiam ipsis superioribus virtutibus, nos lutei et terrestres sufferre possemus?
Augustinus in Ioannem
Vel aliter. Verbum caro factum est, et habitavit in nobis, ista nativitate collyrium fecit, unde tergerentur oculi nostri, ut possimus videre maiestatem eius per eius humanitatem; et ideo dicitur et vidimus gloriam eius. Gloriam eius nemo posset videre, nisi humilitate carnis sanaretur. Irruerat enim homini quasi pulvis in oculum de terra: oculus iste sauciatus erat, et terra illuc mittitur ut sanetur: caro te obcaecaverat, caro te sanat. Carnalis enim anima facta erat, consentiendo carnalibus affectibus; inde fuerat oculus cordis caecatus: medicus fecit tibi collyrium, quoniam sic venit ut de carne vitia carnis extingueret. Verbum enim caro factum est, ut possis dicere vidimus gloriam eius
Chrysostomus
Subdit autem, quasi unigeniti a patre: quia multi prophetarum glorificati sunt, puta Moyses, Eliseus et alii multi quicumque miracula ostenderunt; sed et Angeli hominibus apparentes, et eam quae est propriae naturae coruscantem lucem manifestantes, sed et Cherubim et Seraphim cum multa gloria visa sunt a propheta. Ab omnibus his nos abducens Evangelista, et supra omnem naturam et conservorum nostrorum claritatem erigens mentem, ad ipsum nos perducit verticem; quasi dicat: non ut prophetae aut alterius hominis, vel Angeli, aut Archangeli, aut alicuius superiorum virtutum, est gloria quam vidimus; sed quasi ipsius regis, ipsius naturalis filii unigeniti
Gregorius Moralium
In sacro enim eloquio sicut et quasi aliquando non pro similitudine ponitur, sed pro veritate; unde et istud, quasi unigeniti a patre
Chrysostomus
Ac si diceret: vidimus gloriam qualem decebat, et conveniens est habere unigenitum et naturalem filium. Consuetudo enim multorum, regem valde ornatum videntium, est ut cum aliis enarrantes non possunt universalem repraesentare claritatem, hoc inducunt: quid oportet multa dicere? Quasi rex ibat. Sic et Ioannes dicit vidimus gloriam eius, gloriam quasi unigeniti a patre. Angeli enim apparentes ut servi, et dominum habentes, omnia agebant; ipse vero ut dominus cum humili forma apparens. Sed et creaturae dominum cognoverunt, stella magos vocans, Angeli pastores, puer exultans in utero: sed et pater testatus est de caelis, et Paraclytus super ipsum advenit; sed et ipsa rerum natura omni tuba clarius clamavit, quoniam rex caelorum advenerat: etenim Daemones fugiebant, infirmitatis species solvebantur, mortuos dimittebant sepulchra, et animas a malitia ad virtutis verticem agebat. Quid utique quis dicat praeceptorum philosophiam, caelestium legum virtutem, angelicae urbanitatis bonam ordinationem?
Origenes
Eius autem quod sequitur, plenum gratiae et veritatis, duplex intellectus est. Potest enim de humanitate ac divinitate incarnati verbi accipi; ita ut plenitudo gratiae referatur ad humanitatem, secundum quam Christus caput est Ecclesiae et primogenitus creaturae universae: quoniam maximum et principale gratiae exemplum, qua nullis praecedentibus meritis homo efficitur Deus, in ipso primordialiter manifestatum est. Potest etiam plenitudo gratiae Christi de spiritu sancto intelligi, cuius septiformis operatio humanitatem Christi implevit. Plenitudo vero veritatis ad divinitatem refertur
Origenes in Ioannem
Si vero plenitudinem gratiae et veritatis de novo testamento mavis intelligere, non incongrue pronuntiabis plenitudinem gratiae novi testamenti esse per Christum donatam, et legalium symbolorum veritatem in ipso esse impletam
Theophylactus
Vel plenum gratia, prout eius verbum gratiosum erat, dicente David: diffusa est gratia in labiis tuis; et veritate, secundum quod Moyses et prophetae loquebantur aut operabantur in figura, Christus autem cum veritate
1:15
Alcuin † AD 804
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.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 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.
Theophylact † 1107
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.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 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.
Theophylact † 1107 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.
St Augustine † AD 430 in Joan. Tr. 3
It does not mean—He was made before I was made; but He is preferred to me.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 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.
The Latin text
Alcuinus
Dixerat superius fuisse missum hominem ad perhibendum testimonium; hic determinat testimonium suum, quod manifeste praecursor pronuntiavit; unde dicitur Ioannes perhibet testimonium de ipso
Chrysostomus in Ioannem
Vel aliter hoc inducit; ac si dicat: non aestimetis quod nos qui fuimus cum eo multo tempore et mensae ipsius communicavimus, propter gratiam hoc testemur; quia Ioannes, qui antea eum non viderat, nec ei commoratus fuerat, ei testimonium perhibebat. Multoties autem Evangelista revolvit eius testimonium, quia multam admirationem huius viri habebant Iudaei. Et alii quidem Evangelistae antiquorum meminerunt prophetarum, dicentes: hoc factum est ut impleatur quod dictum est per prophetam; hic autem altiorem et recentiorem testem inducit, non intendens a servo dominatorem facere fide dignum, sed auditorum imbecillitati condescendens. Quemadmodum enim nisi servi formam assumpsisset, non ita facile susceptibilis factus esset; ita nisi servi voce auditum conservorum praeexcitasset, nequaquam multi Iudaeorum verbum Christi suscepissent. Sequitur et clamat; idest, cum propalatione, cum libertate, sine subtractione omnia praedicat. Non autem a principio dixit, quoniam hic est filius Dei unigenitus naturalis; sed clamat dicens hic erat quem dixi: qui post me venit, ante me factus est, quia prior me erat. Quemadmodum enim matres avium, non confestim pullos suos volationem docent; sed primo quidem extra nidum educunt, postea vero aliam multo velociorem volationem apponunt; sic et Ioannes non confestim Iudaeos ad alta duxit, sed interim paululum a terra eos evolare docuit, dicens, quod Christus melior eo erat; quod non parum interim erat. Et vide qualiter sapienter inducit testimonium: non enim solum apparentem Christum monstrat; sed et antequam apparuisset eum praedicat; quod significatur in hoc quod dicit hic erat de quo dixi. Hoc autem fecit ut facile susceptibilis esset Christus, hominum mente iam praedetenta ab aliis quae de eo dicta erant, et nihil ad hoc humilitas habitus noceret. Ita enim humili et communi omnibus forma Christus utebatur, ut si simul et verba haec audissent de eo, et eum considerassent, Ioannis testimonium derisissent
Theophylactus
Dicit autem qui post me venit, videlicet secundum tempora nativitatis: sex enim mensibus prior Christo Ioannes erat secundum humanitatem
Chrysostomus
Vel hoc non dicit de ea generatione quae est ex Maria: iam enim natus erat Christus quando haec a Ioanne dicebantur; sed de adventu eius ad praedicationem. Dicit autem ante me factus est; idest, clarior est et honorabilior; ac si dicat: non quia prior veni ad praedicandum, ex hoc maiorem me esse illo existimetis
Theophylactus
Ariani vero hanc litteram sic exponunt, volentes ostendere quod Dei filius non est a patre genitus, sed factus, sicut una alia creatura
Augustinus in Ioannem
Non ergo intelligitur: factus est antequam ego essem factus; sed antepositus est mihi
Chrysostomus
Si autem quod dicitur ante me factus est, de productione ad esse intelligeretur, superfluum esset quod additur quia prior me erat. Quis enim est ita insipiens ut ignoret quoniam ex quo ante eum factus est, prior eo erat? Aliter autem e contrario oporteret dicere, scilicet: prior me erat, quia ante me factus est. Ergo quod dicit ante me factus est, de honore intelligitur: hoc enim quod futurum erat, factum dicit, quia consuetudo erat antiquorum prophetarum de futuris quasi de iam praeteritis loqui
1:16
Origen † AD 253 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 connexion 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.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 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.
St Augustine † AD 430 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, shewed 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.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 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 shew 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 shew 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 shewn 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.
St Augustine † AD 430 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.
The Latin text
Origenes
Sermo iste in persona Baptistae de Christo testantis prolatus est; quod plurimos fallit, ex hic usque illuc ille enarravit, credentes in persona Ioannis apostoli recitari, inconsequens autem est putare, subito et quasi intempestive interrumpi Baptistae sermonem ex verbo discipuli; et cuique scienti percipere dictorum collationem, in propatulo constat series dicti; dixerat enim ob hoc ante me factus est, qui prior me erat. Ex hoc autem coniecto priorem me fore, quod ex eius plenitudine ego quidem, et ante me prophetae accepimus gratiam secundam pro prima. Pertigerunt enim et illi post figuras per spiritum ad veritatis speculationem. Hinc etiam perpendimus ex plenitudine eius accipientes, legem quidem per Moysen fore datam, gratiam autem et veritatem per Iesum Christum, nedum fore datam, sed factam; patre quidem legem dante per Moysen, gratiam et veritatem faciente per Iesum. Sed si Iesus est qui dicit: ego sum veritas, quomodo veritas fit per Iesum? Sed intelligendum est, quod ipsa veritas substantialis (ex qua prima veritate et eius imagine sculptae sunt multae veritates in his qui veritatem tractant) nequaquam per Iesum Christum facta est, nec prorsus per aliquem; sed veritas, puta quae consistit in Paulo et apostolis, per Iesum Christum facta est
Chrysostomus in Ioannem
Vel aliter. Coniungit hic testimonio Ioannis Baptistae suum testimonium Ioannes Evangelista, dicens et de plenitudine eius nos omnes accepimus. Non praecursoris est verbum, sed discipuli; quasi dicat: etiam nos omnes duodecim, et omnis plenitudo fidelium, et qui nunc sunt, et futurorum, de plenitudine eius accepimus
Augustinus in Ioannem
Quid autem accepistis? Et gratiam pro gratia: ut nescio quid nos voluerit intelligere de plenitudine eius accepisse, et insuper gratiam pro gratia: accepimus enim de plenitudine eius primo gratiam, et rursus accepimus gratiam pro gratia. Quam gratiam primo accepimus? Fidem. Vocatur enim gratia, quia gratis datur. Hanc ergo accepit gratiam primam peccator, ut eius peccata dimitterentur; et iterum gratiam pro gratia; idest, pro hac gratia in qua ex fide vivimus, recepturi sumus aliam, idest vitam aeternam: vita enim aeterna quasi merces est fidei: sed quia ipsa fides gratia est, vita aeterna gratia est pro gratia. Non erat ista gratia in veteri testamento: quia lex minabatur, non opitulabatur; iubebat, non sanabat: languorem ostendebat, non auferebat, sed praeparabat medico venturo cum gratia et veritate; unde sequitur quia lex per Moysen data est; gratia et veritas per Iesum Christum facta est. Mortem enim temporalem et aeternam occidit mors domini tui: ipsa est gratia quae promissa et non habita erat in lege
Chrysostomus in Ioannem
Vel accepimus gratiam pro gratia; idest, pro veteri novam. Sicut enim est iustitia et iustitia, adoptio et adoptio, circumcisio et circumcisio, ita gratia et gratia; sed illa quidem ut typus, haec vero ut veritas. Hoc autem induxit, ostendens quoniam et Iudaei gratia salvabantur, sed et nos omnes gratia salvi sumus: misericordiae autem et gratiae fuit legem suscipere. Propterea cum dixisset gratiam pro gratia, ostendens magnitudinem eorum quae data sunt, subdit quia lex per Moysen data est, gratia et veritas per Iesum Christum facta est. Et supra quidem Ioannes ad seipsum comparans Christum, ait ante me factus est: hic autem Evangelista ad eum qui illo tempore magis in admiratione apud Iudaeos erat quam Ioannes, Christi comparationem facit, scilicet ad Moysen. Et considera prudentiam. Non personarum, sed rerum comparationem facit, gratiam et veritatem legi opponens; et huic addit data est, quod ministrantis erat; huic autem facta est, quod est regis cum potestate omnia operantis: cum gratia quidem, quia cum potestate omnia dimittebat peccata. Et gratiam quidem eius Baptismatis donum, et adoptio quae per spiritum nobis datur, et alia multa ostendunt: veritatem autem plenius sciemus si figuras veteris legis didicerimus: ea enim quae in novo testamento perficienda erant, in veteri testamento figurae praescripserunt, quas Christus veniens adimplevit. Unde figura data est per Moysen, veritas per Christum facta est
Augustinus de Trin
Vel gratiam referamus ad scientiam, veritatem ad sapientiam: in rebus enim per tempus ortis illa summa gratia est, quod homo in unitate personae coniunctus est Deo: in rebus vero aeternis summa veritas recte tribuitur Dei verbo
1:18
Origen † AD 253 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 connexion 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.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 in Joan. Hom. xiv. [xiii.] 1
Or thus; the Evangelist after shewing 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.
St Augustine † AD 430 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.)
St Gregory the Great † AD 604 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, Shew 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.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 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.
St Augustine † AD 430 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.
St Gregory the Great † AD 604 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.
St Augustine † AD 430 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.
St Gregory the Great † AD 604 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.
St Augustine † AD 430 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.
St Gregory the Great † AD 604 xviii. Moral. c. 54. [91] vet. xxxviii.
Some however there are who conceive that not even the Angels see God.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 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)
St Augustine † AD 430 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.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 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.
St Hilary † AD 367 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.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 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 shew us the intimate converse of the Only-Begotten, and His coeternity with the Father.
St Augustine † AD 430 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.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 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.
St Bede † AD 735 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.
St Augustine † AD 430 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 connexion 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?
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 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.
The Latin text
Origenes in Ioannem
Incongrue Heracleon asserit hoc promulgatum fuisse non a Baptista, sed a discipulo: nam si illud de plenitudine eius nos omnes accepimus, a Baptista prolatum est, quomodo non est sequens, ipsum de gratia Christi suscipientem, et secundam pro prima gratia, confitentemque, legem per Moysen fore traditam, gratiam vero et veritatem per Iesum Christum prodiisse; intellexisse qualiter Deum nemo vidit unquam, quodque unigenitus, cum in patris gremio requiescat, interpretationem ipsi Ioanni, nec non omnibus his qui de perfectione gustaverint, concesserit? Non enim nunc primitus annuntiavit: nam priusquam Abraham fieret, docet nos Abraham exultasse, ut videret eius gloriam
Chrysostomus in Ioannem
Vel aliter. Evangelista ostendens multam eminentiam donorum Christi ad ea quae per Moysen dispensata sunt, vult de reliquo causam rationalem differentiae dicere: nam ille quidem famulus existens, minorum rerum factus est minister; hic vero dominator et regis filius existens, multo maiora nobis attulit coexistens semper patri, et videns eum: propter hoc ita intulit, dicens Deum nemo vidit unquam
Augustinus ad Paulinam
Quid ergo est quod Iacob dicit: vidi dominum facie ad faciem; et quod de Moyse scriptum: quia loquebatur cum Deo facie ad faciem; et illud quod propheta Isaias loquens de seipso ait: vidi dominum Sabaoth sedentem in throno?
Gregorius Moralium
Sed patenter datur intelligi quod quamdiu hic mortaliter vivitur, videri per quasdam imagines potest Deus; sed per ipsam naturae suae speciem non potest; ut anima gratia spiritus afflata, per figuras quasdam Deum videat; sed ad ipsam vim eius essentiae non pertingat. Hinc est enim quod Iacob, qui Deum se vidisse testatur, nonnisi Angelum vidit: hinc est quod Moyses, qui cum Deo facie ad faciem loquitur, dicit: ostende mihi temetipsum manifeste, ut videam te. Ex qua eius petitione colligitur, quia eum sitiebat per incircumscriptae naturae suae claritatem cernere, quem iam coeperat per quasdam imagines videre
Chrysostomus
Si autem antiqui patres ipsam viderunt naturam, nequaquam differenter considerassent: simplex enim quaedam est et infigurabilis; non sedet, neque stat, neque ambulat; haec enim corporum sunt: unde et per prophetam dicit: ego visionem multiplicavi eis, et in manibus prophetarum assimilatus sum; hoc est, condescendi eis, non quod eram apparui: quia enim filius Dei per veram carnem appariturus erat nobis, primo excitavit eos videre Deum, sicut possibile erat eis videre
Augustinus ad Paulinam
Sed cum scriptum sit: beati mundo corde, quoniam ipsi Deum videbunt, et iterum: cum apparuerit, similes ei erimus, quoniam videbimus eum sicuti est, quid est quod hic dicitur Deum nemo vidit unquam? An fortasse respondetur, quod illa testimonia de videndo Deo sunt, non de viso? Ipsi enim Deum videbunt, dictum est, non viderunt; et non vidimus, sed: videbimus eum sicuti est: Deum enim nemo vidit unquam: vel in hac vita sicuti ipse est, vel etiam in Angelorum vita, sicut visibilia ista quae corporali visione cernuntur
Gregorius Moralium
Si vero a quibusdam potest in hac corruptibili carne viventibus, sed tamen inaestimabili virtute crescentibus, quodam contemplationis acumine aeterna claritas Dei videri; hoc ab hac sententia non abhorret, quoniam quisquis sapientiam, quae Deus est, videt, huic vitae funditus moritur, ne iam eius amore teneatur
Augustinus super Genesim
Nisi enim ab hac vita quisque quodammodo moriatur, sive omnino exiens de corpore, sive ita aversus et alienatus a carnalibus sensibus, ut merito nesciat, sicut apostolus ait utrum in corpore, an extra corpus sit, non in illam rapitur et subvertitur visionem
Gregorius
Sciendum vero est, quod fuere nonnulli qui Deum dicerent in illa regione beatitudinis in claritate sua conspici, sed in natura minime videri. Quos nimirum minor inquisitionis subtilitas fefellit: neque enim illi simplici et incommutabili essentiae aliud est claritas, aliud natura
Augustinus ad Paulinam
Si autem dicitur, in hoc quod scriptum est Deum nemo vidit unquam, homines tantummodo intelligendos: nam hoc apostolus planius explicans: quem nemo, inquit, hominum vidit, sed nec videre potest, ut ita dictum sit Deum nemo vidit unquam, ac si diceretur: nullus hominum, quaestio illa solvi videbitur, ut non sit huic sententiae contrarium quod dominus ait: Angeli eorum semper vident faciem patris mei; ut scilicet Angelos Deum videre credamus, quem nemo vidit unquam, scilicet hominum
Gregorius
Sunt tamen nonnulli qui nequaquam Deum videre nec Angelos suspicantur
Chrysostomus in Ioannem
Dicentes, quod ipsum quod Deus est, non solum prophetae, sed nec Angeli viderunt, neque Archangeli. Sed si interrogaveris eos, audies de substantia nihil respondentes. Gloria vero in excelsis Deo non solum cantantes, sed et in terra pax hominibus bonae voluntatis. Et si a Cherubim et Seraphim concupiveris aliquid discere, mysticam sanctimonii melodiam audies, et quoniam plenum est caelum et terra gloria eius
Augustinus ad Paulinam
Quod quidem intantum verum est, quia Dei plenitudinem nullus non solum oculis corporis, sed vel ipsa mente aliquando comprehendit. Aliud est enim videre, aliud totum videndo comprehendere: quandoquidem id videtur quod praesens utcumque sentitur; totum autem comprehenditur videndo quod ita videtur ut nihil eius lateat videntem, aut cuius fines circumspici possunt
Chrysostomus
Sic igitur solus patrem videt filius et spiritus sanctus. Quod enim creabilis est naturae, qualiter poterit videre quod increabile est? Ita igitur nullus novit Deum, ut filius; unde sequitur unigenitus filius, qui est in sinu patris, ipse enarravit. Ne propter nominis communionem unum quemdam eorum qui gratia facti sunt filiorum esse existimes eum, primo quidem adiectus est articulus. Si vero hoc non sufficit tibi, audi aliud nomen unigenitus
Hilarius de Trin
Naturae quidem fides non satis explicata videbatur ex nomine filii, nisi proprietatis virtus per exceptionis significantiam adderetur; praeter filium enim et unigenitum nihil cognominans, suspicionem penitus adoptionis exclusit, cum veritatem nominis unigeniti natura praestaret
Chrysostomus
Sed et aliud posuit, dicens qui est in sinu patris. Etenim in sinu conversari multo plus est quam simpliciter videre: nam qui simpliciter videt, non omnino eius quod videt cognitionem habet: qui vero in sinu conversatur, nihil ignorabit. Cum igitur audieris quod nullus cognoscit patrem nisi filius, nequaquam dicas, quoniam etsi plus omnibus novit patrem, sed non quantus est novit eum: propterea Evangelista in sinu patris eum morari dicit, ut non aestimemus per id aliud significatum quam familiaritatem unigeniti, et coaeternitatem ad patrem
Augustinus in Ioannem
In sinu enim patris, idest in secreto patris: non enim Deus habet sinum, quemadmodum nos habemus in vestibus; aut cogitandus est sic sedere quomodo nos; aut forte cinctus est, ut sinum haberet: sed quia sinus noster intus est, secretum patris sinus patris vocatur. Qui ergo in secreto patris novit patrem, ipse enarravit quod vidit
Chrysostomus in Ioannem
Sed quid enarravit? Quoniam unus est Deus. Sed et hoc reliqui prophetae et Moyses clamant: quid ergo plus didicimus a filio in sinibus paternalibus existente? Primum quidem ipsa haec quae alii narraverunt, sunt enarrata ex operatione unigeniti; deinde quoniam multo maiorem suscepimus doctrinam per unigenitum, et cognovimus quoniam spiritus est Deus, et quod eos qui adorant eum, in spiritu et veritate adorare oportet, et quoniam Deus pater est unigeniti
Beda
Praeterea sciendum, quia si ad praeteritum referatur quod ait enarravit, homo factus enarravit quid de Trinitatis unitate sentiendum, qualiter ad eius contemplationem properandum, quibus actibus sit perveniendum. Si vero referatur ad futurum, tunc enarrabit cum electos suos ad visionem claritatis suae inducet
Augustinus
Fuerunt autem homines qui dicerent, vanitate cordis sui decepti: pater invisibilis est, filius autem visibilis est. Si ergo propter carnem filius visibilis dicitur, et nos concedimus, et est Catholica fides; si autem, ut ipsi dicunt, antequam incarnaretur, multum delirant, si Christus sapientia Dei et virtus Dei est: sapientia enim Dei videri oculis non potest. Si verbum hominis oculis non videtur, verbum Dei sic videri potest?
Chrysostomus
Non igitur soli ipsi proprium est Deum nemo vidit unquam, sed et filio: quia, ut Paulus dicit, est imago Dei invisibilis; qui vero invisibilis imago est, et ipse invisibilis est
1:19
Origen † AD 253 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.
Theophylact † 1107 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.
Origen † AD 253 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?
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 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?
St Augustine † AD 430 Tr. 4. c. 3
They would not have sent, unless they had been impressed by his lofty exercise of authority, in daring to baptize.
Origen † AD 253 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 shews 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.
St Gregory the Great † AD 604 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.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 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 shew 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?
St Augustine † AD 430 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.
St Gregory the Great † AD 604 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?
Origen † AD 253 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?
St Gregory the Great † AD 604 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.
Origen † AD 253 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.
St Augustine † AD 430 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?
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 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.
St Augustine † AD 430 Tr. iv. c. 7
So spoke Esaias: the prophecy was fulfilled in John the Baptist.
St Gregory the Great † AD 604 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.
Origen † AD 253 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.
Theophylact † 1107 in loc.
Or because he declared the truth plainly, while all who were under the law spoke obscurely.
St Gregory the Great † AD 604 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.
Origen † AD 253 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.
St Gregory the Great † AD 604 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.
The Latin text
Origenes
Secundum legitur hoc testimonium a Ioanne Baptista de Christo prolatum, incipiente primo illic: hic est de quo dixi, et desinente ibi: ipse enarravit
Theophylactus
Vel aliter. Postquam superius dixit Evangelista, quod Ioannes testabatur de Christo: ante me factus est, nunc subiungit quando praemissum testimonium reddiderit Christo Ioannes; unde dicit et hoc est testimonium Ioannis, quando miserunt Iudaei ab Hierosolymis sacerdotes et Levitas ad Ioannem
Origenes
Iudaei quidem ab Hierosolymis, ut cognati existentes Baptistae de stirpe sacerdotali existentis, sacerdotes et Levitas destinant, sciscitaturos quis esset Ioannes; eos scilicet qui reputati sunt secundum electionem ab aliis differre; et ab electo Hierosolymorum loco. Ioannem itaque quaerunt cum tanta veneratione; erga Christum autem nihil huiusmodi factum legitur a Iudaeis. Sed quod erga Ioannem Iudaei, hoc Ioannes erga Christum prosequitur, per proprios discipulos interrogans: tu es qui venturus es, an alium expectamus?
Chrysostomus in Ioannem
Sic autem fide dignum aestimaverunt esse Ioannem, ut ei de seipso dicenti crederent; unde dicitur ut interrogarent eum: tu quis es?
Augustinus in Ioannem
Non autem mitterent nisi moverentur excellentia auctoritatis eius, quia ausus est baptizare
Origenes
Ioannes autem, ut videtur, discernebat ex quaestione, sacerdotum et Levitarum dubitationem, ne forte Christus esset baptizans; apertius tamen illud profiteri cavebant, ne temerarii putarentur. Quapropter merito, ut eorum opinio fallax de eo primitus aboleretur, ac subinde veritas propalaretur, quod non sit Christus ante omnia manifestat; unde sequitur et confessus est, et non negavit: et confessus est: quia non sum ego Christus. Hic etiam adiciamus, quia tempus adventus Christi populum recreabat quodammodo iam praesens existens, legisperitis ex sacris Scripturis illius tempus speratum colligentibus: propter quod Theodas non modicam multitudinem quasi Christus congregavit, et post illum Iudas Galilaeus in diebus professionis. Cum ergo ferventius Christi expectaretur adventus, Iudaei transmittunt ad Ioannem, per hoc quod est tu quis es? Conicere volentes si ipse se Christum fateretur. Non autem ex eo quod dicit non sum ego Christus, negavit: ex hoc enim ipso confessus est veritatem
Gregorius in Evang
Negavit plane quod non erat, sed non negavit quod erat, ut veritatem loquens, eius membrum fieret cuius sibi nomen fallaciter non usurparet
Chrysostomus in Ioannem
Vel aliter. Passi erant Iudaei quamdam humanam passionem ad Ioannem. Indignum enim aestimabant, subici eum Christo propter multa quae Ioannis claritatem demonstrabant: quorum primum erat genus illustre, principis enim sacerdotum filius erat; deinde dura educatio, humanorum despectio. In Christo autem contrarium videbatur: genus humile, quod ei exprobrabant dicentes: nonne hic est fabri filius? Dieta communis, et vestimenta nihil plus multis habentia. Quia igitur Ioannes continue ad Christum mittebat, volentes magis Ioannem habere magistrum, mittunt ad eum, opinantes per blanditias eum allicere ad confitendum se Christum esse. Non ergo quosdam contemptibiles mittunt, ut ad Christum, ministros et Herodianos, sed sacerdotes et Levitas; et non quoscumque, sed eos qui erant ex Hierosolymis, hoc est honorabiliores; et ad hoc mittunt ut interrogarent tu quis es? Non quasi ignorantes, sed volentes eum inducere ad hoc quod dixi: unde Ioannes ad mentem et non ad interrogationem eis respondit et confessus est, et non negavit; et confessus est: quia non sum ego Christus. Et vide sapientiam Evangelistae. Tertio quasi idem dicit, et virtutem Baptistae indicans, et malitiam et amentiam Iudaeorum. Devoti enim famuli est, non solum non rapere gloriam domini, sed oblatam a multis respuere. Turbae quidem ex ignorantia ad hanc venerunt suspicionem ut Ioannem Christum aestimaret; hi vero a maligna mente, ex qua interrogabant eum, aestimantes per blanditias attrahere ad hoc quod volebant: nisi enim excogitassent hoc, respondenti non sum ego Christus, dixissent: non hoc suspicati sumus, non hoc venimus interrogaturi. Sed capti et manifesti effecti ad aliud veniunt; unde sequitur et interrogaverunt eum: quid ergo? Elias es tu?
Augustinus
Noverant enim quod praecessurus erat Elias Christum: non enim alicui ignotum erat nomen Christi apud Hebraeos; sed non putabant illum esse Christum; nec tamen omnino putaverunt Christum non esse venturum; et cum sperarent futurum, offenderunt in praesentem. Sequitur et dixit: non sum
Gregorius in Evang
Ex his verbis nobis quaestio valde implexa generatur. Alio quippe in loco inquisitus a discipulis dominus de Eliae adventu, respondit: si vultis scire, Ioannes ipse est Elias. Requisitus autem Ioannes dicit non sum Elias. Quomodo ergo propheta veritatis est si eiusdem veritatis sermonibus concors non est?
Origenes
Dicet aliquis quod se ignorabat Ioannes esse Eliam; et hoc nimirum utentur documento qui assistunt iteratae incorporationis rationi, tamquam anima denuo induente corpora. Quaerunt enim Iudaei per Levitas ac sacerdotes, an esset Elias, cum iteratae corporis assumptionis documentum verax arbitrantur, quasi paternum existens, nec alienum ab arcanorum suorum doctrina. Ob hoc itaque dicit Ioannes: Elias non sum; nam nescit primaevam vitam propriam. Qualiter autem videtur rationabile, si tamquam propheta spiritu illuminatus est, et de Deo et unigenito tanta narravit, ignorasse de seipso an unquam eius anima fuerit in Elia?
Gregorius in Evang
Sed si subtiliter veritas ipsa requiratur, hoc quidem quod inter se contrarium sonat, quomodo contrarium non sit invenitur. Ad Zachariam namque de Ioanne Angelus dixit: ipse praecedet ante illum in spiritu et virtute Eliae, quia scilicet sicut Elias secundum domini adventum praeveniet, ita Ioannes praevenit primum; sicut ille praecursor venturus est iudicis, ita iste praecursor factus est redemptoris. Ioannes igitur in spiritu Elias erat, in persona Elias non erat. Quod autem dominus fatetur de spiritu, hoc Ioannes denegat de persona: quia et iustum sic erat ut discipulis dominus spiritalem de Ioanne sententiam diceret, et Ioannes turbis carnalibus non de suo spiritu, sed de corpore responderet
Origenes
Respondit ergo Levitis et sacerdotibus: non sum, coniectans propositum quaestionis eorum: non enim sapiebat praemissa examinatio, si idem spiritus esset in utroque; sed si Ioannes esset ipse Elias qui assumptus est, nunc apparens, secundum quod a Iudaeis expectabatur, absque nativitate. Primus autem arbitrans resumptionem corporum, dicet, quod inconsequens est filium Zachariae tanti sacerdotis in senio natum, super omnem humanam expectationem, ignorari a sacerdotibus et Levitis ipsum natum fuisse; maxime Luca testante quod factus est timor in omnibus habitantibus circa eos. Sed forsan quoniam prope finem Eliam expectabant ante Christum, quasi tropice sciscitari videntur: an es tu qui praenuntias Christum venturum? Et caute respondit: non sum. Sed nihil mirabile. Sicut in salvatore, pluribus scientibus ex Maria nativitatem eius, quidam fallebantur putantes eum Ioannem Baptistam vel Eliam, aut aliquem prophetarum; sic et in Ioanne quosdam ortus eius ex Zacharia non latebat; et quidam dubitabant, si forsan qui expectabatur Elias apparuit in Ioanne. Quoniam vero cum plures in Israel editi fuerint prophetae, unus de quo Moyses prophetaverat, praesertim expectabatur, iuxta illud: prophetam vobis suscitabit Deus ex fratribus vestris: sicut mihi, illi parebitis; tertio sciscitantur, non si foret propheta simpliciter, sed cum articulo, ut in Graeco ponitur; unde sequitur propheta es tu? Per singulos enim prophetas noverat populus Israel neminem eorum fore hunc quem Moyses prophetaverat, qui sicut Moyses medius staret inter Deum et homines, et accepto testamento a Deo traderet discipulis. Hoc autem illis nomen non Christo attribuentibus, sed arbitrantibus alium a Christo ipsum fore, Ioannes scivit quoniam et Christus ille propheta esset; unde subditur et respondit: non
Augustinus in Ioannem
Vel quia Ioannes maior erat quam propheta: quia prophetae longe praenuntiaverunt, Ioannes praesentem demonstrabat. Sequitur dixerunt ergo ei: quis es, ut responsum demus his qui miserunt nos? Quid dicis de teipso?
Chrysostomus in Ioannem
Vides hic vehementius insistentes et interrogantes; hunc autem cum mansuetudine eas quae non erant verae suspiciones destruentem, et eam quae est vera ponentem: unde sequitur ait: ego vox clamantis in deserto
Augustinus
Isaias illud dixit; in Ioanne prophetia ista completa est
Gregorius in Evang
Scitis autem quod unigenitus filius verbum patris vocatur. Ex ipsa autem nostra locutione cognoscimus, quia prius vox sonat, ut verbum possit audiri. Ioannes ergo vocem se asserit esse, quia verbum praecedit, et per eius ministerium, patris verbum ab hominibus auditur
Origenes
Ineleganter autem Heracleon de Ioanne et prophetis considerans, ait, quoniam verbum quidem salvator est, vox autem per Ioannem intelligitur; solus enim sonus est omnis gradus propheticus. Cui dicendum, quod si non significativam vocem dederit tuba, nemo se accinget ad praelium. Si ergo nil aliud quam sonus est vox prophetica, quomodo transmittit nos ad illam salvator? Scrutamini Scripturas. Dicit autem Ioannes se esse vocem non clamantem in deserto, sed clamantis in deserto, eius scilicet qui stabat et clamabat: si quis sitit, veniat ad me, et bibat. Clamat enim ut distantes auditu percipiant, et gravem habentes auditum sentiant immensitatem eorum quae dicuntur
Theophylactus
Vel quia veritatem manifeste annuntiat: omnes enim qui in lege erant, obscure loquebantur
Gregorius
Vel in deserto Ioannes clamat, quia quasi derelictae ac destitutae Iudaeae solatium redemptoris annuntiat
Origenes
Opus autem vocis in deserto clamantis est ut anima a Deo destituta, ad rectam faciendam viam domini revocetur, nequaquam pravitatem serpentini gressus prosequendo: secundum contemplationem quidem sublimatam in veritate absque permixtione mendacii, et secundum actionem post congruam speculationem licitum opus referentem; unde sequitur dirigite viam domini, sicut dixit Isaias propheta
Gregorius
Via domini ad cor dirigitur, cum veritatis sermo humiliter auditur; via domini ad cor dirigitur, cum ad praeceptum vita praeparatur
1:24
Origen † AD 253 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.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 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.
St Gregory the Great † AD 604 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.
Origen † AD 253 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?
St Gregory the Great † AD 604 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.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 xvi. 3
One among you. It was fitting that Christ should mix with the people, and be one of the many, shewing 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.
St Augustine † AD 430 Tr. iv. c. 9
In His low estate He was not seen; and therefore the candle was lighted.
Theophylact † 1107 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.
Origen † AD 253 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.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 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.
St Gregory the Great † AD 604 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.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Hom. xvi. [al. xv.] 3
But lest thou shouldest think this to be the result of comparison, he immediately shews 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.
St Augustine † AD 430 Tr. iv
To have pronounced himself worthy even of unloosing His shoe’s latchet, he would have been thinking too much of himself.
St Gregory the Great † AD 604 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.
Origen † AD 253 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.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 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.
The Gloss
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.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 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.
Alcuin † AD 804
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.
Origen † AD 253 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.
The Latin text
Origenes
Facta responsione versus sacerdotes et Levitas, denuo missum est a Pharisaeis; unde dicitur et qui missi fuerant erant ex Pharisaeis. Quantum enim ex ipso sermone coniecturari contingit, dico tertium hoc esse testimonium. Vide tamen quomodo iuxta sacerdotalem et leviticam personam est cum mansuetudine prolatum illud tu quis es? Nihil enim arrogans vel protervorum in eorum quaestione continetur, sed cuncta decentia veros Dei ministros. Sed Pharisaei secundum suum nomen divisi et importuni ex discordia contumeliosas voces praetendunt Baptistae; unde sequitur et dixerunt ei: quid ergo baptizas, si tu non es Christus, neque Elias, neque propheta? Non quasi scire volentes, sed prohibere eum a Baptismo. Deinde vero nescio quo pacto proni ad Baptismum iverunt ad Ioannem. Huius autem solutio est, quia Pharisaei non credentes accedunt ad Baptisma, sed ex hypocrisi, cum timerent populum
Chrysostomus in Ioannem
Vel ipsi idem sacerdotes et Levitae ex Pharisaeis erant. Et quia blanditiis eum non valuerunt supplantare, accusationem ei immittere tentant, cogentes eum dicere quod non erat; unde sequitur et interrogaverunt eum, et dixerunt: quid ergo baptizas, si tu non es Christus, neque Elias, neque propheta? Quasi audaciae videbatur esse baptizare, si Christus non erat, nec praecursor illius, nec praeco, idest propheta
Gregorius in Evang
Sed sanctus quisque etiam cum perversa mente requiritur, a bonitatis suae studio non mutatur. Unde Ioannes quoque ad verba invidiae praedicamenta respondit vitae; unde sequitur respondit eis dicens: ego baptizo in aqua
Origenes
Ad illud enim quid ergo baptizas? Quid aliud afferri decebat, nisi proprium Baptismum carnale praetendere?
Gregorius
Ioannes enim non spiritu, sed aqua baptizat: quia peccata solvere non valebat: baptizatorum corpora per aquam lavat, sed tamen animas per veniam non lavat. Cur ergo baptizat qui peccata per Baptismum non relaxat? Nisi ut praecursionis suae ordinem servans, scilicet qui nasciturum nascendo praevenerat, baptizaturum quoque dominum baptizando praeveniret; et qui praedicando factus est praecursor Christi, baptizando etiam praecursor eius fieret imitatione sacramenti; qui inter haec mysterium redemptionis nostrae annuntians, hanc in medio hominum et stetisse asserit et nesciri; sequitur enim medius autem vestrum stetit quem vos nescitis: quia per carnem dominus apparens, et visibilis extitit corpore, et invisibilis maiestate
Chrysostomus
Hoc autem dixit, quoniam decens erat Christum commixtum esse populo, ut unum multorum, se ubique humilem esse docentem. Cum autem dixit quem vos nescitis, scientiam hic cognitionem certissimam dicit; puta quis est, et unde
Augustinus in Ioannem
Humilis enim non videbatur, et propterea lucerna accensa est
Theophylactus
Vel medius erat Pharisaeorum dominus; sed ignorabant eum, quia ipsi Scripturas se scire putabant: et inquantum in illis praenuntiabatur dominus, medius eorum erat, scilicet in cordibus eorum; sed nesciebant eum, eo quod Scripturas non intelligebant. Vel aliter. Medius quidem erat, inquantum mediator Dei existens et hominum Christus Iesus medius Pharisaeorum extitit, volens illos Deo iungere; sed ipsi nesciebant eum
Origenes
Vel aliter. Hoc edito ego baptizo in aqua, ad illud quid ergo baptizas? Ad secundum si tu non es Christus? Praeconium de praecedenti Christi substantia proponit, quod tanta sit ei virtus quod invisibilis sit sua deitate, cum sit praesens cuilibet et totum per orbem diffusus: quod notatur ex illo medius vestrum stetit. Hic enim per totam orbis machinam effluxit, sic ut quae creantur, per ipsum creentur; omnia enim per ipsum facta sunt: unde palam est quod inquirentibus a Ioanne quid ergo baptizas? Ipse medius erat. Vel quod dicitur in medio vestrum stetit, intelligendum est de nobis hominibus. Cum enim simus rationales, in medio nostrum existit; ex eo quod principale, scilicet cor, in medio totius corporis insitum est. Qui ergo verbum in medio gerunt, non autem cognoscunt de illius natura, nec de quo fonte manavit, nec quomodo consistit in eis; hi verbum in medio sui obtinentes ignorant, quod tamen Ioannes agnovit: unde exprobrando dicit ad Pharisaeos quem vos nescitis. Quia expectantes Pharisaei Christi adventum, nihil tam arduum de eo contemplabantur, solum hominem sanctum existimantes eum esse. Dicit autem stetit: nam stat pater invariabilis existens et impermutabilis: stat quoque verbum eius ad salvandum continuo, quamvis carnem suscipiat, quamvis medium hominum stet invisibile. Ne vero putet aliquis alium esse invisibilem ad omnes homines venientem, vel ad universum orbem, ab eo qui humanatus est et in terra comparuit, subdit qui post me venit, hoc est qui post me appariturus est. Non autem idem denotatur hic per hoc quod dicit post, et cum Iesus nos post se invitat; illic enim sequi post ipsum praecipitur nobis, ut eius indagando vestigia, perveniamus ad patrem: hic autem ut pateat quid sequatur ex Ioannis dogmatibus: venit enim ut cuncti credant per eum, praeparati ad perfectum verbum per minora. Dicit ergo ipse est qui post me venit
Chrysostomus in Ioannem
Ac si diceret: ne aestimetis totum in meo consistere Baptismate; si enim meum Baptisma perfectum esset, alius non veniret post me, aliud Baptisma daturus. Sed haec praeparatio est illius, et transibit in proximo, ut umbra et imago; sed oportet eum qui veritatem imponet, venire post me: si enim hoc esset perfectum, nequaquam secundi locus quaereretur; et ideo subdit qui ante me factus est, hic est honorabilior et clarior
Gregorius
Sic namque dicitur ante me factus est, ac si dicatur: antepositus est mihi. Post me ergo venit, quia postmodum natus; ante me autem factus est, quia mihi praelatus
Chrysostomus
Ne autem existimes comparabilem esse excellentiam hanc, incomparabilitatem ostendere volens, subiungit cuius ego non sum dignus ut solvam corrigiam calceamenti; quasi dicat: intantum est ante me ut ego neque in ultimis ministrorum vocari dignus sim: calceamentum enim solvere ultimi ministerii res est
Augustinus
Unde et si dignum se diceret tantummodo corrigiam calceamenti solvere, multum se habuisset
Gregorius in Evang
Vel aliter. Mos apud veteres fuit ut si quis eam quae sibi competeret, accipere uxorem nollet, ille ei calceamentum solveret qui ad hanc sponsus iure propinquitatis veniret. Quid igitur inter homines Christus, nisi sanctae Ecclesiae sponsus apparuit? Recte ergo Ioannes se indignum esse ad solvendam corrigiam eius calceamenti denuntiat; ac si aperte dicat: redemptoris vestigia non denudare valeo; quia sponsi nomen mihi immeritus non usurpo. Quod tamen intelligi et aliter potest. Quis enim nesciat quod calceamenta ex mortuis animalibus fiant? Incarnatus vero dominus veniens, quasi calceatus apparuit, qui in divinitate sua morticina nostrae corruptionis assumpsit. Corrigia ergo calceamenti est ligatura mysterii. Ioannes ergo solvere corrigiam calceamenti eius non valet: quia incarnationis mysterium nec ipse investigare sufficit; ac si patenter dicat: quid mirum si mihi ille praelatus est quem post me quidem natum considero, sed nativitatis eius mysterium non comprehendo?
Origenes in Ioannem
Quidam vero non inepte dixit, hoc sic intelligendum. Non sum ego tanti ut causa mei descendat a magnalibus, ac carnem quasi calceamentum suscipiat
Chrysostomus in Ioannem
Et quia Ioannes cum decenti libertate ea quae de Christo sunt, omnibus praedicabat, propterea Evangelista et locum designat, dicens haec in Bethania facta sunt trans Iordanem, ubi erat Ioannes baptizans. Non enim in domo, neque in angulo Christum praedicabat, sed Iordanem transiens in media multitudine, praesentibus omnibus qui ab eo baptizabantur. Quaedam vero exemplariorum certius habent in Bethabora: Bethania enim non ultra Iordanem, neque in deserto erat, sed prope Hierosolymam
Glossa
Vel duae sunt Bethaniae: una trans Iordanem, altera citra non longe a Ierusalem, ubi Lazarus fuit suscitatus
Chrysostomus
Hoc autem et propter aliam causam designat: quia enim res non antiquas narrabat, sed ante parvum tempus contingentes, praesentes et videntes testes facit eorum quae dicuntur, demonstrationem a locis tribuens
Alcuinus
Bethania vero domus obedientiae interpretatur; per quam innuitur quia per obedientiam fidei omnes ad Baptisma debent pervenire
Origenes
Bethabora vero interpretatur domus praeparationis, et convenit cum Baptismo praeparantis domino plebem perfectam. Iordanis autem interpretatur descensus eorum. Quis autem erit hic fluvius nisi salvator noster, per quem ingredientem in hunc mundum mundari convenit, non suum descendentem descensum, sed humani generis? Hic segregat donatas a Moyse, ab his quae per Iesum donantur, sortes; huius rivuli laetificant civitatem Dei. Sicut autem draco latitat in Aegyptiaco fluvio, ita Deus in isto. Pater enim est in filio; et qui proficiscuntur illuc ubi se lavent, opprobrium Aegypti deponunt, ac apti ad perceptionem hereditatis parantur, necnon a lepra mundantur, et duplicis capaces sunt gratiae, ac prompti fiunt ad susceptionem spiritus almi, in aliud flumen nequaquam descendente spiritali columba. Trans Iordanem vero Ioannes baptizat, ut praecursor venientis non innocentes sed peccatores vocaret
1:29
Origen † AD 253 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)
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 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.
St Augustine † AD 430 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.
Origen † AD 253 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.
Theophylact † 1107 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.
St Gregory the Great † AD 604 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.
Theophylact † 1107 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.
The Gloss
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.
St Augustine † AD 430 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.
Origen † AD 253 tom. vi. c. 36
As there was a connexion 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.
Theophylact † 1107 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)
St Augustine † AD 430 Tr. iv
He cometh after me, because he was born after me: He is made before me, because He is preferred to me.
St Gregory the Great † AD 604 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.
Theophylact † 1107 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.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 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.
St Augustine † AD 430 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 shew 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.
The Latin text
Origenes
Post testimonium Ioannis, iam videtur Iesus veniens ad eum, non solum adhuc perseverantem, sed et potiorem effectum: quod per diem secundariam designatur; unde dicitur altera die vidit Ioannes Iesum venientem ad se. Pridem autem Iesu mater protinus ut illum concepit, ad matrem Ioannis praegnantem proficiscitur, et per vocem pervenientem ad aures Elisabeth ex Mariae salutatione exultat Ioannes conceptus in utero; hic autem post Ioannis testimonium, ipse videtur a Baptista, accedens ad eum. Prius autem auditu aliorum instruitur aliquis, ac deinde oculate inspicit illa. Per hoc autem quod Maria ad Elisabeth venit minorem, et filius Dei ad Baptistam, ad fervorem opitulandi minoribus, et ad modestiam admonemur. Verum unde ad Baptistam venit salvator, non hic dicitur; sed ex dictis Matthaei colligimus dicentis: tunc venit Iesus a Galilaea ad Iordanem ad Ioannem, ut baptizaretur ab eo
Chrysostomus in Ioannem
Vel aliter. Matthaeus adventum Christi ad Baptismum praesentialiter dicit; Ioannes autem, et rursus eum ivisse ad Ioannem ostendit post Baptisma; et hoc manifestat quod postea dicit quia vidi spiritum descendentem et cetera. Partiti enim sunt sibi Evangelistae tempora narrationis: Matthaeus enim ea quae antequam ligaretur Ioannes Baptista praeteriens, festinat ad ea quae deinceps sunt tempora; sed Ioannes his maxime immoratur, quae scilicet ante incarcerationem Ioannis fuerunt; unde hic dicitur altera die vidit Ioannes Iesum venientem ad se. Cuius igitur gratia secundo post Baptismum ad eum veniebat? Quia ipsum baptizaverat cum multis; ut nullus suspicetur quoniam ex eadem causa ex qua et alii, ad Ioannem veniret; puta peccata confessurus, aut in poenitentiam abluendus in flumine. Propterea ergo accedit, dans Ioanni occasionem corrigendi hanc suspicionem, quam Ioannes per verba correxit; unde sequitur et ait: ecce agnus Dei, ecce qui tollit peccatum mundi. Qui igitur ita purus erat ut aliorum peccata absolvere posset, manifestum est quoniam non ut confiteretur peccata accedit, sed ut occasionem det Ioanni loquendi de ipso. Venit etiam secundo, ut hi qui priora audierant, certius recipiant quae praedicta sunt, et alia rursus audiant. Dicit autem ecce agnus Dei, innuens quod hic est qui olim quaerebatur, rememorans prophetiae Isaiae, et umbrae quae secundum Moysen erat, ut a figura facilius eos ducat ad veritatem
Augustinus in Ioannem
Si autem agnus Dei est innocens, et Ioannes agnus; an non et ipse est innocens? Sed omnes ex illa propagine veniunt de qua cantat gemens David: ego in iniquitatibus conceptus sum. Solus ergo ille agnus qui non sic venit: non enim in iniquitate conceptus est, nec in peccatis mater eius eum in utero aluit, quem virgo concepit, virgo peperit, quia fide concepit, et fide suscepit
Origenes in Ioannem
Sed cum quinque offerantur animalia in templo: tria terrestria: vitulus, ovis et capra; volatilia vero duo: turtur et columba; et de ovibus tria adducantur: aries, ovis, agnus; de genere ovium agnum memoravit: agnum enim in oblationibus quotidianis offerri videmus, unum quidem mane, alterum vero vespere. Quaenam autem oblatio alia potest esse quotidiana a rationali natura comprehendenda, nisi verbum vigens, agnus typice nuncupatum? Hoc nempe censebitur oblatio matutina ad frequentiam intellectus in divinis relatum: neque enim anima pati potest ut summis iugiter insistat, eo quod corporis terrestris et gravis coniugium est sortita. Ex hoc etiam verbo quod Christus est agnus, coniectare de pluribus poterimus: et quodammodo vespere pertingemus ad corporalia procedentes. Qui autem hunc obtulit agnum ad immolandum, Deus fuit in homine reconditus, magnus sacerdos, qui dixit: nemo tollit animam meam a me, sed ego pono eam; unde dicitur agnus Dei: ipse enim nostros languores accipiens, totius mundi tollens peccata, mortem quasi Baptismum suscepit. Apud Deum enim non pertransit incorrectum quidquid agimus quod disciplina indigeat, quae per difficilia exercetur
Theophylactus
Vel dicitur Christus agnus Dei, inquantum Deus pater mortem Christi acceptavit pro nostra salute, vel inquantum eum pro nobis tradidit morti: sicut enim dicere consuevimus: haec oblatio est talis hominis, idest quam talis homo obtulit; sic et Christus dicitur agnus Dei, dantis scilicet filium suum pro nostra salute in mortem. Et ille quidem agnus typicus nullius omnino peccatum sustulit; hic vero peccatum universi orbis terrarum: periclitantem enim mundum eruit ab ira Dei; unde subdit ecce qui tollit peccatum mundi. Non autem dixit: qui tollet, sed qui tollit peccatum mundi, quasi semper hoc faciente ipso: non enim tunc solum tulit cum passus est, sed ex illo tempore usque ad praesens tollit, non semper crucifixus; unam enim pro peccatis obtulit oblationem, sed semper purgans per illam
Gregorius Moralium
Tunc autem ab humano genere plene peccatum tolletur, cum per incorruptionis gloriam nostra corruptio permutabitur: esse namque a culpa liberi non possumus, quousque in corporis morte tenemur
Theophylactus
Sed quare non dixit: peccata mundi, sed peccatum? Ut videlicet per hoc quod dixit peccatum, universaliter peccatum videretur innuere; sicut consuevimus dicere, quod homo eiectus est de Paradiso, idest omne genus humanum
Beda
Vel peccatum mundi dicitur originale peccatum, quod est commune totius mundi; quod quidem peccatum originale et singulorum superaddita Christus per gratiam relaxat
Augustinus
Qui enim de nostra natura peccatum non assumpsit, ipse est qui tollit nostrum peccatum. Nostis, quia quidam homines dicunt: nos tollimus peccata ab hominibus quia sancti sumus: si enim non fuerit sanctus qui baptizat, quomodo tollit peccatum alterius, cum sit ipse homo plenus peccato? Contra istas disputationes hic legamus ecce qui tollit peccatum mundi, ut non sit praesumptio hominibus in homines
Origenes
Sicut tamen iugi oblationi agni cognatae sunt reliquae oblationes legales, sic huius agni oblationi cognatae oblationes videntur mihi effusiones sanguinis martyrum, quorum patientia et confessione et promptitudine ad bonum, obtunduntur machinationes impiorum
Theophylactus
Quia vero superius illis qui ex Pharisaeis venerant Ioannes dixerat quod medius vestrum stat quem vos nescitis, hic ignorantibus demonstrat, dicens hic est de quo dixi: post me venit vir qui ante me factus est. Vir dominus dicitur propter aetatis perfectionem: nam triginta annorum baptizatus est; vel quia spiritualis animae vir est, et Ecclesiae sponsus; unde Paulus: despondi vos uni viro virginem castam exhibere Christo
Augustinus in Ioannem
Post me autem venit, quia posterior natus est; ante me factus est, quia praelatus est mihi
Gregorius in Evang
Praelationis autem eius causas aperit, cum subiungit quia prior me erat; ac si aperte dicat: inde me etiam post natus superat quo eum nativitatis suae tempora non angustant: nam qui per matrem in tempore nascitur, sine tempore est a patre generatus
Theophylactus
Ausculta, o Ari. Non dixit: quia prior me creatus est, sed quia prior me erat. Audiat hoc Pauli Samosateni abusio, quod non ex Maria sumpsit primordium; quia si essendi principium sumpsit ex virgine, qualiter prior extitit praecursore? Nam manifestum est quod praecursor Christum in sex mensibus superabat secundum humanam generationem
Chrysostomus in Ioannem
Ut autem non videatur ex amicitia propter cognationem ei testimonium perhibere, quia cognatus eius erat secundum carnem, propterea dicit ego nesciebam eum. Et secundum rationem hoc contingit: etenim in deserto conversatus est Ioannes. Miracula vero quaecumque Christo puero existente facta sunt, puta quae circa magos, et quaecumque talia, ante multum contigerant tempus, Ioanne et ipso valde puero existente. In medio vero tempore ignotus omnibus existebat; propter quod subdit sed ut manifestetur in Israel, propterea veni ego in aqua baptizans. Hinc enim manifestum est quoniam et illa signa quae quidam dicunt a Christo in pueritia facta, mendacia et fictiones sunt. Si enim a prima aetate miracula fecisset Iesus, nequaquam neque Ioannes eum ignorasset, nec reliqua multitudo indiguisset magistro ad manifestandum eum. Non igitur ipse Christus Baptismate indigebat, neque aliquam aliam causam habebat illud lavacrum quam praemonstrationem facere eius fidei quae est in Christum. Non enim dixit: ut mundem eos qui baptizantur, neque: ut liberem a peccatis, veni baptizans; sed ut manifestetur in Israel. Sed numquid sine Baptismate non licebat praedicare et inducere turbas? Sed facilius ita factum est: nequaquam enim cucurrissent omnes, si sine Baptismate praedicatio facta esset
Augustinus in Ioannem
Ubi ergo cognitus est dominus, superfluo ei via parabatur, quia cognoscentibus se, ipse factus est via. Itaque non duravit diu Baptisma Ioannis, sed quoadusque demonstratus est dominus humilis. Ergo ut daretur nobis a domino humilitatis exemplum ad percipiendam salutem Baptismi, suscepit Baptismum servi; et ne praeponeretur Baptismus servi Baptismo domini, baptizati sunt alii Baptismo conservi. Sed qui baptizati sunt Baptismo conservi, oportebat ut baptizarentur Baptismo domini; qui autem baptizantur Baptismo domini, non opus habent Baptismo conservi
1:32
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 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.
St Augustine † AD 430 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?
St Augustine † AD 430 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.
St Augustine † AD 430 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.
St Gregory the Great † AD 604 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.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 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.
St Augustine † AD 430 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?
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 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.
St Augustine † AD 430 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.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 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.
St Augustine † AD 430 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.
The Latin text
Chrysostomus in Ioannem
Quia Ioannes testatus est ita magnum quid quod sufficiens erat auditores omnes stupefacere, puta quod totius orbis terrarum solus ipse peccata tolleret, volens credibilius id facere, reduxit hoc ad Deum et spiritum sanctum. Posset enim aliquis dicere Ioanni: qualiter igitur tu cognovisti eum? Respondet quod per descensum spiritus sancti; unde sequitur et testimonium perhibuit Ioannes, dicens: quia vidi spiritum descendentem quasi columbam de caelo, et mansit super eum
Augustinus de Trin
Non autem tunc unctus est Christus spiritu sancto quando super eum baptizatum velut columba descendit: tunc enim corpus suum, scilicet Ecclesiam suam, praefigurare dignatus est, in qua praecipue baptizati accipiunt spiritum sanctum. Absurdissimum enim est ut credamus eum cum iam triginta esset annorum (eius enim aetatis a Ioanne baptizatus est) accepisse spiritum sanctum; sed venisse ad illud Baptisma, sicut sine ullo omnino peccato, ita non sine spiritu sancto. Si enim de famulo eius et praecursore ipso Ioanne scriptum est: spiritu sancto replebitur ab utero matris suae; qui quamvis seminatus a patre, tamen spiritum sanctum in utero formatus accepit: quid de homine Christo intelligendum est vel credendum, cuius carnis ipsa conceptio non carnalis, sed spiritualis fuit?
Augustinus de agone Christiano
Non autem dicimus solum Christum verum corpus habuisse, spiritum autem sanctum fallaciter apparuisse oculis hominum: sicut enim non oportebat ut homines falleret filius Dei, sic nec spiritus sanctus. Sed omnipotenti Deo, qui universam creaturam ex nihilo fabricavit, non erat difficile verum corpus columbae sine aliarum columbarum ministerio figurare; sicut ei non fuit difficile verum corpus in utero virginis sine virili semine fabricare
Augustinus in Ioannem
Duobus autem modis ostendit visibiliter dominus spiritum sanctum; per columbam super dominum baptizatum; per ignem vero super discipulos congregatos: ibi simplicitas, hic fervor ostenditur. Ergo ne spiritu sanctificati dolum habeant, in columba demonstratum est; et ne simplicitas frigida remaneat, in igne demonstratum est. Nec movet, quia linguae divisae sunt: noli dissipationem timere, unitatem in columba cognosce. Sic ergo oportebat demonstrari spiritum sanctum venientem super dominum, ut cognoscat unusquisque, si habeat spiritum sanctum, simplicem se esse debere sicut columbam, et habere cum fratribus veram pacem, quam significant oscula columbarum. Osculantur et corvi, sed laniant; a laniatu innocens est natura columbarum: nam corvi de morte pascuntur, columba nonnisi de frugibus terrae vivit. Si etiam gemunt columbae in amore, nolite mirari, quia in columbae specie voluit demonstrari spiritus sanctus; ipse enim interpellat pro nobis gemitibus inenarrabilibus. Non autem spiritus sanctus in semetipso, sed in nobis gemit, quia gemere nos facit. Qui enim novit in pressura se esse mortalitatis huius, peregrinari se a domino, quamdiu propter hoc gemit, bene gemit: spiritus illum docuit gemere. Multi autem gemunt, infelicitate terrena, vel quassati damnis, vel aegritudine corporis praegravati; sed non columbae gemitu gemunt. Unde ergo debuit demonstrari spiritus sanctus unitatem quamdam designans, nisi per columbam, ut pacatae Ecclesiae diceretur: una est columba mea? Unde debuit humilitas figurari nisi per avem simplicem et gementem? Apparuit ibi sancta et vera Trinitas: pater in voce dicente: tu es filius meus dilectus; spiritus sanctus in columba. In ista Trinitate missi sunt apostoli baptizare in nomine patris et filii et spiritus sancti
Gregorius Moralium
Dicit autem manentem super eum: in cunctis namque fidelibus spiritus sanctus venit, sed in solo mediatore semper singulariter permanet: quia eius humanitatem nunquam deseruit, ex cuius divinitate procedit. Sed cum de eodem spiritu discipulis dicatur: apud vos manebit, quomodo singulare signum erit quod in Christo permanet? Quod citius cognoscemus, si dona spiritus discernamus. In his enim donis, sine quibus ad vitam perveniri non potest, spiritus sanctus in electis omnibus semper permanet; ut sunt mansuetudo, humilitas, fides, spes, caritas; in illis autem quibus per ostensionem spiritus non nostra servatur vita, sed aliorum quaeritur, non semper manet, sed aliquando se a signorum ostensionibus subtrahit, ut humilius eius virtutes habeantur. Christus autem in cunctis eum semper et continue habuit praesentem
Chrysostomus in Ioannem
Ne autem aliquis aestimet spiritus Christum indiguisse sicut et nos, hanc etiam destruit suspicionem, ostendens quod spiritus sancti descensio solum pro manifestando Christo facta est; unde sequitur et ego nesciebam eum; sed qui misit me baptizare in aqua, mihi dixit: super quem videris spiritum descendentem et manentem super eum, hic est qui baptizat in spiritu sancto
Augustinus in Ioannem
Quis autem misit Ioannem? Si dicamus: pater, verum dicimus; si dicamus: filius, verum dicimus. Manifestius autem est ut dicamus: pater et filius. Quomodo ergo nesciebat eum a quo missus est? Si enim non noverat eum a quo voluit baptizari, temere dicebat ego a te debeo baptizari. Noverat ergo eum: quid ergo est quod dicit et ego nesciebam eum?
Chrysostomus
Sed cum dicit nesciebam eum, anterius tempus dicit, non tempus quod est prope Baptismum, cum prohibebat eum, dicens ego a te debeo baptizari
Augustinus in Ioannem
Sed legantur alii Evangelistae, qui planius illud dixerunt; et inveniemus apertissime tunc descendisse columbam cum dominus ab aqua ascendit. Si ergo post Baptisma descendit columba, et antequam baptizaretur dixit illi Ioannes ego a te debeo baptizari; ante Baptismum illum noverat: quomodo ergo dixit ego nesciebam eum; sed qui misit me baptizare? et cetera. Hoc audivit Ioannes, ut nosceret eum quem non noverat, an forte ut plenius nosset quem iam noverat? Noverat quidem dominum, noverat filium Dei, noverat quia ipse baptizaret in spiritu sancto. Ante enim quam veniret ad fluvium Christus, cum multi ad Ioannem concurrerent, ait illis qui post me venit, maior me est: ipse vos baptizabit in spiritu sancto et igne. Sed quid? Non noverat, potestatem Baptismi ipsum dominum habiturum et sibi retenturum (ne Paulus aut Petrus diceret: Baptismus meus, sicut invenis dixisse: Evangelium meum), sed ministerium plane transiturum in bonos et malos? Quid tibi faciat malus minister, ubi bonus est dominus? Ecce post Ioannem baptizatum est, post homicidam non est baptizatum: quia Ioannes dedit Baptismum suum, homicida dedit Baptismum Christi; quod sacramentum tam sanctum est ut nec homicida ministrante polluatur. Potuit autem dominus, si vellet, potestatem dare alicui servo suo ut daret Baptismum suum tamquam vice sua, et constituere tantam vim in Baptismate translato in servum, quantam vim haberet Baptisma datum a domino. Hoc noluit ut in illo esset spes baptizatorum a quo baptizatos se agnoscerent; et noluit servum ponere spem in servo. Si autem daret hanc potestatem servis, tot essent Baptismata quot essent servi; et quomodo dictum est Baptisma Ioannis, sic diceretur Baptisma Petri vel Pauli. Per hanc ergo potestatem, quam solum sibi Christus retinuit, stat unitas Ecclesiae, de qua dictum est: una est columba mea. Potest autem fieri ut aliquis habeat Baptismum praeter columbam; ut prosit ei Baptismus praeter columbam, non potest
Chrysostomus
Et quia pater vocem emisit praedicans filium, superveniet spiritus sanctus vocem trahens super caput Christi, ne quis praesentium existimaret dici de Ioanne quod dictum est de Christo. Sed dicet aliquis: qualiter non crediderunt Iudaei, si viderunt spiritum? Sed talia non solum indigent oculis corporis, sed magis visione mentis. Si namque miracula facientem videntes, intantum ebrii erant a livore ut contraria his quae videbantur, enuntiarent; qualiter solo adventu spiritus sancti in specie columbae expulissent incredulitatem? Quidam vero dicunt, non omnes vidisse spiritum, sed solum Ioannem, et eos qui devotius dispositi erant. Etsi enim sensibilibus oculis possibile erat videre in specie columbae spiritum descendentem; non tamen propter hoc necesse est omnibus hoc fuisse manifestum. Etenim Zacharias in specie sensibili multa consideravit, et Daniel, et Ezechiel; sed et Moyses multa vidit, qualia aliorum nullus: unde subdit Ioannes et ego vidi, et testimonium perhibui, quia hic est filius Dei. Agnum quidem eum vocaverat; et quoniam in spiritu baptizare debebat, dixit, filium autem ante hoc nusquam
Augustinus in Ioannem
Oportebat enim ut ille baptizaret qui est filius Dei unicus, non adoptatus. Adoptati filii ministri sunt unici; unicus autem habet potestatem, adoptati ministerium
1:35
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 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.
St Bede † AD 735 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.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 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!
Theophylact † 1107
Looking he saith, as if signifying by his looks his love and admiration for Christ.
St Augustine † AD 430 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 shewed them whom they should follow, saying, Behold the Lamb of God.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 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.
St Augustine † AD 430 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.
St Bede † AD 735 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.
Alcuin † AD 804
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.
St Bede † AD 735 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.
The Latin text
Chrysostomus in Ioannem
Quia multi his quae a principio Ioannes dicebat non attendebant, secunda rursus eos excitat voce; unde dicitur altera die iterum stabat Ioannes, et ex discipulis eius duo
Beda
Stabat quidem Ioannes, quia illam virtutum arcem conscenderat, a qua nullis tentationum posset improbitatibus deici: stabant cum illo discipuli, quia magisterium illius corde sequebantur immobili
Chrysostomus
Sed quare non totum mundum circuivit, in omni loco Iudaeae praedicans eum; sed stabat circa flumen, expectans eum venire, ut ostenderet venientem? Quia scilicet per opera Christi hoc fieri volebat. Vide etiam qualiter hoc maioris aedificationis fuit: quia enim parvam immisit scintillam, repente flamma in altum elevata est. Alter autem etsi circumiens hoc dixisset, videretur ex studio quodam humano fieri quae fiebant, et suspicione plenum esset eius praeconium. Igitur prophetae quidem et apostoli omnes absentem Christum praedicaverunt; hi quidem ante praesentiam secundum carnem, illi vero post assumptionem: unde ut ostendatur quod non voce solum, sed et oculis eum ostendebat, subditur et respiciens Iesum ambulantem, dixit: ecce agnus Dei
Theophylactus
Respiciens, inquit, quasi oculis innuens gratiam et admirationem quam habebat in Christo
Augustinus in Ioannem
Ioannes quidem amicus sponsi erat; non quaerebat gloriam suam, sed testimonium perhibebat veritati: non enim voluit apud se remanere discipulos suos, ut non sequerentur dominum; sed magis ostendit quem sequerentur, dicens ecce agnus Dei
Chrysostomus
Non longum facit sermonem: quoniam unum solum in studio habebat, adducere eos, et coniungere Christo: sciebat enim quoniam de reliquo non indigerent eo testante. Non autem singulariter discipulis loquitur de his Ioannes, sed eis publice cum omnibus: quia ex communi doctrina suscipientes sequelam Christi, firmi de reliquo permanserunt, non propter gratiam Christi sequentes eum, sed propter suum lucrum: et non facit sermonem suum deprecativum, sed admiratur solum praesentem, et demonstrat eis praeparationem propter quam venit, et modum praeparationis: agnus enim utrumque insinuat: et dicit agnus, cum articuli adiectione, excellentiam eius ostendens
Augustinus in Ioannem
Iste enim singulariter dicitur agnus solus sine macula, sine peccato; non cuius maculae abstersae sunt, sed cuius macula nulla fuerit: singulariter hic est agnus Dei, quia singulariter huius agni sanguine solo homines redimi potuerunt. Hic est agnus quem lupi timent, qui leonem occisus occidit
Beda
Ideo etiam agnum vocat, quia dona sui velleris sponte largiturum, ex quo vestem nobis nuptialem facere possumus, idest exempla vivendi nobis relicturum, praevidit, quibus in dilectione calefieri deberemus
Alcuinus
Mystice autem stat Ioannes, cessat lex, et venit Iesus, idest gratia Evangelii, cui ipsa lex perhibet testimonium. Ambulat Iesus discipulos collecturus
Beda
Ambulatio etiam Iesu dispensationem incarnationis, qua ad nos venire ac nobis exempla vivendi praebere dignatus est, insinuat
1:37
Alcuin † AD 804
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.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 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 shew that He thought them worthy of His instructions.
Theophylact † 1107 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.
Alcuin † AD 804
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.
Origen † AD 253 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?
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Hom. xviii. in Joan. sparsim
And besides following Him, their questions shewed 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 shew the reason why they followed.
Origen † AD 253
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.
Alcuin † AD 804
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 shew 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.
Origen † AD 253 tom. ii. c. 29
Or perhaps come, is an invitation to action; see, to contemplation.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Hom. xviii. [al. xvii.] 3
Christ does not describe His house and situation, but brings them after Him, shewing 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.
St Augustine † AD 430 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.
Theophylact † 1107
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.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Hom. xviii. 3
It shewed 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.
St Augustine † AD 430 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.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 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.
Alcuin † AD 804
Or it would seem that the two disciples who followed Jesus were Andrew and Philip.
The Latin text
Alcuinus
Ioanne perhibente testimonium quia Iesus esset agnus Dei, discipuli qui prius erant cum Ioanne, magistri imperium implentes, secuti sunt Iesum; unde dicitur et audierunt eum duo discipuli loquentem, et secuti sunt Iesum
Chrysostomus in Ioannem
Considera autem, quia quando dixit: post me veniens ante me factus est, et quoniam non sum dignus solvere corrigiam calceamenti eius, nullum cepit; sed quando de dispensatione locutus est, et ad humiliora sermonem duxit dicens ecce agnus Dei, tunc secuti sunt eum discipuli. Multi enim non ita adducuntur cum aliquid magnum et excelsum de Deo dicatur, sicut cum benignum et amicum hominum audiunt, et aliquid ad salutem hominum pertinens. Considerandum autem, quod Ioannes dicit ecce agnus Dei, et Christus nihil loquitur: nam et sponsus cum silentio adest: alii eum inducunt, et sponsam in manu eius ponunt; quam cum acceperit, de ea disponit. Ita Christus venit copulaturus sibi Ecclesiam, nihil ipse dixit; sed accessit solum amicus eius Ioannes, dexteram ei sponsae imposuit, per sermones suos animas hominum in manus ei ponens; quos accipiens ita disposuit ut ultra ad Ioannem non redirent. Sed aliud hic observandum est: sicut enim in nuptiis non puella ad sponsum vadit, sed ipse ad eam festinat, ita hic contingit: non enim in caelum ascendit hominum natura; sed ad eam filius Dei accessit, et ad domum duxit paternam. Et quidem alii discipuli Ioannis erant qui non solum secuti non sunt, sed et zelotype ad Christum dispositi erant; qui autem meliores erant, simul audierunt et secuti sunt, non quasi magistrum priorem contemnentes, sed ab eo persuasi, promittente quod baptizaret in spiritu sancto Christus. Et vide discipulorum studium cum verecundia fieri: neque enim mox ascendentes interrogaverunt Iesum de necessariis et maximis rebus; neque publice, sed singulariter ei loqui studuerunt; unde sequitur conversus autem Iesus, et videns eos sequentes se, dicit eis: quid quaeritis? Hinc erudimur quia cum nos bene velle inceperimus, tunc Deus dat nobis multas salutis occasiones. Interrogat autem, non ut discat, sed ut per interrogationem magis eos familiares faciat, et ampliorem fiduciam det, et ostendat eos auditione dignos
Theophylactus
Vide autem quod sequentibus se dominus convertit faciem, et respexit: quia nisi per bonam operationem ipsum secutus fueris, ad visionem faciei eius numquam pertinges, neque ad domum eius poteris pervenire
Alcuinus
Ergo illi discipuli tergum ipsius sequebantur ut viderent, et faciem domini videre non poterant; ideo convertit se, et quodammodo de sua maiestate descendit, ut possint discipuli faciem illius contemplari
Origenes
Forte autem non frustra post sextum testimonium desinit Ioannes eos contestari, et Iesus secundum septimum dicit quid quaeritis?
Chrysostomus in Ioannem
Sed illi non solum sequendo, sed interrogando amorem suum ad Christum manifestaverunt; unde sequitur qui dixerunt ei: Rabbi (quod dicitur interpretatum magister), ubi habitas? Nondum ab eo aliquid discentes, magistrum eum vocant, ad discipulatum se impellentes, et causam ostendentes propter quid sequebantur
Origenes
Congrua vero provectis ex Ioannis testimonio prolatio depromens Christum doctorem, ac exprimens desiderare habitaculum filii Dei contueri
Alcuinus
Nolunt enim transitorie uti eius magisterio, sed inquirunt ubi maneat, ut et tunc in secreto verbis illius imbui, et exinde saepius possent eum visitare et plenius instrui. Mystice autem volunt sibi ostendi in quibus Christus habitet, ut eorum exemplo se tales exhibeant in quibus velit habitare. Vel quod Iesum ambulantem vident, et statim ubi maneat quaerunt, nos monet, ut cum incarnationem eius ad mentem reducimus, sollicito corde eum rogemus ut mansionem aeterni habitaculi nobis ostendat: unde quia videt bene petentes, libere eis sua reserat arcana; unde sequitur dicit eis: venite et videte; quasi dicat: habitaculum meum explicari non potest sermone, sed opere demonstratur. Venite ergo credendo et operando, et videte intelligendo
Origenes
Vel per hoc quod dicit venite, ad actionem invitat; per hoc autem quod dicit videte, ad contemplationem
Chrysostomus
Christus autem non dicit eis signa domus neque locum, sed attrahit eos ad sequendum. Non dixit: non est tempus nunc, audietis cras, si quid vultis discere; sed ut ad amicos et familiares loquitur. Qualiter ergo alibi ait: filius hominis non habet ubi caput reclinet, hic autem dicit venite et videte ubi habito? Sed per hoc quod dixit: non habet ubi caput suum reclinet demonstravit quod habitaculum proprium non habebat, non quod in domo non maneret; sequitur enim venerunt, et viderunt ubi maneret, et manserunt ibi die illo. Cuius autem gratia manserunt non adiungit Evangelista, quia manifestum erat quod propter doctrinam
Augustinus
Quam beatum autem diem duxerunt, quam beatam noctem. Aedificemus ergo et nosmetipsi in corde nostro, et faciamus domum, quo veniat ille et doceat nos
Theophylactus
Non frustra autem et tempus notavit Evangelista, cum subdit hora autem erat quasi decima; ut tam doctores quam discipulos erudiret, quod doctrina propter tempus non est praetermittenda
Chrysostomus
Multum enim studium demonstrabant ad audiendum, in eo quia neque ab hora aversi sunt, cum sol esset ad occasum. Et multis quidem carni servientibus tempus quod est post escas, non est aptum ad quippiam necessariorum, eo quod corpus escis gravatur. Ioannes vero, cuius isti erant discipuli, non erat talis: sed cum multo maiori sobrietate vespere degens quam nos mane
Augustinus
Numerus etiam iste legem significat, quia in decem praeceptis data est lex. Venerat autem tempus ut impleretur lex per dilectionem, quae a Iudaeis impleri non poterat per timorem; unde et decima hora dominus audivit Rabbi: magister enim legis non est nisi dator legis. Sequitur erat autem Andreas frater Simonis Petri unus ex duobus qui audierant a Ioanne, et secuti fuerant eum
Chrysostomus in Ioannem
Cuius autem gratia alterius nomen non ponitur? Quidam dicunt, propterea quia hic qui scribit est qui secutus est eum. Quidam vero dicunt, quod ille alius non insignis erat: quae igitur utilitas si didicerimus nomen illius? Neque enim septuaginta duorum discipulorum nomina Evangelista posuit
Alcuinus
Vel duo discipuli qui secuti sunt Iesum, sunt Andreas et Philippus
1:41
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 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.
St Bede † AD 735 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.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 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.
St Augustine † AD 430 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.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 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.
St Bede † AD 735 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.
St Augustine † AD 430 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.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Hom. xix. [al. xviii. 2]
He changed the name too to shew 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.
St Augustine † AD 430 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.
Alcuin † AD 804
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 shew 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.
The Latin text
Chrysostomus in Ioannem
Andreas quae a Iesu didicit non detinuit apud seipsum; sed festinat, et currit cito ad fratrem, traditurus ei bona quae suscepit; unde dicitur invenit hic primum fratrem suum Simonem, et dixit ei: invenimus Messiam (quod est interpretatum Christus)
Beda
Hoc est enim vere dominum invenire, vera illius dilectione fervere, fraternae quoque salutis curam gerere
Chrysostomus in Ioannem
Et quidem non dixerat Evangelista quae Christus fuerat sequentibus se locutus; sed ex his quae hic dicuntur licet addiscere. Quaecumque enim Andreas didicit, in brevi ostendit, magistri virtutem, qui persuaserat eis, et eorum desiderium quod prius habuerant, repraesentans: hoc enim verbum invenimus, est patientis pressuram propter absentiam et exultantis postquam apparuit quod expectabatur
Augustinus in Ioannem
Messias autem Hebraice, Graece Christus, Latine unctus dicitur: chrisma enim unctio est: ille autem singulariter unctus est: unde omnes Christiani unguntur, secundum quod in Psal. 44 dicitur: unxit te Deus Deus tuus oleo exultationis prae participibus tuis: participes enim eius sunt omnes sancti; sed ille est singulariter sanctus, et singulariter unctus
Chrysostomus
Et ideo non dixit Messiam simpliciter, sed cum adiectione articuli. Considera vero ex ipso principio obedientem Petri mentem: confestim enim cucurrit nihil tardans; unde sequitur et adduxit eum ad Iesum. Sed nullus facilitatem ei imponat, si non prius multa perquirens ita sermonem suscepit; conveniens enim est, et fratrem diligentius ei dixisse hoc, et per longa verba; sed Evangelistae ubique multa intermittunt, breviloquii curam habentes. Aliter autem neque dictum est quoniam credidit simpliciter, sed quoniam duxit eum ad Iesum, illum ei de quo dixerat traditurus, ut omnia ab illo discat. Ipse autem dominus incipit revelare ea quae deitatis sunt, et paulatim ea aperire praedicationibus. Non enim minus quam signa, prophetiae adducunt: hoc enim est maxime opus Dei, quod neque imitari Daemones possunt: nam in miraculis quidem et phantasia fit utique; futura autem praedicere cum certitudine, illius solius incorruptibilis est naturae; unde sequitur intuitus autem eum Iesus dixit: tu es Simon filius Ioanna; tu vocaberis Cephas (quod interpretatur Petrus)
Beda
Intuitus autem est eum non exterioribus oculis solum, sed et aeterno divinitatis intuitu vidit cordis eius simplicitatem, animi sublimitatem, cuius merito cunctae esset praeferendus Ecclesiae. Neque autem in Petri vocabulo, quasi Hebraeo vel Syro, aliam interpretationem quaerere oportet: quia idem est Graece et Latine Petrus, quod Syriace Cephas; et in utraque lingua nomen a petra derivatur. Vocatur autem Petrus ob firmitatem fidei, qua illi petrae adhaesit de qua apostolus ait: petra autem erat Christus; qui sperantes in se ab hostis insidiis reddit tutos, et spiritualium charismatum fluenta ministrat
Augustinus in Ioannem
Non est autem magnum quia dominus dixit cuius filius esset iste: omnia enim nomina sanctorum suorum sciebat, quos ante constitutionem mundi praedestinavit. Illud autem magnum quia mutavit ei nomen, et fecit de Simone Petrum. Petrus autem a petra; petra vero Ecclesia: ergo in Petri nomine figurata est Ecclesia. Et quis securus est, nisi qui aedificat supra petram? Intentum autem te fecit dominus: nam si antea Petrus vocaretur, non ita videres mysterium petrae, et putares casu eum sic vocari, non providentia Dei. Ideo eum voluit aliud prius vocari, ut ex ipsa commutatione nominis, sacramenti vivacitas commendaretur
Chrysostomus
Ideo etiam nomen mutavit, ut ostendat quia ipse est qui vetus testamentum dedit et nomina transmutavit, qui Abram Abraham vocavit, et Sarai Saram, et Iacob Israelem. Igitur multis quidem et a nativitate nomina imposuit, ut Isaac et Samson; aliis autem post eam quae a progenitoribus est nuncupationem, ut Petro et filiis Zebedaei: nam quibus quidem a prima aetate debebat virtus clarescere, ex tunc nomina susceperunt; quibus autem postea debebat augeri, postea nuncupatio posita est
Augustinus de Cons. Evang
Non autem parva repugnantia potest putari si iuxta Iordanem, antequam Iesus isset in Galilaeam, ad testimonium Ioannis Baptistae secuti sunt eum duo, quorum unus erat Andreas, qui fratrem suum Simonem adduxit ad Iesum; quando et nomen ut Petrus nominaretur accepit; cum ab aliis Evangelistis dicatur, quod eos in Galilaea piscantes invenerit, atque ad discipulatum vocaverit: nisi quia intelligendum est, non sic eos vidisse dominum iuxta Iordanem ut ei iam inseparabiliter inhaererent; sed tantum cognovisse qui esset, eumque miratos ad propria remeasse. Non autem quis arbitretur quod tunc Petrus nomen accepit, ubi ait illi dominus: tu es Petrus, et super hanc petram aedificabo Ecclesiam meam; sed ubi commemoratur ei dictum esse tu vocaberis Cephas (quod interpretatur Petrus)
Alcuinus
Vel aliter. Nondum imponit ei nomen, sed praesignat quod postea fuit ei impositum, quando dixit ei Iesus: tu es Petrus, et super hanc petram aedificabo Ecclesiam meam. Mutaturus autem nomen Christus, voluit ostendere etiam nomen illud quod a parentibus datum erat, non carere virtutis significatione. Simon enim obediens interpretatur, Ioanna gratia, Iona columba; quasi dicat: tu es obediens, filius gratiae, vel filius columbae, idest spiritus sancti: quia humilitatem de spiritu sancto accepisti, ut vocante Andrea, videre me desiderares. Non enim dedignatus est maior minorem sequi: quia non est ordo aetatis ubi est meritum fidei
1:43
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Hom. xix
After gaining these disciples, Christ proceeded to convert others, viz. Philip and Nathanael: The day following, Jesus would go forth into Galilee.
Alcuin † AD 804
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.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 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.
Theophylact † 1107
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.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 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.
Alcuin † AD 804
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.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 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 shew 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.
St Augustine † AD 430 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.
Theophylact † 1107
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.
St Augustine † AD 430 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.
Alcuin † AD 804
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.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 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.
The Latin text
Chrysostomus in Ioannem
Postquam accepit Christus hos discipulos, venit de reliquo ad alios convertendum, scilicet Philippum et Nathanaelem; unde dicitur in crastinum autem voluit exire in Galilaeam
Alcuinus
A Iudaea scilicet, ubi erat Ioannes baptizans, deferens honorem Baptistae, ne videatur magisterium eius minuere, dum adhuc statum habet. Vocaturus etiam discipulum ad sequendum, voluit exire in Galilaeam, idest in transmigrationem factam vel revelationem; ut sicut ipse proficiebat sapientia et aetate et gratia apud Deum et homines, et sicut passus est et resurrexit, et ita intravit in gloriam suam; sic etiam suos sequaces ostenderet et exire et proficere in virtutibus, et per passiones ad gaudia transmigrare debere; unde sequitur et invenit Philippum, et dicit ei Iesus: sequere me. Sequitur qui imitatur humilitatem et passionem eius, ut sit socius resurrectionis et ascensionis
Chrysostomus
Et vide quod antequam aliquis ei adhaereret, nullum vocavit: nam si quidem nullo iam sponte adveniente attraxisset, fortassis resiliissent: nunc autem a seipsis eligentes sequi dominum, firmi de reliquo permanserunt. Philippum autem vocat, magis notum ei existentem, quia in Galilaea nutritus erat. Sed unde Philippus secutus est Christum? Nam Andreas quidem audiens a Ioanne Baptista, Petrus autem ab Andrea; hic autem a nullo aliquid discens, solum dicente Christo ad eum sequere me, confestim persuasus est. Conveniens est autem Philippum a Ioanne audientem sequi Christum, vel etiam vocem Christi hoc operatam esse
Theophylactus
Non enim simpliciter omnibus vox Christi dicebatur, sed fidelium interiora ad eius inflammabat amorem: deinde quia in corde Philippi de Christo cogitatio inerat, et in libris Moysi assidua lectio, ut expectaret Christum, statim cum vidit, credidit. Forte autem ab Andrea et Petro de Christo aliquid didicit, quia ex eadem patria erant; quod Evangelista videtur innuere per hoc quod subdit erat autem Philippus a Bethsaida civitate Andreae et Petri
Chrysostomus
Christus etiam hinc suam virtutem ostendit, quod a terra nullum ferente fructum, nam a Galilaea propheta non surgit, inclytos discipulos elegit
Alcuinus
Bethsaida etiam domus venatorum interpretatur; quo nomine civitatis curavit Evangelista ostendere quales tunc iam animo erant Philippus, Petrus et Andreas, et quales officio erant futuri, idest capiendis ad vitam animabus intenti
Chrysostomus
Non solum autem Philippus a Christo persuasus est, sed praeco aliis fit; unde sequitur invenit Philippus Nathanael, et dicit ei: quem scripsit Moyses in lege et prophetae, invenimus Iesum filium Ioseph a Nazareth. Vide qualiter sollicitam mentem habebat, et continue meditabatur quae sunt Moysi, et expectabat adventum Christi. Et quidem quod Christus debebat venire, noverat prius; quoniam autem hic Christus erat, ignorabat. Dicit autem quem scripsit Moyses et prophetae, credibilem faciens suam praedicationem, et ex hinc persuadens auditorem quod circa legem et prophetas sollicitus erat, et omnia perscrutans cum veritate ut et Christus testatus est. Si vero dicit filium Ioseph, ne turberis: eius enim filius aestimabatur esse
Augustinus in Ioannem
Cui scilicet desponsata erat mater eius: nam quod ea intacta conceptus et natus sit, bene noverunt ex Evangelio omnes Christiani. Addit autem et locum: a Nazareth
Theophylactus
Non quia in ea natus erat, sed nutritus. Generatio enim eius multis erat incognita; sed quod in Nazareth esset nutritus, cognitum erat. Et dixit ei Nathanael: a Nazareth potest aliquid boni esse?
Augustinus
Ambas pronuntiationes potest consequens vox Philippi sequi: sive sic pronunties, tamquam confirmans: a Nazareth potest aliquid boni esse: et ille dicat veni et vide; sive sicut dubitans, et totum interrogans: a Nazareth potest aliquid boni esse? Veni et vide. Cum ergo sive illo modo, sive isto pronuntietur, non repugnent verba sequentia, nostrum est quaerere quid potius intelligamus in his verbis. Nathanael enim doctissimus legis, cum audisset Philippum dicentem invenimus Iesum, audito a Nazareth, erectus est in spem, et dixit a Nazareth potest aliquid boni esse. Scrutatus enim erat Scripturas, et sciebat, quod non facile alii Scribae et Pharisaei noverant, quia inde erat expectandus salvator
Alcuinus
Qui singulariter sanctus est, innocens, impollutus; de quo propheta: exiet virga de radice Iesse, et Nazaraeus (idest flos) de radice eius ascendet. Vel potest hic versiculus sub dubitatione interrogative proferri
Chrysostomus
Audiverat enim Nathanael a Scripturis quod a Bethlehem oporteret Christum venire, secundum illud: et tu, Bethlehem terra Iuda, ex te exiet dux qui regat populum meum Israel. Cum igitur audivit a Nazareth, dubitavit, non inveniens convenire enuntiationem Philippi cum prophetica praedicatione. Nazaraeum autem vocant prophetae ab educatione et conversatione. Considera vero eius in inquirendo prudentiam et mansuetudinem: non enim dixit: decipis me, Philippe; sed interrogat dicens a Nazareth potest aliquid boni esse? Valde autem et Philippus prudens erat; non enim interrogatus frangitur, sed immoratur, virum volens ducere ad Christum; unde sequitur dicit ei Philippus: veni et vide. Trahit quidem eum ad Christum, sciens de reliquo eum non contradicturum, si verba et doctrinam illius gustaverit
1:47
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Hom. xix
Nathanael, in difficulty as to Christ coming out of Nazareth, shewed the care with which he had read the Scriptures: his not rejecting the tidings when brought him, shewed 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.
St Augustine † AD 430 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.
Theophylact † 1107
Nathanael however, notwithstanding this praise, does not acquiesce immediately, but waits for further evidence, and asks, Whence knowest Thou me?
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 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.
St Augustine † AD 430 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.
St Gregory the Great † AD 604 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.
St Augustine † AD 430 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.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 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 shewing his devotion, as his former hesitation had shewn his diligence.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 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 shewn, Nathanael would readily believe that much more would follow.
St Augustine † AD 430 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.
St Augustine † AD 430 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.
The Latin text
Chrysostomus in Ioannem
Nathanael non suscipiendo ex Nazareth Christum esse, eam quae illi erat circa Scripturas diligentiam ostendit; in non respuendo vero eum qui annuntiaverat, multum desiderium quod habebat circa Christi praesentiam monstravit. Sciebat enim quod poterat Philippus circa locum falli; unde sequitur vidit Iesus Nathanael venientem ad se, et dicit de eo: ecce vere Israelita, in quo dolus non est: quia nihil ad gratiam vel odium loquebatur
Augustinus in Ioannem
Vel aliter. Quid est in quo dolus non est? Forte non habebat peccatum? Forte illi medicus non erat necessarius? Absit. Nemo sic natus est ut medico illo non egeret. Dolus enim est cum aliud agitur, et aliud fingitur: quo modo ergo in illo dolus non erat, si peccator est? Fatetur se peccatorem; si enim peccator est et iustum se dicit, dolus est in ore ipsius. Ergo in Nathanaele confessionem peccati laudavit, non indicavit non esse peccatorem
Theophylactus
Sed Nathanael laudatus non acquievit extemplo, sed expectavit, adhuc volens aliquid manifestius discere; et interrogat; sequitur enim dicit ei Nathanael: unde me nosti?
Chrysostomus
Ipse quidem igitur ut homo investigabat, Iesus autem ut Deus respondebat: sequitur enim respondit Iesus et dixit ei: priusquam te Philippus vocaret, cum esses sub ficu, vidi te: non ut homo eum intuens, sed ut Deus desuper cognoscens. Vidi, inquit, te, idest morum tuorum mansuetudinem. Dicit autem cum esses sub ficu: quoniam nullus ibi erat, sed soli Philippus et Nathanael singulariter loquebantur: propter hoc dictum est quod videns eum a longe dixit ecce vere Israelita; ut scires quoniam antequam appropinquaret Philippus, haec loquebatur Christus, et insuspicabile fiat Christi testimonium. Noluit autem Christus dicere: non sum ex Nazareth, ut annuntiavit tibi Philippus; sed ex Bethlehem, ut non faceret altercabilem sermonem; neque etiam per hoc dedisset argumentum sufficiens quod ipse esset Christus; sed ostendit se Christum per hoc quod praesens erat loquentibus illis
Augustinus
Quaerendum est enim an aliquid significet arbor fici. Invenimus arborem fici maledictam, quia sola folia habuit, et fructu caruit. In origine humani generis Adam et Eva, cum peccavissent, de foliis ficus subcinctoria sibi fecerunt. Folia ergo ficulneae intelliguntur peccata. Erat autem Nathanael sub arbore fici, tamquam sub umbra mortis; ac si dominus ei dicat: o Israel, sine dolo quisquis es, o popule Iudaeus ex fide, antequam te per apostolos meos vocarem, et cum esses sub umbra mortis, et tu me non videres, ego te vidi
Gregorius Moralium
Vel cum esses sub ficu, vidi te; idest, positum te sub umbra legis elegi
Augustinus de Verb. Dom
Recordatus est autem Nathanael se fuisse sub ficu ubi non erat Christus praesentia corporali, sed scientia spirituali; et quia sciebat se solum fuisse sub ficu, agnovit in illo divinitatem
Chrysostomus in Ioannem
Sic ergo ab hac praedicatione, et ab eo quod mentem scrutatus est eius, et quia cum adversus eum dicere videretur, non culpavit, sed laudavit, cognovit quoniam vere est Christus; unde sequitur respondit ei Nathanael, et ait: Rabbi, tu es filius Dei, tu es rex Israel; quasi dicat: tu es qui expectabaris, tu es qui quaerebaris. Quia enim argumentum inaltercabile suscepit, venit ad confessionem, et in mora priori diligentiam ostendens, et in posteriori confessione devotionem. Multi autem legentium sermonem hunc anxiantur: Petrus enim qui post miracula et doctrinam confessus est, quoniam filius est Dei, beatificatur, ut a patre revelationem iam suscipiens; Nathanael autem ante signa et doctrinam hoc dicens, nihil tale audivit. Est igitur huius causa, quoniam verba quidem eadem locutus est Petrus et Nathanael, non autem eadem mente; sed Petrus quidem confessus est filium Dei ut Deum verum; hic autem ut hominem nudum; dicens enim ei tu es filius Dei, induxit tu es rex Israel; Dei autem filius non Israelis est rex solum, sed et orbis terrarum universi. Hoc etiam manifestum est ex his quae consequuntur. Nam Petro nihil postea addidit Christus: sed quasi perfecta eius existente fide, Ecclesiam se dixit in confessione illius fabricaturum esse. Nathanael autem, quasi multa parte et maiori confessionis deficiente, ad maiora educitur; nam sequitur et dixit ei: quia dixi tibi: vidi te sub ficu, credis: maius his videbis; quasi dicat: magnum tibi visum est hoc esse quod dixi, et propterea me regem Israelis confessus es: quid igitur dices cum maius videbis? Et quid sit istud maius, ostendit subdens et dicit eis: amen, amen dico vobis, videbitis caelum apertum, et Angelos Dei ascendentes et descendentes super filium hominis. Vide qualiter paulatim eum a terra abducit, et facit quod non ultra aestimet Christum esse hominem solum: cui enim Angeli ministrant, qualiter hic homo purus esset? Per hoc igitur suadet Angelorum se esse dominatorem: sicut enim in proprium regis filium descenderunt et ascenderunt in eum ministri regales; hoc quidem in tempore crucis, hoc vero in tempore resurrectionis et ascensionis; sed et ante hoc, quando accesserunt et ministrabant ei, et quando evangelizabant eius nativitatem. Futurum vero a praeterito probavit; qui enim in praeteritis virtutem eius agnoverat, et de futuris audiens facilius suscepit
Augustinus de Verb. Dom
Recolamus autem veterem historiam, quando Iacob in somniis vidit scalam a terra pertingentem usque in caelum, et dominus incumbebat super eam, et Angeli ascendebant et descendebant per eam. Denique ipse Iacob quia intellexit quid viderit, posuit lapidem et fudit oleum: dum unxit lapidem Iacob, numquid idolum fecit? Significavit, non adoravit. Agnoscitis chrisma, agnoscite et Christum. Ipse est lapis quem reprobaverunt aedificantes. Si ergo Iacob vidit scalam, qui est Israel appellatus, et Nathanael iste vere Israelita erat; convenienter somnium Iacob dominus dixit ei; quasi dicat: cuius nomine te appellavi, ipsius somnium in te apparuit: videbis enim caelum apertum, et Angelos Dei ascendentes et descendentes super filium hominis. Si autem ad illum descendunt, et ad illum ascendunt, et sursum est, et hic est: sursum in se, deorsum in suis
Augustinus in Ioannem
Sunt autem Angeli Dei boni praedicatores praedicantes Christum; hoc est super filium hominis ascendunt et descendunt, sicut Paulus, qui ascenderat usque ad tertium caelum, descendit usque ad lac potum parvulis dandum. Dixit autem maius his videbis; quia plus est quod nos dominus vocatos iustificavit, quam quod vidit iacentes sub umbra mortis. Quid enim nobis proderat, si ibi mansissemus ubi nos vidit? Quaeritur autem quare Nathanael, cui tantum testimonium perhibuit filius Dei, inter duodecim apostolos non invenitur? Intelligere autem debemus, ipsum eruditum fuisse et peritum legis: propterea noluit illum dominus inter discipulos ponere, quia idiotas elegit, unde confunderet mundum. Volens enim superborum frangere cervices, non quaesivit per oratorem piscatorem; sed de piscatore lucratus est imperatorem. Magnus Cyprianus orator; sed prius Petrus piscator; per quem postea crederet non tantum orator, sed etiam imperator
1:1
In the beginning, &c. So the Persian, Syriac, Egyptian, Ethiopic, and Arabic, except that the last version has the article in the second and third clauses of the verse "the Word was with God, the Word was God." The Ethiopic for Word has cal, answering to the Latin Verbum, which is better than Sermo, as Erasmus and the innovators translate the Greek λόγος. John begins from the Godhead of the Word: first, because the right order and a full account of Christ require it; second, because in the time of S. John the heresies of Cerinthus and Ebion had arisen, which denied Christ's Divinity. After a similar manner did Moses begin his account of the genesis of the world, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." Moses begins from the creation of the world, but John far higher, even from the eternity of the Word. Moses marks the beginning of time, in which God made all things. John marks a beginning which was from eternity, when the Word was, by which all things were made by God in time. John therefore takes up the exordium of Moses, and presupposes the beginning of the world, when he gives, so to say, an account of the long anterior beginning of the Word. Hence Tertullian, in his book against Hermogenes, truly asserts that the Gospel is the supplement of the Old Testament. S. John alludes to Ecclus. 24:5, "I (the Eternal Wisdom) came forth from the mouth of the Most High, the first begotten before every creature." Also to Pro 8:22, "The Lord possessed me in the beginning of His ways, before He made anything, from the beginning." Where the Septuagint translates, "The Lord built, or founded (έκτισε) me the beginning of His ways, in His work. Before the age He founded me in the beginning, before He made the earth, and appointed the great depths."
In the beginning, i.e., first, "in the Eternal Father," as Cyril says, and Origen. For by-and-by John says in the 14th verse, that the Word was in the bosom of the Father. Second, and more simply, Augustine, Bede, and Hilary, In the beginning, i.e., of the world, or of times, such as you can only imagine, which went on from all eternity before the foundation of the world. As much as to say, the Word was not made in the beginning of time, however ancient and imaginary; but He existed then, because He was not made, but was begotten from eternity. Third, and most simply, Augustine, Chrysostom, and Basil, In the beginning, i.e., before all things, even from the beginning of all eternity, long before all angels, or men, or things created, the Word was. For S. John is here speaking of a true and real beginning (principium), just as Moses does in the first verse of Genesis, and Solomon in Pro 8:22. Wherefore, all the Fathers from the passage prove the true Divinity and eternity of Christ. This beginning S. John sets in opposition to Ebion, who affirmed that Christ began to be after His birth of the Virgin, and that He had no previous existence. So Cyril. Hence Nonnus expounds the expression In the beginning, in a fivefold manner one following after another. He was in the beginning, saith he, first, as not subject to conditions of time; second, as coeternal with the Father; third, as equal to the Father by nature; fourth, as incomprehensible; fifth, as ineffable. The four last are consequences of the first. You will say, Eternity is infinite duration, having neither beginning, nor end: why then is a beginning here spoken of? I answer, the reason is, because of the weakness of the human intellect, which is not able to comprehend eternity, nor to conceive of it definitely, except by a comparison with time. Therefore it conceives of eternity as duration which is coexistent with all time past, present, and future, and that not only time actual, but which can be conceived of. Indeed, it precedes all time. The meaning therefore is this, In the beginning, that is, before all time, even that which can be, imagined in the mind, the Word was. Think of millions of millions of years, as much as ever thou canst conceive in thy mind; before all these, and whatsoever infinite number thou canst add, the Word was. This is why S. John repeats was four times, saying, In the beginning was the Word, &c., that thou mayest understand that whatsoever time thou thinkest of, the Word was then: that in all ages, however far back thou goest, the Word was in those ages. Beginning therefore is here used relatively, for it is spoken with reference to all time, even that which far precedes. For as the whole substance and immensity of God is in every place whatsoever, yes, in every point of space, and yet it encompasses all space and every place, even what we can think of above the heavens, so likewise God's eternity, which altogether in time present, or in one single instant of the duration of time, includes and embraces all time, past, present, and to come, and far exceeds and transcends it all. And this is what we mean when we say, following the words of S. John, that God's eternity was in the beginning. Thus we are able to ascend with our minds to the idea of the antiquity, and as it were the origin of eternity, which is here called Principium, that is, the beginning of all duration and eternity. Though indeed this beginning is without beginning, a commencement without commencement. Therefore when we would say of anything, that it did not have a beginning in time, we say that it was in the beginning of all duration and eternity. And by this we mean nothing else but that it always existed, that it was from all eternity. This is the meaning of S. John when he says, In the beginning was the Word. This is also why we say in ordinary discourse, that God has existed from the beginning of eternity, that is, that He is from all eternity.
Was: the expression was, says S. Basil upon these words of S. John, leads us to eternity, not as if the word was signified that the Word preceded the beginning, concerning which it is said, It was the beginning, and consequently the beginning of time and the world were here to be understood (because the Word preceded in computation (ratione) only, as it were, for as everything whatsoever precedes its own duration, so also God is before His duration and eternity: for duration is the continuance and measure of the thing which exists and endures), therefore, even before, from all eternity, was the Word. Here observe that the word employed is was (erat), not has been (fuit), for has been signifies that which has existed, and passed away; but was signifies that it is even now, or that it is perennial and eternal. So S. Chrysostom, Cyril, and Theophylact. The Holy Ghost therefore suggested was to the mind and pen of S. John, as against the Arians, whom He foresaw would arise. They were wont to say, There was when there was no was; meaning there was a time when the Son was not. From these words of S. John the Council of Nice condemns them; because, In the beginning was the Word, i.e., from eternity. Moreover, S. Gregory Nazianzen observes that the substantive verbs is and was have a special application to God from the plentitude of His essence. Wherefore God in Hebrew is called Jehovah, i.e., He who is.
The Word, Gr. ό λόγος, That Word, eternal and divine, which is the Son of God, as even the Arians formerly allowed. For John soon after calls this Word the Only Begotten of the Father. So constantly in Scripture, the Son is called the Word of the Father. S. Basil thought that the Holy Spirit might also be called the Word; but S. Thomas rightly observes that this can only be said improperly (improperly being used in the logical sense). You will ask why is the Son of God called the Word? I answer that the Greek λόγς (Logos) has many meanings, which are all applicable in this place. 1. Logos may be translated reason, because, as reason proceeds from the mind, so does the Son from the Father. So SS. Chrysostom and Basil.
1:2
2. Logos may be translated definition, because the Word definitely expresses and unfolds the nature and attributes of the Father. Wherefore Nicetas (in Orat. 42 Nazianz.) says, "The same relation that a definition bears to the thing defined does the Son bear to the Father. For He declares the Father as a definition declares that which is defined by it. Wherefore Christ said, 'Philip, he that seeth Me, seeth My Father also.' For the Son is a compendious demonstration of the Paternal nature; for every offspring is a sort of tacit account, or definition, of its parent."
1:3
3. Logos may be translated cause, because the Word is the cause of all things which have been created and produced by the Word of God.
1:4
4. Λόγος may be translated work, because the Word is the Work of the Father, coextensive with Him, coeternal and coequal.
1:5
5. Λόγος can be translated power, or virtue, because the Word is the strength and right hand of the Father.
1:6
6. Λόγος may be translated beauty, because the Word is the form, grace, and beauty of the Father.
1:7
7. And chiefly, Λόγος may be translated, with Tertullian, Cyprian, and Ambrose, speech (sermo), or rather Word (Verbum). This Word, or speeeh, is not of the mouth, but of the mind; because as we by thinking form a conception to ourselves of the thing thought of, or understood, which is called the word of the mind, so the eternal Father, by comprehending and understanding His Essence, and all that belongs to It, has produced this Eternal Word, coequal with, and like to, Itself, by means of which it comes to pass that this Word is God, and the Son of God, begotten of the Father. Hence also the Gentile philosophers, Trismegistus, Orpheus, Plato, and the rest of the Greeks, Chaldæans, and Egyptians called the Father νο̃υν i.e., mind; and the Son Logos, as it were, the offspring of the mind. See S. Augustine (lib. 7, Confess. c. 9). Whence that saying of Plato's, "A Monad begat a Monad, and in it reflected his ardour." He means, The Father begat the Son, and through Him breathed the Holy Spirit, which is the reciprocal Love of the Father and the Son. Many, however, are of opinion that Plato and the other Gentile philosophers mean by the Logos not the Son but the idea in the mind of God, according to which He created all things, and reflected His love back upon Himself, because He created the world on account of His love. Here observe, the Word of God is twofold. First, essential, because it is the very Intelligence of the Father, which together with essence, understanding, and will, He shares with the Son and the Holy Ghost. The second is notional, which is the Word produced by the Father, and subsisting personally, that is, as the Son. So S. Thomas (1, dist. 27 q. 2. a. 2). This is the twofold meaning of the Word, taken in its widest sense. I have written more upon the Word in 1 Epis. Joh 1:1. Let me add here what S. Augustine says (Serm. 38 de Verb. Dom.) "The Word of God is, as it were, a Form, but not formed. It is the Form of all forms, over all things, and existing in all things. But some ask, How could the Son be begotten coeternal with the Father? As if fire were eternal, would not its brightness be coeternal with it? Is it not the same with the reflection in a mirror, or in water? As, for example, a shrub would always have its reflection in the water beside which it grew." And S. Chrysostom says, "He said not Word simply, but by the article distinguished it from all others. For it is an Hypostasis, proceeding forth impassibly from the Father. This is the meaning of was in the beginning, that it always existed, and with an infinite existence. For it is not said of the heaven and the earth, that they were in the beginning, but that they were made in the beginning. And the Word was with God. S. John meets an objection. Some one may say, "Where was the Word in the beginning, i.e., from eternity, when as yet there was no place, and no created nature of things?" He answers, "The Word had no need of place, because It is spiritual, and divine; but It was with the Father, as with that from which It derived Its origin." As it is said in the 18th verse, It was in the bosom of the Father. Or, as we might say, It was in the Father's House, which is God Himself, and His immensity. The preposition with denotes 1. Distinction of person, because indeed the Son is a different Person from the Father, not one and the same, as the Sabellians say. "For how should that which is one numerically be understood to be with itself?" says S. Cyril. "Before all things," says Tertullian (lib. 5 cons. Prax.) "God alone was Himself to Himself both universe and space and everything. But in this respect only was He alone, that He had nothing external to Himself, for not even then was He alone; for He had with Himself what he had in Himself, His Reason, or that which the Greeks call His Logos. " 2. With denotes the loving and perfect union of the Son with the Father, by which it comes to pass that it is impossible for Him to be separated from the Father. So Nonnus. 3. With denotes the equality of the Son with the Father. For to be with God, or near to (juxta) God, means to sit at the right hand of God, as it were God of the same substance as the Father. Wherefore Christ is said after His Ascension to have returned to the right hand of the Father (Mar 16:19) As Nonnus expounds, "the Son is sunthronos with the Father," a term which cannot be expressed by a single word in English, but which means an associate in the same throne, an assessor in the same seat.
1:14
And the Word was God. The order of the words in the Greek is, And God was the Word. Lest the Arians should bring forward the objection, "If the Word was with God, then the Word was not God, John confutes them by anticipation, saying The Word was God. For the Arians placed the interior and essential Word of God, that is, the Intelligence of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost (as the orthodox faith is) in one Person of Godhead, coeternal with Himself. They said that God began to be a Father in time, when He produced the Word (Verbum notionale) distinct from Himself, as it were the first of creatures, and by him all other creatures. John refutes this by saying, And God was the Word, meaning that the Word already spoken of was God. He said this lest any one should suppose that the Word was not God, because he had said that He was with God. He means that the Word was with God in such sort that He Himself was God. The Arians object that the Greek word θεὸν i.e., God, has not the article in this clause as it had in the preceding clause, and the Word was with God (apud τὸν θεὸν). Therefore, say they, the Word was not true God. I reply by denying the conclusion. For the reason of the difference is that the word God (θεὸν) in the preceding clause, with God, denotes a distinct Person, namely, the Person of the Father with whom the Word was. But in this latter clause it denotes not a Person but the essence of the Godhead common to each Person. For the Word is one God with the Father, so far as relates to Essence and Godhead, but not as regards Person. And the article in this place signifies a distinct Person, not the nature common to both. Again, the Greeks prefix the article to the subject, not the predicate; and in this place God is the predicate, the Word is the subject. Observe that John in this sentence with three clauses, by the first clause unfolds the when of the Word: it was eternity. Secondly, the where of the Word, and His distinction from the Father. In this third clause, the essence of the Word, and His identity in essence with the Father. S. John unfolded this threefold sentence of His Gospel in the Creed which, at the bidding of the Blessed Virgin, he delivered to S. Gregory Thaumaturgus, as S. Gregory of Nyssa relates in his life. For this symbol is as follows, "There is one Father of the living Word, the substantial Wisdom and Power, and eternal Image, the perfect Father of the perfect and only begotten Son. One Lord, alone from the Only One, God of God, the form and image of the Godhead, the efficacious Word, the comprehensive Wisdom by which all things were made, and the effectual power of the whole creation. True Son that cannot be seen, of the true Father that cannot be seen, incorruptible, immortal, and eternal Son of the incorruptible, immortal, and eternal Father." The same was in the beginning with God. He compendiously repeats and confirms this proposition of this clause by a sentence of a single clause. Thus, "This Word, which I have said is God, was in the beginning, that is, from eternity, with God." For it is difficult to understand how the Word can be with God, and yet the same be God. Therefore John writes and inculcates both together, that he may signify at one and the same time the unity of essence and the diversity of persons, and that he may teach that in the Godhead there is a Trinity of Persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. For this is the deepest and most obscure mystery of our faith, and the most difficult to be believed. Maldonatus gives a second reason for this repetition, derived from the third clause, the Word was God, that is to say, forasmuch as the Word was God, therefore it follows that He was in the beginning with God the Father, that is, coeternal and of one substance with the Father. S. Hilary gives a third reason (lib. 1 de Trin.), lest any one should suppose because he said the Word was God, and the same was in the beginning with God, there were therefore two Gods, one which was the Word, and the other with whom the Word was, as the Manichæans held two Principles, or Gods, one of which was the Creator of all things corporeal, the other the Creator of angels and things spiritual, John declares that the Word was so with God the Father as to be the same God with Him. All things were made by Him, that is, by the Word. All things which were not God were created by the Word. "All things, from an angel to a worm," says S. Augustine; who adds, "between God who speaks, and the creature which was made, what is there by which it was made, but the Word, by whom God said, Let it be made, and it was made. As the Apostle says, "By Him," i.e., the Word, "were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by Him, and for Him" (Col 1:16). From these words of S. John the Macedonians falsely denied that the Holy Ghost is God, arguing that He was made by the Word, and therefore that He was a creature, and not the Creator. But it is plain that the words refer to things created, not things uncreated, such as the Spirit, who is One God with the Father and the Son, and the Creator of all things. For if you were to take the word all absolutely, you might infer that the Father also had been created by the Word, which would be ridiculous, as S. Gregory Nazianzen learnedly teaches against the Macedonians (Orat. de Sp. Sanct.) S. John does not in this place make mention of the Holy Ghost, because he is only treating of the generation and incarnation of the Word. Wherefore, after he had said that the Word was Himself God, that is, coeternal, and of one substance with the Father, he now in this third verse describes the relation of the same Word to all created things, asserting that they were made by Him. Then in the ninth and following verses he comes down to man, showing the relation of the Word to man. He asserts that He took upon Him the nature of man, that He might illuminate and save him. This is the scope and object of the whole passage. Observe that when it is said by Him, the preposition by does not signify an instrumental cause, or a minister, as though the Word were the instrument, or minister of God, by which He created all things, as Origen supposed, and also the Arians, but it signifies an original, or chief (principalem) cause, as in Pro 8:15, "By me kings reign," and 1Co 1:9, "Faithful is God, by whom ye have been called" (Vulg.) The preposition by in this and other places is referred to God the Father, who is the First Cause of all things. And by here means that the Word with the Father is the original Cause of the creation of all things. So S. Chrysostom, Theophylact, and Euthymius on this passage, and SS. Athanasius, Basil, and others against the Arians. Wherefore also S. Paul (Heb 1:10) interprets Psa 102:26, "Thou Lord in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of Thy hands," of the Word, or Son. "Never, certainly, would he have said this," says S. Chrysostom, "unless he had believed the Son to be the Founder, not a minister, and that the Father and the Son were equal in dignity." You will ask, Why then does S. John use the preposition διὰ (per, or through) instead of ύπὸ by, when he says that all things were made through (διὰ) Him? 1. That he might signify that the Word proceeds from the Father, and is begotten of Him. "Lest any one should suppose," says S. Chrysostom, "that the Word was unbegotten." 2. That he might signify that the Word is the Idea of created things, according to which the Father with the Son created all things. For an artificer makes all the works of his art by an ideal, or conception, or mental word, or plan. All these similitudes are transferred to the Divine Word, who is the Begotten but Uncreated Wisdom. And without Him was made nothing (Vulg.) Nothing: i.e., evil, as corruptible things, whose constant tendency is to nothingness, from whence they came forth, as the Manichæans say. For they thought that things corporeal and corruptible were not created by God, but by a demon, or evil god. But that this interpretation of the words is false and foolish is shown by the Greek for nothing (ου̉δε έν), nor even one thing, meaning that everything, without one single exception, was created by the Word. So the Arabic clearly translates, All things were made by Him, and without Him was there not made anything of the things which were made. 3. By nothing, S. Augustine understands sin: that all things were made by the Word, nothing, i.e., sin being excepted, the author of which is the devil and an evil will not God. But this idea is shown to he untenable in this place by the Greek, ου̉δ έν, not even one thing.
Which was made. Here there are three ways of pointing, and in consequence a threefold interpretation and meaning. The first is without Him was nothing made, which was made in Him: then the stop, after which begins a new sentence, There was life, &c. So read and punctuate SS. Hilary, and Epiphanius, and some others. But this reading is generally rejected as containing a manifest tautology. A second reading is, without Him was made nothing: then a full stop, after which a new sentence is commenced, That which was made in Him was life. This is the pointing and reading of S. Austin, Tertullian (cond. Hermog.) S. Ambrose (lib. 3 de fide, c. 3), and the Latin Fathers passim. And among the Greeks are Clement of Alexandria (lib. 1 Pæ. c. 6.) and S. Cyril in loc. S. Augustine expounds as follows, "Everything mad and created by the Word was in the same Word vitally and intellectually, before it was made and created." It was in the ideas and eternal plans which exist in the Word. It was therefore life, i.e., it lived in the mind and idea of the Word. S. Cyril explains differently, "Everything was made life in the Word, that is, it received, and continues to receive life, i.e., vigour and the preservation of its being, as long as it exists, from the Word." The third reading is that of the Syriac, Arabic, and Greek texts of S. Chrysostom, Nonnus, Euthymius, and Tertius (in cantena): without Him was nothing made that was made; then the stop, and then a fresh sentence, In Him was life. This is by far the best reading, and in conformity with it the Bible has been corrected at Rome, and most of the other Latin copies. S. John adds this sentence against the Macedonians, who argued as we have seen above. As if he said, "When I say that all things were made by the Word, I mean, not the Holy Spirit, but only such things as were created and made." In Him was life, &c.. Life is the thing which is most excellent, as death is the worst. S. John also ascribes to the Word the Fountain of life: for in Him "we live, and move and have our being" (Acts xvii.) Hence the Greeks call their God Zeus, from ξη̃ν, to live, because he breathes life into all living things. S. John's meaning therefore is, "Our true life of grace and glory was in the Word as its origin and fountain. And that He might communicate, Himself as this life and light to men, He came down to them, and became man. That as by the Word this macrocosm or great universe was created, so also by the same might the microcosm, or little world of man, be re-created, and called back from the death of sin to the life of grace and righteousness." S. John explains himself by adding, And the life was the light of men. In his first Epistle he speaks thus of the Word of Life (1Jo 1:2). "For the Life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal Life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us." And in chap. v., the last verse, "that we may know the true God, and may be in His true Son. This is the true God, and life eternal" (Vulg.) And this is why S. John. constantly calls Christ The Life. The Fathers expound this Life of the Word in various ways. 1. Of Formal Life. In Him was Life: that is, life is the very substance of the Word. The Word Himself is substantial Life. So says Œcumenius on 1 John i. The Word Himself is essentially Life. For Life and to live are His very essence. 2. In the Word is Life ideal, or exemplar, because in the Word, as in Idea, the eternal plans of all things exist, as S. Austin says. For the Word is the Idea of all creatures, but the Idea is itself the essence and life of God. Thus therefore the Word is the life of all creatures, even of things inanimate, for all live in the Word, inasmuch as He is all Life. 3. In the Word is efficient natural Life, because the Word is the efficient Cause of all living things, and He gives them their life. To plants He gives vegetable life, to animals animal life, to men rational life, to angels angelic life. Jansen expounds thus, "The natural life of living things depends upon the Word." 4. and last. You may here take life to mean, supernatural efficient Life, and explain as follows, "In the Word, as in a Fount and prime Cause, was our supernatural life, that is to say, of grace and glory; and therefore that He might impart this life to us, He became Incarnate, as I have before said. For supernatural life is twofold. It is begun by grace, by which a just man serves God in faith, hope, and charity, and lives the supernatural life, believing in, hoping in, and loving God above all things, supernaturally. The other supernatural life is that which is consummated in glory, wherein the blessed enjoy God, and are eternally beatified. There is an allusion to Psalm xlvi., "With Thee is the Well of Life, and in Thy light shall we see life." "This is," says Theodoret, "'With Thee is the Word Eternal, the fountain of life; and in the light of the Holy Spirit shall we behold the light of Thy Only Begotten Son.'" The light of man, by which men are spiritually illuminated through faith and grace. For he is speaking, not of natural and corporeal, but of spiritual and supernatural light, as is plain from what follows. The meaning is, Our life, which I have just said was in the Word, was this illumination of the Word, by which He has illuminated men with the knowledge of God and His salvation externally, by words and holy examples; internally, by heavenly light infused into the soul. This was why the Word was made flesh. So Clement of Alexandria (Exhort. ad. Gent.) says, "The Word which was with God appeared as a Teacher the Word by which all things were made, and which, with Him who made them, gave them at the same time life as their Maker, and taught them to live well when He appeared as their Teacher, that He might hereafter, for the time to come, supply them with the means of living for ever." And the light shineth in darkness, &c. The meaning is, As the natural light by its illumination dispels the darkness, so likewise has Christ, forasmuch as He is light, done His part; but the darkness, at is, men by reason of their ignorance and unbelief, have closed the eyes of their soul, that they should not admit this light. Observe, that Christ, as He is God, is the uncreated, efficient light: as man also He is the efficient light, because He is to men the Author of all wisdom, grace, and glory, not only giving them the natural light of reason, as Origen and Cyril explain, but still more as giving them the supernatural light of faith and wisdom. Wherefore Christ is called in Mal 4:2, "The Sun of righteousness." Observe Christ as man is here called light, because He chiefly gave light after His Incarnation. He was indeed light before, even from the first beginning of the universe. For as the sun, before it ascends above the horizon, sends forth some rays of its dawning, with which it gives light to the world, so likewise does Christ. This is what the Father says to Christ: "I have given Thee for a light unto the Gentiles, that Thou mayest be My salvation unto the ends of the earth." Admirably does S. Augustine say (Hom. 43), "Christ therefore came to give light to the eyes, because the devil had blinded them." And the same saint says (Epist. 120, ad. Honor), "The Son of God is not absent even from the minds of the wicked, although they see Him not, just as no light is seen when it is presented to the eyes of the blind." The light of the Word shines in the darkness of wicked men by the light of reason, by the voices of creatures, which all cry aloud that there is a Creator, and that He ought to be worshipped and loved. It shines by the law of nature written in the soul, by the New Law, by the Scriptures, by doctors and preachers, by holy inspirations, and by many such things. Wherefore, the same Augustine says (Tract. 2. in Joan), "Fall not into sin, and this sun shall not go down upon thee. If thou shalt fall into sin, it will set, and darkness will fall upon thee." "If thou wilt see light, be thou also thyself light. But if thou lovest darkness, and the lusts of darkness, then will they overshadow thee, yea, make thee blind." Observe in holy Scripture, and especially in S. John, both in his Gospel and his Epistles, the faith and grace of Christ are compared to light, and sin to darkness, on account of many apposite analogies between them. For light is heavenly, and is the most noble, the swiftest and most pure of natural things. It is impassible and most active. It cannot be defiled by any impurities, even though they be commingled with it. It brings warmth, glory, and joy. It causes all things to be seen, and brings life and power to every living thing. Such also is God, and His grace. The contrary to all this is found in sin, whose symbol is darkness. Besides all this, grace leads to everlasting light and glory, sin to the lowest and most extreme darkness. Comprehended it not. Greek, ου̉ κατέλαβεν i.e., as Vatablus translates, did not receive it. The meaning is, so great was the blindness and depravity of unbelieving and wicked men, that when the Light offered itself to them of its own accord, they would not embrace, nor receive it; for they closed their eyes that they might not admit it; for "their works were evil," as S. John says (Joh 3:19). The was a man sent from God, &c. He was sent, as Luke says, (Luk 3:1), "in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Cæsar: and the Word of God came to him in the wilderness." "Thou, then," Chrysostom, "when thou understandest that he was sent from God, do not think that anything merely human is being announced, but that all is Divine. He does not declare anything of his own, but the secrets of Him who sends him. Therefore he, John, is called an angel, that is, a messenger. It is the office of a messenger to know nothing of himself." The same came for a witness, &c. Namely, that he might bear witness that Jesus is the true Light of the world, and that we must look for, and ask of Him all the light of faith, and all the knowledge of salvation. Observe that in Greek the article is prefixed to light, as it were that light meaning the spiritual and Divine light, that which shineth of itself, and is essentially light, and the source of all enlightenment, which is as it were a Divine Sun, in respect of which John the Baptist was but as the moon, or the day-star. For as the morning star goes before the sun, so did John precede Christ the Sun of righteousness. The meaning is as follows Inasmuch as the light the Godhead was hidden in the humanity of Christ, as in a lantern dark and shaded, so that men discerned it not, therefore did God send John, that he might uncover and make this light manifest, and testify that Jesus was the very Son of God, the Teacher and Redeemer of the world. For, as Paul saith (1Ti 6:16), God "inhabiteth the unapproachable light, whom no man hath seen, nor can see." And again, the Son "is the splendour of His glory, and the form of the substance" of God the Father (Heb 1:3, vulg.) And again, the same is "the brightness of eternal light, and the spotless mirror of the majesty of God, and the image of His goodness" (Wisd. 7:26). That all men through him might believe: that is, believe in the Light, and so be justified and saved. Through him, namely, John, who as it were with his finger pointed out Christ, saying. "Behold the Lamb of God, that taketh away the sins of the world." He was not that Light, &c. The Jews and the Scribes thought, because of the preaching and heavenly life of John in the wilderness, that he was himself the Light, i.e., Christ. John the Evangelist by these words destroys such an idea. He was not that Light. That is, he was not the Saviour of the world, but only His witness, who received all his own light of knowledge and prophecy and grace from Christ. Wherefore in v. 35, he is called "a burning and a shining lamp." “But,” says Origen, “he did not burn by his own fire, nor shine by his own light.” That was the true Light, &c. Not John, but Christ Himself. You will ask, Why is Christ called the true Light? or, as the Greek forcibly expresses it, τὸ φω̃ς τὸ α̉ληθινὸν, the Light the true? I answer, first, because the Word is the original, uncreated, and essential Light: but John the Baptist and the rest of the saints are light only by participation and communication from the Word. Wherefore, in comparison with Christ they do not deserve the name of light, forasmuch as they are infinitely surpassed by His brightness. Christ therefore alone is Light, and alone deserves the name of light. In the same way the name of God is Jehovah, or He who is, because Re is the true, essential, eternal, and infinite Being, but all other things derive from Him a spark of being. Wherefore, in comparison with God they have but an imperfect and mutilated existence, so as rather to seem to exist, than actually to be. For they are as it were the shadow of that infinite Being, which fills immensity, that is, God, who truly is the only Being, or He who is. 2. Christ is the true Light of the world, because His faith and doctrine are opposed to the errors and false doctrines of Gentile philosophers, heretics, and atheists. For the true Light is that which is pure, Sincere, genuine, which has nothing feigned, nor obscure, nor imperfect. 3. Because Christ illuminates us far more truly and perfectly than any corporeal light does, therefore spiritual light alone deserves the name of light, and corporeal light is only, as it were, a shadow of it. In a similar way, and with a like meaning, Christ says (xv. 1), I am the true Vine: and in vi. 55, He calls Himself the true Bread. In like manner that which is perfect, and of surpassing excellency, is often called true. 4. Christ is the true Light because He most fully and most widely diffuses His light in every direction. Therefore everywhere is He the true Light. For, as S. John adds by way of explanation, He lighteneth every man that cometh into this world. For all the saints and the faithful, how great soever, and how many soever they are, which have been, and are, and shall be, from the beginning of the world, have derived all their light of faith and grace from Christ. But John the Baptist was a light only to Judea, a little corner of the world, and that only in the days of Herod. In like manner it has been with the rest of the saints. Lastly, John and the rest were only able to teach their hearers exteriorly, and with the outward voice, but they could not directly, nor of themselves, illuminate the soul. But Christ does both. The voice only strikes upon the outward ears, but Christ, by His grace, both strikes upon, and illuminates the soul This is why Christ is continually called by John, the Truth. And Christ says in the 14th chapter: I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. For in Christ there is all truth, and that fourfold: there is the truth of being, or existence, the truth of the soul, the truth of word, and the truth of deed. Truth lies hid, as the true Deity lay hid, in the humanity of Christ. Yet cannot it lie hid for ever. As Cicero says (pro Cælio), “0 mighty power of truth, which by itself easily defends itself against the wit of men, against craft and cunning, and against every ensnaring device.” Wherefore, the truth may be oppressed, but can never be extinguished, just as the sun may be obscured by the clouds, but by-and-by it disperses the clouds by the force of its rays, and shines out brightly. Such is truth, and such too is Christ. Lighteneth every man: that is, as far as Christ is concerned. Wherefore, let those who are not enlightened, ascribe the fault to themselves, because they will not receive the light of faith and grace which Christ offers them. Thus does the sun give light so far as he is concerned to all that are in the house. But if any one shut the window, and prevent the sun from shining through it, this will be his own fault, not the fault of the sun. S. John here alludes to the sun, which gives light to the whole world. So S. Chrysostom, Cyril, Euthymius. This may be gathered from what preceded, the light shineth in darkness, &c. This is said of the supernatural light of grace, though S. Cyril explains it of the natural light of reason. For God has given to every man the light of reason, that by it he may know what is good, what is evil, what to embrace, and what to shun. That cometh into this world, i.e., born in this world. This is a Hebraism. The Greek ε̉ζχόμενον, coming, may be taken to be in grammatical agreement with light, so that the meaning would be, the light coming into this world, that is, Christ born in this world, enlightens, so far as He is concerned, every man. So S. Augustine (lib. 1. de pec. mer. c. 25). So Christ says (xii. 46), I am come a Light into the world. But almost all the Greek and Latin interpreters take coming to be in the accusative, as agreeing with man. Ver. 10.—He was in the world, &c. The Word, or Son of God, was in the world. For He as God was in the world by His essence and presence, and power, from the beginning, preserving and governing it by His providence. So S. Paul says (Acts xvii 27). So SS. Chrysostom, Austin, and all the other Greek and Latin Fathers. Otherwise Maldonatus, who refers the passage to the Incarnation. But the Evangelist is about to treat of the Incarnation in the verses following.
And the world was made by Him. And is here put for assuredly, or, more emphatically, for because. The meaning is—Therefore was the Word in the world, because the world was created, and is still preserved, and exists by Him. For the Word is the foundation, yea, as it were, the very soul of the world, even as Plato, though a heathen, thought. Wisely Philo saith, “It is the property of the Creator to bless, of the creature to give thanks.” And the world knew Him not. John marks the ingratitude of the world, because it knew not its Maker, whom it always had present, even the Word, or Son of God. Moreover, there is a play upon the word world. For (1.) by world is properly understood the universe, and all the things that are therein, all which were made by the Word. But when it is added, and the world knew Him not, by the world is understood inhabitants of the world, that is to say, men given up to the world, who knew not the Author of the world. So SS. Augustine and Chrysostom. Observe here, that by the works of Nature, it may be naturally known that God is One in Essence, but not Three in Person, and consequently the Word cannot in this way be known as the Word. John therefore here blames worldly men, not because they did not recognise the Word qua Word, but because they did not recognise Him as God, the Creator of the world, by means of His workmanship. And this affords a reply to Maldonatus, who argues that John is speaking in these words of the Incarnation of the Word. But we answer, that they did not know the Word as the Word, or the Person of the Son. Indeed, many have not from the works of God in the world even recognised God as its Creator. I allow that some men, both patriarchs and prophets, knew the Word, or Son of God, and prophesied concerning Him. But they knew this by a special revelation of God, not by His works in the world. John therefore is here deploring the blindness and ignorance of human infirmity, since the Fall, because with faith it lost the knowledge of its Creator and Saviour, that is, the Word. He came unto His own, &c. By His own Augustine, Cyril, Chrysostom, &c., understand the Jews, for they were the peculiar people of God. But by His own you may better understand the world, and all the inhabiters thereof. For S. John says the same thing, and after his manner repeats and enforces it, as I have already said: thus, “He was in the world, and the world was made by Him, and the world knew Him not.” Hear S. Cyril at the Council of Ephesus, “The Only Begotten came unto His own, especially the Israelites, when He became man incarnate.” And His own—not all, but many, for some did receive Jesus as the Christ, such as the twelve apostles, and the seventy-two disciples. But these were few compared with the rest of the Jews who did not receive Him. Ver. 12.—But as many as received Him, to them gave He power to become the sons of God, even to those who believe in His name: i.e., on Himself, for the name signifies the Person of Christ. The pronoun who must be referred, not to sons of God, but to as many. This is plain from the Greek οί, which is masculine, and must refer to οσοι, as many, or whosoever, not to τεκνα (children, or sons), which is neuter. The meaning is, “to as many as have received Christ, that is, to all who believe in His name, He has given power to become sons of God,” And so S. John explains himself (1 Ep. v. 1), “Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ, is born of God.” Power, Greek, ε̉ξονσίαν, i.e., dignity, authority, right, that indeed by this very thing, that they receive Christ by faith and by the sacrament of faith, i.e., baptism, or certainly by faith formed by love, which includes the wish for, or desire of baptism, they become at the same time justified, and they are made and are (for the Greek γενέσθαι means both), the adopted sons of God by participation and grace, even as Christ is the natural Son of God by His own Divine Hypostasis. Wherefore Clement of Alexandria (Adhort. ad Gent.) says, that Christ by His Incarnation changed earth into heaven, and of men made angels, yea gods, and therefore that He is the beautiful charioteer who drives to heaven, to a blessed immortality, the chariot, whose two horses are the Jews and the Gentiles. Therefore the word ε̉ξονσία, power, signifies both the dignity of the Divine adoption, and the liberty of our will freely to embrace it. For He does not say, He made them to be sons of God, but He gave them power, i.e., free will to become sons of God, if, that is, they will freely to believe in, and obey Him. Calvin and Beza deny this, but Augustine asserts it (de Spirit. et Lit. c. 31). “For,” he says, “we call this power, where the faculty of performing is added to the will. Wherefore every one is said to have in his power that which if he wills to do, he does, which if he wills not to do, he does not.” S. Chrysostom, Theophylact, Euthymius, Bede, and others, assert the same thing continually. Hear S. Chrysostom, “Like as if fire shall touch metalliferous earth, it immediately turns it into gold, so much more does baptism make those whom it washes to be gold instead of clay. For the Holy Ghost, as it were fire, in that same hour that He enters our hearts, takes away our. likeness to earth, and makes us to have a heavenly likeness new and bright, and shining as in a furnace. And why did He not say, He made us to become the sons of God? It was that he might show that we have need of great diligence, that we may keep pure and undefiled the mark of adoption stamped upon us by baptism. Moreover because no one is able to take away this power from us unless we shall first take it away from ourselves. You will say, faith equally with adoption is the gift of God, therefore it cannot be at the disposal of man’s will. I reply by denying the inference. For God does not bestow faith, hope, and charity and other virtues and gifts of His upon men against their will, or as unreasoning beings, but as reasonable creatures, co-operating freely with Him. For this is what S. John here says, God has given power to become sons of God to those who freely receive Christ by faith and obedience, excluding those who are unwilling to receive Him. “Power is given that they who believe in Him may become sons of God, since this very thing is give that they may believe in Him,” says S. Augustine (lib. 1 contr. 2. epist. Pelag. c. 3). And this is given by God, when He so by His grace illuminates and influences the soul of man as freely herself to consent and believe. To become the sons of God. How this is wrought and how great is the dignity of this adoption, I have shown on Hosea i 10, upon the words, “It shall be said unto them, Ye are the sons of the living God.” wherefore Cyril saith, “Let us rise to Our supernatural dignity through Christ,—not indeed that we should be sons of God by nature as He is, but that, through likeness to Him, we may be sons of God by grace.” Ver. 13.—Which were born, not of bloods (Greek) nor of the will (Arabic, appetite) of the flesh, &c. S. John here gives an antithesis between human generation and Divine, and demonstrates the superiority of the latter. For (1.) he says that the former is of bloods, which is a Hebraism for blood, meaning the blood of man, produced by food. 2. He asserts that it is of the will, i.e., the concupiscence of the flesh. This is what is elsewhere called flesh and blood, in which the will, or concupiscence of man, consists. He explains the will of the flesh to be the will of man. That is, the will, or appetite, or concupiscence of the flesh is the will, or concupiscence, for the generative act, which the carnal appetite desires. On the other hand, the Divine generation of the sons of God is not of blood, nor of the will and concupiscence of the flesh, but is of God, that is, of the will, predestination, and love of God. Again, of God means of the Spirit and grace of God, by which the mind of man, beforetime carnal, is regenerated and justified, and so a man becomes spiritual, just, and holy, a friend, yea, a son of God. 3. Of God, because in this regeneration of man, God not only gives him His grace and love and all other virtues, but also Himself, that a man may be truly justified, and may have the Spirit really dwelling in his soul, yea, may have the whole Trinity, and so may become Divine, a son and heir of God, and a joint-heir with Christ. Ver.14.—And the Word was made flesh, &c. Thus it is literally translated in the Syriac, Persian, Egyptian, and Ethiopic versions. But the Arabic has, The Word was made a body. For flesh here means the human body, and so man. From this the heresiarch Apollinaris denied that the Word assumed a human soul and mind. He asserted that in their place were the mind and Divinity of the Divine Word. So says S. Augustine (Hæres. 55). For the faith teaches that the Word assumed as well true human flesh as a true reasonable soul, and therefore had two perfect and uncommingled natures, the Divine and the human, and consequently possessed two wills, and a twofold mind, the Divine and the human. So that these two natures with their attributes subsist in the one only Person of the Word, in which Person, but not in His nature, this union has taken place, as the Council of Ephesus defines against Nestorius, and the Council of Chalcedon against the Eutychians. From this unity of Person there follows, as theologians teach, a participation of the attributes (communicatio idiomatum) of both natures, so that in Christ whatsoever is an attribute of man as man, the same may be predicated of His Divinity, and conversely. For example, we truly say, this Man, namely, Jesus, is God, is Almighty, is the Creator, is from eternity. And conversely we say that God, or the Son of God, truly suffered, was crucified, and died. For indeed there is one and the same Divine Person in Christ, God and man, who underwent all these things, although in accordance with two different natures. For actions and passions inhere in concrete individuals, or persons, in whatsoever nature they subsist. Hear S. Austin (in Dial. 65. quæst. ad Oros. qu. 4). “The Word was made flesh, not being changed by the flesh; so that He did not cease to be what He was, but began to be what He had not been. For He assumed flesh, He did not convert Himself into flesh. By that flesh, as a part for the whole, we understand the whole man, that is, flesh and reasonable soul. And as the first man had died both in the flesh and in the soul, so also it behoved that he should be quickened both in flesh and in soul, through the Mediator between God and man, the Man Christ Jesus” It follows (2.) that the Word was made flesh, not in the way in which water became wine when it was changed into wine, nor as food becomes our flesh, when it is changed into it, nor yet again as gold becomes a statue, by the addition to the material of gold of the accidental form of a statue, but after a similar manner to that in which soul and flesh being united become one man. So S. Athanasius in the Creed. “One, not by confusion of substance, but by unity of Person. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ.” But man is one essentialiter; Christ is One personaliter. Or again, it is after the manner in which a man is clothed by the putting on of a garment. So a new substance was added to the Word, as it were a garment, but substantially, not accidentally: for the Son of God clothed Himself with the substance of flesh, and of our nature, and joined, and most closely united it to Himself substantially in the same Hypostasis of the Word.
Flesh here, as often in Scripture, signifies by synecdoche the whole man. The Word was made flesh, i.e., the Son of God became man. In a similar manner, S. John might have said, The Word of God became a soul. But he preferred to say flesh rather than soul, that he might show how great was the kindness of God, that for love of us He emptied Himself. For God was made flesh, that we instead of flesh that was most corrupt through concupiscence and sin might become as it were Divine, and sons of God, and akin to God Himself, “The Word,” says S. Cyril (epist. 8. ad Nestor.), “uniting to Himself, according to His substance, flesh animated by a reasonable soul, was ineffably made man.” We will now comment upon each word of this passage singly.
And: this word conjoins the sentence with those preceding it. It has partly an historical, partly a causative force. Historically—that Eternal Word, whose generation I have declared, and of whom I have said, that He was with God, and was God, was in the time divinely appointed made flesh, for He assumed our flesh of the Blessed Virgin, and when He was born of her was called Jesus. So that and in this place may stand for therefore. As thus, Therefore was the Word made flesh, that He might make us to be the sons of God. Therefore S, Augustine says, “Let us not be amazed, or astounded at such grace, and let it not seem a thing incredible to us, that men should be born of God, when He asks you to consider that God was born of men.”
The Word: the Greek has the article, and is emphatic—that Divine and Eternal Word, of whom we have been thus far speaking. Wherefore S. Athanasius (Epist. ad Epictetum) cites Gal. iii. as a parallel passage, and says, “For as Christ is called a curse, not because He Himself was made a curse, but because for us He bore the curse, so is He said to be made flesh, not because He Himself was changed into flesh, but because He assumed flesh for us.”
The Word was made flesh is explained by the same parallel of a curse by S. Gregory Nazianzen (Epist. ad Cledon.), S. Flavian, Patriarch of Antioch, S. Ignatius, S. Irenæus, S. Hippolytus, S. Basil, S. Chrysostom, S. Gregory Nyssen, Amphilochius, and others, who are cited by Theodoret in a Dialogue entitled Immutabilis. In this he confutes those Eutychians who said that the Word was changed by His Incarnation, and transformed into flesh. He confutes others who said that flesh was changed into the Word, and that the Word absorbed the flesh in the same way that the sea swallows up a stream which flows into it. These he confutes in his Dialogue Inconfusus. He confutes a third section of the Eutychians, who said that the Godhead in Christ suffered and was crucified, in a third Dialogue called Impassibilis. Lastly, listen to S. Cyril in the Council of Ephesus, “By the Word flesh the whole man must be understood, as in the place where it is said, ‘All flesh shall see the salvation of God,’ and ‘I communed not with flesh and blood’ (Gal. i.). Soul is understood in similar way, as ‘Seventy-five souls of our fathers went down into Egypt’ (Acts vii.). As often therefore as we hear that the Word was made flesh, we understand that He became a man of flesh and blood.” S. Cyril elsewhere repeats this, and adds, “Not according to transference, or conversion, or commutation, as though there were a transformation into the nature of flesh, nor as having commingling, nor consubstantiation, &c.” Flesh, i.e., man. To the Word he opposes flesh, as it were the lowest to the highest, what is wretched to what is blessed, what is most vile, weak, and impure, to what is most glorious. For what is more vile, weak, and filthy than human flesh? And yet the Word of God deigned to stoop to such flesh as this, from love of us. This is that φιλανθζωπία and ecstasy of love which the Apostle celebrates (Titus iii. 4). Hear S. Bernard (Serm. 3. de Nativ.): “Forasmuch as He was in the beginning with God, He dwelt in the unapproachable light, and none could comprehend Him. For ‘who hath found out the mind of the Lord, or who hath been His counsellor?’ ‘The carnal mind perceiveth not the things of the Spirit of God,’ but now even the carnal man may receive them, because the Word has been made flesh. O man who art in the flesh, to thee is manifested that wisdom which afore was hid. Behold, now is it drawn forth from its hiding-place, and introduces itself into the very senses of thy flesh. After a fleshly manner, that I may so say, is it preached unto thee. Flee from voluptuousness, for death has been placed beside the gate of pleasure.”
The Word then was made flesh, i.e., man, as subsisting (existentem), not as a person (subsistentem). For He assumed the very nature of man, but not the person of a man. Nor indeed was the Person of the Word made the person of a man, for this were impossible. The Word assumed the essence and substance of man, not human personality. A human nature was assumed by Him in that very moment of time in which it was formed by the Holy Ghost, who came first that it, namely, the humanity, should not subsist as a person; and He conjoined the same human nature to Himself in the unity of His Divine Person, and made it to subsist in the same. Wherefore the Humanity of Christ subsists not in itself, but in the Person of the Word.
Was made: not that the Word was changed into flesh, or flesh into the Word, for, as S. Chrysostom says, "far from that immortal nature is transmutation." For how could flesh become God, that is, how could the creature become the Creator? Neither does it mean that the Word was made flesh, that is, became a man, in such a sense that He assumed not only human nature, but a human person, as Nestorius thought. "It is not as if," says Theophylact, "the Word had found a man endued with virtues, and united him to Himself," as the Holy Ghost united Himself to the prophets, the angel Raphael to Tobias. But it is that He united the nature of man to His own Hypostasis, and caused that the man Jesus should subsist in- the same Hypostasis as God the Word, God the Son. Moreover, the Word was made flesh, not in imagination, nor appearance, nor fancy, as the Manichæans maintained, but in the very truth and reality of actual fact. The Word was made man, I say, not by Himself alone, but by the whole Trinity. For all the Holy Trinity way the efficient cause of the Incarnation of the Word, but still in such a manner that the Hypostatic Union was with the sole Person of the Word, not with that of the Father, or the Holy Ghost: and the Son alone became man. "For the Trinity itself made the Word only to be flesh," says S. Fulgentius (lib. de fide ad Petr.) The Word therefore clothed with flesh was as the sun vested with a cloud, or as fire burning iron, or as a burning coal, as S. Cyril says. Wherefore its type and symbol is a carbuncle, as I have said on Rev 21:29. Again, it was like unto a pearl in a shell, or as lightning in a cloud, or as gold in a furnace, or an angel in a body. Moreover S. Augustine says (lib. 15. de Trin. c. 11), "As our speech becomes a voice, and yet is not changed into a voice, so the Word of God being made flesh was not changed into flesh." I have said more on the subject of the Incarnation in the first chapter of S. John's Epistle. Among other things I have shown that it was with this end and object in view, that the Word which before, as God, was our Father, might become, as it were, our Mother, through the Humanity which He assumed. And I added from Damascene, that God assumed human nature, that He might unite the whole world to Himself by it, and, as it were, make it godlike.
And dwelt among us: Greek, ε̉σκήνωσεν, i.e., tabernacled amongst us for a short time, like a guest and a foreigner in a strange land. For He was a citizen and an inhabitant, and the Lord of Heaven and Paradise. As it is said in Jeremiah (xiv. 8), "Wherefore wilt thou be as a sojourner in the land, and as a wayfarer turning aside to lodge?" Christ therefore wished to teach us by His own example that this world is, as it were, a guest-house, but that heaven is our country, which we ought to strive to attain, despising earthly things. SS. Chrysostom and Cyril explain a little differently. Among us, i.e., in us, in our nature, namely, in the Humanity which He assumed, that He might redeem us. S. Chrysostom gives the reason. "The Word constructed a holy temple for Himself, and by means of it introduced from heaven a way in which we should spend our life."
And we have seen His glory: Greek, ε̉θεασάμεθα, we have gazed upon, as on a new and wonderful spectacle in a theatre, that the Word veiled in flesh might indeed show us the glory of His Godhead by means of miracles and Divine wisdom. Thus the Apostle says (1Co 4:9), "We were made a spectacle (Greek, a theatre) to the world, to angels and to men." Listen to S. Austin, "By that His nativity He made an eye-salve, whereby the eyes of our heart might be cleansed. No man could see His glory unless he would be healed by the humility of the flesh. Flesh had blinded thee: flesh healeth thee. Thus cometh the physician that by the flesh He may heal the vices of the flesh."
The glory as of the only Begotten. The meaning is, we have seen the glory of Christ, being such and so great as became the Only Begotten Son: or that it was such as might manifest Him to be the Only Begotten Son of God. For to Him, as S. Basil says, hath God the Father given all His glory, all His substance, as parents are wont to leave all their inheritance to an only begotten son. This glory of Christ did S. John with his fellows behold in the Transfiguration upon Mount Tabor, in His glorious Resurrection, in His Ascension, and in His Divine life and miracles. Therefore the word as here denotes not similitude, but reality. So S. Chrysostom says, "The word as in this place is an expression not of similarity, but of confirmation, and certain definition." And Theophylact says, "We behold His glory, not such as that which Moses had, nor glory such as that with which the cherubim and seraphim appeared to the prophet, but glory such as that which became the Only Begotten of the Father, the glory which appertains to Him by His nature." Moreover, the glory of the Godhead of Christ shone through the flesh which He assumed, as through a veil, as Euthymius says, who further adds, "What was that grace of the Word? Surely it was the performance of miracles such as had never been beheld before: it was His bright and supernatural Transfiguration, the preternatural darkening of the sun at the time of His Passion, the fearful rending of the veil, the terrible earthquake, the rending of the rocks, the opening of the graves, the raising of the dead, and that which is the chief of all, wonderful beyond speech or thought, the Resurrection of the Lord."
Of the Father. This is added, saith S. Bernard, "because Christ hath brought to us from the Father's heart everything that is paternal, that fear itself might perceive nothing in the Son of God but what is sweet and fatherly towards the human race." More loftily, and more literally, says St. Cyril, "That supernatural grace is ever firm and immutable, ever the same, ever equally full of its own dignity. Wherefore, although the Word was made flesh, He was not overcome by the infirmity of the flesh, nor did He fall from His ancient majesty and omnipotence, because He became man. For we saw, he says, the glory of Christ from God, more lofty than the glory of creatures, that every one who is in possession of his senses might confess that it could belong to no other than to the Only Begotten Son of God."
Full of grace and truth. Erasmus and Cajetan join these words to what follows, and refer them to John the Baptist. They connect and translate as follows, John being full of grace and truth bears witness of Him, namely, of Jesus, that He is the Christ. They support their view by saying that the Greek for full is πληζης in the nominative masculine. But this pointing and translation is opposed to all the Fathers, and the perpetual consent of the Church, contrary, too, to the pointing of the Greek, Latin, Syriac and Arabic versions, which place a full stop after truth. It is moreover inconsistent with what follows, for John, explaining how Christ was full of grace and truth, subjoins, of His fulness have all we received. The Greek for full being in the nominative, is inconclusive, as well because many MSS. have πλήζη in the accusative, and others have πλήζη in the margin, as also because the preceding words, And we have seen His glory, the glory &c., should be read as in a parenthesis. For πλήζης, the nominative refers to λόγος, meaning, the Word was made flesh, being full of grace and truth. Thee is a reference to human speech, the greatest commendation of which is, when it is gracious and true. So also the Divine Word, not merely as He is in Himself, but also as He became flesh, carried with Him most excellent grace, as it were in a fountainhead, and was most abundantly endowed by God with every gift of grace, both in word and deed, according as it was said, "And all marvelled at the words of grace which proceeded out of His mouth" (Luk 4:22.). The same Word made flesh was full of truth also, because He was exposed all errors, and banished the shadows of tie Old Law, and brought to light the very truth itself which was promised by the prophets. "In Him are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge" (Col 2:5).
Full of grace: "For we have not see the glory of power or splendour," says S. Bernard, "but the glory of paternal kindness," the glory of grace, of which the Apostle saith, "to the praise of the glory of His grace" (Eph 1:6). Wherefore the Apostle exclaims, (1Ti 3:16), "Great is the mystery of piety" (namely, the Word made flesh), "which was manifested in the flesh, justified in the spirit, appeared unto angels, was preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory." For how full and altogether perfect was the grace of Christ, see the teaching of S. Thomas (3 p. q. 7. art. 9 et seq.)
And truth. A symbol of the union of grace and truth is found in the breastplate of the high priest Aaron, which bore the inscription of Urim and Thummim, that is, doctrines and truth, or, literally, illumination and perfection, that is, truth and grace. These two superabounded in Christ, and are especially needful for every priest that he may be like Christ. Therefore although the Blessed Virgin, S. Stephen, and other saints are said to be full of grace above other men, yet in respect of Christ were they not full. For Christ is, as it were, an ocean flowing out in rivers of grace to all the faithful, to apostles, martyrs, confessors, virgins. As the Apostle says (Col 2:9), "in Him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily." And again, "To every one of us is given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ" (Eph 4:7), and "To the Son God hath not given the Spirit by measure."
1:15
Ver. 15. John bears witness, &c. He proves what he had said concerning the Word Incarnate, and that He was full of grace and truth, by the irrefragable testimony of John the Baptist. For him the Jews accounted as a prophet and divine. It is as if he said, "Not only have we seen Jesus Christ full of grace and truth, but John, who was sent from God, openly and plainly has testified the same concerning Him."
And crieth: the Greek is, έκζαγε, i.e., cried out. For he himself was the voice of one crying in the wilderness (Isa 40:23). "Whom not I myself alone have heard," says S. Cyril, "but far and wide among all hath his cry come. For it was not in secret, nor with low and stammering accents, but louder than a trumpet." As S. Chrysostom says, "Freely and confidently, casting away fear, he preached the advent of God."
This was He of whom I spake: see verses 27 and 30. It means, "Before John had seen and known Christ, he said, that He was about to come to save man. And when he had seen Him, he repeated and confirmed it." As Theophylact says, "Lest he should seem to please merely the person of Jesus, in speaking in too much praise of Him, he saith, of whom I spake, that is, even before I had seen Him." He who cometh, i.e., who is about to preach, says S. Chrysostom, after me, was before me. That is, He is preferred in honour before me, because He was the destined Redeemer of the world. As Bede says, "not in order of time, but of dignity." And S. Augustine, "He was not made before I was made" (for John was born six months before Christ), but He was placed before me."
For He was before me: for since Jesus is true God, He was from eternity. So SS. Augustine and Chrysostom. Again, before means, greater by nature, more worthy in majesty. S. Chrysostom remarks, "John does not say, Christ, by making advance in grace and virtue, hath surpassed me; but He was before me, i.e., 'He was always my superior, always more glorious than I,'" as Cyril adds, because He was very God."
1:16
And of His fulness, &c. He follows up and unfolds what he had said in the fourteenth verse that the Word Incarnate was full of grace and truth: for of this plenitude of grace and truth have all we, apostles and Christians, yea, all the faithful before Christ, received. For Enoch, Noab, Moses, and all the rest of the prophets and patriarchs, have been sanctified and saved by the aforeseen merits of Christ. Origen and Theophylact think that these are a continuation of the words of John the Baptist; but SS. Chrysostom, Cyril, and others better take them as the words of S. John the Evangelist, confirming the preceding words of the Baptist.
Of His fulness: i.e., of Him who is most full. For Christ as the Head of the Church sheds abroad upon all the faithful, who are His members, not the whole fulness of His grace, but a portion thereof according to His will. "The saints," says Bede, "receive not the fulness of His Spirit, but of His fulness what He giveth." "For from the fulness of the Son," says S. Cyril, "as a perpetual fountain, the gifts of grace flow out abroad to each soul that is worthy of them." This is what the Apostle says, "He hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places," i.e., by "Christ," (Eph 1:3) "For He is the fountain and the root of all good," says S. Chrysostom; "He is life, He is light, He is truth, not keeping in Himself the riches of His goodness, but diffusing them to all, and when He bath diffused them remaining full. Neither is there any diminution in Him of that which He supplies to others, but He ever bestows His riches yet more abundantly; and when He has imparted to all He still abides in the same perfectness."
And grace for grace: Greek, χάζιν α̉ντὶ χάζιτος, where α̉ντὶ, for, is the same as instead of. First some expound thus, grace for grace, i.e., grace upon grace, or, all grace have we received from Christ. As it might be said in Hebrew, chen al chen. But this would require ε̉πί instead of α̉ντὶ in the Greek. Johannes Alba, however, defends this interpretation. Grace for grace, he says, means copious and superabundant grace. He quotes the Hebrew expressions in the Prophets, stroke upon stroke, for a very great stroke, or plague: and Job's skin for skin, i.e., skin upon skin, meaning all a man's flocks and herds, skin after skin, will he give for his life. Suarez takes the same view: Grace for grace, i.e., second grace instead of first grace. That is to say, we all, not men only, but angels, have received increasing grace. 2. Maldonatus, grace for grace; i.e., one man has received one grace or favour; another, instead of it, another grace. But this does not suit the meaning of the Greek α̉ντὶ, which signifies succession, not distribution. 3. S. Austin says, we receive the grace of life eternal, that is, beatific glory, here in hope, and after death in reality, instead of the grace of this life. For, on the one hand, grace is the seed of glory; and on the other hand, glory is the consummation of grace. 4. Others say, we have received from Christ the evangelical instead of the ancient Law. For each is grace, because given gratis by God. So S. Cyril, Chrysostom, Jansen, &c. 5. Others expound, In the grace of Christ we have all received grace, and by Him have been made pleasing to God. Wherefore Paul declares constant y that we are justified and sanctified in Christ. This is a useful, but not an exact meaning, for the Greek άντὶ means instead of, not in. 6. And exactly: The Greek άντὶ has two meanings; chiefly and precisely it denotes vicarious succession, answering to the Hebrew tachath, in the place, or room of. "For the grace of Christ we, as it were, His sons and successors, have received like grace with Him. For as the grace of Christ made Him well-pleasing unto God, so likewise does the same grace make us pleasing unto God, and sons of God by adoption." So SS. Chrysostom, Cyril, and others. Secondly, άντὶ is often used, though improperly, for on account of: " on account of, or, through the grace of Christ as a fountain, we have received grace." It is explanatory of what precedes and of His fulness have all we received by means of what follows, even grace for grace. For grace flows down from God through Christ as our Head unto us, who are, as it were, His members, as the Apostle teaches (Eph. i.) For God has willed to appoint Christ to be, as it were, the universal fountain of grace, from whence every grace should flow down to the faithful, that we may owe everything to Christ, and render unto Him endless and infinite thanks. For the sake of Christ, who is well-pleasing and most beloved in His sight, who is also the Mediator, God has reconciled us unto Himself, and enriched us with His grace and friendship, according to the words in S. Mat 3:7, "This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased;" and no man pleases Me except through Him. From hence it is plain that we receive from Christ the same grace which He has in Himself the same, I say, in kind, not in degree, which would be, ordinarily speaking, unbecoming and impossible, though some have even maintained this. Thirdly, the word " for " (άντὶ) might denote a certain equality. For this is the meaning of the Greek compound άντίθεος, that is to say, the equal of God, or he who makes himself a god, as Lucifer did, and Antichrist will do. So also antitype (ὶντίτυπος), is that which is set over against and corresponds, that which is equal, and of the same form. And the antipodes are properly those who walk with their feet planted exactly opposite to our own. The meaning then would be Through Christ we have received grace as it were equal to the grace of Christ, because by it we have been lifted up, and made to belong to the Divine order of things, that is to say, sons of God, and "partakers of the Divine nature" (2Pe 1:4). Thus the Apostles were in some sense the fellows and peers of Christ, for He calls them His brethren. Thus the Pope calls the cardinals brethren, and so, in some sort, equals them to himself. Let a believer then, more especially a priest, or a religious, think with himself how he ought to live like Christ and lead the heavenly life which Christ led, that whosoever shall see him, or hear him, may say he has seen and heard Christ in his lively image. Under the word grace here include truth also. For Christ is spoken of as full of grace and truth. And of His fulness of both have we all received. For through Christ have we received truth, that is, knowledge of God, faith, wisdom, understanding of salvation and things Divine: also remission of sins, reconciliation with God, the adoption of sons, charity, humility and all other virtues and gifts. All are here comprehended under the word grace.
Ver. 16. For the law was given by Moses, &c. He gives the reason why through Christ we have received grace for grace. It is because Moses, who was the Jews' greatest prophet and lawgiver, could only give a law which taught and commanded the precepts of God, but could not bestow grace to keep those commandments. Hence the need of Christ to give grace to fulfil the law. Wherefore the Arabic translates, grace the and truth were needful through Jesus Christ. The Evangelist therefore opposes, and prefers Christ to Moses, grace to law. 1. Because Moses in the law only taught directly what God willed the Jews to do, namely the precepts of the Decalogue, under the promise of temporal blessings, such as abundance of corn, wine and oil. But the way of salvation, remission of sins, justification, and holiness, by which we arrive at life eternal, he did not teach, much less bestow that life. But Christ hath both taught it, and hath also bestowed it, through that grace and truth which He hath brought from heaven. That is what Zacharias sings of in the first chapter of Luke, "To give knowledge of salvation unto His people for the remission of sins." Thus too S. Chrysostom, "Grace came by Christ because with authority He forgave sins, and bestowed regeneration. Truth came by Him because He fulfilled the types and figures." 2. In the law was a threefold commandment, the moral law, or the Decalogue; the judicial, and the ceremonial law. To the two first the Evangelist opposes grace, without which they could not be observed. And the effect of grace is that a believer fulfilling the same law from love of God, deserves eternal life. To the ceremonial law he opposes truth, because those ceremonies were types and shadows of Christ and His sacraments, which shadows Christ fulfilled, and so brought in truth. Wherefore S. Austin saith, "When the Law itself was fulfilled" (through Christ), "grace and truth came in. Grace pertains to the fulness of charity, truth to accomplishment of prophecy" (cont. Faust. c. 6). 3. Because Moses gave only an obscure and slight knowledge of God and the Holy Trinity, but Christ a knowledge that was clear and full. Wherefore Bede thus comprises the whole of what we have been saying. "Christ being made man hath declared what we ought to think concerning the truth of the Trinity, in what manner we ought to hasten to the contemplation of It, by what acts we ought to arrive at It." Symbolically, S. Austin (lib. de. Trin. 13, cap. 19) by grace understands the Word Himself, incarnate in time; by truth the eternal vision of God, to which He leads us. This is what he says: "In things that have their origin in time, the highest grace is, that man is united to God by unity of person; but in things eternal the highest truth is rightly attributed to the Word of God. Now in that He is the Only Begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth, it is brought to pass that He should be the same in the things which are done for us in time, for whom we are cleansed by the like faith, so that we may steadfastly contemplate Him in the things eternal."
1:18
Ver. 18. No man hath seen God, &c. He gives the reason why neither Moses, nor any one else, but Christ alone, hath taught us the perfect truth concerning God and Divine things because He alone hath seen God. It is as though he said, those things of which thus far I have been speaking, concerning God and the Word, are so sublime, that inasmuch as no mortal man (and therefore not Moses), except the Son of God, hath seen God, therefore that Incarnate Son alone is able perfectly to declare these things. Thus the Fathers passim; who teach from this passage that Moses saw not the essence of God, but only a certain luminous substance assumed by an angel, in some manner representing to the eyes of Moses the glory of God. Thus S. Gregory says in the Catena: "So long as we live here in mortal flesh, God may be seen by certain manifestations or images of Him, but as He is in His own nature He cannot be seen." Tropologically, S. Gregory teaches (lib. 18, Mor. cap. ult. et. penult.), that no one can behold God and Divine things, unless he first die to this world and its pleasures. For thus he expounds the words in the 18th chapter of Job, It is hid from the eyes of the living: "Because whoever seeth wisdom, which is God Himself, dieth wholly to this life, lest he should be holden of its love. For no man seeth It who still liveth to the flesh, because no man can at the same time embrace God and the world. For he who seeth God dieth in this respect, either in will, or in reality, for with his whole soul he is separated from the pleasures of this life."
The Only Begotten who is in the bosom: Syriac, in the lap: S. Cyril, in the womb, for this is one meaning of the Greek κὸλπος. It is a figure of speech. For by bosom is signified the highest possible union of the Son with the Father. It means that the Son, who is most closely united, and consubstantial with the Father, is partaker of the wisdom of the Father, and conscious of His most secret counsels. And because He knoweth them most perfectly and intimately, therefore He alone is able most fully and plainly to declare them. And so in fact He has declared them. Thus SS. Chryostom, Cyril, and Augustine. S. Athanasius observes (lib. 3 de Unica Trin. substant.) that this expression, the Only Begotten, which is in the bosom of the Father, is made use of lest when it is said that He was made flesh, it should be supposed that He was divided from the Father. For in truth He abideth, and is with the Father, even as He was in the beginning, and everlasting. Listen to S. Chrysostom, who by this word bosom thinks it is signified that the Son not only sees, but comprehends the Father. "Many," saith he, "know God, yet none but the Only Begotten Son know of what nature His substance is. He has certain knowledge, sight, and comprehension, such as it is befitting a son to have of his father. For as the Father knoweth Me, He said, so also know I the Father, (John x. 15). Observe therefore with what fulness of language the Evangelist speaks; for when he says, no man hath seen God at any time, he does not go on to say, the Son who hath seen, hath declared Him, but He who is in the bosom of the Father hath declared Him. For he who only seeth hath not certain knowledge of the thing seen: but he who dwelleth in the bosom, to him are all things plain and certain. Lest therefore when you hear, no man knoweth the Father save the Son (Matt. xi. 27), you should say that though He hath greater knowledge of the Father than others have, and yet knows not what His nature is, therefore the Evangelist says, 'He is in the bosom of the Father.'" There is an allusion to the words of David concerning, Christ in the 110th Psalm (Psa 110:3), "From the womb, before the morning star, have I begotten Thee" (Vulg.) That is, "From my fruitful understanding I have, as it were, as a Word spoken this, and as a Son have I begotten thee." S. Jerome says, " From the womb, i.e., of My substance, of My nature, of the very essence of My substance, have I begotten Thee." So also Theodoret says, " From the womb," that is, "of My substance. For as human beings produce from the womb, and that which they bring forth hath the same nature as those who bring it forth, so art Thou begotten of Me, and Thou showest forth in Thyself the substance of Him who begat." Moreover, Jerome himself translates this verse of the 110th Psalm thus, "The dew of Thy youth shall arise to Thee as it were from the womb;" Aquila, "The dew of Thy childhood arising to Thee early from the womb." It means, "Of My Deity have I begotten Thee God:" as it is in the Creed, "God of God." So SS. Hilary, Ambrose, Augustine, Athanasius, and others against the Arians. For dew means in Hebrew the same as flower in English. "Dew," says R. Solomon, "means sweetness, joyfulness, purity of heavenly generation, as it were dew born of the heavenly dayspring."
He hath declared: that is, He hath clearly explained and set forth to His disciples, and through them to the whole world. The Greek is ε̉ξηγήσατο, which S. Chrysostom says means clearly to explain secret and hidden things, as Christ has explained to us the secrets of the Father concerning the Trinity and the Word, concerning the vocation of man, grace, resurrection, heavenly glory, and such like. "This word," says S. Chrysostom, "sets forth more express and certain doctrine: wherefore also Christ is called the Word, and (the Angel) of great counsel." Ver. 19. And this is the witness of John, &c. John the Baptist often bare witness to Jesus, that He was the Messias, or the Christ, both before and after His baptism. John the Evangelist therefore, omitting in this place the testimony which the Baptist bore to Jesus before His baptism, which had been related by the three other Evangelists, gives his testimony concerning Him after he had baptised Him. For this testimony was public, judicial, and most celebrated. It had been judicially demanded by the chief priests and magistrates, and had been received by them through the ambassadors whom they sent to John. The reason of this embassy was because the chief priests saw John leading in the desert an angelic life, preaching with great power, baptising, and moving men to repentance, as none of the other prophets had done. The chief priests thought therefore that it was their duty to ask him who he was, especially because they knew that the sceptre had passed from Judah to Herod, and the seventy weeks of Daniel being completed, the coming of Messias must be nigh at hand. Wherefore, suspecting that John was the Messias, they ask him, Who art thou? S. Chrysostom gives another reason that they asked out of envy and hatred of Jesus, in order that they might show that Jesus was not the Messiah. They would have preferred to bestow the title upon John. They disliked John's preferring Jesus to himself, and calling Him the Messias or Christ. But although there might be some envy mingled with it, the true reason was, as I have said, that it was the counsel of God so to exalt John, that the chief priests might be driven to ask him whether he were the Christ or not, that being asked he might authoritatively answer that which was the truth, namely, that not he, but Jesus, was the Messias, and that, being convicted by this testimony of John, they might be compelled either to receive Jesus as the Messias or to be without excuse.
1:19
Who art thou? The chief priests appear tacitly at least to have inquired of John, whether he were the Christ or not; for John replies, I am not the Christ. Moreover, they were aware that John was the son of the priest Zacharias, and therefore a priest himself. When therefore they say, Who art thou? they ask virtually, What office hast thou received from God ? With what object has God sent thee to preach and baptize? For God was wont to commit greater offices to priests. Tropologically, let every one often ask himself, Who art Thou? Firstly, as regards our substance. Listen to thy conscience making answer to thyself the name of God my Creator is, I AM THAT I AM (Exo 3:14) My name therefore as a creature is "I am that am not," because I am nothing of myself, but out of my nothingness have been brought forth by God, and made a man. Wherefore my body and soul are not my own, but God's, who has given them, or rather lent them, to me. As S. Francis was wont to say, "Who art Thou, Lord? Who am I? Thou art an abyss of wisdom and long-suffering, and all goodness. I am an abyss of ignorance, weakness, of all evil and wretchedness. Thou art an abyss of being, I of nothingness." So when Christ appeared to S. Catherine of Sienna, He said, "Blessed art thou if thou knowest who I am, and who thou art. I am He who is, thou art she who is not." Secondly, as to quality. Who? that is, of what sort art thou ? Answer, As regards my body, I am weak, miserable, and wretched. As to my soul, as regards my reason, I am like unto the angels. As regards my sensual appetite, and concupiscence, I am like the brutes. Therefore I will follow my reason, and so become assimilated to the angels. Thirdly, as regards relation. Who? that is, whose son art thou ? Reply, I am the son of Adam, the first sinner, and therefore being born in sin, I am living in sin, and must die in sin, unless the grace of Christ rescue me from my sins, and sanctify and save me. Fourthly, as regards employment. Who art thou? what trade or profession art thou? I am a carpenter, a baker, a governor, a shepherd, a lawyer. See then that thou exercise thyself in thy calling, whatsoever it be, as the law of God requires, namely, in such wise that thou live soberly, righteously, and godly in this present world, looking for the blessed hope, and the coming of the glory of the great God, that thou mayest so pass through things temporal, that thou lose not, but gain the things eternal. Work, study, live for eternity. As S. Bernard was wont often to say to himself, "Bernard, tell me, wherefore art thou here?" And with this goad, as it were, he stirred himself up to zeal for all virtues. Fifthly, as regards suffering. Who art thou? that is to say, what dost thou suffer ? Reply, In the body I suffer hunger, thirst, disease, continual afflictions, so that there is scarcely the smallest space of time: in which I have not many things to bear. As regards my soul, I have far greater and more bitter afflictions, griefs, and anguish, anxieties, sorrows, angers, indignation, darkness, fear, &c., so that I seem to be, as it were, a mark at which all afflictions hurl their darts, and thrust me through with their arrows. Be thou therefore a very adamant of patience, that thou mayest patiently and generously endure all things, and win the everlasting crown of patience in heaven. Sixthly, as regards place. Who ? that is, where art thou ? Answer, I am on earth, placed between heaven and hell, in such wise, that if I live holily, I may pass to heaven, if wickedly, to hell. Live therefore carefully, warily, and holily, that not hell, but heaven may receive thee, when this short mortal life is over. Seventhly, as regards time. Who art thou? When wast thou born? How long hast thou lived? When shalt thou die? Answer, Born yesterday, today I live, to-morrow I die. "For we are of yesterday, and know nothing; all our days upon the earth are but a shadow" (Job viii. 9). Therefore despise all things temporal, which fly past as a bird doth. Love and covet heavenly things, which endure forever with God and the angels. So shalt thou, being eternal, be happy eternally, and abide in everlasting delights. For as S. Gregory says, "That we may be eternal, and happy eternally, let us imitate eternity. And this is to us a great eternity, even the imitation of eternity." Lastly, as regards posture and clothing. Who art thou? that is, what posture, or clothing hast thou? Reply, I stand, I sit, I lie. I wear the habit of a Christian, a priest, a bishop, a religious. Take heed then that thou live conformably to thy habit. For it is not the habit which makes the Christian, or the monk, but purity of life, humility, charity.
1:20
Ver. 20. And he confessed, &c. That is, publicly, plainly, and fully that he was not the Christ. For when the Hebrews wished very strongly to assert anything, they doubled the affirmative, and trebled the negative. Observe the great humility of S. John: how firmly he refused the name of Christ when it was offered to him. For he loved the truth, and Jesus, to whom this name belonged. Men of the world love to boast, and say, I am a nobleman, a governor, a canon, a bishop. But John teaches us to say, "I am nothing," because if I am anything, I have it from God.
1:21
Ver. 21. And they asked him, &c. When John denied that he was the Christ, the messengers asked him if he were Elias. For him God took away, that he might be the forerunner of Christ. And of him they were then in expectation, according to the words of Malachi (Mal 4:5), "Behold, I send you Elijah the prophet before the great and terrible day of the Lord come," meaning the day of judgment, when Christ shall return to be the judge of all. But the Scribes did not understand this. They thought that there would be but one advent of Christ, and that a glorious one, the precursor of which would be Elias. Thus the Jews think even now that Christ has not yet come, but is about to come with Elias. And yet they ought to have known from the same Malachi (Mal 3:1) that there would be another precursor of Christ's first coming in the flesh, even John the Baptist. "For I," saith the Lord, "do send My messenger, and he shall prepare My way before My face."
Art thou that prophet? Greek, ό πζοφήτης, the prophet par excellence. "Art thou a new and great prophet, such an one as we think will come with Messiah, to be His herald?" So SS. Chrysostom and Cyril. But they (the Jews) were in error. For Christ needed not a prophet, as Moses, who was not eloquent, needed Aaron. But Christ was His own prophet, herald, priest, and lawgiver. Moreover John was not a prophet in the sense that he foretold things to come. But he pointed out with his finger, as it were, Christ present. Therefore was he more than a prophet, as Christ says in the 11th of Matthew.
1:23
Ver. 23. I am the Voice, &c. (Isa 40:3), where I have expounded the meaning. Listen o what the Fathers say about it. "I am a servant, and prepare paths, your hearts, for the Lord," says Theophylact. "I come, he says, to say that He is at the doors who is expected, that you may be prepared to go whithersoever He may bid you," says Cyril.
1:24
Ver. 24. And they that were sent, &c. John adds this, to suggest the occasion why they examined John the Baptist concerning baptism. These messengers who were sent to John were Pharisees, and therefore were well versed in the Scriptures. Consequently they knew that Messiah would baptize for the remission of sins, because Ezekiel (Eze 36:25) and Zechariah (Zec 13:1) had predicted that He would do so. But concerning other prophets and saints they had not read in Scripture that they would baptize. They ask John therefore to tell them by what authority he baptized, especially since he not only asserted that he was not Christ, but not even a prophet.
1:25
Ver. 25. And they asked him, &c. "These Pharisees," says S. Cyril, in their arrogancy insult John, as though they said, Neither Elias, nor Eliseus, nor any of the other prophets dared to take upon themselves the office of baptizing. With what face then, or boldness, dost thou, who art not a prophet, arrogate this office to thyself?"
1:26
Ver. 26. John answered them, &c. As though he had said, "God hath sent me to baptize with water, that I might stir you up to repentance and tears, so as to fit you for Christ's baptism. For He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, for the remission of sins," as the remaining three Evangelists declare. Therefore John is silent about this.
There standeth one, &c. That is, Christ is living in the midst of you, and yet ye know Him not. That is, you do not recognise Him as Messiah, but look upon Him as a mere man, as vile and abject.
1:27
Ver. 27. He it is who, coming after me, &c. After me Christ shall come to baptize you, that by His baptism He may perfect mine, and may wash and justify them that are penitent. As S. Cyril paraphrases, "I in preparation wash with water those who are polluted with sins as a beginning of repentance, and by this means leading you from what is lower I prepare you for more lofty things. For He who is the giver of greater things, and of the highest perfection, is about to come after me." Or, as S. Chrysostom says, "My baptism is only a disposition and preparation for the baptism of Christ. Mine is of water and corporeal, Christ's is of fire and spiritual."
Whose shoe's latchet, &c. As though he said, "I am not worthy to be reckoned amongst the last of the servants of Christ, on account of the greatness of the Deity which is in Him." Ver 28. These things were done in, &c. Bethany is the reading of the Latin, Syriac, Arabic versions, of many codices, including the Vatican, of Bede, Alcuin, the Gloss, &c. But instead of Bethany, Origen, S. Chrysostom, Theophylact, Euthymius, S. Epiphanius, and S. Jerome (in loc. Heb.) read Bethabara, where Gideon slew the Midianites. I observe with Toletus that Bethany and Bethabara were one and the same place, or at least that one was nigh the other, or on opposite banks of the Jordan. This was the place in which the Hebrews, when they came out of Egypt first crossed the Jordan under the leadership of Joshua, to enter the promised land. For Bethabara means in Hebrew a house of passage; Bethany, a house of ships. For vessels were waiting here to carry passengers over Jordan. This Bethany is derived from Beth, a house, and any, spelt with alpha, a ship. The Bethany of Martha and Lazarus was a different place, and spelt differently in Hebrew. That Bethany means the house of humility, from Beth, a house, and any, spelt with ain, humility. John, then, chose this place wherein to baptize for several reasons, because of the abundance of water, also in memory of the ancient passage of the Israelites. S. Jerome says (loc. Hebræis), "Even at this present time many of our brethren who believe, desiring there to be born again, are baptized in the life-giving flood." They did this in memory of Christ, who was there baptized by John. This place is distant about four leagues from the Dead Sea. Observe, Christ was baptized on the 6th of January. It was fifty-five days afterwards that John bore this witness to Christ, or about the 1st of March, when Jesus was absent. On the day following Jesus presented Himself before John, when John renewed his testimony, saying, Behold the Lamb of God. (See Epiphan. Hæres. 51.) Whence there follows (Ver. 29), The next day again John saw, &c. Observe that after Jesus was baptized He went into the desert, where He fasted for forty days, as is plain from S. Mat 4:2. Then He came down from the Mount of Temptation, and returned to John, to visit and hear him; but especially that John might in His presence confirm the testimony which in His absence he had given to the messengers of the Jews; that he might point Him out with his very finger, and leave no place for hesitation to any.
1:29
Behold the Lamb of God. Nonnus paraphrases, "He lifted up his finger, and pointed Him out as He drew near to the people who beheld Him." "The word Behold," says S. Chrysostom, "is used because many were inquiring for Him: therefore he pointed Him out being present, saying, "This is He of whom I have been speaking."
Lamb, Greek, ό α̉μνος, the Lamb divinely prefigured and predicted by Moses and Isaiah. "He is led as a lamb to the slaughter," &c. (Isa 40:7). Christ is thus called the Lamb by S. John the Baptist, and by His Apostle, S. John the Evangelist, in the Rev 1. Because He was prefigured by the Paschal Lamb, and by the daily morning and evening sacrifice of a lamb to God in the Temple, and by the other lambs which were offered for sin, according to the Law, and yet they could not take away sins. Wherefore they represented Christ, who was to take away sin by His Blood. So Origen, &c. 2. Because Christ was called a Lamb by Isaiah and Jeremiah (Jer 11:19), who was to be offered for the redemption of the world. 3. He is called a Lamb because of his lamb-like innocence, meekness, patience, and obedience, even unto death, which, like a lamb, He bore in silence. As S. Peter says, "Who, when He was reviled, reviled not again; when He suffered, He threatened not; but committed Himself to Him that judgeth righteously" (1Pe 2:23). Christ truly is called the Lamb of God, i.e., the offspring, not of sheep, but of God, who by the will of God was offered for man's redemption. Thus the sacrifice which Abraham offered is called Abraham's sacrifice, as Theophylact says. Or because He was offered up to God Himself. Or the Lamb of God is the Divine Lamb, because of the Deity which was in Him. Or as S. Clement of Alexandria says, because He was made for us the child and babe of the Father. So we call children, lambs. These are the words of Clement, Since the Scripture calls boys and infants lambs, he called God who is the Word, who for us was made man, who wished in all things to be made like unto us, the Lamb of God, the Son of God, the Infant of the Father" (Pædag. lib. 1 c. 5). Moreover, Christ for His strength and His victory is called the Lion of the tribe of Judah." He was a Lamb in His Passion, a Lion in His Resurrection.
Who taketh away the sins: taketh away, both as regards the stain which sin in act imprints upon the soul, and as regards the guilt of sin, which makes the sinner liable to hell. This He takes away by making expiation, and bearing the punishment in Himself, thus in justice and equity satisfying for sin by His death upon the cross. John said this, that no one might think Christ came to his baptism to wash away His own sins, as others did; for He had no sin, but was most innocent and most holy. Therefore God made Him the victim for the sins of the whole world, that He might sanctify all who repent and believe in Him. As S. Augustine says, "He who had no participation in our sinfulness is He who takes away our sin."
Sin: this is the reading of the Greek, Latin, and Syriac. The Arabic reads sins; but the sense is the same. By sin here is to be understood the first and universal sin of Adam, that is, original sin, which he by generation transmitted to all his posterity, and out of which all actual sins, whether venial or mortal, spring. Christ therefore, in taking away sin, takes away its source as well as its filth. So Bede, S. Thomas, Jansen, &c. As Isaiah saith, "The Lord laid upon Him the iniquities of us all." And, "He shall bear their iniquities;" and 1Jn 2:2, "And He is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world." As S. Cyril says, "One is slain for all, that the whole human race may be won to God the Father." For there is in Christ a perpetual power of making expiation for sin in all ages and all nations, and in all men who are willing to receive His faith, His baptism, His repentance.
1:31
Ver. 31. And I knew Him not, &c. As though he said, "Think not, O ye Jews, that I affirm Jesus to be the Messiah for the sake of friendship, or relationship, as though I were His friend and companion; for I declare unto you that I knew Him not, that I never saw Him, or spoke to Him, before His baptism. But as soon as I saw Him I recognised Him by the inspiration of God." "What wonder," says S. Chrysostom, "that he who from a child dwelt in the desert away from his father's house knew not Christ?" But that He should be manifested, &c. That is, to the Jews, to whom the Messiah was promised, "that they all might be brought to believe in Him." Wherefore Nonnus paraphrases, "But that He whose face was unknown might be manifested to all the children of Israel, who have no ruler, I am come a precursor of the way not declared, baptizing an unlearned, ignorant, erring people."
1:33
Ver. 33. And I knew Him not, &c. With water. Nonnus, "in the laver without fire and the Holy Ghost." A second time S. John declares that he knew not Jesus was the Christ by sight and converse, but by revelation from God, that no one might dare to dispute his testimony. So S. Cyril. Note the expression abiding. From this it is clear that it is peculiar to Christ to have all the graces of the Holy Spirit, and prophecy, by way of habit; but that in others only those gifts abide which are necessary for holiness of life: according to the words in chap. xiv., "He shall abide with you." (See Suarez, Tract. de fide. disp. 8, sect. 6, n. 6.)
1:35
Ver. 35. The next day, &c. The Evangelist says that John bare witness to Jesus in three consecutive days that He was the Christ. He did this to make his witness the more sure and solid. The first testimony that he gave was judicial, when he was asked by the messengers of the Jews. This was in the first day. The second he gave on the day following, which was the 2d of March. The third time was here on the 3d of March, before his own disciples, that he might cause them to pass from himself to Jesus.
1:36
Ver. 36. And seeing Jesus as he walked, &c. As though he said, "Behold Christ like a spotless Lamb, destined for a victim, that He may be offered to God upon the cross, for the sins of the whole world." When John spoke thus it was as though he said to his disciples, "Why do you follow me? follow Him who is the Lamb of God, the ransom of the world." Here observe the prudence and modesty of John. He does not compel or urge his disciples to follow Christ, but only points Him out to them, that they might the more ardently pursue after so great a good when it was discovered by themselves. Like a man who, when a jewel is being sold for a small price, points out to merchants how great is its worth, and causes them of their own accord to long to purchase it.
1:37
Ver. 37. And two of his disciples, &c. S. Chrysostom says, "There were indeed others of S. John's disciples, but they not only did not follow Christ, but were jealous of John's, their master's, honour, and preferred him to Christ, as is plain from Joh 3:26.
Two: one of those was Andrew, as appears from verse 40; who the other was is not known. S. Chrysostom asks, "Why is not the name of the other given? Either because it was the writer himself, S. John the Apostle, or because it was a person of no note." The first idea is the more probable. And what favours the conjecture is that John and James were companions in fishing with Peter and Andrew (Mat 4:18-21), when, shortly after Andrew and Peter, Christ calls John and James. Lastly, the great purity, the virginity, and holiness of S. John the Evangelist seem to have been the result of the teaching, the purity, and holiness of S. John the Baptist.
They followed Jesus: that they might know Him more fully, says Euthymius, and contract a friendship with Him: and if they should experience that advantage, they would follow Him wholly, and be altogether His disciples. For from what follows it is plain they had not given themselves up entirely to Christ, but only desired to make trial of Him.
1:38
Ver. 38. Jesus turning, &c. What seek ye? It is the voice not of one who is ignorant, but of one who invites, and deals gently with their bashfulness. As S. Cyril says, "He asks what they sought, not as ignorant, for He knew all things as God, but that His question might afford the beginning of conversation."
Rabbi: Syriac, Rabboni, i.e., our master; Arabic, Rabban, or master. By this expression the disciples honoured Christ, and sought His favour, and intimated that they wished to become His disciples. As Bede saith, "The question itself is an indication of faith: for when they say Rabbi, which means master, they follow and call Him their Master." And S. Cyril says, "They called Him Master from whom they desired to learn."
Where dwellest thou? Greek, που̃ μένεις, i.e., where remainest thou ? For Christ had but a hospice on earth, and no proper habitation or house, according to the words in Matthew: "Foxes have holes, and the birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man hath not where to lay His head." The disciples ask this question, that they may be able to converse privately with Christ in the house, and be instructed by Him in Divine things, and those which pertain to the more perfect life. They show that they wish to become His friends and servants.
1:39
Ver. 39. He said unto them, Come and see, &c. The tenth hour, i.e., four o'clock in the afternoon, or about two hours before sunset. S. John adds these words, to show both the zeal of Christ, who though night was nigh, would not put them off to the following day, but entered immediately upon the things pertaining to salvation; as also to show the ardent devotion of the disciples to Christ, who, careless about their night's lodging, had rather spend the night in listening to Christ, than at home in their beds. So Euthymius. For they remained with Him not merely the two hours which were left of daylight, as some suppose, but the whole night. For those two hours were not sufficient to speak about their affairs, and to know Christ. Neither could they have returned to John before nightfall. For, as Cyril says, "It is not fitting that we should speedily be satisfied with Divine things, and leave them." Moreover, what great things they heard from Christ, what draughts of piety they drank, what flames of love they felt kindled by Christ those only know who have had experience of them. Wherefore S. Austin exclaims, "How blessed they accounted the day! how blessed the night! Who can tell us the things which they heard from the Lord?" Certainly we may gather what was said from the effect produced: for Andrew was so inflamed with love for Christ that he forthwith strove to gain his brother Peter to Christ, and inflame him with love for Him.
1:40
Ver. 40. Now one of the two, &c. John inserts this to show in what way Peter, who was to be the prince of the Apostles, and the head of the whole Church, was led to Christ. It was because Andrew, being glad at finding and hearing Christ, brought his own brother Peter, for whom he had a singular love, to Him, that he might make him partaker in so great a good. For this zeal, which burns to make others, especially those nearest to us, partakers with us, and to draw them to God, is a mark and an effect of the Divine Vocation. For as fire kindles fire, so does zeal kindle zeal. Moreover, Peter, as well as Andrew, seems to have been a disciple, or at least a diligent hearer of John the Baptist. Which of the two was the elder is not known. The conversion of Peter is the glory and praise of Andrew.
1:41
Ver. 41. He first findeth, &c.... the Christ, that is, the Anointed, not indued with corporeal anointing, but with spiritual grace, both that of the Hypostatic Union, as well as that grace which was habitual and specially excellent. This last was the grace by which as man He was created by God, and, as it were, Consecrated, first a priest, secondly, a teacher, thirdly, a prophet, fourthly, a king, fifthly, a lawgiver, sixthly, the Redeemer of the world. The Greek is τόν Μεσσίαν, i.e., that Christ, that Anointed One: the one, only, special Prophet, predicted by the rest, whom all were eagerly expecting as the Restorer of Israel. So Euthymius.
We have found the Messiah, whom I and thou are most eagerly expecting. It would seem that both Andrew and Peter, partly from the prophetic oracles, and partly from the testimony of John, were inflamed with the desire of seeing Christ. For, as Bede says, "No one finds but he who seeks: he who saith that he hath found shows that he had been a long while seeking." Euthymius, following S. Chrysostom, as he is wont, saith, "This is the speech of one who is very glad; We have found Him whom we sought, whom we hoped should come, whom the Scriptures announced." Andrew, therefore, that he might communicate his great joy at finding Christ, to his brother Peter exclaims, " We have found the Messiah. " Wherefore "they no more returned to S. John," as S. Chrysostom says, "but were so closely united to Christ, that they undertook John's office, and themselves preached Christ." Hence we learn, morally, that God by His grace meets the longing soul, and so fills it that it may the more desire and thirst for Him. Yea, God is wont first to put this desire of Himself into the soul, that He may thereby prepare the soul for Himself and His gifts, and make it capable of receiving them.
1:42
Ver. 42. And he brought him to Jesus. "It is probable," says S. Chrysostom, "that Andrew related many other things calculated to persuade. The other disciple was also present to confirm what he said. But Andrew, since it was not his office, and because he was not sufficient to tell of so great a light, brings him to that very fountain which he had discovered." Moreover, the mind of Peter, like a straw in presence of the fire, was inflamed with the desire of seeing and hearing Christ. Wherefore S. Chrysostom proceeds, "Consider the obedient mind of Peter from the beginning, and how full of good will. He brought him to Jesus; but let no one find fault with his too great readiness in believing. For it is not said that he immediately persuaded him, but only that he brought him to Jesus, there to learn all."
Jesus beholding him (as it were a fitting subject to preach and make known His glory, and therefore designing him to be His successor and vicar, that is, the Pontiff of the Church) said, &c. Simon Peter's father was called Johanan or John, by contraction Jona, as Jehoshua is contracted into Joshua and Jesus. Christ says this that He may reveal secrets, and show him that He is the Searcher of hearts and his God.
Thou shall be called Cephas. Christ promises to Simon the name of Cephas, or Peter, as much as to say, I will give thee, Simon, another name. I will call thee Cephas, i.e., a rock or Peter, for I will make thee the rock of the Church, so that on thee and thy faith, and thy government the fabric of My Church may rest securely as upon a most solid foundation of rock. (See what is said on S. Mat 16:18)
1:43
Ver. 43. On the morrow, &c. That out of Galilee He might call untutored fishermen, to create them His Apostles, and the preachers of His Gospel, lest the Christian faith should be supposed to be the work of man, not of God. For the Apostles were Galileans. For the Galileans were poor and ignoble in comparison with the Jews who were sprung from Judah, which was the royal tribe.
He findeth Philip, not by chance, but going of set purpose to the place where He knew Philip was. There He found him whom He carefully sought, and whom He destined to be an Apostle.
And Jesus saith unto him. This is the first exterior calling by Christ. For Peter and Andrew were first called by an inward inspiration, not outwardly by Christ's external voice, but by hearing the voice of John the Baptist their master saying of Christ, Behold the Lamb of God! They were not called by Him, but of their own accord they came to Jesus, in order to find out His doctrine and life, but not, as it were, about to become His sure and firm disciples. Thus Toletus. To Philip therefore this praise and glory is due that he was the first of all to hear Christ say, follow Me, and to experience an outward call at the same time that the Holy Ghost influenced his mind inwardly; and obedient to this vocation he straightway followed Christ, for he was himself a student of the Mosaic law, and anxious about the coming of Christ, as Theophylact says. Theophylact gives as the cause of his following the attractive voice of Christ, "The voice of the Lord seems to have touched his mind as it were with a goad of love." For it was not merely the Saviour's voice which spoke, but He forthwith made those to whom He spoke worthy to be inflamed with His love, even as Cleophas said, "Did not our heart burn within us, whilst He talked with us by the way?"
1:44
Ver. 44. Now Philip was of Bethsaida, &c. John adds this, says Theophylact, to intimate that Andrew and Peter had previously informed Philip, who was their townsman, that they had found the Messiah, and that He was Jesus of Nazareth. Wherefore Philip, as soon as he heard Christ call, Follow Me, immediately followed Him, because his mind was already prepared, and eager for Christ. Moreover, Bethsaida was contiguous to the Sea of Galilee, and near Capharnaum, where Peter and Andrew had a house, as we learn from the 8th of S. Matthew. This, then, was the country of three of the Apostles, namely, Peter, Andrew, and Philip. Bethsaida means in Hebrew the house of hunting, or fishing, because fishermen, such as Peter and Andrew, dwelt there, and caught fish in the neighbouring sea. Ver. 45.—Philip findeth Nathanael, &c. “Not by chance,” as Cyril saith; “but he sought him with great diligence, for he knew that he was a very diligent searcher of the Scriptures.” It would appear that he found him at Cana of Galilee, which was the native place of Nathanael, as is plain from chap. xxi. 2.
1:45
Nathanael, his friend and comrade. You will inquire who was this Nathanael? 1. Claudius Espenæus, commenting on 2 Tim. iv., says that Nathanael was the same as Ursicinus, the first Bishop of Bourges. 2. The Greek Menæa says that Nathanael is the same as the Apostle Simon the Cananite. He is there commemorated on the 22d of April as follows: “The Holy Apostle Nathanael, which was Simon Zelotes, of Cana in Galilee, where Christ at the marriage feast turned the water into wine.” He is also commemorated in the Menæa on the 10th of May. 3. and more probably, Rupertus and Jansen in this passage think Nathanael is the Apostle Bartholomew. They show this, firstly, because the other Evangelists always join together Philip and Bartholomew, as John here joins Philip and Nathanael. Secondly, because we nowhere read of Christ’s calling Bartholomew, unless it were this call of Nathanael. Thirdly, because the other three Evangelists who make mention of Bartholomew make no mention of Nathanael, and vice versâ with S. John. Fourthly, because S. John (xxi. 2) associates Nathanael with the Apostles Peter, Thomas, James, and John in fishing, and the vision of Jesus. It would seem therefore that he was an Apostle, and yet it is not apparent who else he could be if he were not Bartholomew. Fifthly, because Bartholomew does not seem to be a proper name, but only to signify that he was the son of Tolmai; and his proper name seems to have been Nathanael. Sixthly, because Christ said of Nathanael, Behold an Israelite indeed, it whom is no guile. And then Christ promises him a vision of angels ascending and descending upon Himself. Christ therefore seems to have specially loved him, and to have chosen him for a friend and Apostle. S. Augustine, however, dissents from this view, because he thinks Nathanael was a doctor of the Law. He discoursed with S. Philip out of the law. But Christ did not choose for His Apostles men learned in the Law, but rude and ignorant fishermen. To this it may be replied that Nathanael was a student, but not a doctor of the Law. Just as Philip, Andrew, and Peter all discoursed out of the Law concerning the coming of Messiah. If, however, Nathanael was not an Apostle, he was certainly a disciple, wherefore L. Dexter (Chron. ad. A.D. 101) says, “Nathanael, one of the seventy disciples of the Lord, sleeps in Treuga, a city of Spain,” now called Leon. Another writer adds that he slept in the Lord on the 30th of November. Nathanael means in Hebrew the gift of God, or God gave, or given by God; in Latin, Adeo-datus. The prince of the tribe of Issachar in the time of Moses was called Nathanael (Num. i. 8). It may be that our Apostle was descended from him, and took his name.
Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph. For Nazareth is only three hours distant from Cana, so that Nathanael of Cana might easily know of Jesus of Nazareth, Joseph’s son, as he was commonly reputed to be. Ver. 46.—Nathanael said unto him, &c. For Nazareth of Galilee was a place ignoble and obscure, and despised by the Jews. Wherefore the Pharisees say (vii. 57), Out of Galilee ariseth no prophet. “How then, O Philip, canst thou think that Christ is sprung from Nazareth, especially when Micah foretold that Christ was to spring from Judah and David, and to be born at Bethlehem?” So S. Chrysostom, who adds, “He shows therefore both knowledge of the Scripture, and simplicity of disposition, as well as a vehement desire for the coming of Christ in that he did not despise Philip’s words. For he knew that Philip might be deceived with regard to things to be commemorated in his country.” And Philip was partly wrong; for though Christ was conceived at Nazareth, He was born at Bethlehem, of which Philip was at this time ignorant.
1:46
Come and see. Syriac, Come and thou shalt see. “I will not dispute with thee about Nazareth, but come, see and hear Jesus: and you shall experience what I have experienced, that you may be ravished with His love, and believe that He is the very Christ.” Listen to S. Chrysostom. “Philip does not tell him how He is the Christ, and how the prophets have foretold, but he leads him to Jesus, knowing that he will not go away from Him if he tastes His words and His doctrine. If you only see Him, he says, if you only speak with Him, you will at once agree with me.” “We ought to believe,” says Cyril, “that there was a certain unspeakable loveliness in the words of Christ which attracted the minds of the hearers by its great sweetness.” Ver. 47.—Jesus saw Nathanael, &c. He is a follower of the candour, simplicity, and sanctity of Israel, that is, of the patriarch Jacob, from whom he was descended. Wherefore the Syriac translates, Behold a son of Israel indeed. Jesus shows that He knew the pure state of Nathanael’s mind, that thereby Nathanael might know that Jesus was not a mere man, but that He was a1so God, and the Searcher of hearts. S. Chrysostom thinks that Christ alludes to what Nathanael had said to Philip, Can any good thing come out of Nazareth? As if Jesus had said, “I am not displeased with what thou hast said about Me, because I know thou hast a candid mind, and art anxious to know the truth.” Ver. 48.—Nathanael saith, &C “Observe,” says S. Chrysostom, “the consistency of the man. He is not puffed up by praise, but he proceeds to inquire accurately, that he may learn something certain about Christ.”
1:48
Jesus answered, &c. “When thou wast alone under the fig tree, and thoughtest that no one saw thee, I saw thee, and know what thou wast doing in secret there. Hence thou mayest gather that I am greater than man, even Messiah, the Son of God.” So S. Cyril, S. Augustine, and others. Mystically, S. Gregory (Moral. l. 18, c. 20), Under the fig tree, i.e., beneath the shadow of the Law, I saw thee, that I might transfer thee to the vine of My Gospel. Tropologically, learn from hence that God and Christ are everywhere present, and are to be feared, when thou art alone in thy chamber; yea, when thou secretly thinkest and desirest anything in thy heart, Christ is looking at thee, and beholding thy thoughts and desires. Take heed therefore lest thou do anything, or desire, or think anything, which will offend the eyes of His majesty. For so He beheld Nathanael, and what he was doing under the fig tree. So also God saw Adam under a fig tree eating its forbidden fruit. Ver. 49.—Nathanael answered, &c. Son of God: that is, His natural and consubstantial Son, for this is the plain meaning of the words. So SS. Cyril, Augustine, Maldonatus, &c. But S. Chrysostom, Euthymius, Lyra, &c., think Nathanael was ignorant that Christ was God, and only believed that He was the adopted Son of God, by a peculiar grace by which he saw that He was superior to all other prophets and saints. I am disposed to think that Philip, from the testimony of John the Baptist concerning Jesus (ver. 34), believed Him to be the Son of God, but in a confused sort of way, without clearly discerning between natural and adoptive sonship, and that he persuaded Nathanael to think as he did himself. For although John the Baptist in saying that Christ was the Son of God meant His natural Son, by the Hypostatic Union of the Humanity with the Word, Philip and Nathanael did not as yet understand this until they had been more fully taught.
1:49
King of Israel, i.e., Messiah, son of David and Solomon, and therefore heir of the kingdom of the twelve tribes of Israel. This is what David foretold in the 2d Psalm, speaking in the person of Christ: “Yet have I set My King upon My holy hill of Zion. I will declare His precept: the Lord said unto Me, Thou art My Son, to-day have I begotten Thee.” From hence it is clear that David foretold that Messiah would be the Son of God by nature. But few before John the Baptist and Christ Himself clearly and fully understood this. The Œcumenical Council of Constantinople, by a constitution of Pope Vigilius, pronounces an anathema against those who would explain the words of Nathanael, Thou art the Son of God, to be so applied to Christ as though He were not very God, but as it were of the household of God, and were named God on account of the friendship which he had with God. Ver. 50.—Jesus answered—greater things—the greater mysteries of My doctrine, life, passion, resurrection, by which thou shalt know not only that I am the King and Lord of Israel, but of the whole universe of heaven, and of the angels. Ver. 51.—Ye shall see heaven opened: not that the heaven was to be in reality cleft, but because it was to afford a passage to the angels going in and out, like as it were a door that is opened. Thus heaven shall appear to be opened. This is the figure of speech called catachresis. In like manner, the heaven seemed to be opened at Christ’s baptism. So too S. Stephen, when he was stoned, saw Jesus standing at the right hand of God. By this vision it is signified that heaven, which had been shut for four thousand years because of the sins of men, was now to be opened by Christ.
1:51
The angels of God, &c., to obey Him as their King. This is the force of the Greek ε̉πὶ, which answers to the Hebrew al. Wherefore Vatablus translates under the Son of man, as though Christ said, “under My power and sway, as I will and command.” So Frank Lucas. Observe (1.) that Christ, in calling Nathanael an Israelite in whom was no guile, evidently alludes to the vision of angels ascending and descending in the ladder from earth to heaven, which the Patriarch Jacob saw at Bethel (Gen. xxviii. 12). So S. Augustine. For Israel or Jacob, was a type of Christ. For Christ is the true Israel, i.e., having power with God. Christ is the Patriarch of Christians, the founder of Bethel, the House of God, i.e., the Church both militant and triumphant. 2. Christ, by what He says about this vision of the angels ascending to Himself, signifies that He is the Prince not only of men, but of angels, and therefore true God, the Son of God. For the angels ascend and descend to Him as His ministers, that they may obey and fulfil all His commands both in heaven and earth. So S. Cyril and Chrysostom. You will ask, When did this descent and ascent of the angels to Christ take place? 1. S. Chrysostom thinks it took place when Christ suffered His agony and bloody sweat in the garden, when an angel appeared, strengthening Him (S. Luke, xxii. 44). Also when the angels appeared to the woman to announce His resurrection (S. Matt. xxviii.) 2. S. Cyril thinks it took place at His baptism; for then it was that by the ministry of angels a dove was formed, and flew down upon Christ, which was the sign of the Holy Ghost. But this had already taken place when Christ spoke to Nathanael. 3. Euthymius thinks it took place at the ascension; for then all the angels accompanied Him as He went up, like servants their prince, and soldiers their king. 4. Toletus thinks that it is continually taking place in the Church, which Christ rules by means of the angels. 5. Maldonatus thinks it will take place in the Day of judgment; for then all the angels, both good and bad, will stand in His presence—the good, that they may after the judgment lead the righteous to heaven; the bad, that they may carry the wicked to hell. 6. Frank Lucas understands the words to refer to the miracles of Christ, and the heavenly gifts, in which the angels were employed by Christ in this life, and afterwards. Jesus means, he says, that at the bidding of the Son of Man from henceforth heaven should seem to be open, with the angels going and coming, because in a short time the angels, being commanded by the Son of Man, would bring great abundance of God’s great gifts to the earth, which all would behold, —even the healing of the sick, the cleansing of the lepers, giving sight to the blind, the justification of the wicked, the effusion of the Holy Ghost. And since all of these are manifest gifts of God, heaven could not seem other than to be opened, and the holy angels, by whom heavenly things are ministered, to serve, at the bidding of the Son of Man, by those who beheld Him bestowing them upon many. Christ therefore is here speaking of all kinds of miracles and heavenly gifts, which, immediately after the calling of Nathanael, He was about to manifest in the whole period of His mortal life, and after His ascension, in the government of the Church until the end of the world. All these meanings are true and apposite. But because Christ specially promises this vision of angels to Philip and Nathanael to strengthen and augment their faith in Him, this ascent and descent of the angels upon Him was not fulfilled either at His baptism, passion, resurrection, or ascension. Therefore we say that the words more plainly, simply, and expressly imply that this was an open, or manifest, and peculiar vision of angels coming to the living Christ, such as was given to Jacob, who was a type of Christ. Wherefore that vision of Jacob presignified a similar vision of angels to Christ, a vision like that which took place at His birth, when the angels who descended to Him sang, Glory to God in the highest. But where and when this angelic vision took place the Evangelists do not tell us, just as they omit many other acts in the life of Christ. So Jansen. This vision took place (1.) to show that Christ had reconciled men and angels, earth and heaven, and had restored the mutual communion and friendship which existed in Paradise. 2. To show that Christians are strangers and foreigners on earth, and ought to converse with angels, and imitate the angelic life, as “fellow-citizens with the saints, and of the household of God.” 3. To assign angels to us as our guardians, to defend us against all the attacks of men and evil spirits, to urge us to the practice of heroic virtues, and when we die to carry us to heaven. For the angels ascend to bear our sighs and prayers to God: they descend to bring God’s gracious gifts to us. 4. To declare the majesty of Christ and the obedience and reverence of the angels to Him. For He, as S. Chrysostom says, has been set “far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come” (Eph. 1. 21).
1:1
Evangelista Ioannes, sicut dictum est, intendit principaliter ostendere divinitatem verbi incarnati; et ideo dividitur istud Evangelium in partes duas. Primo enim insinuat Christi divinitatem; secundo manifestat eam per ea quae Christus in carne fecit, et hoc II cap. et die tertia. Circa primum duo facit. Primo proponit Christi divinitatem; secundo ponit modum, quo Christi divinitas nobis innotuit, ibi et vidimus gloriam eius et cetera. Circa primum duo facit. Primo agit de divinitate Christi; secundo de verbi Dei incarnatione, ibi fuit homo missus a Deo. Quia vero in unaquaque re sunt consideranda duo, scilicet esse et operatio, sive virtus ipsius, ideo primo agit de esse verbi quantum ad naturam divinam; secundo de virtute, seu operatione ipsius, ibi omnia per ipsum facta sunt. Circa primum quatuor facit. Primo ostendit quando erat verbum, quia in principio erat verbum; secundo ubi erat, quia apud Deum; unde dicit et verbum erat apud Deum; tertio quid erat, quia Deus; unde subiungit et Deus erat verbum; quarto quomodo erat, quia hoc erat in principio apud Deum. Prima duo pertinent ad quaestionem, an est: secunda vero duo pertinent ad quaestionem quid est. Circa primum autem videndum est quid sit hoc quod dicitur in principio erat verbum. Ubi tria diligenter inquirenda concurrunt, secundum tres dictiones huius orationis. Et primo quid sit hoc quod dicitur verbum; secundo quid sit hoc quod dicitur in principio; tertio quid sit hoc quod dicitur verbum erat in principio. Ad intellectum autem huius nominis verbum, sciendum est quod, secundum philosophum ea quae sunt in voce, sunt signa earum, quae sunt in anima, passionum. Consuetum est autem in Scriptura quod significata nominantur nominibus signorum, sicut illud I Cor. X, 4: petra autem erat Christus. De necessitate autem oportet quod illud intrinsecum animae nostrae, quod significatur exteriori verbo nostro, verbum vocetur. Utrum autem per prius conveniat nomen verbi rei exteriori voce prolatae, vel ipsi conceptioni mentis, nihil refert ad praesens. Planum est tamen quod illud quod voce significatur, interius existens in anima, prius est quam ipsum verbum exteriori voce prolatum, utpote causa eius existens. Si ergo volumus scire quid est interius verbum mentis, videamus quid significat quod exteriori voce profertur. In intellectu autem nostro sunt tria: scilicet ipsa potentia intellectus; species rei intellectae, quae est forma eius, se habens ad ipsum intellectum, sicut species coloris ad pupillam; et, tertio, ipsa operatio intellectus quae est intelligere. Nullum autem istorum significatur verbo exteriori voce prolato. Nam hoc nomen lapis non significat substantiam intellectus, quia hoc non intendit dicere nominans; nec significat speciem, quae est qua intellectus intelligit, cum etiam hoc non sit intentio nominantis; non significat etiam ipsum intelligere, cum intelligere non sit actio exterius progrediens ab intelligente, sed in ipso manens. Illud ergo proprie dicitur verbum interius, quod intelligens intelligendo format. Intellectus autem duo format, secundum duas eius operationes. Nam secundum operationem suam, quae dicitur indivisibilium intelligentia, format definitionem; secundum vero operationem suam, qua componit et dividit, format enunciationem, vel aliquid huiusmodi. Et ideo, illud sic formatum et expressum per operationem intellectus, vel definientis vel enunciantis, exteriori voce significatur. Unde dicit philosophus quod ratio, quam significat nomen, est definitio. Istud ergo sic expressum, scilicet formatum in anima, dicitur verbum interius; et ideo comparatur ad intellectum, non sicut quo intellectus intelligit, sed sicut in quo intelligit; quia in ipso expresso et formato videt naturam rei intellectae. Sic ergo habemus significationem huius nominis verbum. Secundo, ex his quae dicta sunt, concipere possumus, quod verbum semper est aliquid procedens ab intellectu in actu existente. Iterum quod verbum semper est ratio et similitudo rei intellectae. Et si quidem eadem res sit intelligens et intellecta, tunc verbum est ratio et similitudo intellectus, a quo procedit; si autem sit aliud intelligens et intellectum, tunc verbum non est similitudo et ratio intelligentis, sed rei intellectae: sicut conceptio quam aliquis habet de lapide, est similitudo lapidis tantum, sed quando intellectus intelligit se, tunc huiusmodi verbum est similitudo et ratio intellectus. Et ideo Augustinus ponit similitudinem Trinitatis in anima, secundum quod mens intelligit seipsam, non autem secundum quod intelligit alia. Patet ergo quod in qualibet natura intellectuali necesse est ponere verbum: quia de ratione intelligendi est quod intellectus intelligendo aliquid formet; huius autem formatio dicitur verbum; et ideo in omni intelligente oportet ponere verbum. Natura autem intellectualis est triplex, scilicet humana, angelica et divina: et ideo triplex est verbum. Scilicet humanum, de quo in Ps. XIII, 1: dixit insipiens in corde suo: non est Deus. Est et angelicum, de quo Zac. I, 9 et in multis locis sacrae Scripturae dicitur: dixit Angelus et cetera. Tertium est verbum divinum, de quo Gen. I, 5: dixit Deus: fiat lux et cetera. Cum ergo Evangelista dicit in principio erat verbum, non intelligi potest de humano vel angelico verbo: quia utrumque istorum verborum est factum, cum homo et Angelus habeant sui esse et operationis principium et causam; verbum autem hominis vel Angeli non potest praeexistere eis. De quo autem verbo intellexerit Evangelista, declarat per hoc quod dicit, hoc verbum non esse factum, cum omnia sint facta per ipsum; hoc autem est verbum Dei, de quo Ioannes hic loquitur. Sciendum est autem, quod hoc verbum differt a nostro verbo in tribus. Prima differentia est, secundum Augustinum, quia verbum nostrum prius est formabile, quam formatum: nam cum volo concipere rationem lapidis, oportet quod ad ipsam ratiocinando perveniam; et sic est in omnibus aliis, quae a nobis intelliguntur, nisi forte in primis principiis, quae cum sint simpliciter nota, absque discursu rationis statim sciuntur. Quamdiu ergo sic ratiocinando, intellectus iactatur hac atque illac, nec dum formatio perfecta est, nisi quando ipsam rationem rei perfecte conceperit: et tunc primo habet rationem rei perfecte, et tunc primo habet rationem verbi. Et inde est quod in anima nostra est cogitatio, per quam significatur ipse discursus inquisitionis, et verbum, quod est iam formatum secundum perfectam contemplationem veritatis. Sic ergo verbum nostrum primo est in potentia quam in actu; sed verbum Dei semper est in actu: et ideo nomen cogitationis verbo Dei proprie non convenit. Dicit enim Augustinus, XV de Trinit., ita dicitur verbum Dei, ut cogitatio non dicatur, ne quid quasi volubile credatur in Deo. Id autem quod Anselmus dicit, scilicet dicere summo spiritui nihil aliud est, quam cogitando intueri, improprie dictum est. Secunda vero differentia verbi nostri ad verbum divinum est, quia verbum nostrum est imperfectum, sed verbum divinum est perfectissimum. Quia enim nos non possumus omnes nostras conceptiones uno verbo exprimere, ideo oportet quod plura verba imperfecta formemus, per quae divisim exprimamus omnia, quae in scientia nostra sunt. In Deo autem non est sic: cum enim intelligat, et seipsum etiam et quicquid intelligit per essentiam suam, uno actu, unicum verbum divinum est expressivum totius quod in Deo est, non solum personarum, sed etiam creaturarum: alias esset imperfectum. Unde dicit Augustinus: si quid minus esset in verbo, quam in dicentis scientia continetur, verbum imperfectum esset. Sed constat quod est perfectissimum; ergo est tantum unum. Iob XXXIII, 14: semel loquitur Deus. Tertia differentia est, quod verbum nostrum non est eiusdem naturae nobiscum, sed verbum divinum est eiusdem naturae cum Deo: et ideo est aliquid subsistens in natura divina. Nam ratio intellecta, quam intellectus videtur de aliqua re formare, habet esse intelligibile tantum in anima nostra; intelligere autem in anima nostra non est idem quod est natura animae, quia anima non est sua operatio. Et ideo verbum quod format intellectus noster, non est de essentia animae, sed est accidens ei. In Deo autem idem est intelligere et esse; et ideo verbum intellectus divini non est aliquid accidens, sed pertinens ad naturam eius: quia quicquid est in natura Dei, est Deus. Unde, dicit Damascenus, quod Deus verbum substantiale est, et in hypostasi ens, reliqua vero, verba nostra scilicet, virtutes sunt animae. Ex praemissis etiam patet quod verbum, proprie loquendo, semper personaliter accipitur in divinis, cum non importet nisi quid expressum ab intelligente. Item quod verbum in divinis sit similitudo eius a quo procedit; et quod sit coaeternum ei a quo procedit, cum non prius fuerit formabile quam formatum, sed semper in actu; et quod sit aequale patri, cum sit perfectum, et totius esse patris expressivum; et quod sit coessentiale et consubstantiale patri, cum sit substantia eius. Patet etiam quod cum in qualibet natura illud quod procedit, habens similitudinem naturae eius a quo procedit, vocetur filius, et hoc verbum procedat in similitudine et identitate naturae eius a quo procedit, convenienter et proprie dicitur filius, et productio eius dicitur generatio. Sic ergo patet primum, scilicet quid sit hoc quod dicitur verbum. Circa hoc autem quatuor quaestiones occurrunt. Duae sunt Chrysostomi. Prima est cur Ioannes Evangelista patrem dimittens, confestim incepit a filio, dicens in principio erat verbum. Ad hoc autem est duplex responsio. Una est, quia pater omnibus innotuerat in veteri testamento, quamvis non in ratione patris, sed ut Deus; filius autem ignorabatur: et ideo in novo testamento, in quo agitur de cognitione verbi, incipit a verbo, sive filio. Alia est, quia per filium ducimur in notitiam patris; infra XVII, 6: pater, manifestavi nomen tuum hominibus, quos dedisti mihi. Volens ergo fideles in notitiam patris ducere Evangelista, decenter incepit a filio, statim subiungens de patre cum dicit et verbum erat apud Deum. Secunda quaestio est etiam Chrysostomi. Cum enim, sicut dictum est, verbum procedat ut filius, quare dixit verbum, et non filius? Ad hoc etiam dupliciter respondetur. Primo quia filius dicit aliquid genitum, et cum audimus generationem filii, posset quis cogitare generationem illam talem esse, qualem comprehendere potest, scilicet materialem et passibilem; ideo ergo non dixit filius sed verbum, quod importat intelligibilem processum, ut non intelligatur materialem et passibilem generationem illam fuisse. Ostendens igitur filium ex Deo impassibiliter nasci, destruit vitiosam suspicionem per verbi nuncupationem. Aliter potest dici sic: Evangelista tractaturus erat de verbo, inquantum venerat ad manifestandum patrem. Unde cum ratio manifestationis magis importetur in nomine verbi quam in nomine filii, ideo magis est usus nomine verbi. Tertia quaestio est Augustini in Lib. LXXXIII quaest., quae talis est: in Graeco, ubi nos habemus verbum, habetur logos. Cum ergo logos significet in Latino rationem et verbum, quare translatores transtulerunt verbum, et non rationem, cum ratio sit quid intrinsecum, quemadmodum etiam verbum? Respondeo. Dicendum quod ratio proprie nominat conceptum mentis, secundum quod in mente est, etsi nihil per illam exterius fiat; per verbum vero significatur respectus ad exteriora: et ideo quia Evangelista per hoc, quod dixit logos, non solum intendebat significare respectum ad existentiam filii in patre, sed etiam operativam potentiam filii, qua per ipsum facta sunt omnia, magis antiqui transtulerunt verbum, quod importat respectum ad exteriora, quam ratio, quae tantum conceptum mentis insinuat. Quarta quaestio est Origenis, quae talis est. Scriptura in pluribus locis loquens de verbo Dei, nominat ipsum non absolute verbum, sed cum additione, scilicet Dei, cum dicit verbum Dei, vel domini: Eccli. I, 5: fons sapientiae verbum Dei in excelsis, et Apoc. XIX, 13: et nomen eius verbum Dei. Quare ergo Evangelista, cum loqueretur hic de verbo Dei, non dixit: in principio erat verbum Dei, sed dixit tantummodo verbum? Respondeo. Dicendum, quod licet sint multae veritates participatae, est tamen una veritas absoluta, quae per suam essentiam est veritas, scilicet ipsum esse divinum, qua veritate, omnia verba sunt verba. Eodem modo est una sapientia absoluta supra omnia elevata, scilicet sapientia divina, per cuius participationem omnes sapientes sunt sapientes. Et etiam unum verbum absolutum, cuius participatione omnes habentes verbum, dicuntur dicentes. Hoc autem est verbum divinum, quod per seipsum est verbum super omnia verba elevatum. Ut ergo Evangelista hanc supereminentiam divini verbi significaret, ipsum verbum absque ulla additione nobis absolute proposuit; et quia Graeci, quando volunt significare aliquid segregatum et elevatum ab omnibus aliis, consueverunt apponere articulum nomini, per quod illud significatur sicut Platonici volentes significare substantias separatas, puta bonum separatum, vel hominem separatum, vocabant illud ly per se bonum, vel ly per se hominem ideo Evangelista volens significare segregationem et elevationem istius verbi super omnia, apposuit articulum ad hoc nomen logos, ut si dicatur in Latino, ly verbum. Secundo considerandum est, quid significet hoc quod dicitur in principio. Sciendum est autem quod principium, secundum Origenem, multis modis dicitur. Cum enim principium importet ordinem quemdam ad alia, necesse est invenire principium in omnibus, in quibus est ordo. Invenitur autem ordo in quantitatibus; et secundum hoc dicitur principium in numeris et longitudine, puta lineae. Invenitur etiam ordo in tempore; et secundum hoc dicitur principium temporis, vel durationis. Invenitur ordo in disciplinis, et hic est duplex: secundum naturam, et quoad nos; et utroque modo dicitur principium. Hebr. V, v. 12: deberetis esse magistri propter tempus. Et hoc modo, secundum naturam quidem, in disciplina Christiana initium et principium sapientiae nostrae est Christus, inquantum est sapientia et verbum Dei, idest secundum divinitatem. Quoad nos vero principium est ipse Christus, inquantum verbum caro factum est, idest secundum eius incarnationem. Invenitur etiam ordo in productione rei; et secundum hoc principium dicitur ex parte generati, scilicet ipsa prima pars generati seu facti: sicut fundamentum dicitur principium domus. Vel ex parte facientis: et sic est triplex principium, scilicet intentionis, quod est finis, quod movet agentem; rationis, quod est ipsa forma in mente artificis; et executionis, quod est potentia operans. His igitur modis de principio inquirendum est, quomodo sumatur hic principium, cum dicit in principio erat verbum. Dicendum est igitur quod potest sumi tripliciter. Uno modo, secundum quod principium supponit pro persona filii, quod principium est creaturarum secundum rationem virtutis activae, et per modum sapientiae, quae est ratio eorum quae fiunt; unde dicitur I Cor. I, 24: Christum Dei virtutem et Dei sapientiam. Unde et dominus de se dicit infra VIII, 25: ego principium, qui et loquor vobis. Sic ergo accipiendo principium, intelligendum est quod dicitur in principio erat verbum, ac si diceret in filio erat verbum, ut sit sensus: ipsum verbum est principium, ex modo loquendi, quo dicitur vita esse in Deo, quae tamen non est aliud, quam ipse Deus. Et haec est expositio Origenis. Dicit ergo hic Evangelista in principio, ut statim in principio divinitatem verbi ostenderet, ut Chrysostomus dicit, dum asserit ipsum esse principium; quia secundum determinationem omnium principium est honoratissimum. Secundo modo potest accipi principium, prout supponit pro persona patris, quod est principium non solum creaturarum, sed omnis divini processus; et sic accipitur in Ps. CIX, 3: tecum principium in die virtutis tuae. Secundum hoc ergo dicitur in principio erat verbum, ac si diceretur: in patre erat filius. Et haec est expositio Augustini, et etiam Origenis. Dicitur autem filius esse in patre, quia eiusdem essentiae est cum patre. Cum enim filius sit sui essentia, in quocumque est essentia filii, est filius. Quia ergo in patre est essentia filii per consubstantialitatem, conveniens est quod filius sit in patre. Unde infra XIV, 10 dicitur: ego in patre, et pater in me est. Tertio modo potest accipi principium pro principio durationis, ut sit sensus in principio erat verbum, idest verbum erat ante omnia, ut Augustinus exponit, et designatur per hoc verbi aeternitas, secundum Basilium et Hilarium. Per hoc enim quod dicitur in principio erat verbum, ostenditur quod quodcumque principium durationis accipiatur, sive rerum temporalium, quod est tempus, sive aeviternarum, quod est aevum, sive totius mundi, sive quodcumque imaginatum extensum per multa saecula, in illo principio iam erat verbum. Unde Hilarius dicit VII de Trinitate: transeuntur tempora, transcenduntur saecula, tolluntur aetates. Pone aliquid quod voles tuae opinionis principium; verbum iam erat, unde tractatur. Et hoc est quod dicitur Prov. VIII, 22: dominus possedit me in initio viarum suarum, antequam quicquam faceret a principio. Quod autem est ante durationis principium, est aeternum. Sic igitur secundum primam expositionem, asseritur verbi causalitas; secundum autem secundam, verbi consubstantialitas ad patrem, qui verbum loquitur; secundum vero tertiam, verbi coaeternitas. Considerandum est etiam hic, quod dicitur verbum erat, quod est temporis praeteriti imperfecti, et hoc maxime videtur competere ad designandum aeterna, si attendamus naturam temporis et eorum quae sunt in tempore. Quod futurum est, nondum est actu; praesens autem actu est, et per hoc quod est actu praesens, non designatur fuisse: praeteritum autem perfectum designat aliquid extitisse, et esse iam determinatum, et iam defuisse; sed praeteritum imperfectum significat aliquid fuisse, et non esse adhuc determinatum, nec defuisse, sed adhuc remanere. Ideo signanter Ioannes ubicumque ponit aliquid aeternum, dicit erat; ubi vero dicit aliquid temporale, dicit fuit, ut infra patebit. Sed quantum ad rationem praesentis competit maxime ad designandum aeternitatem praesens tempus, quod signat aliquid esse in actu, quod semper convenit aeternis: et ideo dicitur Ex. III, 14: ego sum qui sum; et Augustinus dicit, quod ille solus vere est, cuius esse non novit praeteritum et futurum. Est etiam considerandum quod hoc verbum erat, secundum Glossam, non sumitur hic inquantum significat temporales motus, more aliorum verborum, sed secundum quod signat rei existentiam: unde et verbum substantivum dicitur. Sed potest aliquis quaerere, cum verbum sit genitum a patre, quomodo possit esse patri coaeternum: homo enim filius a patre homine genitus, est eo posterior. Ad quod dicendum est quod principium originis invenitur esse prius duratione, eo quod est ex principio, propter tria. Primo quidem quia principium originis alicuius rei praecedit tempore actionem, qua producit rem cuius est principium; sicut non statim quando homo est, incipit scribere, et ideo tempore praecedit Scripturam. Secundo per hoc quod actio successionem habet, et ideo etiam si simul cum agente incipiat, tamen terminus actionis est post agentem: sicut simul cum generatus est ignis in istis inferioribus, incipit sursum tendere; prius tamen est ignis quam sit sursum, quia motus quo sursum tendit, quodam tempore mensuratur. Tertio modo eo quod ex voluntate principii determinatur initium durationis eius quod est in principio, sicut ex voluntate Dei determinatur initium durationis creaturae: unde prius fuit Deus quam creatura. Nihil autem horum trium in generatione divini verbi invenitur. Non enim Deus primo fuit quam inceperit generare verbum: cum enim generatio verbi nihil aliud sit quam intelligibilis conceptio, sequeretur quod Deus esset prius intelligens in potentia quam in actu, quod est impossibile. Similiter non potest esse quod ipsa verbi generatio sit successiva: sic enim divinum verbum prius esset informe quam formatum, sicut accidit in nobis, qui cogitando verba formamus; quod est falsum, ut iam dictum est. Similiter non potest dici quod pater sua voluntate initium durationis filio suo praestiterit; quia Deus pater non generat filium voluntate, ut Ariani dixerunt, sed naturaliter: Deus enim pater seipsum intelligendo, verbum concepit, et ideo non ante fuit Deus pater quam filius. Huius aliqualis similitudo apparet in igne, et in splendore procedente ab igne: procedit enim splendor naturaliter et sine successione. Item si ignis esset aeternus, splendor eius coaeternus esset: propter quod filius dicitur splendor patris; ad Hebr. I, 3: qui cum sit splendor gloriae et cetera. Sed in hac similitudine deficit connaturalitas, et ideo nominamus eum filium, cum tamen in humana filiatione deficiat coaeternitas: oportet enim ex multis similitudinibus sensibilium in divinam cognitionem pervenire, quia una non sufficit; et hoc est quod dicitur in libro Ephesini Concilii, coexistere semper patri filium: splendor enim denunciat impassibilitatem, nativitas ostendit verbum, consubstantialitatem vero filii nomen insinuat. Nominamus ergo filium diversis nominibus, ad exprimendum perfectionem eius, quae uno nomine non potest exprimi. Ut enim ostendatur connaturalis patri, dicitur filius; ut ostendatur in nullo dissimilis, dicitur imago; ut ostendatur coaeternus, dicitur splendor; ut ostendatur immaterialiter genitus, dicitur verbum. Deinde dicit et verbum erat apud Deum. Hic ponitur secunda clausula, quam Evangelista ponit in sua narratione. Ubi prius consideranda est significatio duorum verborum quae in prima clausula posita non fuerunt, scilicet Deum et apud. Quid enim sit verbum, et quid principium, iam expositum est. Haec ergo quae in hac secunda clausula ponuntur de novo, scilicet Deum et apud, investigantes, diligentius prosequamur. Et ut melius expositionem huius secundae clausulae intelligamus, dicendum est aliquid de significatione utriusque, quantum pertinet ad propositum. Sciendum est ergo in primis quod hoc nomen Deus significat divinitatem, sed in supposito et concrete; hoc vero nomen deitas significat deitatem in abstracto, et absolute: et inde est quod non potest supponere pro persona ex naturali virtute et ex modo significandi; sed supponit solummodo pro natura. Hoc vero nomen Deus habet naturaliter ex modo significandi quod supponat pro aliqua personarum, sicut hoc nomen homo supponit pro supposito humanitatis, et ideo quandocumque veritas locutionis, vel ipsum praedicatum exigit ut hoc nomen Deus supponat pro persona, tunc supponit pro persona ut cum dicimus, Deus generat Deum. Et ita cum hic dicitur apud Deum, necesse est quod Deus pro persona patris supponat, quia haec praepositio apud distinctionem significat verbi, quod esse dicitur apud Deum; et licet significet distinctionem in persona, non tamen in natura, cum eadem sit natura patris et filii. Evangelista igitur significare voluit patris personam per hoc quod dixit Deum. Sciendum est autem circa hoc quod haec praepositio apud quamdam coniunctionem rei significatae per rectum, ad rem significatam per obliquum importat, sicut haec praepositio in. Sed differenter, quia haec praepositio in significat quamdam coniunctionem intrinsecam; haec vero praepositio apud quodammodo extrinsecam coniunctionem importat. Et utrumque dicimus in divinis: scilicet filium esse in patre, et esse apud patrem; et intrinsecum quidem ad consubstantialitatem pertinet, extrinsecum vero (ut sic loqui liceat, cum improprie in divinis dicatur extrinsecum) non nisi ad distinctionem personalem refertur, cum filius a patre solum per originem distinguatur. Et ideo per utrumque istorum, et consubstantialitas in natura designatur, et distinctio in personis: consubstantialitas quidem, inquantum coniunctionem quamdam importat; distinctio vero, inquantum distinctionem quamdam significat, ut superius dictum est. Et quia haec praepositio in, ut dictum est, principaliter consubstantialitatem designat, inquantum importat coniunctionem intrinsecam, et ex consequenti distinctionem personarum, inquantum omnis praepositio est transitiva; haec autem praepositio apud distinctionem personalem significat principaliter, consubstantialitatem vero, inquantum quamdam coniunctionem significat quasi extrinsecam, ideo Evangelista in hoc loco specialiter ista praepositione apud usus est, ut distinctionem personae filii a patre insinuaret, cum dixit et verbum erat apud Deum, idest filius apud patrem, ut alia persona apud aliam. Sciendum est autem quod per hanc praepositionem apud quatuor significantur, per quae obiectiones quatuor contrariae excluduntur. Significat enim haec praepositio apud primo subsistentiam in recto; quia ea quae subsistentiam per se non habent, non dicuntur proprie esse apud aliquid: sicut non dicimus albedinem esse apud corpus, et similiter de aliis quae per se non subsistunt. Ea autem quae per se subsistunt, dicuntur proprie esse unum apud aliud; sicut dicimus hominem esse apud hominem, et lapidem apud lapidem. Secundo significat auctoritatem in obliquo, non enim proprie dicitur rex esse apud militem sed proprie dicitur miles apud regem. Tertio dicit distinctionem: non enim proprie dicitur aliquis esse apud seipsum, sed unus homo est apud alium. Quarto significat coniunctionem et societatem quamdam: cum enim dicitur aliquis esse apud alium, insinuatur nobis inter eos quaedam socialis coniunctio. Secundum autem istas conditiones importatas in significatione huius praepositionis apud convenienter Evangelista hanc clausulam, scilicet verbum erat apud Deum, subiungit primae clausulae, scilicet in principio erat verbum. Praetermissa namque una illarum trium expositionum huius quod est in principio erat verbum, illa scilicet secundum quam principium ponitur pro filio, ad quamlibet aliarum expositionum, scilicet ad illam quae principium dicit idem quod ante omnia, et ad illam secundum quam principium sumitur pro patre, duplex obiectio fit ab haereticis; et sic sunt quatuor obiectiones, quas per quatuor conditiones huius praepositionis apud supra positas excludere possumus. Quarum prima talis est: tu dicis quod verbum erat in principio, idest ante omnia; sed ante omnia nihil erat; ubi ergo erat verbum, si ante omnia nihil erat? Haec autem obiectio procedit secundum imaginationem eorum qui ponunt, omne quod est, esse alicubi et in loco. Quae quidem excluditur a Ioanne, cum dicit apud Deum. Et designat coniunctionem secundum ultimam dictarum conditionum, ut sit sensus, secundum Basilium: ubi ergo erat verbum? Respondet apud Deum, non in aliquo loco, cum incircumscriptibile sit, sed apud patrem, qui nullo comprehenditur loco. Secunda quaestio ad idem, est talis: tu dicis quod verbum erat in principio, idest ante omnia. Sed ea quae sunt ante omnia, a nullo videntur procedere; cum illud a quo procedit aliquid, prius esse videatur eo quod procedit ab ipso; ergo verbum non est procedens ab alio. Haec autem obiectio excluditur cum dicit verbum erat apud Deum, ut ly apud accipiatur secundum secundam conditionem, secundum quam importat auctoritatem in causali, et sit sensus secundum Hilarium: a quo est verbum si ante omnia? Evangelista respondet verbum erat apud Deum; quasi dicat: licet verbum careat initio durationis, non tamen caret principio vel auctore: erat enim apud Deum, ut apud auctorem. Tertia quaestio est ad aliam expositionem secundum quam principium supponit pro patre; quae talis est: tu dicis in principio erat verbum, idest filius erat in patre; sed illud quod est in aliquo, non videtur esse subsistens, ut hypostasis: sicut albedo quae est in corpore, non subsistit. Sed haec obiectio solvitur per hoc quod dicit verbum erat apud Deum; ut ly apud sumatur secundum primam conditionem per quam importat subsistentiam in recto; et sic, secundum Chrysostomum, est sensus verbum erat in principio, non ut accidens: sed erat apud Deum, ut subsistens, et hypostasis divina. Quarta quaestio ad idem est talis: tu dicis quod verbum erat in principio, idest in patre; quod autem est in aliquo, non est distinctus a patre. Sed haec obiectio excluditur per hoc quod dicit et verbum erat apud Deum; ut ly apud sumatur secundum tertiam conditionem, secundum quam significat distinctionem: ut sit sensus, secundum Alcuinum et Bedam, verbum erat apud Deum, et sic erat in patre per consubstantialitatem naturae, quod tamen est apud ipsum per distinctionem personae. Sic ergo per hanc clausulam et verbum erat apud Deum, ostenditur coniunctio verbi ad patrem in natura, secundum Basilium; distinctio autem in persona, secundum Alcuinum et Bedam; substantia verbi in natura divina, secundum Chrysostomum; auctoritas patris ad verbum, secundum Hilarium. Notandum autem, secundum Origenem, quod per hoc quod dicit verbum erat apud Deum, ostendit filium semper fuisse apud patrem. In veteri enim testamento dicitur factum esse verbum domini ad Ieremiam, vel quemcumque alium, ut patet in multis Scripturae locis, non autem dicitur: verbum domini erat apud Ieremiam vel apud alium; quia ad illos fit verbum, qui incipiunt habere verbum, postquam non habuerunt. Unde Evangelista non dixit, verbum factum esse apud patrem, sed erat apud patrem: quia ex quo pater erat, verbum apud eum erat. Deinde dicit et Deus erat verbum. Haec est tertia clausula narrationis Ioannis, quae quidem secundum ordinem doctrinae congruentissime sequitur. Quia enim Ioannes dixerat de verbo quando erat et ubi erat; restabat quaerere, quid erat verbum; idest verbum erat Deus, ut ly verbum ponatur ex parte subiecti, et ly Deus ex parte praedicati. Sed cum prius quaerendum sit de re quid est, quam ubi et quando sit, videtur quod Ioannes hunc ordinem pervertat, insinuans primo de verbo ubi et quando sit. Ad hanc autem quaestionem respondet Origenes, quod aliter dicitur esse verbum Dei apud hominem, et aliter apud Deum. Nam apud hominem est ut perficiens ipsum, quia per illud homo efficitur sapiens et bonus, Sap. c. VII, 27: amicos Dei et prophetas constituit. Apud Deum vero non ita dicitur esse verbum, quasi pater perficiatur per verbum et illustretur ab ipso; sed sic est apud Deum, quod accipiat naturalem divinitatem ab ipso, qui verbum loquitur, a quo habet ut sit idem Deus cum eo. Ex eo ergo quod est per originem apud Deum, necesse fuit primum ostendere quod verbum erat in patre et apud patrem, quam quod verbum erat Deus. Sciendum est autem quod per hanc clausulam Deus erat verbum, responderi potest duabus obiectionibus, quae ex praecedentibus insurgunt. Quarum una insurgit ex nomine verbi, et est talis: tu dicis quod verbum erat in principio, et apud Deum; constat autem quod verbum secundum communem usum loquendi significat vocem aliquam et enuntiationem necessariorum, manifestationem cogitationum; sed ista transeunt et non subsistunt; posset ergo credi quod de tali verbo Evangelista loqueretur. Sed ista quaestio satis per praedicta excluditur, secundum Hilarium et Augustinum, Hom. prima super Io., qui dicit, manifestum esse, verbum in hoc loco non posse pro locutione accipi, quia cum locutio sit in motu et transeat, non posset dici quod in principio erat verbum, si verbum esset quid transiens et in motu. Item cum dicit et verbum erat apud Deum, datur idem intelligi; satis enim patet quod aliud est inesse, et aliud est adesse. Verbum enim nostrum, cum non subsistat, non adest, sed inest; verbum autem Dei est subsistens, et ideo adest. Et idcirco Evangelista signanter dixit verbum erat apud Deum. Sed tamen, ut obiectionis causa tollatur totaliter, naturam et esse verbi subdit, dicens et verbum erat Deus. Alia quaestio insurgit ex hoc quod dixerat apud Deum. Cum enim ly apud dicat distinctionem, posset credi quod verbum erat apud Deum, scilicet patrem, ab ipso in natura distinctum. Et ideo ad hoc excludendum statim subdit consubstantialitatem verbi ad patrem, dicens et verbum erat Deus; quasi dicat: non separatus a patre per diversitatem naturae, quia ipsum verbum est Deus. Nota etiam specialem modum significandi, quia dicit verbum erat Deus, absolute ponendo Deum; ut ostendat non eo modo Deum esse, quo nomen deitatis attribui dicitur creaturae in sacra Scriptura; quia cum additione aliqua aliquando hoc nomen creatura participat. Sicut illud Ex. VII, 1: ego constitui te Deum Pharaonis, ad designandum quod non erat Deus simpliciter, nec per naturam, quia constituebatur Deus alicuius determinate; et illud Ps. LXXXI, 6: ego dixi, dii estis, quasi dicat: per meam reputationem, non secundum rei veritatem, dii estis: aliud enim est Deum reputari, et aliud esse Deum. Unde verbum absolute dicitur Deus, quia est secundum essentiam suam Deus, et non participative, sicut homines et Angeli. Sciendum est etiam quod circa hanc clausulam Origenes turpiter erravit, ex modo loquendi, qui in Graeco habetur, sumens occasionem sui erroris. Consuetudo enim est apud Graecos, quod cuilibet nomini apponunt articulum, ad designandum discretionem quamdam. Quia ergo in Evangelio Ioannis in Graeco, huic nomini quod est verbum, cum dicitur in principio erat verbum, et similiter huic nomini quod est Deus, cum dicitur et verbum erat apud Deum, apponitur articulus, ut dicatur ly verbum, et ly Deus, ad designandum eminentiam et discretionem verbi ad alia verba, et principalitatem patris in divinitate; ideo, cum in hoc quod dicitur verbum erat Deus, non apponatur articulus huic nomini Deus, quod supponit pro persona filii, blasphemavit Origenes quod verbum non esset Deus per essentiam, licet sit essentialiter verbum; sed dicitur per participationem Deus: solus vero pater est Deus per suam essentiam. Et sic ponebat filium patre minorem. Quod autem non sit verum, probat Chrysostomus per hoc quod si articulus positus huic nomini Deus, importaret maioritatem in patre respectu filii, numquam apponeretur huic nomini Deus, cum de alio praedicatur, sed solum quando praedicatur de patre, et semper cum dicitur de patre, apponeretur articulus. Invenimus autem contrarium per duas auctoritates apostoli, qui notat Christum Deum cum appositione articuli, dicens in Epist. ad Titum, II, 13: expectantes beatam spem, et adventum gloriae magni Dei. Ibi enim Deus supponit pro filio, et apponitur ei articulus in Graeco; ergo Christus est Deus magnus. Item idem apostolus, Rom. IX, 5, dicit: ex quibus Christus, qui est super omnia Deus benedictus in saecula. Ibi similiter ad ly Deus ponitur in Graeco articulus. Praeterea I Io. ult., 20: ut simus in vero filio eius Christo Iesu; hic est verus Deus, et vita aeterna. Christus ergo non est Deus per participationem, sed verus. Patet igitur esse falsum quod Origenes finxit. Ratio autem quare Evangelista non apposuit articulum huic nomini Deus, assignatur a Chrysostomo; scilicet quia iam bis nominaverat Deum cum appositione articuli, et ideo non oportebat reiterare tertio, sed subintelligitur. Vel dicendum est et melius, quod Deus ponitur hic in praedicato, et tenetur formaliter; consuetum est autem quod nominibus in praedicato positis non ponitur articulus, cum discretionem importet. Si vero Deus poneretur hic ex parte subiecti, pro quacumque persona supponeret, sive pro filio sive pro spiritu sancto; et tunc non est dubium quod in Graeco ibi apponeretur articulus.
1:2
Deinde dicit hoc erat in principio apud Deum. Hic ponitur quarta clausula, quae introducitur propter clausulam praecedentem. Ex hoc enim quod Evangelista dixerat quod verbum erat Deus, duplex falsus intellectus accipi poterat a non recte sentientibus. Unus a gentilibus, qui ponunt pluralitatem et diversitatem deorum, et eorum contrarias dicunt esse voluntates; sicut illi qui fabulantur Iovem pugnasse cum Saturno; et sicut Manichaei, qui ponunt duo contraria principia naturae. Contra hunc errorem dominus dixit, Deut. VI, 4: audi Israel, dominus Deus tuus, Deus unus est. Quia ergo Evangelista dixerat verbum erat apud Deum, et Deus erat verbum, possent isti in fulcimentum sui erroris istud adducere, intelligentes alium esse Deum, apud quem est verbum, et alium ipsum verbum, et cum hoc alterius, sive contrariae voluntatis; quod est contra legem Evangelii. Ad hoc ergo excludendum dicit hoc erat in principio apud Deum; quasi dicat, secundum Hilarium: ita dico quod verbum est Deus, quod tamen non est habens divinitatem, sed est apud Deum, scilicet in una natura et eadem in qua ipse est. Item per hoc quod dicit, verbum erat Deus ne intelligeretur quod haberent contrariam voluntatem, addidit hoc, quod scilicet verbum erat in principio apud Deum scilicet patrem; non divisum ab ipso, non contrarium, sed habens cum eo identitatem naturae et concordiam voluntatis: quae quidem unio fit per communionem divinae naturae in tribus personis, et per nexum naturalis amoris patris et filii. Alius error poterat ex praemissis verbis elici ab Arianis, qui ponunt filium minorem esse quam pater, propter hoc quod dicitur: pater maior me est. Dicunt enim patrem maiorem filio, et quantum ad aeternitatem, et quantum ad naturae divinitatem. Ut ergo Evangelista excluderet, addidit hoc erat in principio apud Deum. Arius enim primam clausulam, scilicet in principio erat verbum, admittit: non tamen vult quod ibi principium accipiatur pro patre, sed pro principio creaturarum. Unde dicit quod verbum erat in principio creaturarum, et ideo nequaquam patri est coaeternus. Sed hoc excluditur, secundum Chrysostomum, per illam clausulam hoc erat in principio, non quidem creaturarum, sed in principio apud Deum; idest ex quo Deus fuit. Numquam enim pater solitarius fuit a filio, sive verbo, sed semper hoc, scilicet verbum, apud Deum erat. Item, Arius confitetur quod verbum erat Deus, sed tamen minor patre. Sed hoc excluditur per ea quae sequuntur. Duo enim sunt propria magni Dei, quae Arius Deo patri singulariter attribuebat, scilicet aeternitas et omnipotentia. In quocumque ergo ista duo inveniuntur, ille est magnus Deus, quo nullus est maior; sed haec duo Evangelista verbo attribuit; ergo verbum est magnus Deus, et non minor. Aeternitatem quidem dicit esse in verbo per hoc quod dicit hoc erat in principio apud Deum; idest verbum ab aeterno, non solum in principio creaturarum, ut Arius intellexit, erat, sed apud Deum, accipiens esse et divinitatem ab eo. Omnipotentiam vero attribuit verbo per hoc quod subdit omnia per ipsum facta sunt. Origenes vero hanc eamdem clausulam satis pulchre exponens, dicit ipsam non esse aliam a tribus primis; sed ipsam esse quemdam epilogum praemissorum. Evangelista enim postquam insinuaverat veritatem esse filii, transiturus ad eius insinuandum virtutem, recolligit, quasi in summa epilogando, in quarta clausula, quod in primis tribus praedixerat. Primo enim per hoc quod dicit hoc, intelligit tertiam clausulam; per hoc vero quod dicit erat in principio, recolligit primam; per hoc vero quod subdit erat apud Deum, recolligit secundam, ut sic non intelligas aliud verbum, quod erat in principio et quod erat Deus; sed hoc verbum, quod erat Deus, erat in principio apud Deum. Si quis ergo recte consideret has quatuor propositiones, inveniet evidenter per eas destrui omnes haereticorum et philosophorum errores. Quidam enim haeretici, sicut Ebion et Cerinthus, dixerunt, Christum non praeextitisse beatae virgini, sed ab ea sumpsisse essendi et durationis principium, ponentes eum fuisse hominem purum, sed meruisse divinitatem per bona merita. Quod etiam Photinus et Paulus Samosatenus eos secuti dixerunt. Horum errorem Evangelista excludit, dicens in principio erat verbum, idest ante omnia, et in patre ab aeterno; ergo non sumpsit initium ex virgine. Sabellius vero, licet fateretur quod Deus qui carnem suscepit, ex virgine non sumpsit initium, sed fuit ab aeterno, tamen dicebat quod non erat alia persona patris, qui fuit ab aeterno, et filii, qui carnem assumpsit ex virgine, sed idem erat pater et filius personaliter; Trinitatem personarum in divinis confundens. Contra hunc errorem dicit Evangelista et verbum erat apud Deum, scilicet filius apud patrem, ut alius apud alium. Eunomius vero posuit filium omnino dissimilem esse patri: et hoc consequenter Evangelista excludit, dicens et Deus erat verbum. Arius vero dicebat filium patre minorem; sed hoc excludit Evangelista cum dicit hoc erat in principio apud Deum, quod supra fuit expositum. Per hoc etiam excluduntur errores philosophorum. Quidam enim philosophorum antiqui, scilicet naturales, ponebant mundum non ex aliquo intellectu, neque per aliquam rationem, sed a casu fuisse; et ideo a principio rationem non posuerunt seu intellectum aliquam causam rerum, sed solam materiam fluitantem, utpote athomos, sicut Democritus posuit, et alia huiusmodi principia materialia, ut alii posuerunt. Contra hos est quod Evangelista dicit in principio erat verbum, a quo res scilicet principium sumpserunt et non a casu. Plato autem posuit rationes omnium rerum factarum subsistentes, separatas in propriis naturis, per quarum participationem res materiales essent: puta per rationem hominis separatam, quam dicebat per se hominem, haberent quod sint homines. Sic ergo ne hanc rationem, per quam omnia facta sunt, intelligas rationes separatas a Deo, ut Plato ponebat, addit Evangelista et verbum erat apud Deum. Alii etiam Platonici, ut Chrysostomus refert, ponebant Deum patrem eminentissimum, et primum, sub quo ponebant mentem quamdam, in qua dicebant esse similitudines et ideas omnium rerum. Ne ergo sic intelligas, quod verbum erat apud patrem, quasi sub eo et minor eo, addit Evangelista et verbum erat Deus. Aristoteles vero posuit in Deo rationes omnium rerum, et quod idem est in Deo intellectus et intelligens et intellectum; tamen posuit mundum coaeternum sibi fuisse. Et contra hoc est quod Evangelista dicit hoc, scilicet verbum solum, erat in principio apud Deum; ita quod ly hoc non excludit aliam personam, sed aliam naturam coaeternam. Nota etiam in praedictis differentiam Ioannis ab aliis Evangelistis, quomodo scilicet dignius Evangelium suum incepit, quam alii. Ipsi enim annuntiaverunt Christum filium Dei ex tempore natum; Matth. II, 1: cum natus esset Iesus in Bethlehem. Ioannes vero dicit eum ab aeterno fuisse, in principio, inquit, erat verbum. Ipsi etiam dicunt eum subito inter homines apparuisse; Lc. II, 29: nunc dimittis servum tuum, domine, secundum verbum tuum in pace; quia viderunt oculi mei salutare tuum, quod parasti ante faciem omnium populorum, lumen ad revelationem gentium, et gloriam plebis tuae, Israel. Ioannes vero dicit eum apud patrem semper fuisse. Et verbum, inquit, erat apud Deum. Alii vero ipsum hominem; Matth. IX, v. 8: glorificabant Deum, qui potestatem talem hominibus dedit. Ioannes vero dicit ipsum esse Deum. Et verbum, inquit, erat Deus. Alii dixerunt eum fuisse cum hominibus conversatum; Matth. XVII, 21: conversantibus autem illis in Galilaea, dixit Iesus etc.; sed Ioannes dicit eum apud patrem semper fuisse. Hoc, inquit, erat in principio apud Deum. Nota etiam quod Evangelista signanter recitat hoc verbum erat, ut ostendat verbum Dei omnia tempora, scilicet praesens, praeteritum et futurum, excedere. Quasi dicat: erat ultra tempus praesens, praeteritum et futurum, secundum quod tangitur in Glossa. Postquam Evangelista esse et naturam divini verbi, quantum dici potest ab homine, insinuaverat, consequenter manifestat eius virtutem. Et primo ostendit eius virtutem quantum ad omnia, quae in esse procedunt; secundo specialiter quantum ad homines, ibi erat vita lux hominum. Circa primum ponit tres clausulas, quas non distinguimus ad praesens, quia secundum diversas expositiones sanctorum sunt diversimode distinguendae. Prima ergo clausula est omnia per ipsum facta sunt; quae inducitur ad ostendendum tria de verbo. Et primo, secundum Chrysostomum, ad ostendendum aequalitatem verbi ad patrem. Sicut enim dictum est supra, Evangelista excluserat errorem Arii, ostendens coaeternitatem filii ad patrem per hoc quod dixerat hoc erat in principio apud Deum, hic vero eumdem errorem excludit, ostendendo omnipotentiam filii, dicens, omnia per ipsum facta sunt. Esse enim principium omnium factorum proprium est Dei magni omnipotentis, iuxta illud Ps. CXXXIV, 6: omnia quaecumque dominus voluit, fecit in caelo et in terra. Verbum ergo per quod facta sunt omnia, est Deus magnus et coaequalis patri. Secundo, ad ostendendum coaeternitatem verbi ad patrem, secundum Hilarium. Quia enim per hoc quod dixerat in principio erat verbum, posset aliquis intelligere hoc dictum fuisse de principio creaturarum, id est fuisse aliquod tempus ante omnem creaturam, in quo verbum non erat, ideo hoc excludens Evangelista dixit omnia per ipsum facta sunt. Si enim omnia sunt facta per verbum ergo et ipsum tempus. Ex quo sic argumentatur: si omne tempus ab ipso factum est; ergo nullum tempus fuit ante ipsum; nec cum ipso; quia ante omnia erat; ergo sunt ab aeterno coaeterni. Tertio, secundum Augustinum, ad ostendendam consubstantialitatem verbi ad patrem. Si enim facta omnia sunt per verbum, ergo ipsum verbum non potest dici factum: quia si est factum, est factum per aliquod verbum, quia omnia per verbum facta sunt. Oportet ergo esse aliud verbum, per quod verbum, de quo hic loquitur Evangelista, sit factum. Et illud verbum dicimus unigenitum Dei, per quem facta sunt omnia, quia nec factum est, nec creatura est; et si non est creatura, necesse est dicere ipsum esse eiusdem substantiae cum patre, cum omnis substantia praeter essentiam divinam facta sit. Substantia autem, quae creatura non est, Deus est. Verbum ergo, per quod omnia facta sunt, consubstantiale est patri, cum nec factum, nec creatura sit. Sic ergo habes verbi aequalitatem ad patrem, secundum Chrysostomum, coaeternitatem secundum Hilarium, et consubstantialitatem, secundum Augustinum per hoc quod dicit omnia per ipsum facta sunt. Cavendi sunt autem hic tres errores. Et primo error Valentini. Ipse enim intellexit per hoc quod dicitur omnia per ipsum facta sunt, quod verbum dederit causam creatori, quod mundum crearet, ut dicantur omnia sic per verbum facta, quasi ex verbo processerit quod pater mundum creavit. Et hoc videtur ducere in positionem illorum, qui dicebant Deum mundum fecisse propter aliquam exteriorem causam; quod est contra illud Prov. XVI, 4: universa propter semetipsum operatus est dominus. Sed hoc est falsum, quia, sicut Origenes dicit, si verbum fuisset causa creatori praestans ei materiam ad faciendum, non dixisset omnia per ipsum facta sunt, sed, e converso, omnia facta sunt per creatorem a verbo. Secundo vitandus est error Origenis, qui dicit spiritum sanctum, inter omnia, factum esse per verbum, ex quo sequitur ipsum esse creaturam: et hoc posuit Origenes. Hoc autem est haereticum et blasphemum, cum spiritus sanctus eiusdem sit gloriae et substantiae et dignitatis cum patre et filio, iuxta illud Matth. ult., 19: docete omnes gentes, baptizantes eos in nomine patris, et filii, et spiritus sancti; et iuxta illud I Io. V, v. 7: tres sunt qui testimonium dant in caelo, pater, verbum et spiritus sanctus: et hi tres unum sunt. Cum ergo dicit Evangelista omnia per ipsum facta sunt, non est intelligendum simpliciter facta omnia, sed in genere creaturarum et rerum factarum. Quasi dicat: omnia, quae facta sunt, per ipsum facta sunt. Alias, si simpliciter intelligatur, sequeretur patrem et spiritum sanctum factos per ipsum: quod est blasphemum. Igitur nec pater, nec aliquid substantiale patri, per verbum factum est. Tertio vitandus est alius error ipsius Origenis. Ipse enim sic omnia facta esse per verbum dixit, sicut aliquid fit a maiori per minorem, quasi minor sit filius, et ut organum patris. Sed quod per hanc praepositionem per non significetur minoritas in obliquo, scilicet filio, seu verbo, patet ex pluribus Scripturae locis. Dicit enim apostolus, I Cor. I, 9, loquens de patre: fidelis Deus, per quem vocati estis in societatem filii eius. Si ille, per quem fit aliquid, habet superiorem, ergo et pater superiorem habebit; hoc autem est falsum; ergo per praepositionem per non significatur minoritas in filio, cum dicuntur omnia facta per ipsum. Ad maiorem autem evidentiam huius sciendum est, quod quando dicitur aliquid per aliquem fieri, haec praepositio per denotat causalitatem in obliquo, respectu operationis aliquo modo, sed diversimode. Cum enim operatio, secundum modum significandi, consideretur media inter operantem et operatum, potest considerari ipsa operatio dupliciter. Uno modo secundum quod exit ab operante, qui est causa ipsius actionis; alio modo secundum quod terminatur ad operatum. Quandoque ergo praepositio per significat causam operationis, secundum quod exit ab operante; quandoque autem, secundum quod terminatur ad operatum. Causam autem operationis, secundum quod exit ab operante, significat quando illud quod significatur per obliquum, est causa operanti quod operetur, vel efficiens, vel formalis. Formalis quidem, sicut ignis calefacit per calorem: est enim calor causa formalis calefactionis ignis. Causa vero movens, seu efficiens, ut secunda agentia operantur per prima, ut si dicam quod balivus operatur per regem, quia rex est causa efficiens balivo quod operetur. Et hoc modo intellexit Valentinus, omnia facta esse per verbum, ac si verbum esset causa conditori ut omnia faceret. Causalitatem vero operationis, secundum quod terminatur ad operatum, importat haec praepositio per, quando illud, quod significatur per ipsam causalitatem, non est causa ipsa quod operetur, sed est causa operationis, secundum quod terminatur ad operatum. Sicut cum dico carpentarius facit scamnum per securim, quae non est causa carpentario quod operetur, sed ponimus esse causam quod scamnum fiat ab operante. Sic ergo cum dicitur omnia per ipsum facta sunt; si ly per denotet efficientem causam, seu moventem patrem ad operandum, dicendum est quod pater nihil operatur per filium, sed per seipsum omnia operatur, ut dictum est. Si vero ly per denotet causam formalem, sic cum pater operetur per sapientiam suam, quae est sua essentia, operatur per suam sapientiam, sicut operatur per suam essentiam; et quia sapientia et virtus patris attribuitur filio, I Cor. I, 24, dicimus: Christum Dei virtutem, et Dei sapientiam, ideo appropriate dicimus quod pater omnia operatur per filium, idest per sapientiam suam. Et ideo dicit Augustinus quod hoc quod dicitur ex quo omnia, appropriatur patri; per quem omnia, filio; in quo omnia, spiritui sancto. Si vero ly per denotet causalitatem ex parte operati, tunc hoc quod dicimus patrem omnia operari per filium non est appropriatum verbo, sed proprium eius, quia hoc quod est causa creaturarum, habet ab alio, scilicet a patre, a quo habet esse. Nec tamen propter hoc sequitur ipsum esse instrumentum patris, licet omne quod movetur ab alio ad aliquid operandum, rationem instrumenti habeat. Cum autem dico aliquem operari per virtutem receptam ab alio, potest dupliciter intelligi. Uno modo quod eadem numero sit virtus et dantis, et accipientis: et hoc modo qui operatur per virtutem acceptam ab alio, non est minor, sed aequalis ei a quo accipit. Quia ergo pater eamdem virtutem, quam habet, dat filio, per quam filius operatur, cum dicitur pater operari per filium, propter hoc filius non est dicendum minor patre, neque instrumentum eius. Sed hoc sequitur in illis qui non eamdem virtutem accipiunt ab aliquo, sed aliam et creatam. Sic ergo patet quod nec spiritus sanctus, nec filius, est causa patri quod operetur, neque patris minister seu instrumentum, ut deliravit Origenes. Si autem recte considerentur verba praedicta omnia per ipsum facta sunt, evidenter apparet Evangelistam propriissime fuisse locutum. Quicumque enim aliquid facit, oportet quod illud praeconcipiat in sua sapientia, quae est forma et ratio rei factae: sicut forma in mente artificis praeconcepta est ratio arcae faciendae. Sic ergo Deus nihil facit nisi per conceptum sui intellectus, qui est sapientia ab aeterno concepta, scilicet Dei verbum, et Dei filius: et ideo impossibile est quod aliquid faciat nisi per filium. Unde Augustinus de Trinitate dicit quod verbum est ars plena omnium rationum viventium. Et sic patet quod omnia quae pater facit, facit per ipsum. Notandum autem, secundum Chrysostomum, quod omnia quae Moyses per multa enumerat in productione rerum a Deo, dicens: dixit dominus, fiat lux, et fiat firmamentum etc., haec omnia Evangelista excedens, uno verbo comprehendit, dicens omnia per ipsum facta sunt. Cuius ratio est quia Moyses tradere volebat emanationem creaturarum a Deo, et ideo sigillatim enumerat; Ioannes vero ad altiorem festinans materiam, in hoc libro intendit nos inducere specialiter in cognitionem ipsius creatoris.
1:3
Deinde dicit et sine ipso factum est nihil. Haec est secunda clausula quam quidam perverse intellexerunt, ut dicit Augustinus in Lib. de Nat. boni. Nam, ex hoc modo loquendi quo Ioannes hic utitur, ponens hoc quod dicitur nihil in fine orationis, crediderunt ipsum nihil teneri affirmative, quasi nihil sit aliquid, quod sine verbo factum sit; unde voluerunt quod haec clausula posita sit ab Evangelista ad excludendum aliquid quod a verbo non sit factum. Unde dicunt quod postquam Evangelista dixerat omnia per ipsum facta sunt, consequenter adiungit et sine ipso factum est nihil quasi dicat: ita dico omnia per ipsum facta esse, quod tamen sine ipso factum est aliquid, scilicet ipsum nihil. Ex hoc autem processit triplex haeresis, scilicet Valentini, qui, ut dicit Origenes, ponit multa principia, et ex illis principiis dicit procedere triginta saecula. Prima tamen principia quae ponit, sunt duo, scilicet profundum, quod vocat Deum patrem, et silentium. Ex his duobus dicit processisse decem saecula. Ex profundo autem, et silentio dicit esse alia duo principia, scilicet intellectum et veritatem, ex quibus processerunt octo saecula. Ex intellectu autem et veritate dicit esse alia duo principia, scilicet verbum et vitam, ex quibus procedunt duodecim saecula, et sic sunt triginta. Ex verbo autem et vita, secundum aevum, processit homo Christus, et Ecclesia. Sic ergo Valentinus ponebat prolationem verbi multa saecula praecessisse. Et ideo dicit quod, quia Evangelista dixerat omnia per ipsum facta sunt, ne aliquis intelligeret illa saecula praecedentia esse perfecta per verbum, consequenter adiunxit et sine ipso factum est nihil, idest omnia saecula praeexistentia et quae in eis fuerunt; quae ideo Ioannes vocat nihil, quia humanam rationem excedunt, nec possunt capi per intellectum. Secundus error, ex hoc procedens, fuit Manichaei, qui ponebat duo contraria principia, unum scilicet rerum incorruptibilium, et aliud corruptibilium. Dicit ergo quod postquam Ioannes dixerat omnia per ipsum facta sunt, ne crederetur verbum esse corruptibilium rerum causam, statim subiunxit et sine ipso factum est nihil, idest corruptioni subiecta, quae nihil esse dicuntur, quia eorum esse est continue transmutari in nihil. Tertius error est eorum qui volunt quod per nihil intelligatur Diabolus, iuxta illud Iob XVIII, 15: habitent in tabernaculo eius socii eius, qui non est. Dicunt ergo omnia esse facta per verbum, praeter Diabolum. Et ideo exponunt sine ipso factum est nihil, idest Diabolus. Sed omnes isti tres errores ex uno fonte procedentes, scilicet ex hoc quod ipsum nihil volunt affirmative accipi, excluduntur per hoc quod nihil non ponitur hic affirmative, sed negative tantum. Ut sit sensus: ita facta sunt omnia per verbum, quod nihil est participans esse, quod non sit factum per ipsum. Sed instabit forsitan aliquis, dicens hanc clausulam superflue fuisse appositam, si intelligatur negative, eo quod Evangelista dicens, omnia per ipsum facta sunt, sufficienter videtur dixisse non esse aliquid quod non sit factum per verbum. Ad quod dicendum quod secundum multos introducta est haec particula multipliciter, et multis de causis. Quarum una causa est, secundum Chrysostomum, ne aliquis legens in veteri testamento et inveniens solum visibilia enumerata a Moyse in creatione rerum, crederet illa tantum facta esse per verbum. Ideo Evangelista, dum dixisset omnia per ipsum facta sunt, quae scilicet enumerat Moyses, ideo consequenter adiunxit sine ipso factum est nihil; quasi dicat: nihil eorum quae sunt, sive visibile sive invisibile, est factum sine verbo. Et hoc modo loquitur apostolus, Col. I, 16, dicens omnia condita esse in Christo, sive visibilia, sive invisibilia: ubi apostolus specialiter mentionem facit de invisibilibus, quia de eis Moyses aperte mentionem non fecerat, propter ruditatem illius populi, qui supra sensibilia elevari non poterat. Introducitur etiam, secundum Chrysostomum, alio modo sic. Posset enim aliquis legens Evangelium, multa signa et miracula facta per Christum, sicut illud Matth. XI, 5: caeci vident, claudi ambulant, leprosi mundantur etc., credere per hoc quod dicit Ioannes omnia per ipsum facta sunt, debere intelligi omnia illa tantum quae in illis Evangeliis continentur, et nihil aliud factum per ipsum. Et ideo ne hoc suspicetur quis, consequenter Evangelista inducit et sine ipso factum est nihil; quasi dicat: non solum ea quae in Evangeliis continentur, sunt facta per ipsum, sed nihil eorum quae facta sunt, est factum sine ipso. Et sic, secundum Chrysostomum, haec particula introducitur ad ostendendum totalem causalitatem, et est quasi completiva praemissae. Secundum Hilarium vero introducitur haec particula ad ostendendum quod verbum habet virtutem operativam ab alio. Quia enim Evangelista dixerat omnia per ipsum facta sunt, posset intelligi patrem excludi ab omni causalitate; ideo consequenter addit et sine ipso factum est nihil. Quasi dicat: sic per eum facta sunt omnia, ut tamen pater cum eo omnia fecerit. Nam tantum valet sine eo, ac si dicatur non solus; ut sit sensus: non ipse solus est per quem facta sunt omnia, sed ipse est alius, sine quo factum est nihil. Quasi dicat sine ipso, cum alio operante, scilicet patre, factum est nihil; iuxta illud Prov. VIII, 30: cum eo eram cuncta componens. In quadam autem homilia quae incipit, vox spiritualis aquilae, et attribuitur Origeni, invenitur alia expositio satis pulchra. Dicitur enim ibi quod in Graeco est choris, ubi in Latino habemus sine. Choris autem idem est quod foris vel extra; quasi dicat ita omnia per ipsum facta sunt quod extra ipsum factum est nihil. Et ideo hoc dicit ut ostendat, per verbum et in verbo omnia conservari; iuxta illud Hebr. I, 3: portans omnia verbo virtutis suae. Quaedam enim sunt quae non indigent operante, nisi quantum ad fieri, cum possint subsistere postquam fuerunt facta, absque agentis influxu; sicut domus indiget quidem artifice quantum ad suum fieri, sed tamen persistit in suo esse absque artificis influentia. Ne ergo credat aliquis, omnia per verbum sic facta esse quod sit causa eorum quantum ad fieri solum, et non quantum ad conservationem in esse, ideo consequenter Evangelista subiunxit et sine ipso factum est nihil. Hoc est: nihil factum est extra ipsum, quia ipse ambit omnia, conservans ea. Exponitur autem haec particula secundum Augustinum et Origenem et plures alios sic ut per nihil intelligatur peccatum. Quia ergo cum diceret omnia per ipsum facta sunt, posset intelligi malum et peccatum per ipsum fieri; ideo consequenter adiunxit et nihil, idest peccatum, est factum sine ipso. Nam sicut ars non est principium seu causa alicuius defectus in artificiatis, sed per se est causa perfectionis ipsorum et formae, ita et verbum, quod est ars patris, plena rationum viventium, non est causa alicuius mali vel inordinationis in rebus, et praecipue mali culpae, quod habet perfectam rationem mali; sed huius mali causa per se est voluntas creaturae, sive hominis sive Angeli, libere declinans a fine, ad quem naturaliter ordinatur. Operans secundum artem, voluntarie errans, est causa defectuum incidentium in artificiatis, non per artem, sed per voluntatem. Unde in talibus ars non est principium seu causa defectuum, sed voluntas: et ideo malum est defectus voluntatis, et non artis alicuius: et ideo inquantum tale, nihil est. Sic ergo ista particula additur ad ostendendum ipsius verbi universalem causalitatem secundum Chrysostomum, societatem ad patrem, secundum Hilarium et virtutem verbi in conservando, secundum Origenem. Item puritatem causalitatis: quia sic est causa bonorum, quod non est causa peccati, secundum Augustinum et Origenem et plures alios. Deinde dicit quod factum est, in ipso vita erat. Hic ponitur tertia particula, ubi cavendus est falsus intellectus Manichaei, qui ex hoc verbo motus est ad dicendum quod omnia quae sunt, vivunt; puta lapis, lignum, et homo, et quicquid aliud est in mundo. Et punctabat sic: quod factum est in ipso, distingue, erat vita. Sed non erat vita nisi viveret; ergo quicquid factum est in ipso, vivit. Vult etiam quod in ipso idem sic ac si dicatur per ipsum, cum communiter in Scriptura in ipso, vel per ipsum accipiatur; sicut illud Col. I, 16: in ipso, et per ipsum condita sunt omnia. Sed hunc intellectum ista expositio ostendit esse falsum. Potest tamen sine errore multipliciter exponi. Nam in illa homilia vox spiritualis exponitur sic: quod factum est in ipso, idest per ipsum, hoc vita erat non in seipso sed in sua causa. In omnibus enim causatis hoc commune est, quod effectus, sive per naturam sive per voluntatem producti, sunt in suis causis non secundum proprium esse, sed secundum virtutem propriae suae causae; sicut effectus inferiores sunt in sole ut in causa, non secundum eorum esse, sed secundum virtutem solis. Quia ergo causa omnium effectuum productorum a Deo, est vita quaedam et ars plena rationum viventium, ideo omne, quod factum est in ipso, idest per ipsum, vita erat in sua causa, scilicet in ipso Deo. Augustinus autem aliter legit, sic punctando: quod factum est, distingue, in ipso vita erat. Res enim dupliciter considerari possunt, secundum scilicet quod sunt in seipsis et secundum quod sunt in verbo. Si considerentur secundum quod sunt in seipsis, sic non omnes res sunt vita nec etiam viventes, sed aliquae carent vita, aliquae vivunt. Sicut facta est terra, facta sunt etiam et metalla, quae nec vita sunt, nec vivunt; facta sunt animalia, facti sunt homines, quae secundum quod sunt in seipsis, non sunt vita, sed vivunt solum. Si vero considerentur secundum quod sunt in verbo, non solum sunt viventes, sed etiam vita. Nam rationes in sapientia Dei spiritualiter existentes, quibus res factae sunt ab ipso verbo, sunt vita: sicut arca facta per artificem in se quidem nec vivit nec vita est, ratio vero arcae, quae praecessit in mente artificis, vivit quodammodo, inquantum habet esse intelligibile in mente artificis, non tamen est vita, quia per ipsum intelligere artificis non est in sua essentia, neque suum esse. In Deo autem suum intelligere est sua vita et sua essentia: et ideo quicquid est in Deo, non solum vivit sed est ipsa vita, quia quicquid est in Deo, est sua essentia. Unde creatura in Deo est creatrix essentia. Si ergo considerentur res secundum quod in verbo sunt, vita sunt. Hanc expositionem habes alibi. Origenes vero super Ioannem legit hoc aliter, punctando sic: quod factum est in ipso, distingue, vita erat. Ubi notandum est quod de filio Dei dicitur aliquid, secundum se, sicut dicitur Deus omnipotens, et huiusmodi; aliquid vero dicitur de eo per comparationem ad nos, sicut salvator et redemptor; aliquid vero utroque modo, sicut sapientia et iustitia. In omnibus autem quae absolute et secundum se de filio dicuntur, non dicitur quod sit factus, sicut non dicitur filius factus Deus, neque omnipotens; sed in illis quae dicuntur in comparatione ad nos, seu utroque modo, potest addi adiunctio facti, ut dicatur secundum illud I Cor. I, 30: qui factus est nobis a Deo sapientia, et iustificatio, et sanctificatio, et redemptio. Et sic, licet semper fuerit in seipso sapientia et iustitia, tamen potest dici quod de novo factus est nobis iustitia et sapientia. Secundum hoc ergo Origenes exponens dicit quod quamvis in seipso sit vita, tamen nobis factus est vita per hoc quod nos vivificavit, iuxta illud I Cor. XV, 22: sicut in Adam omnes moriuntur, ita et in ipso omnes vivificabuntur.
1:4
Et ideo dicit quod verbum quod factum est nobis vita, in ipso vita erat, ut quandoque nobis fieret vita; et ideo statim subdit et vita erat lux hominum. Hilarius enim sic punctat et sine ipso factum est nihil, quod factum est in ipso, et postea dicatur vita erat. Quia ipse dicit in II de Trin. cum dicit Evangelista et factum est nihil, posset esse ambiguum an quaedam alia adhuc quae per ipsum facta sunt, fuerunt facta non per ipsum, non tamen sine ipso; sed in eis associavit facientem; et hanc clausulam esse additam ad correptionem praecedentis. Ne ergo hoc intelligeretur, ideo Evangelista cum dixisset omnia per ipsum facta sunt, subiungit et sine ipso factum est nihil, quod tamen factum est in ipso, idest per ipsum: et ratio huius est, quia vita erat. Manifestum est enim quod hoc modo omnia dicuntur per verbum facta, inquantum verbum ex patre procedens est Deus. Ponamus autem quod aliquis pater filium habeat, qui non sit perfecte habens operationes hominis, sed paulatim ad hoc perveniat, manifestum est quod multa faciet, non per ipsum filium, licet non sine eo. Quia ergo filius Dei eamdem vitam habuit ab aeterno, quam et pater, secundum illud infra V, 26: sicut pater habet vitam in semetipso, sic dedit et filio vitam habere in semetipso, ideo non potest dici quod Deus pater, etsi nihil fecerit sine filio, tamen fecit aliqua non per ipsum, quia vita erat. In viventibus enim quae vitam participant, potest contingere quod vita imperfecta praecedat vitam perfectam; sed in per se vita, quae non participat vitam, sed est absolute et simpliciter vita, nullo modo potest imperfectio aliqua esse. Quia ergo verbum est per se vita, numquam fuit in eo vita imperfecta, sed semper perfecta; et ideo ita nihil factum est sine eo, quod tamen non sit factum in ipso, idest per ipsum. Chrysostomus autem aliud modum legendi habet, et punctat sic: et sine ipso factum est nihil quod factum est. Et ratio huius est, quia aliquis posset credere quod spiritus sanctus esset factus per verbum. Et ideo Evangelista hoc volens excludere dicit quod factum est, quia spiritus sanctus non est quid factum; et postea sequitur in ipso vita erat; quod introducitur propter duo. Unum est ut post productionem omnium rerum ostendatur indeficientia causalitatis ad res non solum productas, sed etiam producendas. Quasi dicat in ipso vita erat, qua scilicet non solum omnia producere potuit, sed etiam quae habet indeficientem fluxum et causalitatem absque mutationis dispendio ad res continue producendas, utpote fons vivus qui non minoratur ex fluxu continuo; aqua vero collecta et non viva, cum defluit, minoratur et deficit; unde dicitur in Ps. XXXV, 10: apud te est fons vitae. Secundum est ut ostendatur gubernatio rerum esse per verbum. Quia enim in ipso vita erat, ostenditur quod non produxit res per necessitatem naturae, sed per voluntatem et intellectum, et quod res productas gubernat; Hebr. IV, 12: vivus est sermo Dei et cetera. Et quia apud Graecos Chrysostomus est tantae auctoritatis in suis expositionibus, quod ubi ipse aliquid exposuit in sacra Scriptura, nullam aliam expositionem admittant, ideo in omnibus libris Graecis invenitur sic punctatum, sicut punctat Chrysostomus, scilicet hoc modo: sine ipso factum est nihil quod factum est.
1:5
Evangelista supra insinuavit virtutem verbi, secundum quam omnia produxit in esse; hic vero insinuat eius virtutem, secundum quam se habet ad homines, dicens, hoc verbum esse lucem hominibus. Ubi primo introducit nobis lucem quamdam, cum dicit et vita erat lux hominum; secundo lucis irradiationem, cum dicit et lux in tenebris lucet; tertio lucis participationem, cum dicit et tenebrae eam non comprehenderunt. Potest autem totum dupliciter exponi. Uno modo secundum influxum cognitionis naturalis; alio modo secundum communicationem gratiae. Dicit ergo quantum ad primum, quod vita erat lux hominum. Ubi primo considerandum est quod, secundum Augustinum et plures alios, nomen lucis magis proprie dicitur in spiritualibus quam in sensibilibus. Ambrosius tamen vult quod splendor metaphorice dicatur de Deo. Sed in hoc non est magna vis facienda: nam de quocumque nomen lucis dicatur ad manifestationem refertur, sive illa manifestatio sit in intelligibilibus, sive in sensibilibus. Si ergo comparentur manifestatio intelligibilis et sensibilis, secundum naturam prius invenitur lux in spiritualibus; sed quoad nos, qui nomina rebus imponimus ex earum proprietatibus nobis notis, prius invenitur in sensibilibus, quia prius impositum est a nobis hoc nomen ad significandum lucem sensibilem, quam intelligibilem; quamvis secundum virtutem prius et verius conveniat spiritualibus quam sensibilibus. Ad evidentiam autem eius quod dicitur et vita erat lux hominum, sciendum est quod multipliciter est gradus vitae. Quaedam namque vivunt, sed absque luce, quia nullam cognitionem habent, sicut sunt plantae: unde vita earum non est lux. Quaedam vero vivunt et cognoscunt; sed tamen eorum cognitio, cum sit sensus tantum, non est nisi particularium et materialium, sicut est in brutis: et ideo haec et vitam habent et lucem quamdam, sed non lucem hominum qui vivunt et cognoscunt non solum ipsa vera, sed ipsius veritatis rationem, sicut sunt creaturae rationales, quibus non solum manifestatur hoc vel illud, sed ipsa veritas quae manifestabilis est et manifestativa omnium. Et ideo Evangelista loquens de verbo dicit non solum esse vitam, sed etiam esse lucem, ne intelligas vitam sine agnitione; hominum autem ne tantum cognitionem sensibilem suspiceris, qualis est in brutis. Sed quare dixit hominum, cum etiam sit lux Angelorum? Ad hoc est duplex responsio. Chrysostomus enim dicit quod Evangelista intendebat in isto Evangelio tradere nobis cognitionem de verbo, secundum quod ad salutem hominum ordinatur; et ideo magis refert secundum suam intentionem ad homines quam ad Angelos. Origenes vero dicit quod participatio huius lucis pertinet ad homines, inquantum sunt rationalis naturae; et ideo Evangelista dicens erat lux hominum, voluit intelligi omnis rationalis naturae. In hoc etiam ostenditur perfectio et dignitas huius vitae, quia est intellectualis seu rationalis. Cum enim illa dicuntur viventia, quae se aliquo modo movent, illa dicuntur vitam habere perfectam, quae perfecte seipsa movent; movere autem seipsum perfecte et proprie, in inferioribus creaturis soli homini convenit. Nam etsi alia ex seipsis ab aliquo principio intrinseco moveantur, non tamen illud principium se habet ad opposita; et ideo ex necessitate moventur, et non libere. Mota igitur a tali principio magis aguntur quam agunt. Homo vero, cum sit dominus sui actus, libere se movet ad omnia quae vult; et ideo homo habet vitam perfectam, et similiter quaelibet intellectualis natura. Vita ergo verbi, quae est lux hominum, est vita perfecta. Attenditur etiam in praemissis verbis congruus ordo: nam in naturali rerum ordine primo invenitur esse, et hoc primo Evangelista insinuavit, dicens in principio erat verbum, secundo vivere, et hoc est quod sequitur in ipso vita erat, tertio intelligere, et hoc consequenter adiunxit vita erat lux hominum. Unde, secundum Origenem, convenienter vitae attribuit lucem, quia lux nonnisi viventi attribui potest. Est tamen notandum quod lux ad viventem dupliciter comparari potest, vel ut obiectum, vel ut participata, ut patet in visu exteriori. Oculus enim lucem exteriorem cognoscit tamquam obiectum, sed oportet ad hoc quod eam videat, quod participet aliquam lucem interiorem, per quam aptetur et disponatur oculus ad lucem exteriorem videndam. Sic ergo, quod hic dicit et vita erat lux hominum, dupliciter potest intelligi. Ut dicatur lux hominum per modum obiecti quasi a solis hominibus conspicabilis; quia ipsam sola rationalis creatura conspicere potest, cum ipsa sola divinae visionis sit capax (Iob XXXV, v. 11: docet nos super iumenta terrae, et super volucres caeli erudit nos); quia licet alia animalia cognoscant aliqua quae vera sunt, solus tamen homo ipsam rationem veritatis cognoscit. Potest etiam dici lux hominum participata. Numquam enim ipsum verbum et ipsam lucem conspicere possemus nisi per participationem eius, quae in ipso homine est, quae est superior pars animae nostrae, scilicet lux intellectiva, de qua dicitur in Ps. IV, 7: signatum est super nos lumen vultus tui, idest filii tui, qui est facies tua, qua manifestaris. Introduxit supra Evangelista lucem quamdam; nunc vero agit de ipsius irradiatione cum dicit lux in tenebris lucet. Quod quidem dupliciter exponi potest, secundum duplicem acceptionem tenebrarum. Primo vero accipiamus tenebras naturalem defectum, ac creatae mentis. Nam, ita se habet mens ad lucem istam, de qua hic loquitur Evangelista, sicut se habet aer ad lucem solis: quia, licet aer capax sit lucis solis, tamen, in se consideratus, tenebra est. Et secundum hoc sensus est: lux, idest vita illa, quae est lux hominum, in tenebris lucet, scilicet in animabus et mentibus creatis, irradiando semper omnes. Iob III, 23: viro cui abscondita est lux. Sed tenebrae eam non comprehenderunt, idest includere non potuerunt. Illud enim dicitur comprehendi, cuius fines concluduntur et conspiciuntur. Quia, sicut dicit Augustinus, attingere Deum mente, magna beatitudo est: comprehendere vero, impossibile est. Tenebrae ergo eam non comprehenderunt. Iob XXXVI, 26: ecce Deus magnus vincens scientiam nostram; Ier. XXXII, 19: magnus consilio et incomprehensibilis cogitatu. Et haec expositio habetur in illa homilia quae incipit vox spiritualis aquilae. Alio modo potest exponi accipiendo tenebras, secundum Augustinum, pro naturali insipientia hominum, quae tenebra dicitur. Eccle. II, 13: vidi quia tantum praecederet sapientia stultitiam, quantum differt lux a tenebris. Ex eo ergo aliquis insipiens est quod privatur lumine sapientiae divinae. Sicut ergo mentes sapientum participatione istius divinae lucis et sapientiae lucidae sunt, ita eius privatione tenebrae sunt. Quod ergo quidam tenebrosi sint, non est ex defectu istius lucis; quia, inquantum est de se, in tenebris lucet et omnes irradiat; sed ideo insipientes privati sunt ea luce, quia tenebrae eam non comprehenderunt, idest non apprehenderunt, ad ipsius participationem eorum insipientia pertingere non valentes, ut post elati non durantes. Iob XXXVI, 32: immanibus, idest superbis, abscondit lucem, idest lumen sapientiae, et annuntiat de ea amico suo, quod possessio eius sit, et ad eam possit ascendere; Baruch III, 23: viam autem sapientiae nescierunt, neque commemorati sunt semitas eius. Licet autem aliquae mentes sint tenebrosae, idest sapida et lucida sapientia privatae, nulla tamen adeo tenebrosa est quin aliquid lucis divinae participet. Quia quidquid veritatis a quocumque cognoscitur, totum est ex participatione istius lucis, quae in tenebris lucet, quia omne verum, a quocumque dicatur, a spiritu sancto est. Et tamen tenebrae, idest homines tenebrosi, eam non comprehenderunt, secundum veritatem. Sic ergo exponitur ista clausula, secundum Origenem et secundum Augustinum. Alio modo ab illo loco et vita erat lux hominum, exponitur secundum fluxum gratiae, qua irradiamur per Christum; et continuatur sic ad praecedentia. Supra egit Evangelista de creatione rerum per verbum, hic vero tractat de restauratione rationalis creaturae facta per Christum dicens: et vita, verbi, erat lux hominum, communiter, et non Iudaeorum tantum; quia filius Dei carnem assumere venit in mundum, ut illuminaret gratia et veritate omnes homines. Io. c. XVIII, 37: in hoc natus sum, et ad hoc veni, ut testimonium perhibeam veritati. Item, infra IX, 5: quamdiu in mundo sum, lux sum mundi. Et ideo non dicit lux Iudaeorum, quia licet olim tantum in Iudaea notus esset, tamen postea toti mundo innotuit; Is. XLIX, v. 6: dedi te in lucem gentibus, ut sis salus mundo usque ad extremum terrae. Congrue etiam coniungit lucem et vitam dicens et vita erat lux hominum, ut ostendat ista duo, lucem scilicet et vitam, nobis provenisse per Christum. Vitam quidem per participationem gratiae; infra: gratia et veritas per Iesum Christum facta est; lucem vero per cognitionem veritatis et sapientiae. Hoc autem quod dicit lux in tenebris lucet, potest secundum hanc expositionem exponi tripliciter, secundum quod tripliciter possumus accipere tenebras. Uno modo pro poena: nam quaelibet tristitia et afflictio cordis tenebra quaedam dici potest, sicut quodlibet gaudium lux; Mich. ult., v. 8: cum sedero in tenebris et in afflictionibus, dominus lux mea est, idest gaudium et consolatio. Dicit ergo Origenes: secundum hoc lux in tenebris lucet, idest Christus in mundum veniens, et corpus passibile et absque peccato habens in similitudinem carnis, secundum quod dicitur Rom. VIII, 3. Lux in carne, quae scilicet caro Christi, secundum quod in se habet similitudinem carnis peccati, tenebra dicitur. Quasi dicat: lux, idest verbum Dei circumvelatum tenebris carnis, luxit in mundum, secundum illud Ez. XXXII, 7: solem nube tegam. Secundo, accipiendo per tenebras Daemones, iuxta illud Eph. ult., 12: non est nobis colluctatio adversus carnem et sanguinem tantum, sed adversus principes et potestates, adversus mundi rectores tenebrarum harum. Secundum hoc dicit: lux, idest filius Dei, in tenebris lucet, idest in mundum descendit, ubi tenebrae, idest Daemones, dominabantur. Infra XII, 31: princeps huius mundi, eiicietur foras. Et tenebrae, idest Daemones, eam non comprehenderunt, idest eum obscurare non potuerunt tentando, ut patet Matth. IV. Tertio accipiendo tenebras errores sive ignorantias, quibus totus mundus ante adventum Christi plenus erat, secundum quod dicit apostolus: eratis aliquando tenebrae. Dicit ergo quod lux, idest verbum Dei incarnatum, in tenebris lucet, idest hominibus mundi, erroris et ignorantiae tenebris obscuratis. Lc. I, 79: illuminare his qui in tenebris et in umbra mortis sedent; et Is. IX, 2: populus qui sedebat in tenebris, vidit lucem magnam. Et tenebrae eum non comprehenderunt, idest non vicerunt. Quia quantumcumque homines peccatis obscurati, invidia excaecati, superbia tenebrosi, contra Christum pugnaverunt, ut patet ex Evangelio, exprobrando scilicet, iniurias et contumelias inferendo, et tandem occidendo, non tamen eum comprehenderunt; idest non vicerunt eum obscurando, quin eius claritas per totum mundum fulgeret. Sap. VII, 29: luci comparata invenitur prior: illi enim succedit nox, sapientiam autem, idest filium Dei incarnatum, non vincit malitia, Iudaeorum scilicet et haereticorum; quia, ut dicitur Sap. X, 12, certamen forte dedit illi, ut vinceret, et sciret quoniam omnium potentior est sapientia.
1:6
Supra Evangelista egit de verbi divinitate; in parte vero ista incipit agere de verbi incarnatione: et circa hoc duo facit. Primo agit de teste verbi incarnati seu praecursore; secundo de adventu verbi, ibi erat lux vera. Circa primum duo facit. Primo describit praecursorem in testimonium venientem; secundo ostendit eum ad salvandum insufficientem, ibi non erat ille lux. Praecursorem autem describit quadrupliciter. Primo a naturae conditione, cum dicit fuit homo; secundo ab auctoritate, cum dicit missus a Deo; tertio ab officii idoneitate, cum dicit cui nomen erat Ioannes; quarto ab officii dignitate, ibi hic venit. Considerandum autem est circa primum, quod statim cum Evangelista incipit de aliquo temporali, mutat modum loquendi. Cum enim supra loqueretur de aeternis, utebatur hoc verbo erat, quod est praeteriti imperfecti, ostendens per hoc, aeterna interminata esse; nunc vero, cum loquitur de temporalibus, utitur hoc verbo, fuit, ad ostendendum quod temporalia sic praeterierunt quod tamen terminantur. Dicit ergo fuit homo; per quod in principio excludit perversam opinionem haereticorum, contra conditionem seu naturam Ioannis, qui, propter id quod dominus, Matth. c. XI, 10, dicit de Ioanne: hic est de quo scriptum est: ecce mitto Angelum meum ante faciem meam, et etiam Mc. I, 2 dicitur de ipso, opinati sunt quod Ioannes fuisset natura Angelus. Quod excludens Evangelista dicit fuit homo, natura, non Angelus. Eccle. c. VI, 10: scitur quod sit homo, et quod non possit contra fortiorem se in iudicio contendere. Convenienter autem homo ad homines mittitur, per quem homines magis alliciuntur, utpote per sibi similem; unde dicitur Hebr. c. VII, 28: lex enim homines constituit sacerdotes infirmitatem habentes. Poterat enim Deus homines gubernare per Angelos; sed maluit per homines, ut ipsorum exemplo magis instruerentur. Et ideo Ioannes homo fuit, et non Angelus. Ex auctoritate quidem describitur, cum dicit missus a Deo. Equidem, licet Ioannes natura non fuerit Angelus, fuit tamen officio, quia missus a Deo. Proprium enim Angelorum officium est quod a Deo mittantur, et sint nuntii Dei; Hebr. I, 14: omnes sunt administratorii spiritus in ministerium missi, unde Angelus nuntius interpretatur. Possunt ergo homines, qui a Deo ad aliquid annuntiandum mittuntur, Angeli dici, iuxta illud Aggaei I, 13: dixit Aggaeus, nuntius domini ex nuntiis domini. Requiritur autem ad hoc quod aliquis testimonium de Deo perhibeat, quod sit a Deo missus; iuxta illud Rom. X, 15: quomodo praedicabunt nisi mittantur? Et quia cum a Deo mittuntur, non sua quaerunt, sed quae Iesu Christi II Cor. IV, 5: non enim praedicamus nosmetipsos, sed Iesum Christum: qui vero mittitur a seipso, non a Deo, sua quaerit, vel quae sunt hominis, non autem quae Christi, ideo hic dicitur fuit homo missus a Deo: ut intelligas quia non annuntiavit nisi divinum, non humanum. Nota autem, quod tripliciter invenimus aliquos missos a Deo. Scilicet per internam inspirationem, sicut Is. XLVIII, 16: et nunc misit me dominus, et spiritus eius; quasi dicat: per interiorem spiritus inspirationem sum a Deo missus. Item, per expressam et apertam iussionem sive corporalem, sive imaginariam. Et sic iterum missus est Isaias; unde dicit ibid. VI, 8: audivi vocem domini dicentis: quem mittam, et quis ibit nobis? Et dixi: ecce ego, mitte me. Item, per praelati iniunctionem, qui gerit in hoc personam Dei; II Cor. II, 10: nam et ego, si quid donavi propter vos in persona Christi. Et inde est quod qui mittuntur a praelato, mittuntur a Deo, sicut missi fuerunt ab apostolo Barnabas et Timotheus. Cum autem dicitur hic fuit homo missus a Deo, intelligendum est per interiorem inspirationem; vel etiam forte per exteriorem iussionem a Deo eum missum fuisse. Infra: qui misit me, ipse dixit: super quem videris spiritum descendentem et manentem super eum, hic est qui baptizat in spiritu sancto. Per hoc etiam quod dixit fuit homo missus a Deo, non est intelligendum, sicut quidam haeretici ponebant, credentes animas hominum ante corpus fuisse cum Angelis ab initio creatas, et mitti animam cuiuscumque, quando nascitur, ad corpus; et quod Ioannes sit missus ad vitam, idest eius anima ad corpus; sed quod fuit missus a Deo ad officium baptizandi et praedicandi. Ex idoneitate vero commendatur, cum dicit cui nomen erat Ioannes. Ad officium namque testimonii requiritur idoneitas: nam nisi testis sit idoneus, qualitercumque mittatur ab alio, non est sufficiens testimonium eius. Homo autem efficitur idoneus ex gratia Dei; I Cor. XV, 10: gratia Dei sum id quod sum; II Cor. III, 6: qui idoneos nos fecit ministros novi testamenti. Satis ergo congrue Evangelista idoneitatem praecursoris insinuat ex eius nomine, dicens cui nomen erat Ioannes, quod interpretatur in quo est gratia. Quod quidem nomen non fuit frustra sibi impositum, sed ex divina praeordinatione, et antequam nasceretur, ut patet Lc. I, 13: et vocabis nomen eius Ioannem, dixit Angelus ad Zachariam. Unde potest dicere illud Is. XLIX, 1: dominus ab utero vocavit me; et Eccl. VI, 10: qui futurus est, iam vocatum est nomen eius. Quod etiam ostendit Evangelista ex modo loquendi, cum dicit erat, quantum ad Dei praeordinationem. Ex officii etiam dignitate describitur, cum dicit hic venit in testimonium; ubi primo ponitur officium; secundo ratio officii, ibi ut testimonium perhiberet de lumine. Officium autem huius est testificandi; unde dicit hic venit in testimonium. Ubi notandum est quod Deus et homines, et omnia quae facit, propter se operatur; Prov. XVI, 4: universa propter semetipsum operatus est dominus; non quidem ut aliquid ei accrescat, quia bonorum nostrorum non eget, sed ut eius bonitas manifestetur in omnibus a se factis, inquantum per ea quae facta sunt, intellecta conspiciuntur; sempiterna eius virtus, et divinitas; Rom. I, 20. Fit ergo quaelibet creatura in testimonium Dei, inquantum quaelibet creatura est testimonium quoddam divinae bonitatis. Et quidem magnitudo creaturae testimonium quoddam est divinae virtutis et omnipotentiae; pulchritudo vero divinae sapientiae. Speciali vero modo ordinantur a Deo quidam homines; et non solum naturaliter inquantum sunt, sed etiam spiritualiter per sua bona opera Deo testimonium ferunt. Unde omnes sancti viri testes sunt Dei, inquantum propter eorum bona opera Deus gloriosus apud homines efficitur; Matth. V, 16: sic luceat lux vestra coram hominibus, ut videant opera vestra bona, et glorificent patrem vestrum qui in caelis est. Sed tamen illi, qui participant non solum dona Dei in seipsis per gratiam Dei bene operando, sed etiam diffundunt ad alios dicendo, movendo et exhortando, specialius sunt testes Dei. Is. XLIII, 7: omnem qui invocat nomen meum, in laudem meam creavi illum. Ioannes ergo venit in testimonium ad hoc, ut in alios diffunderet dona Dei, et annuntiaret laudem. Hoc autem officium Ioannis, scilicet testificandi, est valde magnum, quia nullus potest de aliquo testificari, nisi eo modo quo illud participat; infra III, 11: quod scimus loquimur, et quod vidimus testamur. Unde testimonium perhibere divinae veritati, indicium est cognitionis ipsius veritatis. Et inde est quod etiam Christus hoc officium habuit; infra XVIII, 37: ad hoc veni, et in hoc natus sum, ut testimonium perhibeam veritati. Sed aliter Christus, et aliter Ioannes. Christus enim ut ipsum lumen comprehendens, immo ipsum lumen existens; Ioannes vero, ut ipsum lumen participans tantum. Et ideo Christus perfecte testimonium perhibet, et perfecte manifestat veritatem, Ioannes vero et alii sancti inquantum ipsam veritatem divinam participant. Est ergo magnum officium Ioannis et ex participatione divini luminis et ex similitudine ad Christum, qui hoc officio usus fuit. Is. LV, 4: ecce testem populis dedi eum, ducem ac praeceptorem gentibus.
1:7
Ratio autem huius officii ponitur, cum dicit ut testimonium perhiberet de lumine. Ubi sciendum est, quod alicui rei testimonium perhibetur duplici de causa. Una causa potest esse ex parte rei, cui testimonium adhibetur, puta si est dubia, vel incerta; alia causa est ex parte audientium, si sunt duri et tardi corde ad credendum. Ioannes vero in testimonium quidem venit non propter ipsam rem, cui testimonium perhibebat, quia lumen erat. Unde dicit ut testimonium perhiberet de lumine, non de re obscura sed de re manifesta. Venit ergo in testimonium propter ipsos quibus testificabatur, ut omnes crederent per eum, scilicet Ioannem. Nam sicut lumen non solum in seipso et per se visibile est, sed etiam omnia alia per ipsum videri possunt, ita verbum Dei non solum in se lumen est, sed etiam est omnia manifestans quae manifestantur. Cum enim unumquodque manifestetur per suam formam et cognoscatur, omnes autem formae sint formae sint per verbum, quod est ars plena rationum viventium: est ergo lumen, non solum in se, sed omnia manifestans; Eph. V, 13: omne quod manifestatur, lumen est. Congrue autem Evangelista filium dicit lumen, quia venit lumen ad revelationem gentium, Lc. II, 32. Supra autem dixit filium Dei verbum, quo pater dicit se, et omnem creaturam. Unde cum proprie sit lux hominum, et hic Evangelista de eo agat secundum quod venit ad salutem hominum procurandam, congrue intermittit hoc nomen verbum, cum loquitur de filio, et dicit illud lumen. Sed si istud lumen sufficiens est per se omnia manifestare, non solum seipsum, quid ergo indigebat ut testificaretur? Non ergo necessaria sunt testimonia Ioannis et prophetarum de Christo. Respondeo dicendum, quod haec obiectio est Manichaeorum, qui volunt destruere vetus testamentum. Unde a sanctis contra hos multiplex ratio assignatur, quare Christus testimonium prophetarum voluit habere. Origenes quidem assignat tres rationes ad hoc. Primo quidem quod Deus vult aliquos testes habere, non quod ipse eorum testimonio indigeat, sed ut eos nobilitet quos constituit testes; sicut videmus etiam in ordine universi, quod Deus producit aliquos effectus per causas medias, non quia ipse impotens sit ad eos immediate producendos, sed quia ad nobilitandas ipsas causas medias eis causalitatis dignitatem communicare dignatur. Sic ergo, etsi Deus potuerit omnes homines illuminare per se et in cognitionem suam adducere, ut tamen debitus ordo servaretur in rebus, et ut aliquos homines nobilitaret, voluit divinam cognitionem ad homines per aliquos homines devenire. Is. XLIII, 10: vere vos testes mei estis, dicit dominus. Secunda ratio est, quia Christus illuxit mundo per miracula: quae quidem, quia in tempore facta erant, temporaliter transierunt, neque pervenerunt ad omnes. Verba vero prophetarum commendata Scripturae, poterant non solum ad praesentes, sed etiam ad posteros pervenire. Voluit ergo dominus homines ad cognitionem verbi venire per testimonia prophetarum, ut non solum praesentes, sed etiam futuri de ipso illuminarentur; et ideo signanter dicit ut omnes crederent per illum, non solum praesentes, sed etiam futuri. Tertia ratio est, quia homines sunt diversae conditionis, et diversimode ad veritatis cognitionem perducti et dispositi. Quidam namque ad veritatis cognitionem magis perducuntur per signa et miracula; quidam vero magis per sapientiam; unde I Cor. I, 22: Iudaei signa petunt, et Graeci sapientiam quaerunt. Ut ergo dominus omnibus ostenderet viam salutis, utramque viam pandere voluit, scilicet signorum et sapientiae, ut qui non perducerentur ad viam salutis per miracula in veteri et novo testamento facta, saltem per viam sapientiae, ut in prophetis et aliis sacrae Scripturae libris, ad veritatis cognitionem perveniant. Quarta ratio est Chrysostomi, quia scilicet homines infirmi intellectus, veritatem et cognitionem Dei seipsa capere non possunt; unde voluit Deus eis condescendere et illuminare quosdam homines de divinis prae aliis, ut ab eis humano modo cognitionem de divinis acciperent, quorum cognitionem in seipsis attingere non valebant. Et ideo dicit ut omnes crederent per illum. Quasi dicat: venit in testimonium, non propter ipsum lumen, sed propter ipsos homines, ut scilicet crederent per illum. Sic ergo patet idonea esse et congruentia testimonia prophetarum, et ideo recipienda utpote nobis necessaria ad veritatis cognitionem. Dicit autem crederent quia est duplex participatio divini luminis. Una scilicet perfecta, quae est in gloria, Ps. XXXV, v. 10: in lumine tuo videbimus lumen, alia est imperfecta, quae scilicet habetur per fidem, quia venit in testimonium. De istis duobus modis dicitur I Cor. XIII, 12: videmus nunc per speculum in aenigmate; tunc autem facie ad faciem; et ibidem dicitur: nunc cognosco ex parte; tunc autem cognoscam sicut et cognitus sum. Istorum autem modorum prior est modus participationis per fidem; quia per ipsam pervenitur ad speciem. Unde Is. VII, 9, secundum aliam litteram: nisi credideritis, non intelligetis; ubi nostra habet: si non credideritis, non permanebitis. II Cor. c. III, 18: nos autem omnes revelata facie gloriam domini speculantes, in eamdem imaginem, scilicet quam perdidimus, transformamur a claritate in claritatem; Glossa: a claritate fidei, in claritatem speciei. Dicit ergo ut omnes crederent per illum; non ut omnes viderent illum perfecte statim, sed ut primo per fidem credendo, et postea per speciem in patria perfruendo. Dicit autem per eum, ut ostendat differentiam eius ad Christum. Christus enim venit, ut omnes crederent in eum; infra VII, v. 38: qui credit in me, sicut dicit Scriptura, flumina de ventre eius fluent aquae vivae. Ioannes vero ut omnes crederent, non quidem in eum, sed in Christum per eum. Sed contra. Non omnes crediderunt per illum. Si ergo venit ut omnes crederent per illum, frustra venit. Respondeo dicendum, quod quantum est ex parte Dei mittentis, et ex parte Ioannis venientis, sufficiens modus adhibitus est omnibus perveniendi ad finem; sed ex parte eorum qui oculos suos statuerunt declinare in terram, et noluerunt videre ipsum lumen, defectus fuit, quia non omnes crediderunt. Licet autem Ioannes, de quo tot dicta sunt, et quod missus a Deo, magnus sit, nihilominus tamen eius adventus non est sufficiens hominibus ad salutem; quia salus hominis in hoc consistit, quod participet ipsam lucem. Unde, et si Ioannes lux fuisset, suffecisset hominibus ad salutem eius adventus; sed ipse non erat lux; unde dicit non erat ille lux. Et ideo necessaria erat lux, quae sufficeret hominibus ad salutem. Vel aliter. Ioannes venit ut testimonium perhiberet de lumine. Consuetum est autem testificantem esse maioris auctoritatis, quam ille cui perhibet testimonium.
1:8
Ne ergo credatur Ioannem esse maioris auctoritatis, quam Christus, dicit Evangelista non erat ille lux, sed ut testimonium perhiberet de lumine. Testatur enim non quia maior, sed quia notior, etiamsi sit minor. Sed quaeritur de hoc quod dicit non erat ille lux. Contra dicitur Eph. V, 8: eratis aliquando tenebrae, nunc autem lux in domino; et Matth. V, 14: vos estis lux mundi. Sunt ergo Ioannes, et apostoli, et omnes boni, lux. Respondeo. Quidam dicunt quod Ioannes non erat lux cum articulo, quia hoc est solius Dei proprium; sed si lux ponatur sine articulo, erat Ioannes et omnes sancti facti lux. Quod est dictu: filius Dei est lux per essentiam, Ioannes vero et omnes sancti per participationem. Et ideo quia Ioannes participabat verum lumen, congruenter testimonium perhibebat de lumine: ignis enim convenientius manifestatur per aliquod ignitum quam per aliquid aliud, et color per coloratum.
1:9
Superius egit Evangelista de praecursore, et teste verbi incarnati; in parte vero ista agit de ipso verbo incarnato: et circa hoc tria facit. Primo ostendit adventus verbi necessitatem; secundo ex adventu verbi collatam nobis utilitatem, ibi in propria venit; tertio veniendi modum, ibi et verbum caro factum est. Necessitas autem adventus verbi videtur esse defectus divinae cognitionis, quae in mundo erat. Unde hanc necessitatem sui adventus assignat, dicens, infra XVIII, 37: in hoc natus sum, et ad hoc veni. Ad insinuandum ergo hunc divinae cognitionis defectum, duo facit Evangelista. Primo ostendit quod iste defectus non est ex parte Dei, neque ex defectu verbi; secundo ostendit quod est ex parte hominum, ibi et mundus eum non cognovit. Quod autem non fuerit defectus ex parte Dei et verbi, quin homines Deum cognoscerent et illuminarentur a verbo, ostendit ex tribus. Primo ex ipsius divinae lucis efficacia, quia erat lux vera, quae illuminat omnem hominem venientem in hunc mundum; secundo ex ipsius divinae lucis praesentia, quia in mundo erat; tertio ex eius evidentia, quia mundus per ipsum factus est. Non fuit ergo defectus divinae cognitionis in mundo ex parte verbi, quia efficax est. Unde primo ostendit rationem huius efficaciae, quia erat lux vera; secundo ipsam eius efficaciam, quia illuminat omnem hominem venientem in hunc mundum. Est enim efficax divinum verbum ad illuminandum, quia erat lux vera. Quomodo autem verbum sit lux, et quomodo sit lux hominum, quia supra satis explanatum est, superfluum est ad praesens reiterare. Istud tamen ad praesens est dicendum, quomodo sit lux vera. Notandum est ergo ad huiusmodi evidentiam, quod verum in Scriptura tribus opponitur. Aliquando enim dividitur contra falsum, sicut illud Eph. IV, 25: deponentes mendacium, loquimini veritatem. Aliquando autem dividitur contra figurale, sicut illud infra I, 17: lex per Moysen data est; gratia et veritas per Iesum Christum facta est, quia veritas figurarum legis facta est per Christum. Aliquando vero dividitur contra participans, sicut illud I Ioan. ult., 20: ut simus in vero filio eius; qui scilicet non est filius per participationem. Fuit autem ante adventum verbi in mundo quaedam lux, quam scilicet philosophi se habere iactabant; sed haec quidem falsa fuit, quia, ut dicitur Rom. I, 21: evanuerunt in cogitationibus suis, et obscuratum est insipiens cor eorum; dicentes enim se esse sapientes, stulti facti sunt; Ier. X, 14: stultus factus est omnis homo a scientia sua. Fuit etiam quaedam alia lux, quam gloriabantur se habere Iudaei ex doctrina legis; sed haec quidem lux erat lux figuralis; Hebr. X, 1: umbram habens lex futurorum bonorum, non ipsam imaginem rerum. Erat etiam in Angelis et in sanctis hominibus lux quaedam, inquantum specialiori modo per gratiam Deum cognoscebant; sed haec lux participata erat; Iob XXV, 3: super quem non resplendet lumen illius? Quasi dicat: quicumque lucidi sunt, intantum lucent inquantum participant lumen illius, idest Dei. Sed verbum Dei non erat lux falsa, non figuralis, non participata, sed lux vera, idest per essentiam suam. Et ideo dicit erat lux vera. In quo quidem excluditur duplex error, scilicet Photini, qui Christum opinatus est ex virgine initium sumpsisse. Et ideo ne aliquis hoc suspicari posset, Evangelista loquens de incarnatione verbi, dicit erat lux vera, scilicet ab aeterno, non solum ante virginem, sed ante omnem creaturam. Excluditur etiam error Arii et Origenis dicentium Christum non fuisse verum Deum, sed per participationem tantum. Quod si verum esset, non esset lux vera, ut Evangelista dicit. Sicut enim dicitur I Io. I, 5: Deus lux est, non per participationem, sed lux vera. Si ergo verbum erat lux vera, manifestum est illud esse Deum verum. Patet ergo ratio efficaciae divini verbi ad divinam cognitionem causandam. Efficacia autem ipsius verbi est, quia illuminat omnem hominem venientem. Omne enim quod est per participationem, derivatur ab eo quod est per essentiam suam tale; ut omne ignitum est hoc per participationem ignis, qui est ignis per suam naturam. Quia ergo verbum est lux vera per suam naturam, oportet quod omne lucens luceat per ipsum, inquantum ipsum participat. Ipse ergo illuminat omnem hominem venientem in hunc mundum. Sciendum est autem ad horum intellectum, quod mundus in Scriptura accipitur tribus modis. Aliquando enim ratione suae creationis, sicut hic inferius ait Evangelista mundus per ipsum factus est. Aliquando autem ratione suae perfectionis, ad quam per Christum pertingit, sicut illud II Cor. V, 19: Deus erat in Christo mundum reconcilians sibi. Aliquando ratione suae perversitatis sicut illud I Io. V, 19: totus mundus in maligno positus est. Illuminatio seu illuminari per verbum, intelligitur dupliciter: scilicet de lumine naturalis cognitionis, de quo dicitur in Ps. IV, 7: signatum est super nos lumen vultus tui, domine. Item de lumine gratiae, de quo dicitur Is. LX, 1: illuminare, Ierusalem. His duabus distinctionibus suppositis, facile solvitur dubitatio quae ex istis oritur. Cum enim dicit Evangelista illuminat omnem hominem, videtur subesse falsum, cum adhuc multi sint in mundo tenebrosi. Si ergo nos, memores dictarum distinctionum, accipiamus mundum secundum quod ponitur ratione suae creationis; et illuminare, secundum quod accipitur pro lumine naturalis rationis, verbum Evangelistae nullam habet calumniam: quia homines omnes venientes in hunc mundum sensibilem illuminantur lumine naturalis cognitionis ex participatione huius verae lucis, a qua derivatur quicquid de lumine naturalis cognitionis participatur ab hominibus. Utitur autem Evangelista hoc modo loquendi, ut dicat venientem in hunc mundum, non quod homines vixissent aliquo temporis spatio extra mundum, et postea venirent in mundum, cum hoc sit contra sententiam apostoli, Rom. IX, 11: cum enim nondum nati essent, aut aliquid egissent boni, aut mali (ut secundum electionem propositum Dei maneret), non ex operibus, sed ex vocante dictum est et cetera. Unde cum non egissent aliquid antequam nati essent, manifestum est quod anima non est antequam corpori coniungatur. Dicit ergo venientem in hunc mundum, ut ostendat quod homines illuminantur a Deo, secundum hoc scilicet quod veniunt in mundum, idest secundum intellectum qui est ab extrinseco. Homo enim ex duplici natura constituitur, corporali scilicet et intellectuali: et secundum corporalem quidem naturam, seu sensibilem, illuminatur homo lumine corporeo et sensibili; secundum animam vero et intellectualem naturam, illuminatur lumine intellectuali et spirituali. Cum ergo homo, secundum naturam corporalem non veniat in hunc mundum, sed sit ex mundo, sed secundum intellectualem naturam, quae est ab extrinseco, ut dictum est, sit a Deo per creationem, unde dicitur Eccle. XII, 7: donec omnis caro in suam revertatur originem, et spiritus dirigatur ad Deum qui fecit illum: ostendit Evangelista quod haec illuminatio est secundum illud quod est ab extrinseco, scilicet secundum intellectum, cum dicit venientem in hunc mundum. Si vero accipiatur illuminari pro lumine gratiae, sic hoc quod dicitur, illuminat omnem hominem potest tripliciter exponi. Uno modo, secundum Origenem in illa Hom. aquila grandis, exponitur hoc modo, ut accipiamus mundum ratione suae perfectionis, ad quam perducitur homo reconciliatus per Christum. Et tunc dicitur illuminat omnem hominem venientem, per fidem, in hunc mundum, spiritualem, scilicet Ecclesiam illuminatam lumine gratiae. Alio modo, secundum Chrysostomum, exponitur, accipiendo mundum ratione suae creationis, et talis est sensus: illuminat, scilicet verbum, quantum de se est, quia ex parte sua nulli deest, imo vult omnes salvos fieri, et ad agnitionem veritatis venire, ut dicitur I Tim. II, 4, omnem hominem venientem, idest qui nascitur in hunc mundum sensibilem. Quod si aliquis non illuminatur, ex parte hominis est, avertentis se a lumine illuminante. Tertio modo, secundum Augustinum, exponitur, ut ly omnem sit distributio accommoda. Ut sit sensus illuminat omnem hominem venientem in hunc mundum, non simpliciter, sed omnem hominem, qui illuminatur, scilicet quia nullus illuminatur nisi a verbo. Dicit ergo, secundum Augustinum, venientem, ut assignet rationem quare homo indiget illuminari; accipiendo tamen mundum ratione suae perversitatis et defectus. Quasi dicat: ideo indiget illuminari, quia venit in hunc mundum, perversitate et defectibus tenebrosum et ignorantia plenum. De mundo spirituali primo hominis; Lc. I, 79: illuminare his, qui in tenebris et in umbra mortis sedent. Destruitur autem per verba praedicta error Manichaei ponentis, homines a principio contrario, idest Diabolo, in mundo creatos fuisse: quia si homo fuisset creatura Diaboli, veniens in mundum, non illuminaretur a Deo, sive a verbo; quia Christus venit in mundum, ut dissolvat opera Diaboli; I Io. III. Sic ergo patet ex efficacia divini verbi, quod defectus cognitionis in hominibus non est ex parte ipsius verbi: quia ad omnes illuminandos efficax est, cum sit lux vera quae illuminat omnem hominem venientem in hunc mundum. Sed ne credas defectum ipsum esse ex remotione seu absentia verae lucis, hoc excludens Evangelista, subdit: in mundo erat. Simile huic habetur Act. XVII, 27: non longe est ab unoquoque nostrum, scilicet Deus, in ipso enim vivimus, et movemur, et sumus. Quasi dicat Evangelista: verbum divinum efficax est et praesens est ad illuminandum. Notandum vero quod in mundo dicitur aliquid esse tripliciter. Uno modo per continentiam, sicut locatum in loco; infra c. XVII, 11: hi in mundo sunt. Alio modo, sicut pars in toto; nam pars mundi dicitur esse in mundo, etiamsi non sit locata; sicut substantiae supernaturales, licet localiter non sint in mundo, tamen sunt ut partes Ps. CXLV, v. 6: qui fecit caelum et terram, mare et omnia quae in eis sunt. Neutro autem istorum modorum lux vera in mundo erat, quia nec localis est, nec pars universi: immo quodammodo (ut ita liceat loqui), totum universum est pars, bonitatem eius partialiter participans. Erat ergo in mundo tertio modo, sicut causa efficiens et conservans; Ier. XXIII, 24: caelum et terram ego impleo. Sed tamen aliter est de verbo agente et causante omnia, et aliter de aliis agentibus. Nam alia agentia operantur ut extrinsecus existentia: cum enim non agant nisi movendo et alterando aliquo modo quantum ad ea quae sunt extrinseca rei, ut extrinseca operantur. Deus vero operatur in omnibus ut interius agens, quia agit creando. Creare autem est dare esse rei creatae. Cum ergo esse sit intimum cuilibet rei, Deus, qui operando dat esse, operatur in rebus ut intimus agens. In mundo ergo erat ut dans esse mundo. Consuetum est autem dici Deum esse in omnibus per essentiam, praesentiam et potentiam. Ad cuius intellectum sciendum est quod per potentiam dicitur esse aliquis in omnibus quae subduntur potentiae eius: sicut rex dicitur esse in toto regno sibi subiecto, per suam potentiam; non tamen ibi est per praesentiam, neque per essentiam. Per praesentiam dicitur esse in omnibus quae sunt in conspectu eius, sicut rex dicitur esse per praesentiam in domo sua. Per essentiam vero dicitur esse in illis rebus, in quibus est sua substantia: sicut est rex in uno loco determinato. Dicimus enim Deum esse ubique per potentiam, quia omnia eius potestati subduntur; Ps. CXXXVIII, 8: si ascendero in caelum, tu illic es (...). Si sumpsero pennas meas diluculo et habitavero in extremis maris: etenim illuc manus tua deducet me et tenebit me dextera tua. Per praesentiam vero, quia omnia nuda et aperta sunt oculis eius, quae sunt in mundo, ut habetur Hebr. IV, 13. Per essentiam autem, quia essentia sua intima est omnibus rebus: oportet enim de necessitate omne agens, inquantum agens, immediate coniungi suo effectui, cum movens et motum oporteat simul esse. Deus autem actor est et conservator omnium secundum esse uniuscuiusque rei. Unde, cum esse rei sit intimum in qualibet re, manifestum est quod Deus per essentiam suam, per quam omnia creat, sit in omnibus rebus. Notandum autem quod Evangelista signanter utitur hoc verbo erat, cum dicit in mundo erat, ostendens ab initio creaturae semper ipsum fuisse in mundo, causans et conservans omnia: quia si ad momentum subtraheret Deus virtutem suam a rebus conditis, omnia in nihilum redigerentur, et esse desinerent. Unde Origenes satis ad hoc congruo exemplo utitur, dicens quod sicut se habet vox humana ad verbum humanum in mente conceptum, sic se habet creatura ad verbum divinum: nam sicut vox nostra est effectus verbi concepti in mente nostra, ita et creatura est effectus verbi in divina mente concepti; dixit enim et facta sunt. Ps. CXLVIII, v. 5. Unde sicut videmus quod statim, deficiente verbo nostro, vox sensibilis deficit, ita si virtus verbi divini subtraheretur a rebus, statim res omnes in ipso momento deficerent; et hoc quia est portans omnia verbo virtutis suae, Hebr. I, 3. Sic ergo patet quod defectus divinae cognitionis non est in hominibus ex verbi absentia, quia in mundo erat; non est etiam ex verbi invisibilitate seu occultatione, quia fecit opus, in quo similitudo evidenter relucet, scilicet mundum. Sap. XIII, 5: a magnitudine speciei et creaturae cognoscibiliter poterit eorum creator videri; et Rom. I, 20: invisibilia Dei per ea quae facta sunt intellecta conspiciuntur.
1:10
Et ideo statim Evangelista subiungit et mundus per ipsum factus est, ut scilicet in ipso lux ipsa manifestaretur. Sicut in artificio manifestatur ars artificis, ita totus mundus nihil aliud est quam quaedam repraesentatio divinae sapientiae in mente patris conceptae; Eccli. I, 10: sparsit illam super omnia opera sua. Sic ergo patet quod defectus divinae cognitionis non est ex parte verbi, quia efficax est, cum sit lux vera; praesens est, quia in mundo erat; evidens est, quia mundus per ipsum factus est. Unde autem sit huius defectus, ostendit Evangelista consequenter, cum dicit et mundus eum non cognovit; quasi dicat, non est ex parte ipsius, sed ex parte mundi, qui eum non cognovit. Dicit autem eum in singulari, quia supra verbum dixerat non solum lucem hominum, sed Deum: unde cum dicit eum, intelligit Deum. Ponitur autem hic mundus pro homine: Angeli namque cognoverunt eum intelligendo; elementa cognoverunt eum obediendo; sed mundus, idest homo habitator mundi, eum non cognovit. Et possumus hunc defectum cognitionis divinae referre vel ad naturam hominis, vel ad culpam. Ad naturam quidem, quia licet omnia haec praedicta auxilia data sint homini, ut ducatur in cognitionem Dei, tamen ratio humana in se deficiens est ab hac cognitione; Iob XXXVI, v. 25: unusquisque intuetur eum procul; et iterum ibi: ecce Deus magnus vincens scientiam nostram. Sed si aliqui eum cognoverunt, hoc fuit non inquantum fuerunt in mundo, sed inquantum fuerunt supra mundum, et tales quibus dignus non erat mundus, quia mundus eum non cognovit. Et est quasi ratio quare ab hominibus Deus non cognoscitur. Et sic mundus accipitur pro inordinato mundi amore; quasi dicat mundus eum non cognovit. Unde si aliquid aeternum in mente perceperunt, hoc fuit inquantum non erant de hoc mundo. Si vero referatur ad culpam hominis, tunc hoc quod dixit mundus eum non cognovit, est quasi ratio quare ab hominibus Deus non cognoscitur; et sic accipitur mundus pro inordinato mundi amatore. Quasi dicat mundus eum non cognovit, quia sunt mundi amatores. Amor enim mundi, ut dicit Augustinus, maxime retrahit a Dei cognitione; quia amor mundi inimicum Dei constituit, Iac. c. IV, 4. Qui autem non diligit Deum, non potest eum cognoscere; I Cor. II, 14: animalis homo non percipit ea quae sunt spiritus Dei. Notandum autem quod ex hoc solvitur quaestio gentilium, qui vane quaerunt: si a paucis temporibus filius Dei pro salute humana mundo innotuit, videtur quod ante tempus illud naturam humanam despiceret. Quibus dicendum est quod non despexit, sed semper fuit in mundo, et quantum in se est, cognoscibilis est ab hominibus; sed quod aliqui eum non cognoverunt, fuit eorum culpa, quia mundi amatores erant. Notandum etiam quod Evangelista loquitur de incarnatione verbi, ut ostendat idem esse verbum incarnatum, et quod erat in principio apud Deum et Deus. Resumit quae de ipso supra dixerat. Ibi enim dixerat quod verbum erat lux hominum; hic vero dicit quod erat lux vera. Ibi quod omnia per ipsum facta sunt; hic vero et mundus per ipsum factus est. Supra vero dixit, quod sine ipso factum est nihil, idest, secundum unam expositionem, omnia conservans; hic vero dicit in mundo erat, mundum et omnia creans et conservans. Ibi dixit: et tenebrae eam non comprehenderunt; hic vero et mundus eum non cognovit. Et ideo totum hoc quod sequitur ab illo loco erat lux vera, videtur quaedam explicatio superiorum. Possumus etiam ex praedictis accipere triplicem rationem, quare Deus voluit incarnari. Una est perversitas humanae naturae, quae ex sui malitia iam obtenebrata erat vitiorum et ignorantiae obscuritate. Unde supra dixerat quod tenebrae eam non comprehenderunt. Venit ergo in carnem Deus, ut tenebrae possent apprehendere lucem, idest cognitionem eius pertingere. Is. IX, 2: populus, qui ambulabat in tenebris, vidit lucem magnam. Secunda propter insufficientiam prophetici testimonii. Venerunt enim prophetae, venerat Ioannes; sed sufficienter illuminare non poterant, quia non erat ille lux. Unde necessarium erat ut post prophetarum vaticinia, post Ioannis adventum, lux ipsa veniret, et sui cognitionem mundo traderet; et hoc est quod apostolus dicit, Hebr. I, 1: multifarie, multisque modis olim Deus loquens patribus in prophetis, novissime locutus est nobis in filio; et II Petr. I, 19: habetis propheticum sermonem, cui bene facitis attendentes, donec dies illucescat. Tertia propter creaturarum defectum. Nam creaturae insufficientes erant ad ducendum in cognitionem creatoris; unde mundus per ipsum factus est, et ipsum non cognovit. Unde necessarium erat ut ipse creator per carnem in mundum veniret, et per seipsum cognosceretur: et hoc est quod apostolus dicit, I Cor. I, 21: nam, quia in Dei sapientia mundus non cognovit per sapientiam Deum, placuit Deo per stultitiam praedicationis salvos facere credentes.
1:11
Assignata necessitate incarnationis verbi, consequenter Evangelista manifestat utilitatem ex ipsa incarnatione ab hominibus consecutam. Et primo insinuat lucis adventum, quia in propria venit; secundo hominum occursum, ibi et sui eum non receperunt; tertio fructum ex adventu lucis allatum, ibi dedit eis potestatem filios Dei fieri. Ostendit ergo quod lux quae erat praesens in mundo et evidens seu manifesta per effectum, non tamen cognoscebatur a mundo. Et ideo venit in propria, ut cognosceretur. Sed ne, cum dicit venit, intelligeres motum localem hoc modo, ut scilicet venerit quasi desinens esse ubi prius erat, et denuo incipiens esse, ubi prius non erat, dicit Evangelista in propria; idest in ea quae erant sua, quae ipse fecit; et venit ipse, ubi erat. Infra XVI, 28: exivi a patre, et veni in mundum. Venit, inquam, in propria, idest in Iudaeam, secundum quosdam, quae quidem speciali modo sua erat; Ps. LXXV, 2: notus in Iudaea Deus; Is. V, 7: vinea domini exercituum, domus Israel est. Sed melius est ut dicatur, propria, idest in mundum ab eo creatum; Ps. XXIII, 1: domini est terra. Sed si prius erat in mundo, quomodo venit in mundum? Respondeo, dicendum quod venire in aliquem locum dicitur dupliciter, scilicet vel quod aliquis veniat ubi nullo modo prius fuerat, vel quod ubi aliquo modo prius fuerat, incipiat esse quodam novo modo. Sicut rex, qui prius erat in civitate aliqua sui regni per potentiam, ad illam postmodum veniens personaliter, dicitur venire ubi prius erat: venit enim per suam substantiam ubi prius erat solum per suam potentiam. Sic ergo filius Dei venit in mundum, et tamen in mundo erat. Erat quidem per essentiam, potentiam et praesentiam, sed venit per carnis assumptionem; erat invisibilis, venit ut esset visibilis. Deinde cum dicit et sui eum non receperunt, sequitur hominum occursus, qui differenter se habuerunt ad venientem. Quia quidam eum receperunt, non sui; unde dicitur et sui eum non receperunt. Sui sunt homines, quia ab eo formati; Gen. II, 7: formavit Deus hominem; Ps. XCIX, 3: scitote, quoniam dominus ipse fecit nos, quia ad eius imaginem facti: Gen. I, 26: faciamus hominem. Sed melius est ut dicamus sui, idest Iudaei, eum non receperunt, per fidem credendo et honorando; infra V, 43: ego veni in nomine patris mei, et non recepistis me; et infra VIII, 49: ego honorifico patrem meum, et vos inhonorastis me. Sunt quidem Iudaei, sui, quia ab ipso in populum peculiarem electi; Deut. XXVI, 18: elegit te dominus in populum peculiarem. Sui secundum carnem coniuncti; Rom. IX, 5: ex quibus Christus secundum carnem. Item sui, ab eo beneficiis promoti; Is. I, 2: filios enutrivi, et exaltavi. Sed licet sui, Iudaei eum non receperunt. Non defuerunt tamen, qui eum receperunt; unde subdit quotquot autem receperunt. Utitur Evangelista hoc modo loquendi, dicens quotquot, ut ostendat ampliorem esse factam solutionem, quam fuerit promissio, quae facta fuit solum suis, scilicet Iudaeis; Is. XXXIII, 22: dominus legifer noster, dominus rex noster; ipse salvabit nos. Sed solutio non solum fuit facta suis, sed quotquot receperunt eum, idest omnibus in eum credentibus; Rom. XV, 8: dico autem Christum ministrum fuisse circumcisionis propter veritatem Dei, ad confirmandas promissiones patrum, idest patribus factas. Gentes autem super misericordia, quia misericorditer sunt recepti. Dicit quotquot, ut ostendat quod gratia Dei indifferenter datur omnibus recipientibus Christum; Act. X, 45: ergo in nationes gratia spiritus sancti effusa est. Et non solum liberis, sed etiam servis, non solum masculis, sed etiam feminis; Gal. III, 28: in Christo Iesu non est masculus, nec femina, gentilis, vel Iudaeus, circumcisio et praeputium et cetera.
1:12
Deinde cum dicit dedit eis potestatem filios Dei fieri, sequitur fructus eius adventus. Ubi primo ponit fructus magnificentiam, quia dedit eis potestatem; secundo ostendit quibus datur, quia his qui credunt; tertio insinuat modum dandi, quia non ex sanguinibus. Est ergo fructus adventus filii Dei magnus, quia homines fiunt per hoc filii Dei; Gal. IV, 4: misit Deus filium suum factum ex muliere, ut adoptionem filiorum reciperemus. Et hoc congrue, ut qui sumus filii Dei, per hoc quod assimilamur filio, reformemur per filium. Dicit ergo dedit eis potestatem filios Dei fieri. Ad cuius evidentiam sciendum est, quod homines fiunt filii Dei per assimilationem ad Deum; et ideo secundum triplicem assimilationem hominum ad Deum homines sunt filii Dei. Primo enim per gratiae infusionem: unde quicumque habet gratiam gratum facientem, efficitur filius Dei; Rom. VIII, 15: non enim accepistis spiritum servitutis etc.; Gal. IV, 6: quoniam estis filii Dei, misit Deus spiritum filii sui. Secundo assimilamur Deo per operum perfectionem, quia qui facit opera iustitiae, est filius; Matth. V, 44: diligite inimicos vestros. Tertio assimilamur Deo per gloriae adeptionem, et quantum ad animam per lumen gloriae, I Io. III, 2: cum apparuerit, similes ei erimus, et quantum ad corpus, Phil. III, v. 21: reformabit corpus humilitatis nostrae. Unde de istis duobus dicitur Rom. VIII, 23: adoptionem filiorum Dei expectantes. Si ergo accipiamus potestatem filios Dei fieri quantum ad operum perfectionem et gloriae adeptionem, nullam difficultatem habebit sermo, quia cum dicit dedit eis potestatem, intelligitur de potestate gratiae, qua habita, potest homo facere opera perfectionis, et adipisci gloriam; quia, ut dicitur Rom. VI, 23, gratia Dei vita aeterna. Et secundum hunc modum dicitur dedit eis, qui eum receperunt, potestatem, idest infusionem gratiae, filios Dei fieri, bene operando, et gloriam acquirendo. Si vero intelligatur de gratiae infusione, tunc dubitationem habet hoc quod dicitur dedit eis potestatem, quia non est in potestate nostra fieri filios Dei, cum non sit in potestate nostra gratiam habere. Hoc ergo quod dicit dedit eis potestatem, aut intelligitur de potestate naturae: et hoc non videtur esse verum, quia infusio gratiae est supra naturam nostram. Aut intelligitur de potestate gratiae: et tunc hoc ipsum est gratiam habere, quod habere potestatem filios Dei fieri; et sic non dedit potestatem filios fieri Dei, sed filios Dei esse. Ad quod dicendum quod in datione gratiae requiritur in homine adulto ad iustificationem suam consensus per motum liberi arbitrii: unde quia in potestate hominis est ut consentiat et non consentiat, dedit eis potestatem. Dedit autem hanc potestatem suscipiendi gratiam dupliciter: praeparando, et hominibus proponendo. Sicut enim qui facit librum, et proponit homini ad legendum, dicitur dare potestatem legendi; ita Christus, per quem gratia facta est, ut dicitur infra, et qui operatus est salutem in medio terrae, ut dicitur in Ps. LXXIII, 12, dedit nobis potestatem filios Dei fieri per gratiae susceptionem. Secundo, quia hoc non sufficit, cum etiam liberum arbitrium indigeat ad hoc quod moveatur ad gratiae susceptionem, auxilio gratiae divinae, non quidem habitualis, sed moventis, ideo dat potestatem movendo liberum arbitrium hominis, ut consentiat ad susceptionem gratiae, iuxta illud Thren. ult., v. 21: converte nos, domine, ad te, movendo voluntatem nostram ad amorem tuum, et convertemur. Et hoc modo vocatur interior vocatio, de qua dicitur Rom. VIII, 30: quos vocavit, interius voluntatem instigando ad consentiendum gratiae, hos iustificavit, gratiam infundendo. Quia vero per hanc gratiam habet homo hanc potestatem conservandi se in divina filiatione, potest et aliter dici: dedit eis, idest eum recipientibus, potestatem filios Dei fieri, idest gratiam, per quam potentes sunt in divina filiatione conservari; I Io. ult., 18: omnis qui natus est ex Deo, non peccat, sed gratia Dei, per quam regeneramur in filios Dei, conservat eum. Sic ergo dedit eis potestatem filios Dei fieri, per gratiam gratum facientem, per operum perfectionem, per gloriae adeptionem, et haec praeparando, movendo et conservando gratiam. Deinde cum dicit his qui credunt in nomine eius, ostenditur quibus conferatur fructus eius adventus. Et hoc quidem potest accipi dupliciter, vel ut sit expositivum superiorum, vel determinativum. Expositivum quidem, quia Evangelista dixerat quotquot autem receperunt eum; ut ergo ostendat quid est recipere eum, quasi exponendo, consequenter subiungit his qui credunt in nomine eius; quasi dicat: hoc est recipere eum, in eum credere, quia per fidem Christus habitat in cordibus nostris, iuxta illud Eph. III, 17: habitare Christum per fidem in cordibus vestris. Illi ergo receperunt eum, qui credunt in nomine eius. Ut determinativum vero ponitur ab Origene in homilia quae incipit vox spiritualis. Hoc modo multi recipiunt Christum, dicentes se esse Christianos, qui tamen non fiunt filii Dei, quia non vere credunt in nomine eius, falsa dogmata de Christo suggerendo, subtrahendo scilicet aliquid sibi de divinitate, vel de humanitate, iuxta illud I Io. c. IV, 3: omnis spiritus qui solvit Christum, ex Deo non est. Et ideo Evangelista quasi determinando dicit dedit eis, scilicet recipientibus eum per fidem, potestatem filios Dei fieri, illis tamen, qui credunt in nomine eius, idest qui nomen Christi integrum servant, ut nihil de divinitate, vel humanitate Christi diminuant. Potest etiam hoc referri ad formationem fidei, ut dicatur his scilicet dedit potestatem filios Dei fieri, qui credunt in nomine eius, idest per fidem charitate formatam opera salutis faciunt. Illi enim qui habent solum fidem informem, non credunt in nomine eius, quia non operantur ad salutem. Sed prima expositio, quae accipitur ut expositivum praemissorum, melior est. Deinde cum dicit qui non ex sanguinibus etc., ostenditur qualiter conferatur hominibus tam magnificus fructus. Quia enim dixerat quod fructus advenientis lucis est potestas fieri filios Dei hominibus data; filius autem dicitur aliquis ex eo quod nascitur: ne aestimes eos materiali generatione nasci, dicit non ex sanguinibus. Et licet hoc nomen sanguis in Latino non habeat plurale, quia tamen in Graeco habet, ideo translator regulam grammaticae servare non curavit, ut veritatem perfecte doceret. Unde non dicit ex sanguine, secundum Latinos, sed ex sanguinibus; per quod intelligitur quicquid ex sanguine generatur, concurrens ut materia ad carnalem generationem. Semen autem, secundum philosophum, est ultimi superfluitas cibi sanguinei. Unde sive semen viri, sive menstruum mulieris, intelligitur per sanguinem.
1:13
Causa vero motiva ad actum carnalem est voluntas se commiscentium, scilicet maris et feminae, quia licet actus virtutis generativae secundum quod huiusmodi, non sit subiectus voluntati, praeambula tamen ad ipsum voluntati subiiciuntur; et ideo dicit neque ex voluntate carnis, pro persona mulieris, neque ex voluntate viri, ut ex causa efficiente sed ex Deo nati sunt; quasi dicat: non carnaliter, sed spiritualiter filii Dei fiunt. Accipitur autem hic caro, secundum Augustinum, pro muliere, quia sicut caro obedit spiritui, sic mulier debet obedire viro; Gen. c. II, 23 dixit Adam de muliere: hoc nunc os ex ossibus meis. Et attendendum, secundum Augustinum, quod sicut dissipatur possessio domus, in qua principatur mulier et subiicitur vir, ita dissipatur homo, cum caro dominatur spiritui; propter quod dicit apostolus, Rom. VIII, 12: debitores sumus non carni, ut secundum carnem vivamus. De modo autem dictae generationis carnalis dicitur Sap. VII, 1: in ventre matris figuratus sum caro. Vel possumus dicere quod motivum ad carnalem generationem est duplex; unum scilicet ex parte appetitus intellectivi, quae est voluntas; aliud a parte sensitivi, quod est concupiscentia. Ad designandum ergo materialem causam, dixit non ex sanguinibus; sed ad designandum causam efficientem quantum ad concupiscentiam, dicit neque ex voluntate carnis; quamvis improprie voluntas dicatur concupiscentia carnis, quo tamen modo dicitur Gal. V, 17: caro concupiscit adversus spiritum et cetera. Ad designandum vero appetitum intellectivum dicit non ex voluntate viri. Sic ergo generatio filiorum Dei non est carnalis, sed est spiritualis, quia ex Deo nati sunt. I Io. V, 4: omne quod natum est ex Deo vincit mundum. Nota autem quod haec praepositio de semper denotat materialem causam, et efficientem, et etiam consubstantialem: dicimus enim quod faber facit cultellum de ferro, et pater generat filium suum de seipso, quia aliquid sui concurrit aliquo modo ad generationem. Haec vero praepositio a semper denotat causam moventem. Haec vero praepositio ex accipitur ut communis, quia importat causam materialem et efficientem, non tamen consubstantialem. Unde quia solus filius Dei, qui est verbum, est de substantia patris, imo cum patre est una substantia, alii vero sancti, qui sunt filii adoptivi, non sunt de eius substantia; ideo Evangelista utitur hac praepositione ex, dicens de aliis ex Deo nati sunt; de filio vero naturali, quod de patre est natus. Notandum est etiam quod secundum ultimam expositionem carnalis generationis possumus accipere differentiam carnalis generationis ad spiritualem. Quia enim illa est ex sanguinibus, ideo carnalis; ista vero, quia non est ex sanguinibus, ideo spiritualis; infra III, 6: quod natum est ex carne, caro est, et quod natum est ex spiritu, spiritus est. Item, quia materialis generatio est ex voluntate carnis, idest ex concupiscentia, ideo est immunda, et generat filios peccatores; Eph. II, 3: eramus natura filii irae. Item, quia illa est ex voluntate viri, idest hominis, facit filios hominum; haec vero, quia est ex Deo, facit filios Dei. Si vero hoc quod dicit dedit eis potestatem, voluit referre ad Baptismum, propter quod in filios Dei regeneramur, possumus videre in hoc ordinem Baptismi, ut scilicet primo requiratur fides, quod fit in catechumenis, qui debent primo instrui de fide, ut scilicet credant in nomine eius, et deinde regenerentur per Baptismum, non quidem ex sanguinibus carnaliter, sed ex Deo spiritualiter.
1:14
Posita necessitate adventus verbi in carnem et etiam utilitate, consequenter Evangelista modum veniendi manifestat dicens et verbum caro factum est. Et secundum hoc continuatur ad hoc quod dixerat: in propria venit; quasi dicat: verbum Dei in propria venit. Sed ne credas ipsum venisse, locum mutando, ostendit modum quo venit, scilicet per incarnationem: eo enim modo venit, quo missus est a patre, a quo missus est, inquantum factus est caro. Gal. IV, 4: misit Deus filium suum, factum ex muliere etc., ubi dicit Augustinus: eo missum, quo factum. Secundum Chrysostomum autem continuatur ad illud dedit eis potestatem etc.; quasi dicat: si quaeris unde potuit dare hanc potestatem hominibus, ut filii Dei fierent, respondet Evangelista quia verbum caro factum est, dedit nobis quod possemus filii Dei fieri. Gal. IV, 5: misit Deus filium suum, ut adoptionem filiorum Dei reciperemus. Secundum vero Augustinum continuatur sic ad hoc quod dixerat sed ex Deo nati sunt: quasi enim dure videbatur, ut homines ex Deo nascerentur, ideo quasi in argumentum huius dicti, ut scilicet verbum esse credatur, subdit Evangelista illud de quo minus videtur, scilicet quod verbum caro factum est. Quasi dicat: ne mireris si homines ex Deo sunt nati, quia verbum caro factum est, idest Deus factus est homo. Notandum quod hoc quod dicitur verbum caro factum est, quidam male intelligentes, sumpserunt occasionem erroris. Quidam namque posuerunt verbum ita carnem factum esse ac si ipsum vel aliquid eius sit in carnem conversum, sicut cum farina fit panis, et aer ignis. Et hic fuit Eutiches, qui posuit commixtionem naturarum in Christo, dicens in eo eamdem fuisse Dei et hominis naturam. Sed huius opinionis falsitas manifeste apparet, quia, sicut est dictum supra, verbum erat Deus. Deus autem immutabilis est, ut dicitur Mal. III, 6: ego Deus, et non mutor, unde nullo modo potest esse quod in aliam naturam convertatur. Est ergo dicendum contra Eutichem verbum caro factum est: verbum carnem assumpsit, non quod ipsum verbum sit ipsa caro; sicut si dicamus: homo factus est albus, non quod ipse sit ipsa albedo, sed quod albedinem assumpsit. Fuerunt etiam alii qui, licet crederent verbum non in carnem mutatum sed quod eam assumpsit, tamen dixerunt ipsum assumpsisse carnem sine anima; nam si carnem animatam assumpsisset, dixisset Evangelista: verbum caro cum anima factum est. Et sic fuit error Arii, qui dixit quod in Christo non erat anima, sed verbum Dei erat ibi loco animae. Et huius positionis falsitas apparet, tum quia repugnat sacrae Scripturae, quae in pluribus locis mentionem facit de anima Christi, sicut illud Matth. XXVI, 38: tristis est anima mea usque ad mortem; tum etiam quia quaedam passiones animae recitantur de Christo, quae in verbo Dei nullo modo esse possunt, nec etiam in carne sola, sicut illud Matth. XXVI, 37: coepit Iesus taedere, et maestus esse; tum etiam quia Deus non potest esse forma alicuius corporis; nec etiam Angelus corpori uniri potest per modum formae, cum secundum naturam a corpore sit separatus; anima autem unitur corpori sicut forma. Non igitur verbum Dei corporis forma esse potest. Praeterea, constat quod caro non sortitur speciem carnis, nisi per animam: quod patet, quia recedente anima a corpore hominis, seu bovis, caro hominis vel bovis, non dicitur caro nisi aequivoce. Si ergo verbum non assumpsit carnem animatam, manifestum est quod non assumpsit carnem. Sed verbum caro factum est; ergo carnem animatam assumpsit. Fuerunt autem alii, qui, ex hoc moti, dixerunt verbum carnem quidem animatam assumpsisse, sed anima sensitiva tantum, non intellectiva, loco cuius in corpore Christi dixerunt verbum esse. Et hic fuit error Apollinaris, qui quandoque Arium secutus est, tandem propter auctoritates praedictas coactus fuit ponere aliquam animam in Christo, quae posset harum passionum esse subiectum, ita tamen quod ratione et intellectu careret sed loco horum verbum esset in homine Christo. Sed hoc manifeste apparet esse falsum, quia repugnat auctoritati sacrae Scripturae, in qua quaedam dicuntur de Christo, quae nec in divinitate, nec in anima sensitiva, nec in carne inveniri possunt: sicut illud quod admiratus est, ut dicitur Matth. VIII, 10; admiratio autem est passio animae rationalis et intellectivae, cum sit desiderium cognoscendi causam occultam effectus visi. Sic igitur, sicut tristitia cogit in Christo ponere partem animae sensitivam, contra Arium, ita admiratio cogit ponere in ipso partem animae intellectivam, contra Apollinarem. Idem etiam apparet per rationem. Sicut enim non est caro sine anima, ita non est vera caro humana sine anima humana, quae est anima intellectiva. Si ergo verbum assumpsit carnem animatam anima sensitiva tantum, et non rationali, non assumpsit carnem humanam: et ita non poterit dici: Deus factus est homo. Praeterea ad hoc verbum humanam naturam assumpsit, ut eam repararet. Ergo id reparavit quod assumpsit. Si ergo non assumpsit animam rationalem, non reparasset eam: et sic nullus fructus proveniret nobis ex verbi incarnatione, quod falsum est. Verbum ergo caro factum est, idest carnem animatam anima rationali assumpsit. Sed forte dicis: si verbum carnem sic animatam assumpsit, quare Evangelista de anima rationali mentionem non fecit, sed de carne solum dicens verbum caro factum est? Respondeo dicendum quod propter quatuor rationes Evangelista hoc fecit. Primo ad ostendendum veritatem incarnationis contra Manichaeos, qui dicebant verbum non assumpsisse veram carnem, sed phantasticam tantum, cum non esset conveniens ut boni Dei verbum assumeret carnem, quam ipsi dicebant Diaboli creaturam. Et ideo Evangelista, ut hoc excluderet, fecit de carne specialiter mentionem; sicut et Christus, Lc. XXIV, 39, existimantibus discipulis eum esse phantasma, veritatem resurrectionis ostendit, dicens: spiritus carnem et ossa non habet, sicut me videtis habere. Secundo ad demonstrandam Dei erga nos magnitudinem benignitatis. Constat enim quod anima rationalis magis conformis est Deo quam caro, et quidem magnum pietatis sacramentum fuisset si verbum assumpsisset animam humanam, utpote sibi conformem, sed assumere etiam carnem elongatam a simplicitate suae naturae, fuit multo amplioris, immo inaestimabilis pietatis indicium; secundum quod apostolus dicit I ad Tim. III, 16: et manifeste magnum est pietatis sacramentum, quod manifestatum est in carne. Et ideo ut hoc ostenderet Evangelista, solum de carne mentionem fecit. Tertio ad demonstrandam veritatem et singularitatem unionis in Christo. Aliis enim hominibus sanctis unitur quidem Deus, quantum ad animam solum; unde dicitur Sap. VII, v. 27: per nationes in animas sanctas se transfert, amicos Dei et prophetas constituens. Sed quod verbum Dei uniretur carni, hoc est singulare in Christo, secundum illud in Ps. CXL, 10: singulariter sum ego donec transeam; Iob XXVIII, 17: non adaequabitur ei aurum. Hanc ergo singularitatem unionis in Christo ostendere volens Evangelista, de carne solum mentionem fecit, dicens verbum caro factum est. Quarto ad insinuandam congruitatem humanae reparationis. Homo enim per carnem infirmabatur, et ideo Evangelista volens insinuare adventum verbi congruum esse nostrae reparationi, mentionem de carne specialiter fecit, ut ostenderet quod caro infirma per carnem verbi reparata fuit; et hoc est quod apostolus dicit, Rom. VIII, 3: nam quod impossibile erat legi, in quo infirmabatur per carnem, Deus filium suum mittens in similitudinem carnis peccati, et de peccato damnavit peccatum in carne. Sed quaeritur, quare Evangelista non dixit verbum carnem assumpsit, sed potius verbum caro factum est. Respondeo dicendum, quod hoc ideo fecit, ut excluderet errorem Nestorii, qui dixit in Christo fuisse duas personas, et duos filios, et alium esse filium virginis: unde non concedebat quod beata virgo esset mater Dei. Sed secundum hoc Deus non esset factus homo; quia impossibile est quod duorum singularium, quae diversa sunt secundum suppositum, unum praedicetur de alio. Unde si alia est persona verbi, seu suppositum, et alia persona hominis, seu suppositum in Christo, tunc non erit verum quod dicit Evangelista verbum caro factum est. Ad hoc enim fit aliquid, ut sit; si ergo verbum non esset homo, non posset dici quod verbum sit factum homo. Et ideo signanter Evangelista dixit factum est, et non dixit assumpsit, ut ostendat quod unio verbi ad carnem non est talis qualis est assumptio prophetarum, qui non assumebantur in unitatem suppositi, sed ad actum propheticum: sed est talis quod Deum vere faceret hominem, et hominem Deum, idest quod Deus esset homo. Fuerunt et alii, qui non intelligentes modum incarnationis, posuerunt quidem assumptionem praedictam esse terminatam ad veritatem personae, confitentes in Deo unam personam Dei et hominis; sed tamen dicunt in ipso fuisse duas hypostases, sive duo supposita, unum naturae humanae creatum, et temporale, aliud divinae increatum, et aeternum. Et talis est prima opinio quae ponitur III Sent. dist. VI. Sed secundum hanc opinionem non habet veritatem ista propositio: Deus factus est homo, et homo factus est Deus. Et ideo haec opinio damnata est tamquam haeretica in quinto Concilio, ubi dicitur: si quis in domino Iesu Christo unam personam, et duas hypostases dixerit, anathema sit. Et ideo Evangelista, ut omnem assumptionem excluderet, quae non terminatur ad unitatem personae, utitur hoc verbo factum est. Si vero quaeris quomodo verbum est homo, dicendum quod eo modo est homo quo quicumque alius est homo, scilicet habens humanam naturam. Non quod verbum sit ipsa humana natura, sed est divinum suppositum unitum humanae naturae. Hoc autem quod dicitur verbum caro factum est, non aliquam mutationem in verbo, sed solum in natura assumpta de novo in unitatem personae divinae dicit. Et verbum caro factum est, per unionem ad carnem. Unio autem relatio quaedam est. Relationes autem de novo dictae de Deo in respectu ad creaturas, non important mutationem ex parte Dei, sed ex parte creaturae novo modo se habentis ad Deum. Sequitur et habitavit in nobis; quod quidem dupliciter distinguitur a praemissis. Primo ut dicatur quod supra Evangelista egit de verbi incarnatione, dicens verbum caro factum est; hic vero modum incarnationis insinuat, dicens et habitavit in nobis. Secundum enim Chrysostomum et Hilarium, per hoc quod Evangelista dicit verbum caro factum est, posset aliquis intelligere quod sit conversum in carnem, et non sint in Christo duae naturae distinctae, sed una tantum natura ex humana et divina commixta; ideo Evangelista hoc excludens, subiunxit et habitavit in nobis, idest in nostra natura, ut tamen in sua maneret distinctum. Illud enim quod in aliquid convertitur, non manet ab eo in quod convertitur secundum naturam distinctum; quod autem ab aliquo non distinguitur, non inhabitat illud; quia habitare distinctionem inhabitantis et in quo habitat importat. Sed verbum habitavit in nostra natura ergo naturaliter est ab ipsa distinctum. Et ideo inquantum humana natura a natura verbi fuit in Christo distincta, dicitur habitaculum divinitatis et templum, iuxta illud infra II, 21: hoc autem dicebat de templo corporis sui. Et quidem, quamvis a praedictis sanctis hoc sane dicatur, cavenda est tamen calumnia quam aliqui ex hoc incurrunt. Nam antiqui doctores et sancti, emergentes errores circa fidem ita persequebantur, ut interdum viderentur in errores labi contrarios; sicut Augustinus contra Manichaeos, qui destruebant libertatem arbitrii, taliter disputat, quod videtur in haeresim Pelagii incidisse. Hoc igitur modo Evangelista Ioannes, ne per hoc quod dixerat verbum caro factum est, intelligeretur in Christo confusio vel transmutatio naturarum, subiunxit et habitavit in nobis: ex quo verbo Nestorius occasionem sumens erroris, dixit, filium Dei sic esse unitum homini ut tamen Dei et hominis non esset una persona: voluit enim quod verbum per solam inhabitationem per gratiam fuerit humanae naturae unitum. Ex hoc autem sequitur quod filius Dei non sit homo. Ad quorum evidentiam sciendum est quod in Christo duo considerare possumus, scilicet naturam et personam. Secundum naturam autem attenditur in Christo distinctio, non secundum personam, quae una et eadem est in duabus naturis; quia humana natura in Christo fuit assumpta in unitatem personae. Inhabitatio ergo, quam ponunt sancti, referenda est ad naturam, ut dicatur quod habitavit in nobis, idest natura verbi inhabitavit naturam nostram, non secundum hypostasim seu personam, quae est eadem utriusque naturae in Christo. Quod autem blasphemat Nestorius, auctoritate sacrae Scripturae evidenter refellitur. Apostolus enim Phil. II, 6 unionem Dei et hominis exinanitionem vocat, dicens de filio Dei: qui cum in forma Dei esset, non rapinam arbitratus est se esse aequalem Deo; sed semetipsum exinanivit, formam servi accipiens. Non autem dicitur Deus exinaniri Deus ex eo quod creaturam rationalem per gratiam inhabitet, quia sic pater et spiritus sanctus exinanirentur, cum et ipsi inhabitare hominem dicantur per gratiam; dicit enim Christus de se et de patre loquens, infra XIV, 23: ad eum veniemus et mansionem apud eum faciemus. De spiritu autem sancto dicit apostolus, I Cor. III, 16: spiritus Dei habitat in nobis. Praeterea, si Christus personaliter Deus non esset, praesumptuosissime dixisset: ego et pater unum sumus; et antequam Abraham fieret, ego sum. Ego autem personam loquentis demonstrat; homo autem erat, qui loquebatur; unum cum patre praeexistebat Abrahae. Potest etiam aliter continuari, ut dicatur quod supra egit de verbi incarnatione, nunc autem agit de verbi incarnati conversatione, dicens et habitavit in nobis, idest inter nos apostolos conversatus est familiariter, secundum quod dicit Petrus, Act. I, 21: in omni tempore quo intravit et exivit inter nos dominus Iesus. Baruch IV, 38: post haec in terris visus est. Hoc autem Evangelista addidit propter duo. Primo ut ostendat mirabilem conformitatem verbi ad homines, inter quos sic conversatus est, ut videretur quasi unus ex eis. Non solum enim in natura voluit assimilari hominibus, sed etiam in convictu et familiari conversatione absque peccato, cum eis voluit esse simul, ut sic homines suae conversationis dulcedine allectos traheret ad seipsum. Secundo ut ostendat sui testimonii veritatem. Evangelista enim supra de verbo magna quaedam dixerat et adhuc multa de eo mirabilia dicturus erat, et ideo ut eius testimonium credibilius fieret, accepit quasi in veritatis argumentum, se cum Christo conversatum fuisse, dicens et habitavit in nobis. Quasi dicat: bene possum testimonium perhibere de ipso quia cum ipso conversatus sum; I Io. c. I, 1: quod fuit ab initio, quod audivimus, quod vidimus oculis nostris, quod perspeximus, et manus nostrae contrectaverunt de verbo vitae etc., et Act. X, 40: dedit eum manifestum fieri, non omni populo, sed testibus praeordinatis a Deo idest nobis qui manducavimus et bibimus cum illo.
Posita verbi incarnatione, hic consequenter Evangelista insinuat verbi incarnati evidentiam. Et circa hoc duo facit. Primo enim ostendit modum manifestationis verbi incarnati; secundo utrumque modum exponit, ibi de plenitudine eius nos omnes accepimus. Innotuit autem apostolis verbum incarnatum dupliciter. Primo quidem per visum acceperunt de eo notitiam; secundo per auditum ex testimonio Ioannis Baptistae. Primo ergo manifestat quid de verbo viderunt; secundo quid a Ioanne audierunt, ibi Ioannes testimonium perhibet de ipso. Dicit autem tria de verbo. Primo eius gloriae manifestationem; unde dicit et vidimus gloriam eius; secundo eius gloriae singularitatem, cum subdit quasi unigeniti; tertio huius gloriae determinationem, quia plenum gratiae et veritatis. Hoc autem quod dicit vidimus gloriam eius, potest continuari ad praecedentia tripliciter. Primo ut sit argumentum eius quod dixerat verbum caro factum est: quasi dicat: ex hoc habeo et scio quod verbum Dei est incarnatum, quia ego et alii apostoli vidimus gloriam eius. Infra III, 11: quod scimus, loquimur: et quod vidimus, testamur. Et I Io. c. I, 1: quod fuit ab initio, quod audivimus, quod vidimus oculis nostris et cetera. Secundo continuatur, secundum Chrysostomum, ut sit expressivum multiplicis beneficii. Quasi dicat: non solum hoc beneficium collatum est nobis per incarnationem verbi, scilicet quod efficiamur filii Dei, sed etiam quod videamus gloriam. Oculi enim debiles et infirmi lucem solis non possunt videre; sed tunc eam videre possunt, cum in nube vel in aliquo corpore opaco resplendet. Ante incarnationem enim verbi mentes humanae erant invalidae ad videndum in seipsa lucem divinam, quae illuminat omnem rationalem naturam; et ideo ut a nobis facilius cerni contemplarique posset nube nostrae carnis se texit, iuxta illud Ex. XVI, 10: respexerunt ad solitudinem, et viderunt gloriam domini in nube, idest verbum Dei in carne. Secundum Augustinum autem continuatur sic quod referatur ad beneficium gratiae. Spirituales enim oculi hominum non solum naturaliter deficiebant a contemplatione divinae lucis, sed etiam ex defectu peccati, secundum illud Ps. LVII, 9: supercecidit ignis, scilicet concupiscentiae, et non viderunt solem, scilicet iustitiae. Ut ergo ipsa divina lux posset a nobis videri, sanavit oculos hominum, faciens de carne sua salutare collirium, ut sic oculos ex concupiscentia carnis corruptos verbum collirio suae carnis curaret. Et inde est quod statim cum verbum factum est caro, dixerunt et vidimus gloriam eius. Ad hoc significandum fecit dominus lutum ex sputo, et linivit oculus caeci nati, infra IX, 6. Lutum quidem de terra est, sputum autem a capite derivatur. Ita in persona Christi, natura quidem humana assumpta de terra est; verbum vero incarnatum a capite est, scilicet a Deo patre. Hoc ergo lutum statim cum appositum fuit oculis hominum, vidimus gloriam eius. Hanc autem verbi gloriam Moyses videre optavit, dicens ostende mihi gloriam tuam (Ex. XXXIII, 18). Sed eam videre non meruit: immo dictum est ei a domino: posteriora mea videbis, idest umbras et figuras. Apostoli vero ipsam claritatem viderunt; II Cor. III, 18: nos autem revelata facie gloriam Dei speculantes in eamdem imaginem transformamur de claritate in claritatem. Moyses enim et alii prophetae verbi gloriam manifestandam mundo in fine temporum speculabantur in aenigmatibus et figuris; unde dicit apostolus, infra XII: haec dixit Isaias, quando vidit gloriam eius. Apostoli autem ipsam verbi claritatem per praesentiam corporalem viderunt. II Cor. III, v. 18: nos autem revelata facie etc.; et Lc. c. X, 23: beati oculi qui vident quae vos videtis. Multi enim reges et prophetae voluerunt videre quae vos videtis et non viderunt. Consequenter cum dicit gloriam quasi unigeniti, ostendit gloriae eius singularitatem. Cum enim de quibusdam hominibus inveniatur quod fuerunt gloriosi, sicut de Moyse legitur Ex. XXXIV, 29: et facies eius facta est splendida, vel cornuta, secundum aliam litteram, posset aliquis dicere quod ex hoc quod viderunt eum gloriosum, non debet dici quod verbum Dei sit factum caro. Sed hoc Evangelista excludit, dicens gloriam quasi unigeniti a patre. Quasi dicat: gloria eius non est sicut gloria Angeli, vel Moysis, et Eliae, vel Elisei, vel cuiusque alterius, sed quasi unigeniti; quia, ut dicitur Hebr. III, 3: ampliori gloria iste prae Moyse dignus est habitus. Ps. LXXXVIII, 7: quis similis Deo in filiis Dei? Hoc autem quod dicit quasi est expressivum veritatis, secundum Gregorium, et est modus, ut Chrysostomus dicit. Sicut si aliquis vidisset regem multiplici gloria incedentem, et interrogatus ab aliquo, qualiter regem vidisset, volens se expedire, illam multiplicem gloriam uno verbo exprimeret, dicens quod ipse incedebat sicut rex, idest sicut regem decebat; ita hic Evangelista, quasi interrogaretur ab aliquo, qualis esset gloria verbi quam viderat, non valens eam plene exprimere, dicit eam esse quasi unigeniti a patre, idest talem qualem decebat unigenitum Dei. Attenditur autem singularitas gloriae verbi quantum ad quatuor. Primo quantum ad patris testimonium, quod filio reddidit. Quia Ioannes fuit unus de tribus qui viderant Christum transfiguratum in monte, et audierunt vocem patris dicentis: hic est filius meus dilectus, in quo mihi bene complacui; et de ista gloria dicitur II Petr. I, 17: accepit a Deo patre honorem et gloriam, voce delapsa ad eum huiuscemodi a magnifica gloria: hic est filius meus dilectus. Secundo quantum ad Angelorum ministerium. Nam ante incarnationem Christi homines erant Angelis subiecti; postmodum vero, Christo subiecti ministraverunt, Matth. IV, 11: tunc accesserunt Angeli et ministrabant ei. Tertio vero quantum ad naturae obsequium. Tota enim natura Christo obediens ei obsequebatur ad nutum, utpote ab ipso instituta, quia omnia per ipsum facta sunt: quod quidem nec Angelis, nec alicui alii creaturae concessum est, nisi soli verbo incarnato. Et hoc est quod dicitur Matth. VIII, 27: qualis est iste, quia mare et venti obediunt ei? Quarto quantum ad docendi, seu operandi modum. Moyses enim et alii prophetae non propria auctoritate praecepta dabant et homines instruebant, sed Dei; unde dicebant: haec dicit dominus etc.; et: locutus est dominus ad Moysen et cetera. Christus vero loquitur tamquam dominus et potestatem habens, idest propria virtute: unde dicebat, Matth. V, v. 22: ego dico vobis etc.; propter quod in fine sermonis eius in monte dicitur, quod erat docens quasi potestatem habens et cetera. Item, alii sancti operabantur miracula virtute non sua; Christus vero virtute propria; unde dicitur Mc. I, 27: quaenam est haec nova doctrina, quia in potestate etiam spiritibus immundis imperat, et obediunt ei? Sic ergo singularis est gloria verbi. Nota autem quod aliquando dicimus in Scriptura Christum unigenitum, sicut hic, et infra: unigenitus, qui est in sinu patris ipse enarravit. Aliquando vero dicimus ipsum primogenitum; Hebr. I, 6: et cum iterum introducit primogenitum in orbem terrae, dicit: et adorent eum omnes Angeli Dei. Quod ideo est, quod sicut totius sanctae Trinitatis proprium est esse Deum, ita verbo Dei proprium est quod sit Deus genitus: et quandoque quidem nominamus Deum, secundum quod est in se, et sic ipse solus singulariter est Deus per essentiam suam. Unde hoc modo dicimus quod est tantum unus Deus, secundum illud Deut. VI, 4: audi Israel, dominus Deus tuus, unus est. Quandoque nomen deitatis derivamus etiam ad alios, secundum quod aliqua similitudo divinitatis ad homines derivatur: et sic dicimus multos deos, secundum illud I Cor. VIII, 5: siquidem sunt dii multi, et domini multi. Eodem modo ergo, si consideremus proprietatem filii qua genitus est, quantum ad modum quo sibi ista filiatio attribuitur, scilicet per naturam, dicimus ipsum unigenitum Dei: quia cum ipse solus sit naturaliter genitus a patre, unus tantum est genitus Dei. Si vero consideremus ipsum filium, secundum quod per similitudinem ad ipsum filiatio derivatur ad alios, sic sunt multi filii Dei per participationem. Et quia per eius similitudinem dicuntur filii Dei, ideo ipse dicitur primogenitus omnium. Rom. VIII, 29: quos praescivit conformes fieri imaginis filii sui, ut sit ipse primogenitus in multis fratribus. Sic ergo Christus dicitur unigenitus Dei per naturam, primogenitus vero inquantum ab eius naturali filiatione per quamdam similitudinem et participationem filiatio ad multos derivatur. Consequenter cum dicit plenum gratiae et veritatis, ipsam gloriam verbi determinat, quasi dicat: talis est eius gloria quod plenus est gratia et divinitate. Possunt autem haec verba exponi de Christo tripliciter. Primo secundum unionem. Ad hoc enim alicui datur gratia, ut per ipsam uniatur Deo. Ille ergo gratia plenus est qui perfectissime Deo unitur. Et alii quidem coniunguntur Deo per participationem similitudinis naturalis, Gen. I, 26: faciamus hominem ad imaginem et similitudinem nostram, alii per fidem, Eph. III, 17: habitare per fidem Christum etc., alii per caritatem, quia, qui manet in caritate, in Deo manet, ut dicitur I Io. IV, v. 16. Sed omnes isti modi particulares sunt: quia neque per participationem naturalis similitudinis perfecte aliquis Deo coniungitur, neque videtur Deus per fidem sicuti est, neque per caritatem diligitur, quantum diligibilis est: quia enim ipse est infinitum bonum, ideo sua amabilitas est infinita, ad quam infinite amandam non potest pertingere alicuius creaturae amor; et ideo non potest esse plena coniunctio. In Christo autem, in quo humana natura est unita divinitati in unitate suppositi, est invenire plenam et perfectam coniunctionem ad Deum, quia talis fuit illa unio, ut omnes actus tam divinae quam humanae naturae essent actus suppositi. Fuit ergo plenus gratia, inquantum non accepit a Deo aliquod donum gratuitum speciale, sed quod esset ipse Deus; Phil. II, 9: dedit illi nomen, scilicet Deus pater filio, quod est super omne nomen; Rom. I, 4: qui praedestinatus est filius Dei in virtute. Fuit etiam plenus veritatis, quia humana natura in Christo pervenit ad ipsam veritatem divinam, scilicet quod ille homo esset ipsa divina veritas: in aliis enim hominibus sunt multae veritates participatae, secundum quod ipsa veritas prima per multas similitudines in mentibus eorum relucet, sed Christus est ipsa veritas. Unde dicitur Col. II, 3 quod in ipso sunt absconditi omnes thesauri sapientiae. Secundo possunt exponi secundum animae perfectionem, secundum quam dicitur plenus gratiae et veritatis, secundum quod in anima eius fuit plenitudo omnium gratiarum absque mensura aliqua; Io. III, 34: non enim datus est spiritus ad mensuram, qui tamen mensurate datus est omnibus creaturis rationalibus, tam Angelis, quam hominibus. Nam, secundum Augustinum, sicut in singulis membris corporis est unus sensus communis, scilicet sensus tactus, in capite vero sunt sensus omnes, ita in Christo, qui est caput omnis rationalis naturae, et specialiter sanctorum, qui ei uniuntur per fidem et caritatem, superabundanter omnes virtutes, et gratiae, et dona inveniuntur: in aliis vero sanctis participationes sunt donorum et gratiarum, quamvis commune donum omnium sanctorum sit caritas. De plenitudine gratiae Christi dicitur Is. XI, 1: egredietur virga de radice Iesse et flos de radice eius ascendet, et requiescet super eum spiritus domini: spiritus sapientiae et intellectus, spiritus consilii et fortitudinis, spiritus scientiae et pietatis, et replebit eum spiritus timoris domini. Fuit etiam Christus veritate plenus, quia eius pretiosa et beata anima omnem veritatem, tam divinam quam humanam, ab instanti conceptionis cognovit; unde dicit ei Petrus: tu omnia scis, et in Ps. LXXXVIII, 25: veritas mea, idest cognitio omnis veritatis et misericordia mea, idest omnium gratiarum plenitudo cum ipso. Tertio modo possunt exponi secundum capitis dignitatem, scilicet inquantum Christus est caput Ecclesiae. Et sic sibi competit gratiam communicare aliis, tam in mentibus hominum operando virtutem per gratiae infusionem, quam merendo per doctrinam et opera et passiones mortis superabundantem gratiam infinitis mundis, si essent. Inquantum igitur nobis largitus est perfectam iustitiam, quam non poteramus habere per legem, quae infirmabatur, quae nullum iustificare posset, neque ad perfectum adducere, intantum gratia plenus est, ut dicitur Rom. c. VIII, 3: quod impossibile erat legi, in quo infirmabatur per carnem, Deus filium suum mittens in similitudinem carnis peccati, de peccato damnavit peccatum in carne. Item fuit veritate plenus, inquantum figuras veteris legis et promissiones factas patribus adimplevit; Rom. XV, 8: dico Christum Iesum ministrum fuisse circumcisionis ad confirmandas promissiones patrum; II Cor. I, v. 20: quotquot promissiones Dei sunt in illo est. Item dicitur plenus gratia, quia eius doctrina et conversatio gratiosissima fuit; Ps. XLIV, 3: diffusa est gratia in labiis tuis. Unde dicitur Lc. XXI, 3, quod omnes mane ibant, idest mane ire studebant. Sed plenus veritate, quia non docebat in aenigmatibus et figuris, nec palpabat vitia hominum, sed veritatem omnibus aperte sine ulla fraude praedicabat; infra XVI, 29: ecce palam loqueris et cetera.
Posita evidentia verbi, qua ipsis apostolis innotuit per visum, consequenter Evangelista ponit eius evidentiam, secundum quod aliis quam apostolis innotuit per auditum, per testimonium ipsius Ioannis et cetera. Et circa hoc tria facit. Primo enim testis introducitur; secundo testificandi modus innuitur, ibi et clamat; tertio testimonium ponitur, ibi hic erat quem dixi et cetera. Dicit ergo: nos quidem gloriam eius vidimus, sicut unigeniti a patre, sed hoc nobis non creditur, quia forte habemur suspecti: accedat illius testis, scilicet Ioannes Baptista, qui testimonium Christo perhibuit; est enim testis fidelis, qui non mentietur; Prov. XIV, 5: testis fidelis non mentietur et cetera. Infra V, 33: vos misistis ad Ioannem, et testimonium perhibuit veritati. Hic enim Ioannes testimonium perhibet; quasi dicat, perseveranter suum officium implet, quia ipse venit in testimonium. Prov. c. XII, 19: labium veritatis firmum erit in perpetuum. Deinde cum dicit et clamat dicens, ponitur modus testificandi, qui fit cum clamore. Et ideo dicit clamat, inquantum libere sine timore; Is. XL, 9: exalta in fortitudine vocem tuam (...) ecce Deus noster. Ardenter et ex magno fervore; quia, ut dicitur Eccli. XLVIII, 1, verbum eius ut facula ardebat; Is. VI, 3: Seraphim clamabant alter ad alterum, per quod intimior ardor mentis exprimitur. Per manifestationem etiam clamoris ostenditur, quod non sub figuris, neque occulte ad paucos sermo testificantis dirigitur; sed aperte et ostensive declaratur et denuntiatur veritas iam non paucis, sed multis; Is. LVIII, v. 1: clama, ne cesses. Deinde cum dicit hic erat quem dixi, quid sit testificatus subiungit. Ubi duo facit. Primo enim describit continuitatem sui testimonii; secundo describit eum, cui testimonium perhibet, ibi qui post me venturus est, ante me factus est. Fuit ergo testimonium Baptistae continuum, quia non semel tantum sed multoties, et etiam antequam Christus ad ipsum venisset, Ioannes testimonium ei perhibuit: et ideo dixit hic erat quem dixi, idest antequam vidissem eum corporaliter, testimonium ei perhibui. Lc. I, 76: tu puer propheta altissimi vocaberis. Et hoc ideo quia praesentem et futurum ostendit. Est etiam eius testimonium certum, quia non solum futurum esse praedixit, sed praesentem digito demonstravit, dicens ecce agnus Dei. Ex quo insinuatur quod Christus corporaliter praesens erat Ioanni; nam solitus erat saepe ad Ioannem venire, antequam baptizatus fuisset.
1:15
Describit autem consequenter eum, cui testimonium perhibet, dicens qui post me venturus est, ante me factus est. Ubi notandum est, quod Ioannes non statim praedicat discipulis Christum esse filium Dei, sed paulatim eos ad altiora provehit: primo praeferens eum sibi, qui tamen tantae famae et auctoritatis erat ut crederetur esse Christus, vel aliquis de magnis prophetis. Comparat autem Christum sibi primo quantum ad ordinem praedicationis; secundo quantum ad ordinem dignitatis; tertio quantum ad ordinem durationis. Quantum ad ordinem praedicationis, Ioannes praecessit Christum sicut famulus dominum, et sicut miles regem, et sicut Lucifer solem; Mal. III, 1: ecce ego mitto Angelum meum, et praeparabit viam ante faciem meam. Qui igitur post me venit, scilicet in notitiam hominum praedicando. Et notandum, quod ly venit est temporis praesentis, quia in Graeco ponitur participium praesentis temporis. Praecessit autem Ioannes Christum duplici ratione. Primo, secundum Chrysostomum, quia Ioannes erat consanguineus Christi secundum carnem; Lc. I, 36: et ecce Elisabeth cognata tua et cetera. Si ergo testimonium perhibuisset Christo postquam eum cognoverat, potuisset suum testimonium suspectum habere, et ideo Ioannes venit ad praedicandum, nondum habens familiaritatem cum Christo, ut eius testimonium efficacius esset. Unde dicebat infra: ego nesciebam eum; sed ut manifestetur in Israel propterea veni ego, in aqua baptizans. Secundo quia in his quae de potentia procedunt ad actum, imperfectum naturaliter praecedit perfectum: unde dicitur I Cor. XV, 46: non prius quod spirituale est, sed quod animale. Et ideo perfectam Christi doctrinam debuit praecedere imperfectior doctrina Ioannis, quae quodam modo fuit media inter doctrinam legis et prophetarum, quae annuntiabat de longinquo Christum futurum, et doctrinam Christi, quae manifesta erat, et Christum manifeste annuntiabat. Comparat sibi quantum ad ordinem dignitatis, cum dicit ante me factus est: unde sciendum est, quod ex hoc Ariani sumpserunt occasionem erroris. Dicebant enim quod hoc quod dixit post me venit, intelligitur de Christo secundum carnem assumptam, sed hoc quod addit ante me factus est, non potest intelligi nisi de verbo Dei, quod carni praeexistebat; et propterea Christum, inquantum est verbum, factum esse, et non esse patri coaeternum. Sed, secundum Chrysostomum, haec expositio stulta est, quia si hoc esset verum, non dixisset Baptista ante me factus est, quia prior me erat, cum nullus ignoret, quod si prior eo erat, ante eum factus est; sed potius e converso dixisset: prior me erat, quia factus est ante me. Et ideo, secundum Chrysostomum, intelligendum est de prioritate dignitatis, idest mihi praelatus est, et antepositus. Quasi dicat: quamvis Iesus post me ad praedicandum venerit, tamen factus est ante me, idest dignior, et superior auctoritate, et hominum reputatione; Iob XXVIII, 17: non adaequabitur ei aurum et cetera. Vel ante me factus est, idest coram me, ut habetur in Glossa, et littera in Graeco hoc sonat. Quasi dicat coram me, idest in conspectu meo, quia mihi apparuit, et innotuit. Item comparat eum sibi quantum ad ordinem durationis, dicens quia prior me erat. Quasi dicat: ipse est ab aeterno Deus, ego ex tempore homo fragilis; et ideo, licet eum praedicando praecesserim, tamen rationabiliter praelatus est mihi in fama et opinione hominum, qui sua aeternitate praecedit omnia. Hebr. ult., 8: Iesus Christus heri et hodie, ipse et in saecula; et infra VIII, 58: antequam Abraham fieret, ego sum. Potest etiam exponi quod dictum est ante me factus est ut referatur ad ordinem temporis secundum carnem. Christus enim in instanti suae conceptionis fuit perfectus Deus et perfectus homo, habens rationalem animam perfectam virtutibus, et corpus omnibus lineamentis distinctum, non tamen secundum quantitatem perfectam; Ier. XXXI, 22: mulier circumdabit virum, scilicet perfectum. Constat autem quod Christus ante fuit conceptus quam Ioannes esset natus, et perfectus homo; et ideo dicit ante me factus est quia ipse prius fuit homo perfectus, quam natus fuisset ex utero.
1:16
Sequitur et de plenitudine eius nos omnes accepimus. Verba ista usque ad locum illum et hoc est testimonium Ioannis, dupliciter inseruntur. Nam, secundum Origenem, sunt verba prolata a Ioanne Baptista, et subduntur ab eo quasi in argumentum praemissorum; quasi dicat: vere prior me erat, quia de plenitudine eius, scilicet gratiarum, non solum ego, sed etiam omnes, prophetae et patres, accepimus, quia omnes gratiam quam habuerunt, habuerunt per fidem incarnati verbi. Et secundum hoc, ab illo loco Ioannes testimonium perhibet etc., incepit texere exordium suae incarnationis. Secundum Augustinum autem et Chrysostomum, sunt verba Ioannis Evangelistae ab hoc quod dicitur Ioannes testimonium perhibet; et tunc continuatur ad hoc quod dixerat plenum gratiae et veritatis, ut dicatur sic: supra Evangelista ostendit evidentiam verbi, quae innotuit et per visum, et per auditum, hic vero utrumque explicat: et primo quomodo apostolis innotuit visu, quasi a Christo accipientibus; secundo quomodo Ioannes testificatus est de eo, ibi et hoc est testimonium Ioannis. Circa primum duo facit. Primo ostendit Christum esse fontalem originem omnis spiritualis gratiae; secundo ostendit derivatam in nos gratiam per ipsum et ab ipso, ibi et gratiam pro gratia. Dicit ergo primo: experimento patet, quod vidimus eum plenum gratiae et veritatis, quia de plenitudine eius nos omnes accepimus. Est autem plenitudo sufficientiae, qua aliquis est sufficiens ad actus meritorios et excellentes faciendos, sicut in Stephano. Item est plenitudo redundantiae, qua beata virgo excellit omnibus sanctis, propter eminentiam, et abundantiam meritorum. Est etiam plenitudo efficientiae et effluentiae, quae soli homini Christo competit, quasi auctori gratiae. Sic enim beata virgo redundavit gratiam in nos, ut tamen auctrix gratiae nequaquam esset, sed ab anima eius gratia redundavit in carnem; nam per spiritus sancti gratiam, non solum mens virginis fuit Deo per amorem perfecte unita, sed eius uterus a spiritu sancto est supernaturaliter impraegnatus. Et ideo statim cum dixisset Gabriel, ave gratia plena, subiunxit de plenitudine ventris, dicens dominus tecum. Ut ergo Evangelista hanc singularem plenitudinem redundantiae et efficientiae de Christo ostenderet, dixit de plenitudine eius omnes accepimus, scilicet omnes apostoli, et patriarchae, et prophetae, et iusti, qui fuerunt, sunt et erunt, et etiam omnes Angeli. Nota, quod haec praepositio de aliquando quidem denotat efficientiam, seu originalem causam, sicut cum dicitur, radius est vel procedit de sole; et hoc modo denotat in Christo efficientiam gratiae, seu auctoritatem, quia plenitudo gratiae, quae est in Christo, est causa omnium gratiarum quae sunt in omnibus intellectualibus creaturis. Eccli. c. XXIV, 26: venite ad me, omnes, qui concupiscitis me, et a generationibus meis, quae scilicet de me procedunt, adimplemini, participatione sufficientis plenitudinis. Aliquando autem haec praepositio de denotat consubstantialitatem, ut cum dicitur, filius est de patre; et secundum hoc plenitudo Christi est spiritus sanctus, qui procedit ab eo consubstantialis ei in natura, in virtute et maiestate. Quamvis enim dona habitualia alia sint in anima Christi quam ea quae sunt in nobis, tamen spiritus sanctus, qui est in ipso, unus et idem replet omnes sanctificandos. I Cor. XII, 11: haec omnia operatur unus atque idem spiritus; Ioel. II, 28: effundam de spiritu meo super omnem carnem; Rom. c. VIII, 9: si quis spiritum Christi non habet, hic non est eius. Nam unitas spiritus sancti facit in Ecclesia unitatem; Sap. I, 7: spiritus domini replevit orbem terrarum. Tertio modo haec praepositio de denotat partialitatem, sicut cum dicimus, accipe de hoc pane, vel vino, idest partem accipe, et non totum; et hoc modo accipiendo, notat in accipientibus partem de plenitudine derivari. Ipse enim accepit omnia dona spiritus sancti sine mensura, secundum plenitudinem perfectam; sed nos de plenitudine eius partem aliquam participamus per ipsum; et hoc secundum mensuram, quam unicuique Deus divisit. Eph. IV, 7: unicuique autem nostrum data est gratia, secundum mensuram donationis. Deinde cum dicit et gratiam pro gratia ostendit derivationem gratiarum in nos per Christum. Ubi duo facit. Primo ostendit quod accepimus gratiam a Christo, eo auctore; secundo accepimus ab eo sapientiam, ibi Deum nemo vidit unquam. Circa primum duo facit. Primo ostendit quod de plenitudine eius accepimus; secundo necessitatem accipiendi ostendit, ibi quia lex per Moysen data est et cetera. Dicit autem primo quod accepimus de plenitudine Christi hoc quod dico et gratiam pro gratia. Sed per hoc quod ponitur, cogimur intelligere quod de plenitudine eius accepimus gratiam, et pro illa gratia accepimus aliam; et ideo videndum est quae sit prima gratia, pro qua secundam accepimus, et quae ipsa secunda. Secundum Chrysostomum autem, prima gratia, quam totum genus humanum accepit, fuit gratia veteris testamenti accepta in lege, quae quidem magna fuit, iuxta illud Prov. IV, v. 2: donum bonum tribuam vobis et cetera. Magnum enim fuit quod hominibus idolatris data sunt praecepta a Deo, et unius veri Dei vera cognitio; Rom. III, 1: quid amplius Iudaeo, aut quae utilitas circumcisionis? Multum quidem per omnem modum. Primum quidem quia credita sunt eis eloquia Dei. Pro gratia ergo ista, quae prima fuit, secundam longe meliorem accepimus; Zach. IV, 7: exaequabit gratiae. Sed numquid non sufficiebat prima gratia? Respondeo dicendum, quod non, quia per legem solum cognitio peccati datur, non ablatio. Neminem enim ad perfectum adduxit lex, Hebr. VII, 19. Et ideo erat necesse quod alia gratia peccata auferens, et reconcilians Deo, veniret.
1:17
Et ideo dicit quia lex per Moysen data est; gratia et veritas per Iesum Christum facta est. Ubi Evangelista praefert Christum legislatori Moysi, quem Baptista sibi praetulerat. Moyses autem reputabatur maximus prophetarum; Deut. ult., 10: non surrexit ultra propheta in Israel sicut Moyses. Praefert autem eum Moysi, quantum ad excellentiam et dignitatem operum quia per Moysen lex data est; et horum duorum, tantum unum excellit alium, quantum figuratum excellit figuram et veritas ipsam umbram. Umbram enim habuit lex futurorum bonorum etc.; Hebr. X, 1. Item excellit quantum ad modum operandi: quia lex data est per Moysen, sicut ut per proponentem, non per facientem; quia, solus dominus est legifer noster: Is. XXXIII, v. 22. Gratia autem, et veritas facta est per Christum, sicut per dominum et auctorem veritatis et gratiae, ut supra expositum est. Secundum Augustinum vero, prima est iustificans et praeveniens, quae non datur nobis ex operibus; Rom. XI, 6: si autem gratia, iam non ex operibus. Pro ista ergo gratia, scilicet imperfecta, accepimus aliam gratiam consummatam, scilicet aeternae vitae. Et quamvis aeterna vita aliquo modo meritis acquiratur, tamen quia principium merendi in omnibus est gratia praeveniens, ideo vita aeterna dicitur gratia; Rom. VI, 23: gratia Dei vita aeterna. Et, ut breviter concludatur, quicquid praevenienti gratiae de gratia additur, totum gratia pro gratia dicitur. Necessitas autem secundae gratiae est ex insufficientia legis, quae ostendebat quid faciendum et quid cavendum erat; sed ad implendum ea quae praecipiebat, non praebebat auxilium; immo per occasionem operabatur mortem quae tamen videbatur fuisse ad vitam; apostolus, Rom. VII, 10, et II Cor. III, v. 9, dicit, legem ministram fuisse mortis: nam si ministratio damnationis in gloria est, multo magis abundat ministerium iustitiae in gloria. Item promittebat auxilium gratiae, sed non solvebat, quia neminem ad perfectum adducit lex, ut dicitur Hebr. VII, 19. Item per sacrificia et caeremonias veritatem novae gratiae figurabat, ipso suo ritu clamans eam figuram; et ideo necesse fuit quod Christus veniret, qui per mortem propriam alienas mortes perimeret, et conferret auxilium novae gratiae, ut faciliter et delectabiliter adimpleremus praecepta, et moreremur transgressioni et conversationi antiquae; Rom. VI, 6: vetus homo noster simul crucifixus est et cetera. Item ut manifestaretur veritas figurarum contentarum in lege, et ut promissiones factae patribus solverentur; II Cor. I. Vel aliter, veritas per Christum facta est, quantum ad sapientiam et veritatem occultam a saeculis, quam veniens in mundum aperte docuit, infra XVIII, v. 37: in hoc natus sum, et ad hoc veni in mundum, ut testimonium perhibeam veritati. Sed si ipse Christus est veritas, ut infra XIV, 6 dicitur, quomodo per ipsum facta est veritas, cum nihil possit fieri a seipso? Respondeo, dicendum est, quod ipse est per suam essentiam veritas increata; quae aeterna est, et non facta, sed a patre est genita; sed per ipsum factae sunt omnes veritates creatae, quae sunt quaedam participationes et refulgentiae primae veritatis, quae in animabus sanctis relucent.
Supra Evangelista ostendit quomodo gratiam apostoli acceperunt a Christo, eo faciente; hic ostendit quomodo acceperunt ab ipso eam docente. Et circa hoc tria facit. Primo ostendit huius doctrinae necessitatem, dicens Deum nemo vidit unquam; secundo doctoris ad docendum eam facultatem, ibi unigenitus qui est in sinu patris; tertio ipsam doctrinam declarat, ibi enarravit. Necessitas autem huius doctrinae erat defectus sapientiae in hominibus, quem quidem defectum Evangelista insinuabat per ignorantiam Dei, quae in hominibus abundabat, dicens Deum nemo vidit unquam. Et hoc facit congrue: nam sapientia proprie in cognitione Dei, et divinorum consistit. Unde Augustinus dicit, quod sapientia est divinarum rerum cognitio, sicut et scientia humanarum. Quod autem hic dicit Evangelista Deum nemo vidit unquam contrariari videtur pluribus auctoritatibus divinae Scripturae. Dicitur enim Is. VI, 1: vidi dominum sedentem super solium excelsum et elevatum; II Reg. VI, 2, fere idem habetur: nomen domini sedentis super Cherubim etc.; Matth. V, v. 8, dicit dominus: beati mundo corde, quoniam ipsi Deum videbunt. Sed si aliquis responderet ad hoc ultimum, dicens, verum esse quod in praeterito nullus vidit, sed in futuro videbit, sicut dominus promittit, apostolus hoc excludit, dicens I Tim. ult., 16: lucem habitat inaccessibilem, quam nullus hominum vidit, sed nec videre potest. Sed quia apostolus dicit: nullus hominum vidit, posset aliquis dicere, quod si non ab hominibus videri possit, saltem videtur ab Angelis; praesertim cum Deus dicat Matth. XVIII, 10: Angeli eorum in caelis semper vident faciem patris. Sed nec isto modo dici potest: quia, ut dicitur Matth. XXII, 30: filii resurrectionis erunt sicut Angeli Dei in caelo. Si ergo Angeli vident Deum in caelo, manifestum est etiam quod et filii resurrectionis eum vident; I Io. III, 2: cum apparuerit, similes ei erimus, et videbimus eum sicut est. Quomodo ergo intelligendum est hoc quod dicit Evangelista Deum nemo vidit unquam? Ad huius ergo intellectum sciendum est, quod Deus dicitur videri tripliciter. Uno quidem modo per subiectam creaturam, visui corporali propositam; sicut creditur Abraham vidisse Deum, quando tres vidit, et unum adoravit, Gen. XVIII; unum quidem adoravit, quia tres, quos prius homines reputaverat, et postmodum Angelos credidit, recognovit mysterium Trinitatis. Alio modo per repraesentatam imaginationem; et sic Isaias vidit dominum sedentem super solium excelsum et elevatum. Plures visiones huic similes in Scripturis reperiuntur. Alio vero modo videtur per aliquam speciem intelligibilem a sensibilibus abstractam, ab his qui per considerationem magnitudinis creaturarum, intellectu intuentur magnitudinem creatoris, ut dicitur Sap. XIII, 5: a magnitudine speciei et creaturae cognoscibiliter poterit creator horum videri, et Rom. I, 20: invisibilia Dei a creatura mundi per ea quae facta sunt, intellecta conspiciuntur. Alio modo per aliquod spirituale lumen a Deo infusum spiritualibus mentibus in contemplatione; et hoc modo vidit Iacob Deum facie ad faciem, Gen. XXXII, 30 quae visio, secundum Gregorium, facta est per altam contemplationem. Sed per nullam istarum visionum, ad visionem divinae essentiae pervenitur: nulla enim species facta, sive qua informatur sensus exterior, sive qua informatur imaginatio, sive qua informatur intellectus, est repraesentativa divinae essentiae sicut est. Illud autem homo per essentiam cognoscit quod species quam habet in intellectu, repraesentat ut est: per nullam ergo speciem ad visionem divinae essentiae pervenitur. Quod autem nulla creata species divinam essentiam repraesentet, patet: quia nullum finitum potest repraesentare infinitum ut est; omnis autem species creata est finita: ergo et cetera. Praeterea, Deus est suum esse; et ideo eius sapientia et bonitas, et quaecumque alia, idem sunt; per unum autem creatum non possent omnia ista repraesentari: ergo cognitio qua Deus per creaturas videtur, non est ipsius essentia, sed aenigmatica et specularis, et a remotis. Iob XXXVI, 25: omnes homines vident eum, aliquo dictorum modorum, sed unusquisque intuetur procul, quia per omnes illas cognitiones non scitur de Deo quid est, sed quid non est, vel an est. Unde dicit Dionysius libro mysticae theologiae, quod perfectus modus quo Deus in vita praesenti cognoscitur, est per privationem omnium creaturarum, et intellectorum a nobis. Fuerunt autem aliqui dicentes, quod divina essentia numquam videbitur ab aliquo intellectu creato, et quod nec ab Angelis vel beatis videtur. Sed haec propositio ostenditur esse falsa et haeretica tripliciter. Primo quidem, quia contrariatur auctoritati divinae Scripturae; I Io. III, 2: videbimus eum sicuti est; et infra XVII, 3: haec est vita aeterna ut cognoscant te solum Deum verum, et quem misisti Iesum Christum. Secundo quia claritas Dei non est aliud quam eius substantia: non enim est lucens per participationem luminis, sed per seipsam. Tertio quia impossibile est quod aliquis perfectam beatitudinem consequatur, nisi in visione divinae essentiae: quia naturale desiderium intellectus est scire et cognoscere causas omnium effectuum cognitorum ab eo; quod non potest impleri nisi scita et cognita prima universali omnium causa, quae non est composita ex effectu et causa, sicut causae secundae. Et ideo auferre possibilitatem visionis divinae essentiae ab hominibus, est auferre ipsam beatitudinem. Necesse est ergo ad beatitudinem intellectus creati, ut divina essentia videatur, Matth. V, 8: beati mundo corde, quoniam ipsi Deum videbunt. Quo ad visionem autem divinae essentiae, oportet tria attendere. Primo, quia numquam videbitur oculo corporali, vel aliquo sensu, vel imaginatione, cum per sensus non percipiantur nisi sensata corporea; Deus autem incorporeus est; infra IV, v. 24: Deus spiritus est. Secundo, quia intellectus humanus quamdiu corpori est coniunctus, Deum videre non potest, quia aggravatur a corruptibili corpore, ne possit ad summum contemplationis pertingere. Et inde est quod anima quanto magis est a passionibus libera, et purgata ab affectibus terrenorum, tanto amplius in contemplationem veritatis ascendit, et gustat quam suavis est dominus. Summus gradus autem contemplationis est videre Deum per essentiam; et ideo quamdiu homo in corpore subiecto ex necessitate passionibus multis vivit, Deum non potest per essentiam videre. Ex. c. XXXIII, 20: non videbit me homo et vivet. Ad hoc ergo quod intellectus humanus divinam essentiam videat, necesse est ut totaliter deserat corpus; vel per mortem, sicut apostolus dicit II Cor. V, 8: audemus, et bonam voluntatem habemus magis peregrinari a corpore, et praesentes esse ad dominum; vel quod totaliter abstrahatur per raptum a corporis sensibus, sicut de Paulo legitur II Cor. c. XII, 3. Tertio modo, quod nullus intellectus creatus quantumcumque abstractus, sive per mortem, vel a corpore separatus, videns divinam essentiam, ipsam nullo modo comprehendere potest. Et ideo communiter dicitur, quod, licet divina essentia tota videatur a beatis, cum sit simplicissima et partibus carens, tamen non videtur totaliter, quia hoc esset eam comprehendere. Hoc enim quod dico totaliter, dicit modum quemdam. Quilibet autem modus Dei est divina essentia; unde qui non videt eum totaliter, non comprehendit eum. Comprehendere autem proprie dicitur aliquis aliquam rem cognoscendo, qui cognoscit rem illam quantum in se cognoscibilis est; alias, quamvis cognoscat eam, non tamen comprehendit. Sicut qui cognoscit hanc propositionem: triangulus habet tres angulos aequales duobus rectis, syllogismo dialectico, non cognoscit eam quantum cognoscibilis est, et ideo non cognoscit totaliter; sed qui cognoscit eam syllogismo demonstrativo, totaliter scit eam. Unumquodque enim tantum cognoscibile est, quantum habet de ente et veritate; sed ipse cognoscens tantum cognoscit quantum habet de virtute cognoscitiva. Omnis autem substantia intellectualis creata est finita: ergo finite cognoscit. Cum ergo Deus sit infinitae virtutis et entitatis, et per consequens infinite cognoscibilis, a nullo intellectu creato cognosci potest quantum est cognoscibilis; et ideo omni intellectui creato remanet incomprehensibilis; Iob XXXVI, 26: ecce Deus magnus vincens scientiam nostram. Solus autem ipse comprehendendo contemplatur seipsum, quia tanta est eius virtus in cognoscendo quanta est eius entitas in essendo. Ier. XXXII, 18: fortissime, magne, potens dominus exercituum nomen tibi, magnus consilio, incomprehensibilis cogitatu. Sic ergo, secundum praemissa, intelligitur Deum nemo vidit unquam. Primo sic: nemo, idest nullus hominum, vidit Deum, idest essentiam divinam, oculo corporali et imaginario. Secundo nemo, in hac mortali vita vivens, vidit divinam essentiam in seipsa. Tertio nemo, homo vel Angelus, vidit Deum, visione comprehensionis. Quod autem de aliquibus dicitur, quod Deum viderunt oculo, seu viventes in corpore, intelligitur non per essentiam, sed per subiectam creaturam, ut dictum est. Sic ergo necessarium erat quod reciperemus sapientiam, quia Deum nemo vidit unquam.
1:18
Huius autem sapientiae sufficiens doctor nobis proponitur ab Evangelista, cum subdit unigenitus filius qui est in sinu patris, in quo ostendit nobis doctoris ipsius facultatem per tria. Scilicet per naturalem similitudinem, et per singularem excellentiam, et per perfectissimam consubstantialitatem. Per naturalem similitudinem, quia filius naturaliter similitudinem patris habet. Et inde est etiam quod intantum aliquis dicitur filius Dei, inquantum similitudinem filii naturalis participat; et intantum cognoscit, inquantum de similitudine eius habet: quia cognitio fit per assimilationem. I Io. III, 2: nunc filii Dei sumus, et sequitur: cum apparuerit, similes ei erimus, et videbimus eum sicuti est. Et ideo in hoc quod Evangelista dicit filius, importatur similitudo, et aptitudo ad cognoscendum Deum. Sed quia iste doctor specialius quam alii filii Deum cognoscit, ideo Evangelista hoc insinuat per excellentiam singularem, cum dicit unigenitus; quasi dicat: iste cognoscit Deum prae aliis filiis. Ideo dicitur unigenitus, quia est filius naturalis, eamdem habens cum patre naturam et cognitionem; Ps. II, 7: dominus dixit ad me: filius meus es tu. Quamvis autem singulariter cognosceret, posset tamen sibi deesse facultas docendi, si non cognosceret totaliter; et ideo addit tertium, scilicet consubstantialitatem eius ad patrem, cum dicit in sinu patris: ut non accipiatur sinus prout in hominibus veste praecinctis dici consuevit, sed pro patris occulto. Illud enim in occulto gerimus, quod in sinu portamus. Occultum autem patris est, quia superexcedit omnem virtutem, et cognitionem, cum divina essentia sit infinita. In illo ergo sinu, idest in occultissimo paternae naturae et essentiae, quae excedit omnem virtutem creaturae, est unigenitus filius; et ideo consubstantialis est patri. Et quod Evangelista hic significavit per sinum hoc David expressit per uterum, dicens Ps. CIX, 3: ex utero ante Luciferum, idest ex intimo et occulto meae essentiae, incomprehensibili omni intellectui creato, genui te, et consubstantialem mihi, et eiusdem naturae et virtutis et potestatis et cognitionis; I Cor. II, v. 11: quae sunt hominis, nemo novit nisi spiritus hominis (...) et quae sunt Dei, nemo novit nisi spiritus Dei. Comprehendit ergo divinam essentiam, quae sua est. Anima autem Christi Deum cognoscendo non comprehendit, quia hoc non dicitur, nisi de unigenito, qui est in sinu patris. Unde et dominus dicit Matth. XI, 27: nemo novit patrem, nisi filius, et cui voluerit filius revelare; ut utrumque intelligatur de notitia comprehensionis, de qua hic videtur loqui Evangelista. Nullus enim divinam comprehendit essentiam, nisi solus Deus pater, et filius, et spiritus sanctus. Sic ergo patet facultas doctoris ad docendum. Notandum etiam, quod per hoc quod dicit qui est in sinu patris, excluditur error quorumdam, dicentium, patrem invisibilem esse, filium vero visibilem, et non visum fuisse in veteri testamento. Nam, ex hoc quod est in abscondito patris, manifestum est quod naturaliter invisibilis est, sicut pater. Et propter hoc dicebat de ipso Is. XLV, 15: tu es vere Deus absconditus. Et ideo in Scriptura divina fit mentio de incomprehensibilitate filii; Matth. XI, 27: nemo novit filium nisi pater, neque patrem quis novit nisi filius; Prov. XXX, 4: quod nomen filii eius, si nosti? Consequenter Evangelista modum tradendi ipsam doctrinam insinuat, cum dicit ipse enarravit. Olim enim unigenitus filius manifestavit Dei cognitionem per prophetas, qui eum intantum annuntiaverunt inquantum aeterni verbi fuerunt participes. Unde dicebant: factum est verbum domini et cetera. Sed nunc ipse unigenitus, filius, enarravit fidelibus. Is. LII, 6: ego ipse qui loquebar, ecce adsum; Hebr. I, 1: multifariam, multisque modis olim Deus loquens patribus in prophetis, novissime diebus istis locutus est nobis in filio. Et haec doctrina ideo omnibus aliis doctrinis supereminet dignitate, auctoritate et utilitate, quia ab unigenito filio, qui est prima sapientia, immediate est tradita. Hebr. II, 3: quae cum initium accepisset enarrari per dominum, ab eis qui audierunt, in nos confirmata est. Sed quid narravit nisi unum Deum? Hoc ipsum et Moyses enarravit, Deut. VI, 4: audi, Israel: dominus Deus tuus, dominus unus est. Quid ergo amplius Moyse? Multum per omnem modum, quia mysterium Trinitatis, et multa alia, quae nec Moyses, nec aliquis prophetarum narravit.
1:19
Supra ostendit Evangelista quomodo Christus innotuit testimonio Ioannis ipsis apostolis; hic plenius explicat ipsum testimonium. Et primo ponit testimonium Ioannis ad turbas; secundo vero testimonium quod perhibuit de Christo discipulis suis, ibi altera die iterum stabat. Si autem bene considerentur quae dicta sunt, duplex testimonium Ioannis ad Christum invenitur. Unum quod tulit Christo in eius praesentia, aliud in eius absentia: nisi enim in eius praesentia testimonium Ioannes tulisset, non dixisset hic erat, et nisi in eius absentia, non diceret quem dixi vobis. Primo ergo Evangelista explicat testimonium Ioannis quod tulit de Christo in eius absentia; secundo quod tulit in eius praesentia, ibi altera die vidit. Differunt autem haec duo testimonia, quia primum tulit interrogatus, alterum spontaneus; et ideo in primo testimonio non solum ponitur testimonium quod tulit, sed etiam ipsa interrogatio. Primo autem fuit interrogatus de persona; secundo de officio, ibi et qui missi fuerant. Ostenditur ergo primo quomodo Ioannes confessus est se non esse quod non erat; secundo quomodo non negavit se esse quod erat, ibi dixerunt ergo ei: quis es? Circa primum ponuntur tres interrogationes est tres responsiones, sicut patet in littera. In prima autem interrogatione est magna Iudaeorum reverentia ad Ioannem, qui mittunt ad eum, eius testimonium inquirentes. Ubi magnitudo reverentiae ex quatuor colligitur. Primo ex mittentium dignitate: non enim Galilaei miserunt, sed illi qui praecipui fuerunt in populo Israel, scilicet Iudaei, qui sunt de tribu Iuda, habitantes iuxta Ierusalem; I Paral. V, de Iuda elegit dominus principes populi; infra IV, 22: salus ex Iudaeis est. Secundo ex loci praeeminentia, quia ab Ierusalem, quae est civitas sacerdotalis, et divino cultui mancipata; infra IV, 20: vos dicitis, quia Ierosolymis est locus ubi adorare oportet. Is. XIX, 21: et colent eum in hostiis et in muneribus. Tertio ex nuntiorum auctoritate, qui solemnes erant, et sanctiores in populo, quia sacerdotes et Levitae; Is. LXI, 6: vos sacerdotes domini vocabimini. Quarto ex hoc quod miserunt ut Ioannes de se testimonium perhiberet, quasi tantam fidem habentes dictis suis, ut crederent Ioanni de seipso etiam testimonium perhibenti. Unde dicitur ut interrogarent eum, tu quis es? Quod Christo non faciebant; immo dicebant ei, Io. VIII, 13: tu testimonium perhibes de teipso et cetera.
1:20
Consequenter cum dicit et confessus est, et non negavit, ponitur Ioannis responsio. Ideo autem Evangelista ingeminat hoc quod dicit et confessus est, ut ostendat humilitatem Ioannis: quia licet esset tantae auctoritatis apud Iudaeos ut eum crederent Christum, non tamen honorem sibi non debitum usurpabat; immo confessus est, quia non sum ego Christus. Sed quid est hoc quod dicit confessus est, et non negavit? Videtur autem quod negavit, quia dicit se non esse Christum. Sed dicendum est, quod ideo non negavit veritatem, quia dixit se non esse Christum: alias negasset veritatem. Iob XXXI, 26: si vidi solem cum fulgeret, et lunam incedentem clare; et laetatum est cor meum in abscondito et osculatus sum manum meam ore meo: quae est iniquitas maxima, et negatio contra Deum altissimum. Non negavit ergo veritatem quia quantumcumque haberetur magnus, non est elatus in superbiam, usurpans sibi honorem alienum. Et confessus est, quia, non sum ego Christus: quia vere non erat. Supra: non erat ille lux et cetera. Sed cum hi qui missi erant non quaererent an esset Christus, sed quis esset; quare Ioannes respondit non sum ego Christus? Sed dicendum, quod magis respondet ad mentem quaerentium, quam ad quaestionem; et hoc potest accipi dupliciter. Secundum Origenem enim intelligendum est, quod sacerdotes et Levitae bona intentione venerant ad ipsum. Cognoverant enim ex Scripturis, et praecipue ex prophetia Danielis, quia iam venerat tempus adventus Christi. Unde videntes sanctitatem Ioannis, suspicabantur eum esse Christum: unde miserunt ad Ioannem, quasi scire volentes per hoc quod dicunt ei tu quis es? An ipse se Christum fateretur. Et ideo eorum respondit menti non sum ego Christus. Chrysostomus vero dicit, quod isti fraudulenter interrogabant. Nam Ioannes cognatus erat sacerdotum, utpote principis sacerdotum filius, erat etiam sanctus; et tamen testimonium perhibebat Christo, cuius genus humile videbatur. Unde et dicebant: nonne iste est fabri filius? Et ignotus erat eis. Et ideo cupientes magis habere magistrum Ioannem quam Christum, mittunt ad eum volentes eum per blanditias allicere, et inducere ut sibi honorem hunc attribuens, confiteatur se esse Christum. Quam quidem malitiam videns Ioannes, dicit non sum ego Christus.
1:21
Secunda interrogatio ponitur consequenter, cum dicitur et interrogaverunt eum: quid ergo? Elias es tu? Sciendum est autem, quod a populo Iudaeorum sicut expectabatur dominus venturus, ita expectabatur Elias Christum praecessurus; Mal. ult., 5: mittam vobis Eliam et cetera. Et ideo videntes, qui missi erant quod Ioannes non confitebatur se esse Christum, instant quod saltem confiteatur si est Elias. Et hoc est quod dicunt quid ergo? Elias es tu? Quidam autem haeretici dicunt, quod anima de corpore transmittitur in corpus. Et hoc dogma tunc temporis erat in auctoritate apud Iudaeos, unde credebant quod propter similitudinem operum Ioannis ad Eliam, anima Eliae esset in corpore Ioannis. Et dicunt quod quaerebant isti a Ioanne, an esset Elias; idest, an anima Eliae esset in Ioanne; et adducunt pro eis, quod dicit dominus, Matth. XI, 14, de Ioanne: si vultis scire, ipse est Elias. Sed tamen contrariatur eis responsio Ioannis dicentis non sum Elias. Ad quod ipsi respondent, quod Ioannes ex ignorantia respondit, nesciens, an anima sua esset anima Eliae. Sed contra hoc dicit Origenes, quod valde irrationabile videtur, quod Ioannes tamquam propheta a spiritu illuminatus, et de Dei unigenito tanta narrans, ignoraret de seipso, an numquam eius anima fuerit in Elia. Non hac ergo intentione quaerebant Elias es tu? Sed quia habentes ex Scripturis, IV Reg. II, 11 quod Elias non fuit mortuus, sed vivus raptus est per turbinem in caelum, credebant eum subito inter eos apparuisse. Sed contra hoc est quod Ioannes ex notis parentibus natus erat, et nativitas eius omnibus nota erat. Unde dicitur Lc. I, 63, quod mirati sunt universi, et ponebant in corde suo, dicentes: quis putas puer iste erit? Ad quod potest dici, quod non est incredibile quod ita aestimarent de Ioanne, sicut dictum est. Quia et simile habetur Matth. XIV, 1 quod Herodes credebat de Christo quod esset Ioannes, quem ipse decollaverat, et tamen diu antequam Ioannes decollatus esset, Christus praedicaverat, et notus fuerat. Et ideo, ex simili amentia et crassitudine, Iudaei quaerebant a Ioanne an ipse esset Elias. Sed quid est hoc quod dicit Ioannes non sum, scilicet Elias cum Christus dixerit, Matth. XI, 14, ipse est Elias? Hanc autem quaestionem solvit Angelus, Lc. I, 17: ipse praecedet ante eum in spiritu et virtute Eliae, in suis scilicet operibus. Non fuit ergo Elias in persona, sed in spiritu, et virtute: quia scilicet similitudinem Eliae in suis operibus ostendebat. Potest autem attendi similitudo quantum ad tria. Primo quantum ad officium: quia sicut Elias secundum domini adventum praeveniet, ita iste praecessit primum et cetera. Unde et Angelus dixit: ipse praecedet ante ipsum et cetera. Secundo quantum ad vivendi modum: quia Elias in desertis morabatur, parco utebatur cibo et duris vestibus operiebatur, ut dicitur III Reg. XIX, 3 ss. et IV Reg. I, 8. Et Ioannes in desertis erat, cibus eius locustae et mel silvestre, et zona eius de pilis camelorum. Tertio quantum ad zelum: quia maximi zeli fuit; unde dicebat III Reg. XIX, 10: zelo zelatus sum pro domino. Sic et Ioannes zelo veritatis mortuus est, ut patet Matth. XIV, v. 6 ss. Consequenter cum dicit propheta es tu? Ponitur tertia quaestio. Ubi primo quaeritur. Cum dicatur Lc. I, v. 76: tu puer propheta altissimi vocaberis etc. quid est quod Ioannes interrogatus si esset propheta, respondit se non esse prophetam? Ad quod tripliciter respondetur. Uno modo quod Ioannes non est propheta simpliciter, sed plusquam propheta. Alii namque prophetae solum futura praedicebant a remotis; Hab. II, 3: si moram fecerit, expecta illum; Ioannes vero Christum praesentem annuntiavit, quasi digito ostendens; infra: ecce agnus Dei. Et ideo, Matth. XI, 9, dominus dicit eum esse plus quam prophetam. Item alio modo, secundum Origenem, quia Iudaei ex malo intellectu tres excellentes personas futuras credebant circa adventum Christi, scilicet ipsum Christum, Eliam et quemdam alium maximum prophetam, de quo Deut. XVIII, 15: prophetam suscitabit nobis dominus et cetera. Et licet hic maximus propheta, secundum veritatem, non sit alius quam Christus, tamen secundum Iudaeos alius est a Christo; et ideo non quaerunt simpliciter utrum sit propheta, sed an sit ille propheta maximus. Quod quidem ex ordine quaestionis apparet. Nam primo, quaerunt an sit Christus; secundo, an sit Elias; tertio, an sit propheta ille. Et ideo in Graeco ponitur hic articulus, ut dicatur ly propheta, quasi anthonomastice dictum. Tertio modo quia Pharisaei movebantur contra Ioannem, quod sibi baptizandi officium praeter ordinem legis et traditionem eorum assumpsisset. De tribus autem habetur in veteri testamento quibus competere poterat baptizare, scilicet de Christo; Ez. XXXVI, 25, ex persona Christi dicitur: effundam super vos aquam mundam et cetera. Item de Elia, de quo dicitur IV Reg. II, 8, quod divisit aquas Iordanis, et transiens raptus est. Item de Eliseo, qui Naaman Syrum lavari fecit septies in Iordane, ut lavaretur a lepra: ut dicitur IV Reg. c. V, 9. Videntes ergo Iudaei Ioannem baptizare, credebant eum aliquem istorum esse, scilicet Christum, vel Eliam, vel Eliseum; et ideo cum dicunt hic propheta es tu? Interrogant an sit Eliseus. Et dicitur singulariter propheta, propter multa miracula quae fecerat; unde et ipse dicit IV Reg. V, 8: sciat prophetam esse in Israel. Et secundum hoc respondet non sum, scilicet Eliseus.
1:22
Consequenter cum dicit dixerunt ergo ei, quis es? Ostendit quomodo confessus est se esse quod erat, et primo ponitur interrogatio nuntiorum; secundo responsio, ibi ego vox clamantis in deserto. Dixerunt ergo: quis es tu ut responsum demus his qui miserunt nos? Quasi dicant: ad hoc missi sumus, ut sciamus quis es; ideo dicas nobis quid dicis de te ipso? Sed attende Ioannis devotionem: iam implevit quod apostolus dicit, Gal. II, 20, vivo ego, iam non ego, vivit vero in me Christus. Et ideo non respondet: ego sum filius Zachariae, vel talis, et talis; sed solum illud in quo Christum sequebatur.
1:23
Unde dicit: ego vox clamantis in deserto. Dicit autem se vocem esse, quia vox origine posterior est verbo, sed notitia prior. Nam verbum in corde conceptum, per vocem prolatam cognoscimus, cum sit signum eius. Deus autem pater praecursorem misit Ioannem in tempore factum, ut verbum suum ab aeterno conceptum annuntiaretur; et ideo congrue dicit ego vox. Quod autem addit clamantis, potest intelligi dupliciter, ut scilicet sit vel Ioannis in deserto clamantis et praedicantis, vel Christi clamantis in ipso, secundum illud II Cor. ult., 3: an experimentum eius quaeritis qui in me loquitur Christus? Clamat autem propter quatuor. Primo namque clamor manifestationem importat; et ideo ut ostendat quod Christus in Ioanne et in se manifeste loquebatur, clamat; infra VII, 37: in novissimo die magno festivitatis stabat Iesus, et clamabat dicens: si quis sitit, veniat ad me et bibat. In prophetis autem non clamavit, quia prophetiae in aenigmate et figuris datae sunt; unde in Ps. XVII, 12 dicitur: tenebrosa aqua in nubibus aeris. Secundo quia clamor fit ad distantes; Iudaei autem elongati erant a Deo, ideo necesse erat quod clamaret. Ps. LXXXVII, 19: elongasti a me amicum et proximum. Tertio clamat, quia surdi erant. Is. XLII, 19: quis surdus, nisi servus meus? Quarto clamat, quia cum indignatione loquitur, quia ipsi iram Dei meruerunt. Ps. II, 5: loquetur ad eos in ira sua et cetera. Sed attende quod clamat in deserto, quia, Lc. III, 2, factum est verbum domini super Ioannem Zachariae filium in deserto. Et potest esse huiusmodi ratio et litteralis et mystica. Litteralis quidem, ut in deserto manens, immunis esset ab omni peccato, ut sic dignior esset Christo testimonium ferre, et ex vita sua testimonium suum credibilius esset hominibus. Mystica autem causa duplex est. Nam per desertum gentilitas designatur, iuxta illud Is. c. LIV, 1: multi filii desertae, magis quam eius quae habet virum. Ut ergo ostenderet quod doctrina Dei de cetero non debet esse in Ierusalem tantum, sed in gentibus, clamavit in deserto. Matth. XXI, 43: auferetur a vobis regnum Dei, et dabitur genti facienti fructus eius. Item, per desertum intelligitur Iudaea, quae iam deserta erat; Matth. c. XXIII, 38: ecce relinquetur vobis domus vestra deserta. Clamavit ergo in deserto, idest est in Iudaea, ut per hoc daretur intelligi, quod populus cui praedicabat, iam desertus erat a Deo; Ps. LXII, 3: in terra deserta et invia et inaquosa sic in sancto apparui tibi. Sed quid clamat? Dirigite viam domini: quia ad hoc missus fuit; Lc. I, 76: tu puer propheta altissimi vocaberis, praeibis enim ante faciem domini parare vias eius. Via autem ad recipiendum Deum parata et recta, est via iustitiae, secundum illud Is. c. XXVI, 7: semita iusti recta est et cetera. Tunc enim semita iusti est recta quando homo totus subiicitur Deo, ut scilicet intellectus per fidem, voluntas per amorem, operatio per obedientiam Deo subdantur. Et hoc, sicut dicit Isaias propheta; idest, sicut praedixit. Quasi dicat: ego sum ille in quo ista complentur.
1:24
Supra Ioannes interrogatus perhibuit testimonium Christo de seipso quantum ad personam; hic vero quantum ad officium. Et circa hoc ponuntur quatuor. Primo interrogantes; secundo interrogatio, ibi et interrogaverunt eum; tertio responsio, in qua testimonium perhibuit, ibi respondit eis Ioannes et cetera. Quarto locus ubi haec facta sunt, ibi haec in Bethania facta sunt. Interrogantes autem sunt Pharisaei. Unde dicit et qui missi fuerant, erant ex Pharisaeis. Et quidem, secundum Origenem, quod dicitur ex hoc loco, ad aliud testimonium pertinet: et isti qui missi sunt ex Pharisaeis, non sunt iidem cum sacerdotibus et Levitis, qui missi sunt a Iudaeorum universitate, sed alii specialiter missi a Pharisaeis. Et secundum hoc dicitur: et qui missi sunt, non a Iudaeis scilicet, sicut fuerunt sacerdotes et Levitae, sed alii erant ex Pharisaeis. Et ideo dicit quod, quia sacerdotes et Levitae disciplinati erant et reverentes, humiliter et cum reverentia Ioannem interrogant de eius dignitate, utrum scilicet Christus esset, an Elias, an propheta; isti vero, qui ex Pharisaeis erant, secundum nomen suum divisi et importuni, contumeliosas voces praetendunt Baptistae, unde dixerunt ei: quid ergo baptizas, si tu non es Christus, neque Elias, neque propheta? Secundum alios vero, Gregorium scilicet, Chrysostomum et Augustinum, isti qui ex Pharisaeis, sunt illi iidem qui missi fuerant a Iudaeis sacerdotes et Levitae. Quaedam enim secta erat inter Iudaeos, qui propter exteriorem cultum divisi erant ab aliis: unde et Pharisaei, idest divisi vocabantur; in qua quidem erant aliqui de sacerdotibus et Levitis, et aliqui de populo. Ut ergo nuntii maioris auctoritatis essent, miserunt sacerdotes et Levitas, qui erant ex Pharisaeis, ut eis nec sacerdotalis ordinis dignitas, nec religionis deesset auctoritas. Ideo autem Evangelista addit hoc quod dicitur et qui missi fuerant, erant ex Pharisaeis, ut primo quidem rationem quaestionis Baptismi Ioannis, pro qua missi non fuerunt, assignet; quasi dicat: missi fuerunt, ut interrogarent a Ioanne quis esset. Sed quod quaerunt quid ergo baptizas? Fecerunt, quia erant ex Pharisaeis, quibus eorum religio ausum praebebat. Secundo, ut dicit Gregorius, ut ostendat qua intentione quaesierunt a Ioanne tu quis es? Pharisaei enim inter omnes alios insidiose, et calumniose se habebant ad Christum. Unde ipsi dixerunt ei, Matth. XII, 24: in Beelzebub principe Daemoniorum Daemonia eiicit. Ipsi etiam inierunt cum Herodianis consilium, ut caperent Iesum in sermone. Matth. XXII, 15. Et ideo per hoc quod dicit qui missi fuerant, erant ex Pharisaeis, ostendit, quod calumniose se habebant, et ex invidia eum interrogaverunt.
1:25
Interrogatio autem est de officio baptizandi, unde dicitur et interrogaverunt eum, et dixerunt ei: quid ergo baptizas? et cetera. Unde notandum est, quod non quaerunt ut sciant, sed ut impediant. Quia enim videbant multitudinem populi ad Ioannem currere, propter novum ritum baptizandi, et extraneum a ritu Pharisaeorum et legis, invidebant Ioanni, et conabantur pro posse impedire Baptismum eius; et ideo, se continere non valentes, suam manifestant invidiam, et dicunt quid ergo baptizas, si tu non es Christus, neque Elias, neque propheta? Quasi dicant: non debes baptizare, ex quo negas te esse aliquem illorum trium in quibus praefiguratus est Baptismus, ut dictum est supra. Scilicet, si tu non es Christus, qui habiturus est fontem in ablutionem peccati; et si non es Elias, sive propheta, idest Eliseus, qui sicco vestigio Iordanem transiverunt, ut dicitur IV Reg. II, 8, quomodo audes baptizare? Similes istis sunt invidi, animarum profectum impedientes, qui dicunt videntibus: nolite videre etc.: Is. XXX, 10.
1:26
Responsio autem est vera: unde dicit respondit eis Ioannes, dicens: ego baptizo in aqua. Quasi dicat: non debetis mirari, si ego, qui non sum Christus, nec Elias, nec propheta, baptizo: quia Baptismus meus non est completivus, sed imperfectus. Nam ad perfectionem Baptismi exigitur lotio corporis et animae; et corpus quidem secundum naturam lavatur aqua, anima vero non nisi spiritu. Unde ego baptizo in aqua, idest, corpore lavo corpus; veniet autem alius, qui perfecte baptizabit, scilicet in aqua et spiritu sancto; Deus et homo, qui et corpus aqua et spiritum spiritu lavabit, ita quod sanctificatio spiritus derivabitur ad corpus. Act. I, 5: Ioannes quidem baptizavit aqua, vos autem baptizabimini spiritu sancto non post multos hos dies. Testimonium autem perhibet de Christo, cum dicit medius autem vestrum stetit etc., et primo per comparationem ad Iudaeos; secundo per comparationem ad seipsum, ibi ipse est qui post me venturus est. Ad Iudaeos autem comparat eum, dicens medius autem vestrum stetit; quasi dicat: ego imperfectum opus feci; sed est alius qui perficiet opus meum, qui medius vestrum stetit. Quod quidem exponitur multipliciter. Uno siquidem modo, secundum Gregorium, Chrysostomum et Augustinum, ut referatur ad communem Christi conversationem inter homines, quia, secundum naturam humanam, aliis hominibus similis apparuit; Phil. II, 6: qui cum in forma Dei esset, non rapinam arbitratus est esse se aequalem Deo; sed semetipsum exinanivit formam servi accipiens, in similitudinem hominum factus, et habitu inventus ut homo. Et secundum hoc dicit medius vestrum stetit, idest multoties conversatus est quasi unus ex vobis; Lc. XXII, v. 27: ego in medio vestrum sum. Quem vos nescitis, idest, hoc quod Deus factus est homo, capere non potestis. Item, nescitis quam magnus sit secundum naturam divinam, quae in eo latebat; Iob XXXVI, 26: ecce dominus magnus vincens scientiam vestram. Et ideo, ut Augustinus dicit, accensa est lucerna, scilicet Ioannes, ut inveniatur Christus. Ps. CXXXI, 17: paravi lucernam Christo meo. Alio modo exponitur, secundum Origenem, et hoc dupliciter. Primo ut referatur ad Christi divinitatem; et secundum hoc medius vestrum, idest in medio omnium rerum, stetit, scilicet Christus: quia ipse secundum quod verbum a principio creaturae implevit universam creaturam. Ier. XXIII, 24: caelum et terram ego impleo. Quem tamen vos nescitis, quia, ut dicitur supra, in mundo erat (...) et mundus eum non cognovit. Alio modo ut referatur ad causalitatem humanae sapientiae, et dicatur medius vestrum stetit; idest, in intellectu omnium relucet: quia quicquid lucis et sapientiae est in hominibus, provenit eis ex participatione verbi. Et dicit in medio, quia in medio hominis corporaliter est cor, cui attribuitur quaedam sapientia et intellectus: unde, licet intellectus non habeat organum corporale, tamen quia cor est principale organum, consuevit accipi pro intellectu; unde in medio stare dicitur secundum hanc similitudinem, inquantum illuminat omnem hominem venientem in hunc mundum. Quem tamen vos nescitis; quia, ut dicitur supra, lux in tenebris lucet, et tenebrae eam non comprehenderunt. Quarto modo exponitur ut referatur ad propheticam Christi praenuntiationem, ut sic respondeatur principaliter Pharisaeis, qui continue Scripturas veteris testamenti, in quibus praenuntiabatur Christus, inquirebant, et tamen eum non cognoscebant. Et secundum hoc dicitur medius vestrum stetit; idest, in sacra Scriptura, quam vos semper revolvitis; infra V, 39: scrutamini Scripturas. Quem tamen vos nescitis, quia cor vestrum induratum est propter infidelitatem et oculi vestri excaecati sunt, ut non agnoscatis praesentem, quem creditis futurum. Comparat autem Christum ad se Ioannes, cum dicit ipse est qui post me venturus est. Ubi primo ponit excellentiam Christi ad seipsum; secundo vero excellentiae immensitatem ostendit, ibi cuius non sum dignus ut solvam corrigiam calceamenti. Excellentiam autem Christi ad seipsum ostendit et quantum ad ordinem praedicationis, et quantum ad ordinem dignitatis. Quantum quidem ad ordinem praedicationis, Ioannes primo innotuit. Et ideo dicit ipse est qui post me venit, ad praedicandum, baptizandum et moriendum; quia, ut dicitur Lc. I, 76, praeibis ante faciem domini, parare vias eius. Sed Ioannes quidem praecessit Christum, sicut imperfectum perfectum, et sicut dispositio formam; sicut dicitur I Cor. c. XV, 46: non prius quod spirituale, sed quod animale. Nam tota vita Ioannis fuit quoddam praeparatorium ad Christum; unde dixit supra ego vox clamantis in deserto. Sed Christus praecessit Ioannem et nos omnes, sicut perfectum imperfectum, et sicut exemplar exemplatum. Matth. XVI, 24: si quis vult venire post me, abneget semetipsum, et tollat crucem suam, et sequatur me; I Pet. c. II, 21: Christus passus est pro nobis, vobis relinquens exemplum. Quantum vero ad ordinem dignitatis, cum dicit qui ante me factus est, idest, mihi praelatus est, et dignitate praepositus; quia, ut dicit infra III, 30, me oportet minui, illum autem crescere.
1:27
Immensitatem autem excellentiae assignat cum dicit cuius ego non sum dignus ut solvam eius corrigiam calceamenti. Quasi dicat: non intelligatis ipsum mihi in dignitate praepositum sicut unus homo praefertur alteri, sed tam excellenter, quod nihil sum in comparatione ad ipsum. Et hoc patet, quia non sum dignus ut solvam corrigiam calceamenti eius: quod est minimum obsequium quod hominibus fieri potest. Ex quo patet quod Ioannes multum accesserat ad Dei cognitionem, inquantum ex consideratione infinitae magnitudinis Dei se totaliter vilipendebat, et nihil se esse dicebat. Sicut Abraham, cum Deum cognovisset, dicebat, Gen. XVIII, 27: loquar ad dominum meum, cum sim pulvis et cinis. Sic Iob c. XLII, 5, cum dominum vidisset, dixit: nunc oculus meus videt te; idcirco ipse me reprehendo, et ago poenitentiam in favilla et cinere. Sic Is. XL, 17, postquam vidit gloriam Dei dixit: omnes gentes quasi non sint, sic sunt coram eo. Et haec quidem expositio est litteralis. Exponitur autem et mystice. Uno modo secundum Gregorium, ut per calceamentum, quod fit de pellibus mortuorum animalium, intelligatur humana natura mortalis, quam Christus assumpsit; Ps. LIX, 10: in Idumaea extendam calceamentum meum et cetera. Corrigia autem calceamenti eius, est ipsa unio divinitatis et humanitatis, quam nec Ioannes, nec aliquis, potest solvere nec potuit plene investigare, cum talis esset quod hominem faceret Deum, et Deum hominem. Et ideo dicit cuius non sum dignus ut solvam corrigiam calceamenti; idest, ut explicem mysterium incarnationis et cetera. Intelligendum est plene et perfecte: nam quoquo modo et Ioannes et alii praedicatores, licet imperfecte, solvunt corrigiam calceamenti. Alio modo exponitur, quia in veteri lege praeceptum erat, Deut. XXV, 5-10 quod quando aliquis moriebatur sine liberis, frater defuncti uxorem defuncti recipere tenebatur, et ex ea semen fratri suo suscitare; quod si nollet eam in uxorem recipere, tunc aliquis propinquus defuncti eam recipere volens, debebat eum discalceare in signum huius cessionis, et illam in uxorem recipere, et domus eius debebat vocari domus discalceati. Secundum hoc ergo dicit cuius non sum dignus corrigiam calceamenti solvere; idest, non sum dignus habere sponsam, quae sibi debetur, Ecclesiam. Quasi dicat: non sum dignus ut vocer sponsus Ecclesiae, quae consecratur Christo in Baptismo spiritus; ego autem baptizo in aqua tantum. Infra III, 29: qui habet sponsam, sponsus est et cetera.
1:28
Locus autem, ubi praedicta facta sunt, subditur consequenter, cum dicit haec in Bethania facta sunt trans Iordanem. Sed circa hoc primo consurgit quaestio. Cum Bethania sit in monte oliveti quod est iuxta Ierusalem, sicut dicitur Io. XI, 1 et Matth. XXVI, 6 quomodo dicit quod facta sunt trans Iordanem, qui multum distabat ab Ierusalem? Sed dicendum, secundum Origenem et Chrysostomum, quod non debet dici Bethania, sed Bethabora, quae est quaedam villa ultra Iordanem: et hoc quod dicit Bethania, corruptum est vitio scriptorum. Sed quia tam libri Graeci quam Latini habent Bethania, ideo dicendum est aliter, quod est duplex Bethania: una quae est prope Ierusalem in latere montis oliveti, alia trans Iordanem, ubi erat Ioannes baptizans. Quod autem mentionem facit de loco, habet rationem litteralem et mysticam. Litteralem quidem secundum Chrysostomum, quia Ioannes scribebat Evangelium istud viventibus forte aliquibus qui et tempus quo ista facta sunt, et locum viderunt, et ideo quasi ad maiorem certitudinem illos testes facit illorum quae viderant. Mysticam vero, quia haec loca conveniunt Baptismo. Nam, si dicatur Bethania, quae domus obedientiae interpretatur, significat quod necesse est per obedientiam fidei ad Baptismum pervenire; Rom. I, 5: ad obediendum fidei in omnibus gentibus. Si vero dicatur Bethabora, quae interpretatur domus praeparationis, significat quod per Baptismum praeparatur homo ad vitam aeternam. Nec vacat mysterio quod trans Iordanem sit. Iordanis enim interpretatur descensus eorum; et, secundum Origenem, significat Christum, qui descendit de caelis, ut dicit ipse: descendi de caelo, ut facerem voluntatem patris mei. Unde dicitur Eccli. XXIV, 41: ego quasi fluvius Dorix. Per ipsum autem omnes ingredientes in hunc mundum, mundari convenit, secundum illud Apoc. I, 5: lavit nos a peccatis nostris in sanguine suo. Convenienter etiam Iordanis Baptismum significat. Ipse enim confinium est inter illos qui acceperunt sortes hereditatis a Moyse ex una parte Iordanis, et illos qui acceperunt a Iosue ex alia; et ita Baptismus quasi quoddam confinium est inter Iudaeos et gentiles, qui proficiscuntur illuc, ut se lavent ad Christum venientes, ut opprobrium peccati deponant. Sicut enim filios Israel terram promissionis intrantes oportuit transire Iordanem, ita et per Baptismum oportet patriam caelestem intrare. Dicit autem trans Iordanem, ut insinuet quod etiam transgressoribus et peccatoribus Baptismum poenitentiae praedicabat Ioannes; unde et dominus, Matth. c. IX, 13: non veni vocare iustos, sed peccatores.
1:29
Supra Ioannes perhibuit testimonium Christo interrogatus; hic vero perhibet aliud testimonium Christo spontaneus. Et primo quidem fert ipsum testimonium; secundo testimonium latum confirmat, ibi et testimonium perhibuit Ioannes. Circa primum autem primo quidem describuntur circumstantiae testimonii; secundo ponitur ipsum testimonium, ibi ecce agnus Dei; tertio excluditur suspicio testis, ibi et ego nesciebam eum. Describuntur autem circumstantiae. Una quidem ex parte temporis. Unde dicit altera die: in quo quidem commendatur Ioannis constantia, quia non uno die, non semel tantum, sed pluribus diebus et multoties Christo testimonium perhibebat. Ps. CXLIV, 2: per singulos dies benedicam tibi. Commendatur etiam eius profectus: quia non debet nobis succedere una dies sicut alia; sed quae succedit debet esse altera, idest melior; iuxta illud Ps. LXXXIII, 8: ibunt de virtute in virtutem. Alia circumstantia ponitur ex parte modi testificandi, quia vidit Ioannes Iesum: in quo insinuatur certitudo. Nam testimonium de visu certissimum est. Alia vero circumstantia ponitur ex parte eius cui testimonium perhibetur. Unde dicit Iesum ad se venientem, scilicet de Galilaea, ut dicitur Matth. III, 13: venit Iesus a Galilaea. Nec tamen intelligendum est de adventu quo venit ad Baptismum, de quo ibi loquitur Matthaeus, sed de alio adventu quo iam baptizatus, et circa Iordanem aliquamdiu commoratus, venit ad Ioannem, alias non dixisset: super quem videris spiritum descendentem et manentem super eum, hic est qui baptizat in spiritu sancto. Et ego vidi et cetera. Iam ergo viderat eum, et spiritum super eum descendentem quasi columbam etc., ut infra dicit. Huius autem Christi ad Ioannem adventus post Baptismum una causa fuit ut testimonium Ioannis certificaretur. Dixerat enim Ioannes de Christo: ipse est qui post me venturus est: nam aliquis posset errare in cognitione venturi, cum adesset; venit ad Ioannem, ab eo digito ostendendus, dicente Ioanne ecce agnus Dei et cetera. Alia ratio ut excluderet errorem. Posset enim aliquis credere quod Christus prima vice, cum venit ad Baptismum, venerit ad Ioannem sicut a peccatis purgandus. Christus ergo, ut hoc excluderet, venit etiam ad eum post Baptismum. Unde signanter dicit Ioannes ecce qui tollit. Peccatum nullum fecit, sed venit peccatum tollere. Venit etiam ut praeberet humilitatis exemplum: quia, ut dicitur Eccli. III, 20, quanto maior es, humilia te in omnibus. Et advertendum, quod sicut Christo iam concepto, quando virgo mater ascendit in montana cum festinatione, Elisabeth matrem Ioannis visere, Ioannes in utero matris existens, nec loqui valens, reverentiam Christo et tripudium faciens, exultavit in utero; ita et nunc, Christo ex humilitate ad eum venienti testimonium et reverentiam praebet, et in vocem prorumpit, dicens ecce agnus Dei et cetera. Ubi testimonium Ioannis ponitur: in quo quidem ostendit virtutem Christi, et dignitatem eius, ibi hic est de quo dixi. Virtutem quidem ostendit dupliciter. Primo proponendo figuram; secundo exponendo eam, ibi ecce qui tollit peccata mundi. Circa primum sciendum est, quod, sicut dicit Origenes, in veteri lege consueverunt quinque animalia offerri in templo: tria de terrestribus, scilicet vitulus, capra et ovis, sed ovium quidem aries, ovis et agnus; de volatilibus vero duo, turtur scilicet, et columba: quae quidem omnia praefigurativa fuerunt veri sacrificii, quod est Christus, qui semetipsum obtulit oblationem Deo, ut dicitur Eph. V, 2. Quare ergo Baptista Christo testimonium perhibens, agnum specialiter nominavit? Huius ratio est, quia sicut dicitur Num. XXVIII, v. 3 s., licet alia fierent sacrificia in templo ceteris temporibus, unum tamen erat quotidianum, in quo iugiter unus agnus mane, et alius vespere offerebatur; nec hoc mutabatur unquam, sed tamquam principale observabatur, alia vero ex adiuncto. Et ideo per agnum, qui erat principale sacrificium, significatur Christus, qui est principale sacrificium. Nam licet omnes sancti, qui pro fide Christi passi sunt, prosint ad salutem fidelium, hoc tamen non habent nisi inquantum super oblationem agni, quasi oblatio adiuncta principali sacrificio, immolantur. Offertur quidem mane et vespere, quia per Christum patet aditus ad intelligibilia divinorum contemplanda et fruenda, quod pertinet ad cognitionem matutinam; et instruimur quomodo utamur terrenis absque inquinamento, quod pertinet ad vespertinam. Et ideo dicit: ecce agnus Dei, etc., idest per agnum significatus. Dicit autem Dei, quia in Christo sunt duae naturae, humana scilicet et divina. Et quod hoc sacrificium esset virtuosum ad purgandum et sanctificandum a peccatis, habet ex virtute divinitatis, inquantum scilicet Deus erat in Christo mundum reconcilians sibi, II Cor. V, v. 19. Vel dicitur agnus Dei, quasi oblatus a Deo, scilicet ab ipso Christo, qui est Deus; sicut dicitur oblatio hominis, quam homo offert. Vel dicitur agnus Dei, scilicet patris: quia ipse providit homini oblationem ad offerendum pro peccatis sufficientem, quam homo per se habere non potest. Unde Gen. c. XXII, 7, cum Isaac quaereret ab Abraham: ubi est victima holocausti? Respondit: Deus providebit sibi victimam holocausti. Rom. VIII, v. 32: proprio filio suo non pepercit Deus; sed pro nobis omnibus tradidit illum. Dicitur autem Christus agnus primo propter puritatem; Ex. XII, 5: erit agnus anniculus etc.; I Petr. I, 18: non corruptibilibus auro vel argento redempti estis. Secundo propter mansuetudinem; Is. LIII, 7: quasi agnus coram tondente se obmutuit. Tertio propter fructum, Prov. XXVII, 26: agni sunt tibi ad vestimentum tuum. Et hoc quantum ad indumentum, iuxta illud Rom. XIII, v. 14: induimini dominum Iesum Christum. Et quantum ad cibum, infra VI, 52: caro mea est pro mundi vita. Et ideo dicebat Isaias, c. XVI, 1: emitte agnum, domine, dominatorem terrae. Consequenter propositam figuram exponit cum dicit qui tollit peccata mundi, idest aufert; quod in lege nec per agnum, nec per alia sacrificia auferri poterat, quia, ut dicitur Hebr. X, 6: impossibile est per sanguinem taurorum et hircorum auferri peccata. Sanguis iste tollit, idest aufert, peccata mundi. Oseae ult., 3: omnem aufert iniquitatem. Vel tollit, idest in se accipit, peccata totius mundi; quia, ut dicitur I Petr. II, v. 24, qui peccata nostra pertulit in corpore suo. Is. LIII, 4: dolores nostros ipse tulit, et languores nostros ipse portavit. Dicit autem, secundum Glossam, peccatum, et non peccata, ut ostendat in universali, quod abstulit totum genus peccati; I Io. II, 2: ipse est propitiatio pro peccatis nostris. Vel quia pro uno peccato, scilicet originali, mortuus; Rom. V, 12: per unum hominem peccatum intravit in mundum et cetera. Supra perhibuit Baptista testimonium Christo quantum ad eius virtutem; hic vero perhibet testimonium quantum ad eius dignitatem, comparans eum sibi tripliciter. Et primo quantum ad officium et ordinem praedicationis; unde dicit hic, scilicet agnus, digito eum demonstrans, est ille de quo dixi, scilicet in eius absentia, post me venit vir, ad praedicandum et baptizandum, qui post me venit nascendo. Dicitur autem vir Christus ratione perfectae aetatis: quia quando incepit docere post Baptismum, iam erat in aetate perfecta; Lc. III, 23: Iesus erat incipiens quasi annorum triginta. Item, ratione perfectionis omnium virtutum quae in eo fuerunt; Is. IV, 1: apprehendent septem mulieres, idest virtutes, virum unum, scilicet Christum perfectum. Zach. VI, 12: ecce vir, oriens nomen eius: quia ipse est origo omnium virtutum in aliis. Item, ratione desponsationis; quia ipse sponsus est Ecclesiae; Oseae II, 16: vocabis me virum etc.; II Cor. XI, 2: despondi vos uni viro.
1:30
Secundo quantum ad ordinem dignitatis, cum dicit qui ante me factus est. Quasi dicat: licet post me venerit ad praedicandum, tamen ante me idest praelatus mihi factus est dignitate. Cant. II, 8: ecce iste venit saliens in montibus, transiliens colles. Collis unus fuit Ioannes Baptista, quem Christus transilivit: quia, ut dicitur infra III, 30: me oportet minui, illum autem crescere. Tertio quantum ad ordinem durationis, cum dicit quia prior me erat. Quasi dicat: non mirum si praefertur mihi dignitate, quia, etsi posterior sit tempore, est tamen prior aeternitate quia prior me erat. Ex hoc autem duplex error destruitur. Error Arii: quia non dicit prior me factus est ut sit creatura, sed prior me erat, ab aeterno ante omnem creaturam; Prov. VIII, 25: ante omnes colles generavit me dominus. Item error Pauli Samosateni: quia dixit prior me erat, ut ostendat, quod non ex Maria sumpserat exordium. Nam, si essendi principium sumpsisset ex virgine, non extitisset utique prior praecursore, qui Christum in sex mensibus secundum generationem praecedebat humanam. Consequenter cum dicit et ego nesciebam eum, excludit falsam suspicionem a suo testimonio. Posset enim aliquis dicere, Ioannem testimonium perhibuisse Christo propter affectionem specialis familiaritatis quam ad ipsum habebat; et ideo hoc excludens Ioannes, dicit ego nesciebam eum: nam Ioannes in deserto a pueritia sua conversatus est. Licet autem miracula multa facta sint in nativitate Christi, puta de magis et de stella, et huiusmodi, tamen non erant nota Ioanni: tum quia infans erat secundum aetatem, tum quia ad desertum secedens, Christi familiaritatem non habuit. Medio vero tempore a nativitate usque ad Baptismum, nullum miraculum Christus operatus est; sed conformis conversatione aliis erat, et sua virtus ignota omnibus existebat. Quod autem medio tempore non fuerit miracula operatus usque ad triginta annos, patet per hoc quod dicitur infra II, 11: hoc fecit initium signorum Iesus et cetera. Ex quo apparet falsitas libri de infantia salvatoris. Ideo autem non fecit miracula medio tempore, ut non putaretur mysterium circumcisionis et incarnationis phantasma esse, si non se habuisset aetate sicut alii infantes. Et ideo demonstrationem scientiae et virtutis suae in aliud distulit tempus, in quo alii homines scientia et virtute vigere consueverunt. Iuxta quod dicitur Lc. II, 52: puer autem proficiebat gratia et sapientia; non quod ipse virtutem et sapientiam ante non habitam susciperet, cum in eis fuerit ab instanti suae conceptionis perfectus, sed quia virtus eius et sapientia magis innotescebat hominibus. Is. c. XLV, 15: vere tu es Deus absconditus. Ideo ergo Ioannes nesciebat eum, quia nulla signa adhuc de eo viderat, neque aliis per signa innotuerat.
1:31
Unde subdit sed ut manifestetur in Israel, propterea ego veni in aqua baptizans. Quasi dicat: totum ministerium meum est ad manifestationem. Supra, non erat ille lux, sed ut testimonium perhiberet de lumine. Dicit autem veni in aquam baptizans, ad differentiam Baptismi Christi. Quia Christus non in aqua solum baptizavit, sed in spiritu, conferens gratiam; unde et Baptismus Ioannis fuit significativum tantum, non effectivum. Manifestavit autem Baptismus Ioannis Christum tripliciter. Primo scilicet per Ioannis praedicationem. Licet enim Ioannes etiam sine Baptismo potuisset praedicando parare viam domino, et inducere turbas ad Christum, tamen propter novitatem officii plures ad eum concurrebant quam si sine Baptismo praedicatio facta esset. Secundo profuit Baptismus Ioannis propter Christi humilitatem, quam demonstravit, baptizari volens a Ioanne; Matth. III, 13: venit Christus ad Ioannem ut baptizaretur ab eo. In quo quidem exemplum humilitatis praebuit, ut scilicet nullus, quantumcumque magnus, dedignetur a quocumque ad hoc ordinato, sacramenta suscipere. Tertio, quia Christo baptizato a Ioanne, affuit virtus patris in voce, et spiritus sanctus in columba, per quam virtus Christi et dignitas magis manifestata fuit. Lc. III, 22: et vox patris intonuit: hic est filius meus dilectus. Consequenter cum dicit et testimonium perhibuit Ioannes ipse magna quae testatus est de Christo quod totius orbis terrarum solus peccata tolleret, confirmat auctoritate Dei. Et circa hoc tria facit. Primo proponit visionem; secundo praebet de intellectu visionis instructionem, ibi et ego nesciebam eum; tertio suam ex ipsa visione conceptionem ostendit, ibi et ego vidi, et testimonium perhibui.
1:32
Visionem quidem proponit cum dicit vidi spiritum descendentem quasi columbam de caelo. Quod quidem quando factum fuerit, Ioannes Evangelista non refert; sed Matthaeus et Lucas dicunt hoc factum fuisse quando Christus baptizatus est a Ioanne. Et quidem congruebat quod spiritus sanctus adesset baptizato et Baptismo. Baptizato namque congruebat, quia sicut filius existens a patre, manifestat patrem infra XVII, 6: pater, manifestavi nomen tuum etc., ita et spiritus sanctus a filio existens, filium manifestat. Infra XVI, 14: ille me clarificabit, quia de meo accipiet et cetera. Baptismo autem congruit, quia Baptisma Christi est inchoativum et consecrativum nostri Baptismatis. Nostrum autem Baptisma consecratur per invocationem sanctae Trinitatis; Matth. ult., 19: baptizantes eos in nomine patris, et filii, et spiritus sancti et cetera. Quod ergo nos invocamus in Baptismo nostro, affuit Baptismo Christi, scilicet pater in voce, spiritus sanctus in columba, filius in humana natura. Dicit autem descendentem, quia cum descensus duos terminos habeat, scilicet principium sursum et terminum deorsum, quantum ad utrumque convenit Baptismo. Est enim duplex spiritus, unus mundi et alius Dei. Et spiritus quidem mundi est amor mundi, qui non est desursum, sed ab inferiori ascendit in hominem, et eum descendere facit; spiritus autem Dei, scilicet Dei amor, desursum descendit ad hominem, et eum ascendere facit. I Cor. II, 12: nos autem non spiritum huius mundi accepimus, sed spiritum Dei. Quia ergo ille spiritus de supernis est, ideo dicit descendentem. Similiter etiam, quia impossibile est creaturam recipere Dei bonitatem in tanta plenitudine, secundum quod convenit Deo, ideo bonitatis ipsius ad nos derivatio, est quasi quidam descensus; Iac. I, 17: omne datum optimum, et omne donum perfectum desursum est, descendens a patre luminum. Sed quia spiritus sanctus in sua natura videri non potest, ut dicitur infra III, 8: spiritus ubi vult spirat, et nescis unde veniat, aut quo vadat, spiritus etiam non est descendere, sed ascendere. Ez. VIII, 3: elevavit me spiritus et cetera. Ideo consequenter Evangelista modum visionis et descensus exponit, dicens, hic non fuisse in spiritu, idest natura sed in specie columbae, in qua apparuit: unde dicit quasi columbam. Et hoc quidem congrue, ut scilicet filius Dei per carnem visibilis factus, manifestaretur per spiritum sanctum visibili specie columbae. Quae quidem columba non est assumpta a spiritu sancto in unitatem personae, sicut humana natura assumpta est a filio Dei. Cuius ratio est, quia filius apparuit non solum ut manifestator, sed ut salvator. Et ideo, secundum quod dicit Leo Papa, oportuit quod esset Deus et homo: Deus quidem, ut afferret remedium; homo vero, ut praeberet exemplum. Spiritus vero sanctus apparuit solum ad manifestandum, ad quod sufficiebat speciem corporalem assumere solum ad significationem quamdam. Utrum autem columba illa fuerit verum animal, et utrum praeexistens apparitioni: sciendum, quod rationabiliter dicitur illa fuisse vera columba. Venit enim spiritus sanctus ad manifestandum Christum, qui cum sit veritas, non nisi per veritatem manifestandus erat. Quantum vero ad secundum, dicendum, quod non praeextitit apparitioni; sed tunc virtute divina absque commixtione maris et feminae formata fuit, sicut et corpus Christi virtute spiritus sancti conceptum, non ex virili semine. Et tamen fuit vera columba, quia, ut Augustinus dicit in libro de agone Christiano, omnipotenti Deo, qui universam creaturam ex nihilo fabricavit, non erat difficile verum corpus columbae sine aliarum columbarum ministerio figurare, sicut non fuit difficile verum corpus in utero b. virginis sine naturali semine fabricare. Cyprianus in libro de unitate Ecclesiae: idcirco et in columba dicitur spiritus sanctus apparuisse, quia columba simplex animal et innocens est, non felle amarum, non morsibus ferum, non unguium laceratione violentum: hospitia humana diligere, unius domus consortium nosse, cum generat simul filios edere, cum conveniat volantibus invicem cohaerere, communi conversatione vitam suam degere, oris osculo concordiam pacis agnoscere, legem circa omnia unanimitatis implere. Quare autem potius in columba, quam in alia specie apparuit, multipliciter ratio assignatur. Primo quidem propter columbae simplicitatem. Nam columba simplex est; Matth. X, 16: estote prudentes sicut serpentes, et simplices sicut columbae. Spiritus autem sanctus, quia facit respicere unum, scilicet Deum, simplices facit; et ideo in specie columbae apparet. Et quidem, secundum Augustinum, apparuit etiam super discipulos congregatos per ignem, quia quidam sunt simplices, sed tepidi; quidam autem ferventes, sed malitiosi. Ut ergo spiritu sanctificati dolo careant, spiritus in columbae specie demonstratur; et ne simplicitas frigiditate tepescat, demonstratur in igne. Secundo, propter caritatis unitatem. Nam columba amore multum fervet; Cant. VI, 8: una est columba mea. Ut ergo ostendat Ecclesiae unitatem, in specie columbae spiritus sanctus apparet. Nec te moveat quod discipulis dispartitae linguae apparuerunt, quando sedit supra singulos eorum spiritus sanctus, qui et dispartitus apparet, secundum diversa donorum officia, et tamen unit per caritatem; et sic propter primum apparuit in dispartitis linguis, ut dicitur I Cor. XII, 4: divisiones gratiarum sunt, in columbae specie propter secundum. Tertio, propter gemitum. Columba enim habet gemitum pro cantu; sic spiritus sanctus postulat pro nobis gemitibus inenarrabilibus, ut dicitur Rom. VIII, 26, et Nahum II, 7: ancillae eius mirabantur. Quarto, propter fecunditatem. Columba enim animal fecundissimum est, idcirco ad designandum fecunditatem gratiae spiritualis in Ecclesia, in specie columbae spiritus sanctus apparuit. Hic est quod Levit. V, 7 dominus pullos columbarum offerre praecepit. Quinto, propter columbae cautelam. Sedet enim super rivos aquarum, in quibus respiciens, falconem volitantem conspicit, et sibi ab eo cavet; Cant. V, 12: oculi tui sicut columbae et cetera. Unde, quia in Baptismo est nostra tutela et defensio, congrue in specie columbae spiritus sanctus apparuit. Respondet igitur figurae veteris testamenti. Sicut etenim columba deferens ramum virentis olivae, ostendit signum clementiae Dei his qui residui fuerant ex aquis diluvii; ita et in Baptismo veniens spiritus sanctus in columbae specie, ostendit signum divinae clementiae, quae baptizatis et peccata remittit, et gratiam confert. Dicit autem manentem super eum, quia in mansione quies designatur. Et quod spiritus sanctus in aliquo non quiescat, duplici de causa contingit. Una est ex peccato. Omnes enim alii homines, praeter Christum, vel sauciantur vulnere peccati mortalis, per quod effugatur spiritus sanctus, vel obfuscantur macula veniali, per quam aliqua operatio spiritus sancti impeditur. In Christo autem neque mortale, nec veniale, nec originale peccatum fuit: unde nec in eo fuit spiritus sanctus inquietatus; sed super eum mansit, idest quievit. Alia causa: quia quantum ad gratias gratis datas, non semper adest aliis sanctis potestas operandi. Sicut non semper adest sanctis potestas operandi miracula, nec prophetis spiritus prophetiae. Christus vero semper habuit potestatem ad omnem operationem virtutum et gratiarum: et ideo ad hoc designandum, super eum mansit. Unde hoc proprium signum fuit agnoscendi Christum, ut dicitur in Glossa Is. XI, 2: requiescet super eum spiritus domini. Quod intelligendum est de Christo, inquantum est homo, secundum quod est minor patre et spiritu sancto. Consequenter cum dicit et ego nesciebam eum, instruit de intellectu visionis praedictae. Quidam enim haeretici, scilicet Ebionitae, dicebant, Christum a principio nativitatis suae, neque Christum fuisse, nec filium Dei, sed ex tunc filius Dei et Christus esse incepit quando in Baptismo oleo spiritus sancti unctus fuit. Sed hoc falsum, quia in ipsa hora nativitatis Angelus dixit pastoribus, Lc. II, 11: natus est vobis hodie salvator, qui est Christus dominus in civitate David. Ne ergo aliquis crederet spiritum sanctum in Baptismo supra Christum descendisse, quasi de novo Christus indigeret spiritu ad sui sanctificationem, ideo causam sui descensus Baptista ostendit, dicens quod non descendit propter sui necessitatem, sed propter nos, ut scilicet gratia eius nobis manifestaretur. Et ideo dicit ego nesciebam eum. Sed ut manifestaretur in Israel, propterea veni ego in aqua baptizans. Sed hic oritur quaestio. Dicit enim qui misit me baptizare etc., si dicatur quod pater misit eum, verum est; similiter si dicatur quod filius, manifestius, cum dicatur quod et pater et filius misit eum, quia Ioannes non est de illis de quibus dicit Ierem. c. XXIII, 21: non mittebam eos, et ipsi currebant. Quomodo ergo dicit ego nesciebam eum, si filius misit eum? Si dicatur, quod licet cognosceret eum secundum divinitatem, non tamen cognoscebat eum secundum humanitatem, nisi postquam vidit spiritum descendentem super eum, contra: spiritus enim sanctus descendit super Christum quando baptizatus est. Ioannes autem cognovit Christum antequam baptizaretur, alias non dixisset ego debeo a te baptizari, et tu venis ad me? Est ergo dicendum, quod tripliciter potest ad hanc quaestionem responderi. Uno modo, secundum Chrysostomum, ut referatur ad cognitionem familiaritatis, ut sit sensus ego nesciebam eum, scilicet familiariter. Et si obiiciatur, quod dicit Ioannes ego a te debeo baptizari etc., dicitur quod ista duo sunt ad diversa tempora referenda, ut hoc quod dicit ego nesciebam eum, referatur ad tempus diu ante Baptismum, in quo nondum Christo familiaris erat; hoc vero quod dicit ego a te debeo baptizari, referatur ad tempus illud in quo baptizatus est Christus, quando iam propter frequentem visitationem eius, Christus familiaris erat. Alio modo, secundum Hieronymum, dicendum quod erat Christus filius Dei et salvator mundi, et hoc quidem sciebat Ioannes; sed nesciebat eum per Baptismum mundi salvatorem: et ideo hoc quod nescivit addidit, scilicet quod hic est qui baptizat in spiritu sancto. Sed melius dicendum est, secundum Augustinum, quod aliquid scivit et aliquid nescivit, et hoc quod nescivit addidit, scilicet quod potestatem baptizandi, quam potuit fidelibus suis communicare, sibi soli retinuit.
1:33
Et hoc est quod dicit qui misit me baptizare in aqua (...) hic est, singulariter scilicet, et solus, qui baptizat in spiritu sancto, et nullus alius: quia hanc potestatem sibi soli retinuit. Notandum autem, quod triplex potestas Christi attenditur in Baptismo. Una est efficientiae, qua mundat interius animam a macula peccati; quam quidem potestatem habet Christus inquantum est Deus, non autem inquantum homo; et haec potestas nulli alii potest communicari. Alia potestas est ministerii, quam quidem communicavit fidelibus; Matth. ult., 19: baptizantes eos in nomine patris, et filii, et spiritus sancti. Et ideo sacerdotes, ut ministri, potestatem habent baptizandi; Christus autem, inquantum homo, minister dicitur, ut apostolus dicit sed tamen caput est omnium ministrorum Ecclesiae. Et quantum ad hoc habet singulariter potestatem excellentiae in sacramentis: quae quidem excellentia apparet in quatuor. Primo in sacramentorum institutione: quia nullus homo purus, nec etiam tota Ecclesia, posset sacramenta instituere, vel sacramenta mutare, aut a sacramentis absolvere. Nam sacramenta invisibilem gratiam conferunt ex eorum institutione; conferre autem gratiam solius Dei est: et ideo solus qui est verus Deus potest sacramenta instituere. Secundum est quantum ad meriti Christi efficaciam: nam ex merito passionis Christi sacramenta virtutem habent; Rom. VI, 3: quicumque baptizati sumus in Christo Iesu, in morte ipsius baptizati sumus. Tertium est quia Christus potest conferre effectum Baptismi sine sacramento: quod solius Christi est. Quarto quia aliquo tempore Baptismus conferebatur ad invocationem nominis Christi; sed modo non ita fit. Quae quidem quatuor nulli hominum communicavit; licet aliquid eorum communicare potuisset, puta quod in nomine Petri, vel alicuius alterius, conferretur Baptismus, et forte aliquid aliorum. Sed hoc ideo non fuit factum ne fieret schisma in Ecclesia, si baptizati spem suam ponerent in illis in quorum nominationem baptizarentur. Et ideo didicit Ioannes per hoc quod spiritus sanctus descendit super eum, quod Christus solus est qui sua virtute interius baptizat. Et forte posset dici, quod cum dixit ego a te debeo baptizari etc. cognovit eum per internam revelationem; sed cum vidit spiritum sanctum descendentem super eum, cognovit eum per exterioris signi manifestationem. Et ideo utrumque modum cognitionis tangit. Primum, cum dicit qui me misit baptizare, ille mihi dixit, idest interius revelavit. Secundum, quando addidit super quem videris spiritum descendentem (...) hic est qui baptizat. Consequenter ostendit quid Baptista ex hac visione intellexit, scilicet quod Christus esset filius Dei; et hoc est quod dicit et ego vidi, scilicet spiritum descendentem super eum, et testimonium perhibui, quia hic, scilicet Christus, est filius Dei, scilicet verus et naturalis. Filii enim adoptivi patris fuerunt ad similitudinem filii Dei naturalis; Rom. VIII, 29: quos praescivit conformes fieri imaginis filii sui. Ille ergo debet filios Dei facere qui baptizat in spiritu sancto, per quem filii adoptantur; Rom. VIII, 15: non enim accepistis spiritum servitutis (...) sed spiritum adoptionis et cetera.
1:34
Quia ergo iste, scilicet Christus, est qui baptizat in spiritu sancto, ideo recte concludit Baptista, quod est filius Dei verus et purus. I Io. ult., 20: ut simus in vero filio eius et cetera. Sed si alii viderunt spiritum sanctum descendentem super eum, quare non crediderunt? Respondeo, quia non erant dispositi ad hoc, vel forte quia soli Baptistae visio illa demonstrata est.
1:35
Supra Evangelista posuit testimonia Baptistae ad turbas; hic consequenter ponit eius testimonia ad discipulos Ioannis. Et primo ponitur testimonium; secundo ostenditur testimonii fructus, ibi et audierunt eum duo discipuli loquentem et cetera. Circa primum tria facit. Primo describitur testis; secundo assignatur modus testificandi; tertio ponitur eius testimonium. Sed testis describitur, cum dicit altera die iterum stabat Ioannes, et ex discipulis eius duo. In hoc autem quod dicit stabat, tria notantur circa Ioannem. Scilicet doctrinae ipsius modus, qui differens fuit a modo doctrinae Christi, et discipulorum eius. Christus enim circumeundo docebat; unde dicitur, Matth. IV, 23, quod circuibat Iesus totam Galilaeam et cetera. Similiter et apostoli discurrendo per mundum, docebant; Mc. ult., 15: euntes in mundum universum, praedicate Evangelium omni creaturae. Sed Ioannes stando docebat; unde dicitur stabat Ioannes, scilicet in uno loco trans Iordanem, et instruebat de Christo omnes ad eum venientes. Ratio autem quare Christus et eius discipuli discurrendo docebant, est quia praedicatio Christi facta erat credibilis per miracula, et ideo circuibant diversa loca, ut miracula et virtutes Christi innotescerent. Praedicatio vero Ioannis non est confirmata miraculis, unde dicitur infra X, 41: Ioannes signum fecit nullum: sed merito et sanctitate vitae. Et ideo stabat in loco uno, ut diversi ad eum confluerent, et per eius sanctitatem ducerentur ad Christum. Similiter etiam si Ioannes sine miraculis discurrisset ad praenuntiandum Christum, eius testimonium incredibilius redderetur, cum videretur importune, et quasi ingerendo se hoc facere. Secundo notatur Ioannis constantia in veritate, quia Ioannes non fuit arundo vento agitata, sed firmus in fide, secundum illud I Cor. X, 12: qui se existimat stare videat ne cadat. Hab. II, 1: super custodiam meam stabo. Tertio allegorice notatur, quod stare allegorice idem est quod deficere; IV Reg. IV, 6: stetitque oleum, idest defecit. Stabat ergo Ioannes veniente Christo, quia cum venit veritas, defecit figura. Ioannes stat, quia lex transit. Modus autem testificandi ponitur certus, quia cum aspectu.
1:36
Unde dicit et respiciens Iesum ambulantem. Ubi sciendum est, quod prophetae perhibuerunt testimonium Christo, Act. X, 43: huic omnes prophetae testimonium perhibent. Similiter et apostoli per mundum discurrentes, Act. I, 8: eritis mihi testes in Ierusalem, et in omni Iudaea et cetera. Sed tamen non per visum, neque de praesente, sed de absente. Prophetae quidem ut de futuro, apostoli vero ut de praeterito. Sed Ioannes, Christo sibi praesente et a se viso, testimonium perhibuit: et ideo dicit et respiciens, oculis corporis, et mentis, iuxta illud Ps. LXXXIII, 10: respice in faciem Christi tui; Is. LII, 8: oculo ad oculum videbunt. Sed dicit ambulantem, ut designet incarnationis mysterium, per quod Dei verbum mutabilem naturam assumpsit; infra XVI, 28: exivi a patre, et veni in mundum. Consequenter ponitur testimonium, cum dicit ecce agnus Dei, quod non solum est demonstrativum, sed admirativum virtutis ipsius; Is. IX, 6: vocabitur nomen eius admirabilis. Et vere admirabilis virtutis est iste agnus, qui occisus, leonem interfecit: illum, inquam, leonem de quo dicitur I Petr. ult., 8: adversarius vester Diabolus, tamquam leo rugiens, circuit quaerens quem devoret. Et ideo ipse agnus leo vocari meruit victor et gloriosus; Apoc. V, 5: ecce vicit leo de tribu Iuda. Breviter autem testimonium profert, dicens ecce agnus Dei, tum quia discipuli quibus hoc testimonium perhibebat, ex his quae audierant a Ioanne, iam satis instructi erant de Christo; tum etiam quia per hoc satis intelligitur tota intentio Ioannis, quae ad hoc solum erat ut eos ad Christum duceret. Nec dicit: ite ad eum, ne videantur discipuli gratiam praestare Christo, si eum sequerentur; sed commendat Christi gratiam, ut quasi in beneficium sibi computent, si Christum sequuntur. Et ideo dicit ecce agnus Dei; idest, ecce in quo est gratia, et virtus purgativa peccatorum: agnus enim offerebatur pro peccatis, ut dictum est.
1:37
Consequenter ponitur fructus testimonii, cum dicit et audierunt eum duo discipuli loquentem, et primo ponitur fructus proveniens ex testimonio Ioannis et discipulorum eius; secundo vero ponitur fructus proveniens ex praedicatione Christi, ibi in crastinum autem voluit exire in Galilaeam. Circa primum primo ponitur fructus proveniens ex testimonio Ioannis; secundo fructus proveniens ex praedicatione unius discipulorum eius, ibi erat autem Andreas frater Simonis Petri et cetera. Circa primum duo facit. Primo ponitur inchoatio huius fructus ex testimonio Ioannis facta. Secundo ponitur consummatio facta per Christum, ibi conversus autem Iesus et cetera. Dicit ergo primo et audierunt eum, scilicet Ioannem, duo discipuli, qui erant cum eo, loquentem (ecce agnus Dei) et secuti sunt Iesum, ad litteram: euntes cum eo. Ubi quatuor, secundum Chrysostomum, considerari possunt. Primo quia hoc quod Ioannes loquitur et Christus tacet, et verbo Ioannis discipuli congregantur ad Christum, competit mysterio: Christus enim est sponsus Ecclesiae, Ioannes vero amicus et paranymphus sponsi. Officium autem paranymphi est sponsam tradere sponso, et loquendo, pacta tradere; sponsi autem est quasi prae verecundia tacere, et de sponsa iam habita pro velle disponere. Sic ergo discipuli traduntur a Ioanne Christo quasi desponsati per fidem. Ioannes loquitur, Christus tacet; sed tamen susceptos diligenter instruxit. Secundo vero quod cum Ioannes dignitatem Christi commendans dixit ante me factus est, et quoniam non sum dignus solvere corrigiam calceamenti eius, nullus conversus est; sed quando humilia de Christo, et incarnationis mysterio locutus est, tunc secuti sunt eum discipuli: quia humilia, et quae pro nobis passus est Christus, magis movent nos; et ideo dicitur Cant. I, 2: oleum effusum nomen tuum, idest misericordia, qua salutem omnium procurasti; et ideo statim sequitur adolescentulae dilexerunt te nimis. Tertio, quia verbum praedicationis est sicut semen cadens in diversas terras: in una quidem fructificat, in alia non. Ita et Ioannes cum praedicat, non omnes discipulos convertit ad Christum, sed duos tantum, scilicet qui bene dispositi erant; alii vero e contrario invidia moventur ad Christum: unde et quaestionem ei movent, ut dicitur Matth. IX, 14. Quartum est quod discipuli Ioannis audito eius testimonio de Christo, non statim ingesserunt se ad loquendum cum eo ex abrupto, sed quasi studiosi cum quadam verecundia singulariter loqui cum eo, et in secreto loco studuerunt. Eccle. VIII, 6: omni negotio tempus est, et opportunitas. Consequenter ponitur consummatio fructus, cum dicit conversus autem Iesus. Quod enim Ioannes inchoavit, consummatur per Christum, quia neminem ad perfectum adduxit lex, ut habetur Hebr. VII, 19. Et circa hoc Christus duo facit: primo enim examinavit discipulos sequentes; secundo eos instruxit, ibi dicit eis: venite, et videte. Circa primum primo ponitur Christi examinantis interrogatio; secundo discipulorum examinatorum responsio, ibi qui dixerunt ei: Rabbi, ubi habitas?
1:38
Dicit ergo conversus autem Iesus, et videns eos sequentes se, dixit eis. Et quidem per litteralem sensum intelligendum est quod Christus eos praeibat, et hi duo discipuli eum sequentes, faciem eius minime videbant: et ideo Christus ut daret eis fiduciam, convertit se ad eos. In quo datur nobis intelligi, quod omnibus, qui Christum sequi incipiunt puro corde, dat fiduciam vel spem misericordiae; Sap. VI, 14: praeoccupat eos qui se concupiscunt. Convertit autem se Iesus ad nos, ut videatur a nobis: hoc erit in illa beata visione, quando ostendet nobis faciem suam, ut dicitur in Ps. LXXIX, 4: ostende nobis faciem tuam, et salvi erimus. Quamdiu enim in mundo isto sumus, videmus posteriora eius, quia per effectus in eius cognitionem venimus; unde dicitur Ex. XXXIII, 23: posteriora mea videbis. Item convertit se ut opem suae misericordiae nobis impendat. Hoc petebat Ps. LXXXIX, 13: convertere, domine, aliquantulum et cetera. Quamdiu enim Christus opem suae miserationis non impendit, videtur a nobis aversus. Conversus est ergo Iesus ad discipulos Ioannis eum sequentes, ut faciem suam eis ostenderet, et gratiam eis infunderet. Examinat autem eos specialiter de intentione. Sequentium namque Christum non eadem intentio est: quidam enim eum sequuntur propter bona temporalia; alii vero propter bona spiritualia. Et ideo quid isti intendant, dominus quaerit, dicens quid quaeritis? Non quidem ut discat, sed ut rectam intentionem aperientes, magis familiares faciat, et ostendat eos auditione dignos. Notandum autem, quod hoc est primum verbum quod Christus in isto Evangelio loquitur. Et congrue, quia primum quod quaerit Deus ab homine, est recta intentio. Et secundum Origenem, post sex verba quae Ioannes dixerat, Christus septimum locutus est. Primum namque Ioannes Baptista locutus est, quando testimonium perhibens de Christo, clamabat dicens hic est de quo dixi. Aliud quando dixit non sum dignus solvere corrigiam calceamenti eius. Tertium quando dixit ego baptizo in aqua, medius autem vestrum stetit quem vos nescitis. Quartum ecce agnus Dei. Quintum vidi spiritum descendentem quasi columbam et cetera. Sextum, cum hic dicit ecce agnus Dei. Et Christus septimum loquitur, ut intelligas mystice, quod quies, quae designatur per septimum diem, nobis est futura per Christum, et quod in ipso est plenitudo septiformis gratiae spiritus sancti. Consequenter respondent discipuli qui dixerunt ei et cetera. Et quidem interrogati de uno, duo respondent. Primo quidem quare Christum sequuntur, scilicet ut addiscant, unde et magistrum eum vocant Rabbi (quod dicitur interpretatum magister) quasi dicerent: quaerimus, ut nos doceas. Iam enim praecognoscebant quod dicitur Matth. XXIII, 10, unus est magister vester Christus. Secundo vero quod sequendo quaerunt, scilicet ubi habitas? Et quidem litteraliter dici potest quod in veritate domum Christi quaerebant. Propter enim mira et magna, quae a Ioanne de eo audierant, nolebant eum perfunctorie interrogare, nec semel tantum, sed frequenter et seriose; et ideo domum eius scire volebant, ut frequenter ad eum accederent, iuxta consilium sapientis, Eccli. VI, 36: si videris sensatum, evigila ad illum, et Prov. c. VIII, 34: beatus qui audit me, et vigilat ad fores meas quotidie. Allegorice autem in caelis est habitaculum Dei, secundum illud Ps. CXXII, 1: ad te levavi oculos meos qui habitas in caelis. Quaerunt ergo ubi Christus habitet, quia ad hoc debemus Christum sequi ut per eum ducamur ad caelos, idest ad gloriam caelestem. Moraliter autem interrogant ubi habitas? Quasi vellent scire, quales debent esse homines qui digni sunt quod Christus habitet in eis; de quo habitaculo dicitur Eph. II, 22: aedificamini in habitaculum Dei, et Cant. I, v. 6: indica mihi, quem diligit anima mea, ubi pascas, ubi cubes in meridie. Consequenter cum dicit venite, et videte, ponitur instructio discipulorum a Christo, et primo describitur ipsa instructio discipulorum a Christo; secundo commendatur discipulorum obedientia venerunt, et viderunt; tertio determinatur tempus quia hora erat quasi decima. Dicit ergo primo venite, et videte, scilicet ubi habitem. Sed hic est quaestio. Cum dominus dicat, Matth. VIII, 20, filius hominis non habet ubi caput suum reclinet, quare dicit venite, et videte ubi habito? Respondeo dicendum, secundum Chrysostomum, quod per hoc quod dixit dominus: filius hominis non habet ubi caput suum reclinet, demonstravit quod non habuit proprium habitaculum, non quod in domo alicuius alterius non maneret. Et ad hanc videndum istos invitabat, dicens venite, et videte. Mystice autem dicit venite, et videte quia habitatio Dei, sive gloriae, sive gratiae, agnosci non potest nisi per experientiam: nam verbis explicari non potest; Apoc. II, 17: in calculo nomen novum et cetera. Et ideo dicit venite, et videte. Venite, credendo et operando, et videte, experiendo et intelligendo. Notandum autem, quod quatuor modis pervenitur ad hanc cognitionem. Primo per bonorum operum actionem: unde dicit venite. Ps. XLI, 3: quando veniam, et apparebo ante faciem domini. Secundo per mentis quietem, seu vacationem; Ps. XLV, 11: vacate, et videte. Tertio per divinae dulcedinis gustationem; Ps. XXXIII, 9: gustate, et videte, quoniam suavis est dominus. Quarto per operationem devotionis; Thren. III, v. 41: levemus corda nostra cum manibus orando et cetera. Et ideo dicit dominus Lc. XXIV, v. 39: palpate, et videte et cetera. Consequenter ponitur discipulorum obedientia, quia statim sequitur venerunt, et viderunt, quia veniendo viderunt, et videntes non deseruerunt, unde dicitur et manserunt ibi die illo quia, ut dicitur infra c. VI, 45, omnis qui audit a patre, et didicit, venit ad me. Qui enim recedunt a Christo, non viderunt eum adhuc, sicut videre oportet. Isti autem qui perfecte credendo, eum viderunt, manserunt ibi die illo; audientes et videntes beatum diem, beatam noctem duxerunt; III Reg. X, 8: beati viri tui, et beati servi tui, qui stant coram te semper. Et ideo, ut dicit Augustinus, aedificemus et nosmetipsi in corde nostro, et faciamus domum quo veniat ille, et doceat nos. Et dicit die illo, quia nox esse non potest ubi est lumen Christi, ubi est sol iustitiae.
1:39
Tempus autem determinatur consequenter, cum dicit hora autem erat quasi decima. Quod quidem Evangelista determinat, ut, secundum litteram, insinuet commendationem Christi, et discipulorum. Hora enim decima est in occasu diei: ex quo et Christus commendatur, qui tam studiosus erat ad docendum, quod nec propter temporis tarditatem eos docere distulit, sed in hora decima docuit eos; Eccle. XI, 6: mane semina semen tuum, et vespere ne cesset manus tua. Similiter etiam commendatur et discipulorum temperantia. Quia etiam hora decima qua consueverunt homines comedisse et esse minus sobrii ad perceptionem sapientiae, ipsi et sobrii et apti erant ad sapientiam audiendam, nec propter cibum, aut vinum impediebantur. Nec mirum, quia discipuli eius fuerant, scilicet Ioannis, cuius potus erat aqua, esca autem locusta et mel silvestre. Secundum autem Augustinum, per horam decimam lex signatur, quae in decem praeceptis data est. Erat ergo hora decima quando isti venerunt, et manserunt cum Christo, et ab eo erudiuntur, ut impleretur lex per Christum quae a Iudaeis impleri non poterat. Et ideo etiam in ipsa hora vocatus est Rabbi, idest magister.
1:40
Consequenter cum dicit erat autem Andreas frater Simonis Petri etc. ponitur fructus quem fecit discipulus Ioannis conversus ad Christum. Et super hoc primo describitur discipulus; secundo fructus ab ipso inchoatus, ibi invenit hic primum fratrem suum Simonem; tertio ponitur consummatio fructus facta per Christum, ibi intuitus autem eum Iesus dixit. Describitur autem discipulus primo a nomine, cum dicit erat autem Andreas, idest virilis. Ps. XXX, 25: viriliter agite, et confortetur cor vestrum. Exprimit autem nomen, ut ostendatur eius privilegium: tum quia prior conversus est ad fidem Christi perfecte, tum etiam quia Christum praedicavit: unde sicut Stephanus fuit primus martyr post Christum, ita et Andreas fuit primus Christianus. Secundo describitur a cognatione, quia frater Simonis Petri: quia iunior erat. Et hoc quidem est ad commendationem suam, ut qui aetate posterior, fide efficiatur primus. Tertio a disciplina, quia unus ex duobus qui audierant a Ioanne. Et huius quidem nomen describitur ad ostendendum Andreae privilegium quod insignis fuerit. Alterius enim nomen tacetur: aut quia ille alius fuit Ioannes Evangelista, cuius consuetudo est in suo Evangelio cum de eo agitur, nomen suum non exprimere propter humilitatem; aut, secundum Chrysostomum, non fuit aliquis insignis, nec fecit aliquid magnum: unde non fuisset utilitas nomen eius ponere. Sic enim et Lucas, cap. X, nomina septuaginta duorum discipulorum, quos dominus binos misit ante faciem suam, non posuit, quia non erant solemnes personae et insignes, sicut apostoli fuerunt. Aut, secundum Alcuinum, ille discipulus fuit Philippus: et hoc patet, quia statim postquam Evangelista prosecutus est de Andrea, prosequitur de Philippo, dicens: in crastinum autem voluit exire in Galilaeam, et invenit Philippum et cetera. Quarto commendatur a devotionis studio: unde dicitur et secuti fuerant eum, idest Iesum. Iob XXIII, 11: vestigia eius secutus est pes meus.
1:41
Fructus autem inchoatus per Andream ponitur, cum dicit invenit hic primum Simonem fratrem suum. Et primo insinuat apud quem fructum fecit, scilicet apud fratrem suum, ut commendet suae conversionis perfectionem: sicut enim Petrus dicit in itinerario Clementis, evidens signum perfectae conversionis alicuius est, cum conversus, quanto aliquis sibi est magis coniunctus, tanto magis satagit eum convertere ad Christum. Et ideo Andreas perfecte conversus non detinuit apud seipsum inventum thesaurum, sed festinat et currit cito ad fratrem, traditurus ei bona quae suscepit. Et ideo dicit invenit hic, scilicet Andreas, primum, idest primo adverbialiter, fratrem suum Simonem, quem quaerebat, ut sicut erat sanguine, ita faceret eum germanum fide. Prov. XVIII, 19: frater qui adiuvatur a fratre quasi civitas firma; Apoc. ult., 17: qui audit, dicat, veni. Secundo ponit verba quae dicit Andreas invenimus Messiam (quod interpretatur Christus); ubi, secundum Chrysostomum, tacite respondet cuidam quaestioni. Scilicet, si quis eum interrogaret de quo instructi fuissent a Christo, in promptu est responsio, scilicet quod per testimonia Scripturae instruxit eum intantum quod cognosceret eum esse Christum. Et ideo dicit invenimus. Per quod etiam innuit quod diu cum desiderio eum quaesierat; Prov. III, 13: beatus homo qui invenit sapientiam. Messia Hebraice, quod Graece interpretatum est Christus, idest unctus Latine: quia specialiter unctus est oleo invisibili, idest spiritus sancti. Ideo signanter nomine isto manifestat eum: unde in Ps. XLIV, 8 dicitur: unxit te Deus tuus oleo laetitiae prae consortibus, idest prae omnibus sanctis: nam omnes sancti isto oleo unguntur; sed iste singulariter unctus est, et singulariter sanctus. Ideo secundum Chrysostomum, non dicit Messiam simpliciter, sed cum adiectione articuli. Tertio ponit fructum quem fecit, quia adduxit eum ad Iesum, scilicet Petrum. In quo Petri obedientia commendatur: confestim enim occurrit, in hoc non tardans. Et Andreae devotionem considera: quia duxit eum ad Iesum, non ad se (sciebat enim se infirmum), et ideo eum ad Christum adducit, ut ipse eum instruat; instruens simul per hoc, quod hic debet esse praedicatorum conatus et studium, ut fructus praedicationis et studium non sibi vindicent, seu ad utilitatem et honorem proprium convertant, sed ut adducant ad Iesum, idest ad eius gloriam et honorem referant. II Cor. IV, 5: non enim praedicamus nosmetipsos, sed Iesum Christum. Consummatio autem huius fructus ponitur cum dicit intuitus autem eum Iesus dixit, et cetera. Ubi Christus, ad fidem divinitatis eum elevare volens, incipit quae divinitatis sunt opera facere, occulta praedicans. Et primo quidem quantum ad occulta praesentiae; unde intuitus eum, idest, statim cum vidit eum virtute divinitatis, consideravit, et dixit ei nomen suum: unde dicit tu es Simon. Nec mirum, quia, ut dicitur I Reg. XVI, v. 7, homines vident ea quae apparent, Deus autem intuetur cor. Congruit autem hoc nomen mysterio. Nam Simon interpretatur obediens; ut insinuet quod obedientia necessaria est ei qui conversus est ad Christum per fidem. Act. V, 32: dat spiritum sanctum obedientibus sibi. Secundo vero quantum ad occulta praeterita. Unde dicit filius Ioanna, quia hoc nomine vocatus est pater suus, vel, secundum Matthaeum, filius Iona, cum dicit Simon Bariona. Et utrumque congruit mysterio. Ioanna enim interpretatur gratia, ut insinuet quod homines per gratiam veniunt ad fidem Christi; Eph. II, 5: gratia salvati estis et cetera. Iona vero interpretatur columba, ut insinuet quod per spiritum sanctum, qui datus est nobis, firmamur in amore Dei, ut dicitur Rom. V, 5: caritas Dei diffusa est in cordibus nostris.
1:42
Tertio vero quantum ad occulta futura; unde dicit tu vocaberis Cephas, quod interpretatur Petrus, et in Graeco caput. Et congruit mysterio, ut ille qui debet esse aliorum caput et Christi vicarius, firmitati inhaereret. Matth. XVI, 18: tu es Petrus, et super hanc petram aedificabo Ecclesiam meam. Sed hic est quaestio litteralis. Et primo quare Christus imposuit ei in principio suae conversionis nomen, et non voluit quod a principio nativitatis suae hoc nomine vocaretur? Ad hoc respondetur dupliciter. Secundum Chrysostomum, primo quidem quia nomina divinitus imposita aliquam eminentiam gratiae spiritualis designant. Quando autem Deus confert specialem gratiam alicui, ab ipsa nativitate nomen gratiam illam significans imponitur; sicut patet de Ioanne Baptista, qui ante a Deo est nominatus quam natus, quia fuit sanctificatus in utero matris. Aliquando autem aliter confertur eminentia gratiae specialis tempore procedenti; et talia nomina divinitus imponuntur non a principio nativitatis, sed in ipso processu temporis; sicut patet de Abraham et Sara, quibus nomina mutata sunt quando promissionem multiplicandi germinis acceperunt. Eodem modo et Petrus nominatur divinitus quando ad fidem Christi, et gratiam apostolatus vocatur, et specialiter quia constitutus est princeps apostolorum totius Ecclesiae; quod in aliis apostolis non est factum. Secundum Augustinum autem, quia si a principio fuisset nominatus Cephas, non apparuisset mysterium. Et ideo voluit dominus quod tunc nomen haberet, ut mutatione nominis, Ecclesiae mysterium appareret, quae in confessione fidei eius fundata erat. Petrus enim a petra dicitur; petra autem erat Christus. In Petri ergo nomine figurata est Ecclesia, quae supra firmam petram immobilem, idest Christum, aedificata est. Secunda quaestio est utrum hic fuerit impositum hoc nomen Simoni, an in Matthaeo cum dicitur tu es Petrus. Et ad hoc respondet Augustinus dicens, quod istud nomen hoc loco fuit Simoni impositum; sed quod dicit ei dominus in Matth. tu es Petrus etc. non est nominis impositio, sed impositi nominis commemoratio, ut quasi utatur illo nomine tamquam iam imposito. Alii autem dicunt, quod hoc nomen fuit impositum Simoni quando dominus dixit ei tu es Petrus, et super hanc petram aedificabo Ecclesiam meam. Hic vero non imponit ei hoc nomen, sed praesignat quod sit ei postmodum imponendum. Tertia quaestio est de vocatione Petri et Andreae: quia hic dicitur, quod fuerunt vocati iuxta Iordanem, quia fuerunt discipuli Ioannis; et Matth. IV, 18 dicitur, quod Christus vocavit eos iuxta mare Galilaeae. Et ad hoc dicendum, quod triplex fuit vocatio apostolorum. Prima fuit ad cognitionem, seu familiaritatem, et fidem; et de hac dicitur hic. Secunda fuit in officii praesignatione, de qua habetur Lc. V, 10: ex hoc eris homines capiens. Tertia fuit ad apostolatum, de qua dicitur Matth. IV, 18 s., quae fuit perfecta, quia postea non redierunt ad propria.
1:43
Posito fructu qui provenit ex praedicatione Ioannis, et eius discipuli, consequenter Evangelista manifestat fructum qui provenit ex praedicatione Christi, et primo agit de conversione unius discipuli ad praedicationem Christi; secundo de conversione aliorum ad praedicationem discipuli ad Christum conversi, ibi invenit Philippus Nathanaelem et cetera. Circa primum tria facit. Primo ponitur discipuli vocandi occasio; secundo subditur ipsius discipuli vocatio; tertio describitur vocati discipuli conditio, ibi erat autem Philippus a Bethsaida. Occasio quidem vocationis fuit exitus Iesu a Iudaea. Et ideo dicitur in crastinum autem voluit exire, scilicet Iesus a Iudaea, in Galilaeam, et invenit Philippum. Ratio autem exitus Iesu in Galilaeam assignatur triplex: duae videlicet litterales, quarum una est quia postquam baptizatus fuerat a Ioanne, volens honorem deferre Baptistae, exivit in Galilaeam, a Iudaea recedens, ne sua praesentia offuscaret, et minueret Ioannis magisterium, dum adhuc statum haberet: docens nos honore invicem praevenire, ut dicitur Rom. XII, 10. Secunda ratio est quia in Galilaea non sunt insignes personae, infra VII, 52: a Galilaea propheta non surgit etc. et ideo voluit exire illuc Iesus, et eligere inde principes orbis terrae, qui sunt prophetis maiores, ut per hoc suam virtutem ostendat. Ps. CVI, 35: posuit desertum in stagna aquarum. Tertia ratio est mystica: quia Galilaea interpretatur transmigratio. Voluit ergo exire a Iudaea in Galilaeam ut insinuaret quod in crastinum, idest in die gratiae, scilicet Evangelii, exiret a Iudaea in Galilaeam, idest ad gentes salvandas; infra VII, 35: numquid hic iturus est in dispersionem gentium? Vocatio ergo discipuli est ad sequendum; et ideo dicit invenit Philippum, et dicit ei: sequere me. Et nota, quod aliquando homo invenit Deum, sed quasi ignotum; Prov. VIII, 35: qui invenerit me, inveniet vitam, et hauriet salutem a domino. Aliquando Deus invenit hominem, sed ut eum manifestet, et magnificet; Ps. LXXXVIII, 21: inveni David servum meum. Et sic Christus invenit Philippum, ut eum ad fidem et gratiam vocet: et ideo statim dicit sequere me. Quaestio est quare Iesus a principio non vocavit discipulos. Ad quod respondet Chrysostomus, quod noluit a principio aliquem vocare, antequam aliquis spontaneus ei adhaereret per praedicationem Ioannis: quia homines magis exemplo trahuntur quam verbis Ex. XXVI, cortina trahit cortinam. Quaeritur etiam quare Philippus statim ad unum verbum secutus est Christum, cum Andreas eum secutus fuerit audiens a Ioanne de Christo, Petrus autem ab Andrea. Ad hoc est triplex responsio. Una, quia Philippus iam instructus erat a Ioanne; quia, secundum unam expositionem supra positam, ille alius, qui cum Andrea secutus est Christum, erat Philippus. Alia ratio est quia vox Christi virtutem quamdam habebat ut non solum exterius, sed etiam interius cor moveret; Ier. XXIII, 29: verba mea sunt quasi ignis. Non enim vox Christi solum exterioribus dicebatur, sed fidelium interiora ad eius inflammabat amorem.
1:44
Tertio, quia forte Philippus iam de Christo fuerat instructus ab Andrea et Petro, quia ex eadem villa erant; quod Evangelista videtur innuere per hoc quod subdit erat autem Philippus a Bethsaida civitate Andreae et Petri. In quo discipuli vocati conditio exprimitur: quia erat a Bethsaida. Et sic congruit mysterio. Bethsaida enim domus venatorum interpretatur: ut ostendat quales tunc animo erant Philippus, Petrus et Andreas, et quod de domo venatorum, congrue venatores ad capiendas animas ad vitam vocaret. Ier. XVI, 16: mittam meos venatores et cetera. Consequenter ponitur fructus discipuli ad Christum conversi, et primo ponitur inchoatio fructus facta a discipulo; secundo consummatio facta per Christum, ibi vidit Iesus Nathanaelem. Circa primum tria facit. Primo ponitur Annuntiatio Philippi; secundo responsio Nathanaelis, ibi et dixit Nathanael; tertio consequens admonitio Philippi, ibi dicit ei Philippus. Circa primum attende, quod sicut Andreas perfecte conversus studuit adducere fratrem suum ad Christum, ita et Philippus fratrem suum Nathanaelem.
1:45
Et ideo dicit invenit Philippus Nathanaelem, quem forte quaerebat, sicut Andreas Petrum quaesierat: quod fuit signum perfectae conversionis. Et dixit ei. Nathanael interpretatur donum Dei; et quod aliquis ad Christum convertatur, ex dono Dei est. Annuntiat autem ei omnes prophetias et legem complementum habere, et desideria sanctorum patrum non esse frustrata, sed esse verificata, et quod eorum desideriis erat promissum a Deo, iam adimpletum esse. Quem scripsit Moyses in lege et prophetis, invenimus Iesum; per quod datur intelligi quod Nathanael erat satis peritus in lege, et quod etiam Philippus iam instructus de Christo, voluit Nathanaelem ex sibi notis, scilicet ex lege et prophetis, inducere ad Christum, et ideo dicit quem scripsit Moyses et cetera. Moyses enim de Christo scripsit; infra V, 46: si crederetis Moysi, crederetis forsitan et mihi: de me enim ille scripsit. Similiter prophetae de Christo scripserunt; Act. c. X, 43: huic omnes prophetae testimonium perhibent. Etiam attende, quod tria dicit de Christo Philippus, legi et prophetis consona. Primo quidem nomen; unde dixit invenimus Iesum. Et hoc consonat prophetis: Is. XIX, v. 20: mittam eis salvatorem etc.; Hab. ult., v. 18: exultabo in Deo Iesu meo. Secundo vero genus, unde duxit originem humanam cum dicit filium Ioseph, scilicet qui erat de domo David et familia. Et quamvis ex eo Christus originem non duxerit, tamen ex virgine duxit, quae erat de eadem progenie cum Ioseph. Vocat autem filium Ioseph, quia eius filius aestimabatur esse, cui scilicet desponsata erat mater eius. Unde dicitur Lc. c. III, 23: ut putabatur filius Ioseph. Nec mirum, si Philippus vocabat eum filium Ioseph, cum et mater eius divinae incarnationis conscia, ipsum eius filium diceret; Lc. II, 48, pater tuus, et ego dolentes quaerebamus te. Et si quidem aliquis filius alicuius vocatur, quia nutritur ab ipso, Ioseph multo amplius pater Iesu dici poterat, licet secundum carnem pater non esset: quia et eum nutriverat, et sponsus matris virginis erat. Dicitur autem hic a Philippo non tamquam de commixtione Ioseph et virginis natus esset, sed quia sciebat Christum de generatione David nasciturum, de cuius domo et familia erat Ioseph, cui desponsata erat Maria. Et hoc etiam consonat prophetis: Ierem. XXIII, 5: suscitabo David germen iustum et cetera. Tertio commemorat patriam, dicens a Nazareth: non quia in ea natus esset, immo in Bethlehem, sed quia in ea erat nutritus. Quia enim nativitas eius multis erat incognita, locus autem ubi nutritus erat, cognitus erat multis, ideo Philippus Bethlehem tacuit, et posuit Nazareth. Et hoc quidem consonat dictis prophetarum; nam, Is. XI, 1: egredietur virga de radice Iesse, et flos, sive Nazaraeus, secundum aliam litteram, de radice eius ascendet. Consequenter cum dicit et dixit ei Nathanael etc. ponitur responsio Nathanaelis: quod quidem potest legi et assertive et interrogative; et utroque modo eiusmodi responsio congruit verbis Philippi. Si enim, secundum quod Augustinus vult, legatur assertive, est sensus: a Nazareth potest aliquid boni esse. Idest, a civitate, tanti nominis, potest esse quod aliquid summae gratiae nobis oriatur, seu aliquis doctor eximius, qui florem virtutum et munditiam sanctitatis nobis praedicet. Nazareth enim flos interpretatur. Ex quo datur intelligi quod Nathanael doctissimus in lege, scrutatus Scripturas, praenoscebat quod de Nazareth expectandus esset salvator, quod non facile alii Scribae et Pharisaei noverant; et ideo, cum Philippus diceret invenimus Iesum a Nazareth, erectus in spem, respondit: vere a Nazareth potest esse et cetera. Si vero legatur, secundum Chrysostomum, interrogative, tunc est sensus: a Nazareth potest aliquid boni esse? Quasi dicat: omnia alia quae dicis credibilia videntur esse, quia et nomen et genus prophetis consonat, sed hoc quod dicis a Nazareth, non videtur possibile. Nathanael enim habuerat per Scripturas, quod a Bethlehem oportet Christum venire, secundum illud Matth. II, 6: et tu, Bethlehem terra Iuda, nequaquam minima es in principibus Iuda: ex te enim exiet dux qui regat populum meum Israel. Et ideo, non inveniens convenire enunciationem Philippi cum prophetica praedicatione, prudenter et mansuete de veritate dicti interrogat a Nazareth potest aliquid boni esse?
1:46
Consequenter ponitur admonitio Philippi: dixit ei Philippus: veni et vide; quae quidem admonitio utrique responsioni Nathanaelis convenit. Assertive quidem, ut dicatur: tu dicis quod a Nazareth potest aliquid boni esse, sed ego dico, quod illud bonum quod tibi annuntio, tantum et tam magnificum est quod ego exprimere non valeo; et ideo veni, et vide. Interrogative autem legitur sic. Tu admirando dicis: a Nazareth potest aliquid boni esse? Reputans hoc esse impossibile secundum Scripturas; sed si experiri volueris quae ego expertus sum, intelliges vera esse quae dico; et ideo veni, et vide. Trahit quidem Philippus Nathanaelem ad Christum, eius interrogationibus non fractus, qui scit de reliquo eum non contradicturum, si verba et doctrinam Christi gustaverit: et in hoc Philippus Christum secutus est, qui superius interrogantibus eum de habitaculo, respondit: venite, et videte. Ps. XXXIII, 6: accedite ad eum, et illuminamini. Consequenter cum dicit vidit Iesus Nathanaelem, ponitur consummatio fructus per Christum. Sciendum autem, quod aliqui dupliciter convertuntur ad Christum: quidam per miracula visa, et experta in se, sive in aliis; quidam vero per spirationes internas, et per prophetiam et praenoscentiam occultorum futurorum. Sed efficacior est modus per prophetias et praenoscentiam futurorum converti, quam per miracula. Ipsi enim Daemones, et aliqui homines eorum auxilio, aliqua mira praetendere possunt: sed futura praedicere solius divinae virtutis opus est; Is. XLI, 23: ventura quoque annuntiate, et dicemus quod dii estis; I Cor. c. XIV, 22: prophetiae datae sunt fidelibus. Et inde est quod dominus non per miracula, sed per praenuntiationem occultorum Nathanaelem ad fidem trahit; et ideo dicit de eo ecce vere Israelita, in quo dolus non est. Ubi tria occulta ei insinuat, scilicet occulta praesentia, quae sunt in corde, praeterita facta, et futura caelestia: quae quidem tria scire, divinum est, non humanum opus.
1:47
Occulta quidem praesentia insinuat ei, cum dicit ecce vere Israelita, in quo dolus non est: ubi quidem primo ponitur Christi praenuntiatio; secundo vero Nathanaelis inquisitio, ibi unde me nosti? Dicit ergo circa primum vidit Iesus Nathanaelem venientem ad se, quasi dicat: antequam ad ipsum perveniret, dixit de eo: ecce vere Israelita et cetera. Dixit autem hoc de eo antequam ad ipsum perveniret, quia si dixisset hoc postquam ad Iesum pervenisset, potuisset credere Nathanael quod hoc Iesus audivisset a Philippo. Dixit autem ecce vere Israelita, in quo dolus non est: Israel autem duas interpretationes habet. Uno enim modo interpretatur rectissimus; Is. XLIV, 2: noli timere, serve meus rectissime, quem elegi, ubi dicit Glossa, quod Israel interpretatur rectissimus. Alio modo Israel interpretatur vir videns Deum. Et secundum utrumque, Nathanael est vere Israelita: quia enim ille dicitur rectus in quo non est dolus, ideo dicitur vere Israelita, in quo dolus non est; quasi dicat: vere repraesentas genus tuum, quia tu es rectus et sine dolo. Quia vero per munditiam et simplicitatem homo Deum videt, ideo dixit vere Israelita; idest, tu es vir vere videns Deum, quia tu es simplex et sine dolo. Dixit autem in quo dolus non est, ne credatur quod malitiose dixerit: a Nazareth potest aliquid boni esse? Quasi interrogans. Augustinus autem aliter exponit. Manifestum est enim quod omnes sub peccato nascuntur. Illi ergo dicuntur dolosi qui peccatum habentes in corde, exterius fingunt se iustos; qui vero peccator est, et se peccatorem confitetur, non est dolosus. Dixit ergo ecce vere Israelita, in quo dolus non est, non quod peccatum non haberet, non quod illi medicus necessarius non esset, quia nemo sic natus est ut nullo medico indigeat; sed in eo confessionem peccati laudavit. Consequenter cum dicit unde me nosti? Ponitur Nathanaelis inquisitio. Admirans enim Nathanael virtutem Dei in occultorum manifestatione, quia hoc solius Dei est: Ier. XVII, 9, pravum est cor hominis, et inscrutabile, et quis cognoscet illud? Ego dominus scrutans cor et probans renes; et I Reg. XVI, 7, homines vident ea quae parent, Deus autem intuetur cor, ideo quaerit unde me nosti? In quo commendatur Nathanaelis humilitas: quia licet laudaretur, non est elatus; sed laudem propriam suspectam habuit: contra quod dicitur Is. III, 12: popule meus, qui beatum te dicunt, ipsi te decipiunt. Praeterita vero absentia insinuat, cum dicit priusquam te Philippus vocaret, cum esses sub ficu, vidi te, ubi primo ponitur denuntiatio Christi; secundo confessio Nathanaelis, ibi respondit et Nathanael, et ait: Rabbi, tu es filius Dei. Circa primum sciendum est, quod Nathanael posset habere duplicem suspicionem de Christo: unam quod dixisset Christus praemissa, volens ei blandiri et ad amicitiam suam trahere; aliam quod ea quae dixit supra, ab alio cognovisset. Ut ergo suspicionem auferat, et ad altiora erigat, illa occulta manifestat quae nullus nisi divinitus scire potuisset, ea videlicet quae statim circa ipsum Nathanaelem contigerant: et hoc est quod dicit priusquam te Philippus vocaret, cum esses sub ficu, vidi te. Ad litteram enim, sub arbore fici fuerat Nathanael, cum a Philippo vocaretur: quod Christus virtute divinitatis coniecerat, quia, ut dicitur Eccli. XXIII, v. 28, oculi domini multo lucidiores super solem. Mystice autem per ficum designatur peccatum: tum quia invenimus arborem fici maledictam folia sola habentem, et non fructum, Matth. XXI, 19 quod factum est in figuram peccati; tum quia Adam et Eva cum peccassent, de foliis ficus perizomata fecerunt.
1:48
Dicit ergo cum esses sub ficu, idest, sub umbra peccati antequam ad gratiam vocatus esses, ego vidi te, scilicet oculo misericordiae: nam ipsa Dei praedestinatio oculo pietatis respicit praedestinatos sub peccatis viventes; Eph. I, 4: elegit nos ante mundi constitutionem et cetera. Et de isto oculo loquitur hic. Vidi te, praedestinando scilicet ab aeterno. Vel, secundum Gregorium, cum esses sub ficu, idest sub umbra legis, vidi te. Hebr. X, v. 1: umbram habens lex futurorum bonorum et cetera.
1:49
Statim autem Nathanael ad hoc conversus, et virtutem divinitatis in Christo cognoscens, in vocem confessionis et laudem prorumpit, dicens Rabbi, tu es filius Dei. Ubi tria considerat de Christo, scilicet plenitudinem scientiae, cum dicit Rabbi, quod interpretatur magister; ac si dicat, perfectus es in scientia. Iam praesentiebat quod dicitur Matth. XXIII, 10: magister vester unus est, Christus. Secundo excellentiam singularis gratiae, cum dicit tu es filius Dei. Nam quod homo sit filius Dei per adoptionem, non est nisi gratiae; et etiam esse filium Dei per unionem, quod est proprium homini Christo, per gratiam est: quia non ex aliquibus praecedentibus meritis, sed per gratiam unionis homo ille est filius Dei. Tertio vero immensitatem potentiae, cum dicit tu es rex Israel, idest expectatus ab Israel in regem et defensorem; Dan. VII, 14: potestas eius, potestas aeterna et cetera. Sed circa hoc insurgit quaestio, secundum Chrysostomum. Cum Petrus, qui post multa miracula, post magnam doctrinam confessus fuit quod hic confitetur Nathanael de Christo, tu es filius Dei, meruit beatificari, dicente domino: beatus es, Simon Bariona etc., cur et Nathanael, qui simile dixerat ante visa miracula et perceptam doctrinam, beatificatus non fuit? Et ad hoc respondet Chrysostomus, quod huius causa est, quia licet eadem verba Nathanael et Petrus protulerint, non tamen fuit eadem intentio utriusque. Petrus quidem confessus fuit, Christum esse filium Dei verum per naturam, ut scilicet sic esset homo quod tamen esset verus Deus; hic autem confessus est esse filium Dei per adoptionem, secundum illud Ps. LXXXI, 6: ego dixi: dii estis, et filii excelsi omnes. Et hoc patet per verba sequentia. Si enim intellexisset eum esse filium Dei per naturam, non dixisset, tu es rex Israel solum, sed totius mundi. Hoc etiam patet, quia ad fidem Petri Christus nihil addidit, quasi perfectam existentem, sed Ecclesiam dixit se fabricaturum esse in confessione illius. Sed Nathanaelem, quasi maiori parte suae confessionis deficiente, elevat ad maiora, scilicet ad cognitionem divinitatis suae.
1:50
Unde dixit maius his videbis. Ubi notatur tertium, scilicet insinuatio futurorum, quasi dicat: quia dixi tibi praeterita, credis me esse filium Dei per adoptionem et regem Israel tantum, sed ducam te ad maiorem cognitionem, ut scilicet credas me filium Dei naturalem et regem omnium saeculorum.
1:51
Et ideo sequitur amen, amen dico vobis, videbitis caelum apertum, et Angelos Dei ascendentes et descendentes super filium hominis, ubi, secundum Chrysostomum, vult probare dominus quod sit verus Dei filius, et Deus. Angelorum enim est proprium ministrare, et subiici, Ps. CII: benedicite domino, omnes Angeli eius, ministri eius, qui facitis voluntatem eius. Cum ergo videbitis quod Angeli administrabunt mihi, certum erit vobis quod sum verus filius Dei. Hebr. c. I, 6: cum introducit primogenitum in orbem terrae, dicit: et adorent eum omnes Angeli Dei. Sed quando viderunt hoc apostoli? Viderunt, inquam, in passione, quando Angelus affuit illi, confortans eum, Lc. XXII, 43. Item in resurrectione, quando apostoli invenerunt duos Angelos stantes supra sepulcrum. Similiter in ascensione, quando dixerunt apostolis, Act. I, 11: viri Galilaei, quid admiramini aspicientes in caelum? Hic Iesus qui assumptus est a vobis in caelum, sic veniet quemadmodum vidistis eum euntem in caelum. Et quia de praeteritis ei vera iam dixerat, magis ei credibile fuit quod praenuntiat de futuro, cum dicit videbitis. Evidens enim argumentum est vera dicere de futuris qui de occultis praeteritis manifestaverat veritatem. Dicit autem super filium hominis Angelos ascendentes et descendentes, quia secundum carnem mortalem paulo minoratus est ab Angelis: et intantum Angeli ascendunt et descendunt super eum; sed secundum quod est filius Dei, ipse super Angelos est, ut dictum est. Secundum Augustinum autem, pulchre in verbis praedictis suam divinitatem manifestat. Legitur enim Gen. XXVIII, 12 quod Iacob vidit scalam, et Angelos ascendentes et descendentes. Et Iacob intelligens quid vidit, surgens unxit lapidem oleo, et deinde dixit: vere dominus est in loco isto. Lapis iste Christus est, quem reprobaverunt aedificantes; et est unctus oleo invisibili spiritus sancti; sed erigitur in titulum, quia futurus erat Ecclesiae fundamentum, ut dicitur I ad Cor. c. III, 11: fundamentum aliud nemo potest ponere praeter id quod positum est. Angeli autem ascendunt et descendunt, inquantum ei adsunt obsequendo et ministrando. Dixit ergo: amen, amen dico vobis, videbitis caelum apertum etc., quasi dicat: quia vere Israelita es, attende ad id quod Israel vidit, ut scilicet credas me illum esse qui est significatus per unctum lapidem a Iacob: nam tu etiam videbis super ipsum Angelos ascendentes et descendentes. Vel Angeli sunt praedicatores, secundum Augustinum, praedicantes Christum; Is. XVIII, 2: ite veloces Angeli ad gentem convulsam et dilaceratam; qui quidem ascendunt per contemplationem, sicut Paulus ascenderat usque ad tertium caelum, ut dicitur II Cor. c. XII, 2, et descendunt per proximorum eruditionem super filium hominis, idest ad honorem Christi: quia, ut dicitur II Cor. IV, v. 5: non enim praedicamus nos ipsos, sed Iesum Christum dominum nostrum. Sed ut ascendant et descendant, apertum est caelum, quia oportet quod gratia caelestis detur praedicatoribus, ut ascendant et descendant. Ps. LXVII, 9: caeli distillaverunt etc.; Apoc. IV, v. 1: postea vidi caelum apertum et cetera. Ratio autem quare Nathanael non eligitur in apostolum post tantam fidei confessionem, ista est, quia Christus noluit quod mundi conversio ad fidem ascriberetur humanae sapientiae, sed solum potentiae Dei. Et ideo non voluit Nathanaelem in lege peritissimum, in apostolum eligere; sed simplices et indoctos elegit; ut dicitur I Cor. I, 26: non multi sapientes (...) sed quae stulta sunt mundi elegit Deus.
1:2
« formata cognitio ab ea re quam scimus verbum est quod in corde dicimus » (tract. 1 in Ioan. , de Trinit. 15,10. 11. 12; M. 42,1070 etc.), et simili modo Eusebius quoque Λόγον dici Filium Dei affirmat, quod omnium rerum, artificiosas et efficaces rationes omnipotens in eo reposuit; dein explicat quam ingens discrimen intercedat inter verbum animae humanae et inter Dei Verbum quod habet propriam subsistentiam prorsus divinam et intelligentem (ὑπόστασιν ,... νοεράν, Dem. ev. 5,5; M. 22,316-37T). Εἰ S. Basilius scribit in homilia ad Ioan. 1,1 : λόγου duplex est intelligentia : alter enim voce profertur, alter internus (ἐνδιάθετος) est et animis nostris insitus... sed Verbum prout Deo convenit interpretare; cur Verbum? ut perspicuum sit processisse ex mente, quia imago est genitoris totum in se ipso genitorem ostendens, nihil inde separans et per se perfectum exsistens, quemadmodum et verbum nostrum totius nostrae cogitationis refert imaginem (M. 31,& 77). Similiter S. Joannes damascenus discrimen explicat inter verbum humanum et Verbum divinum , quod Verbum a Patre genitum est et omnia in se ostendit quae in Deo conspiciuntur (de fide 1,6; M. 95,804). Pater itaque se ipsum intelligens Verbum producit; « hoc Verbum ratio perpetua est, sapientia sempiterna, intellectus incomprehensibilis, veritas incommutabilis » (Rup.). Atque haec ratio, quia verbum est filius cordis (ut Aug. loquitur) potissima est. Accedit altera, quia verbum non solum verbum cordis est sed etiam oris. Unde etiam veteres non omittunt adnotare Verbum vocari, quia nobis sit interpres paternae voluntatis atque sententiae, sicut verbum vocale nostrum mentis et voluntatis nostrae est interpres (Or. Chrys. Theoph. Bon. Eut.). Illam priorem esse potiorem et nostro loco unice praecipuam patet quia evangelista loquitur de Verbo prout ab aeterno erat apud Deum; similitudo autem illa a verbo vocali deprompta non convenit nisi quatenus in tempore Deus nobis locutus est in Filio (Hebr. 1,1; cf. Tol. Ians.). Sed ex ipsa Verbi notione facile sequitur ratio conveniens, cur Deus per Verbum operetur atque sese manifestet ad extra, id quod theologi latius prosequuntur. Illud in principio etiam explicari : in sapientia (Or.) in Patre (Cyr. Bed. Thom. Bon. Nat. Bar. etc.) impune negligitur; evidens enim est eam interpretationem aliasque quae ex voce ἀρχή extundi possunt et extundebantur ab hoc loco atque hoc contextu esse alienas. Neque illa de Patre interpretatio fulciri potest ex Ioan. 8,25. Verbo in seipso considerato v. 1.2 iam ostenditur, quomodo se habeat ratione creaturarum (lans.) vel proceditur ad eius virtutem insinuandam quantum &d omnia quae exsistunt et secundo specialiter quantum ad homines (7/A0m.) vel agitur de Verbo in comparatione ad ea quae per ipsum dicuntur (Bon.)
1:3
v. 3 omnia per ipsum facta sunt; πάντα omnia, sine ullo limite; τὰ πάντα cuncta quae exsistunt quasi simul sumpta et in unum collecta. Ita distinguere solent; at veteres gr&eci promiscue loquuntur : ἐν y2p τῷ « πάντα » οὐδέν ἐστιν ὃ μὴ ἐν τοῖς πᾶσιν ὁρᾶται (Cyr.). Opponit Aug. Arianis : quomodo potest fieri, ut Verbum Dei factum sit, quando Deus per Verbum fecit omnia? Verum illi insistebant quoque quia dicitur per ipsum , διὰ, uti Or. iam contendit : δι᾽’ οὗ nunquam principem locum habere, sed semper secundum; unde Ariani Verbum esse minus dignitate concludebant; ex recentioribus Siegfried contendit hac quoque dictione cerni evangelium hoc dependere a Philone qui pariter adhibeat de Logo δι᾿ αὑτοῦ ; sed ut alia mittam, Philo nominat suum λέγον ἔργανον θεοῦ, quo tamquam instrumenío usus sit Deus (χρησάμενος ὀργάνῳ τούτῳ de cherub 35, de migr. Abr. 1; l. c. p. 318), & qua notione verba evangelistae absunt quam longissime, quia iam enuntiavit Verbum habere naturam divinam. Contra Arianos monent Chr. Cyr. etc. διά dici quoque de Deo Patre (1 Cor. 1,9. Rom. 11,36 etc.) et apte prorsus διά adhibetur; nam « Deus aeterno concepta, scil. Dei Verbum, et ideo impossibile est quod aliquid faciat nisi per Filium » (Thom.). Simili itaque ratione per Verbum omnia Pater fecisse dicitur, sicut homo dicitur operari per sapientiam, artifex per artem; verum in quo sit discrimen per se patet. Insuper cum Verbum omnia accipiat a Patre vi originis a Patre, ergo virtutem efficiendi eandem quam habet Pater, Verbum quasi medium est inter Deum et creaturas ac proinde recte dicitur Deus per ipsum ut causam principalem a se genitam (CAr.) fecisse omnia (lans., To/. Cai. Lap.). Idem quoque ex ipsa voce Verbi colligitur; ei enim voci, ut Mald. notat, melius convenit per, quam praepositio a; id quod Rup. ita enuntiat : per Verbum ergo facta sunt quia dicendo facta sunt, dicendo non elementali sono, sed eo modo loquendi, quo anima tua tacitam eum libet format loquelam, et similiter Aug. - Verbo tibi coaeterno simul et sempiterne dicis omnia quae dicis et fit quidquid dicis, ut fiat nec aliter quam dicendo facis (Conf. 11,7,9. Bon.). Considera pulchritudinem eorum quae facta sunt, visibilium et invisibilium, monet Rup. et corde et ore conclama, magnum atque pulchrum esse artificis Dei ingenium, quod non est aliud nisi hoc Verbum, per quod tanta, tam pulchra facta sunt. Emphasis et confirmationis causa additur per modum parallelismi antithetici : e£ sineipso factum est nihil 252: ἣν ne unum quidem (Caz. ac gravitatem affirmandi; ceterum Hebraeorum morem esse notat Mad. ut quod semel per affirmationem dixerint, iterum per negationem dicant (Is. 39,4), qui modus utique satis frequens est (cf. 1,20; 3, 16; 10,5. 5. 28; 20,27.1 loan. 1,6; 2,5. 27 etc.). Neque tamen tautologia exhibetur. Eam veteres excludunt dicentes id addi ne quis de sensibilibus solum vel de iis cogitet quae a Moyse recenseantur Gen. 1, sed ut cuncta quoque invisibilia includantur (CÀr. Euth. Thom.), vel, ut Cai. dicit, declaratur illud omnia, intelligi scil. de omnibus factts et ita. tolli omnem ambiguitatem et exceptionem. Porro cum nunc dicatur sine tpso factum esse nihil, simul connotari opinantur Verbum non solum esse per quod omnia facta sint, sed innui societatem cum Patre operante (Thom. Bon. Cai. Tol. Lap. ) et ita quoque 7Aeod. M. ἰᾶτὰ intellexit : « hoc dixit ut per haec omnia confirmaret Filium semper adesse Patri ut qui eiusdem sit naturae et consors operationis, semper quidem el coexsistens , cooperans vero cum expediebat universa produci; clare autem ostendit illud per ipsum de eo non ministerii causa, sed cooperalionis gratia dictum esse et ne quid rerum ab ipsius fabricatione eximeretur, adiungitur : et sine ipso elc. ». Omnia itaque condita seu facta sunt per Verbum. Unde eo ipso etiam enuntiatur res singulas omnibus illis esse praeditas quae ad earum naturam pertineant, quae scil. ad earum conservationem, ad vitam earum indoli convenientem requirantur. Cum itaque pergatur
1:4
v. & ἔπ ipso vita erat, planum est id non posse intelligi neque de vita ipsius Verbi (ac si idem enuntiaretur quod 5,26 : sicut Pater habet vitam in semetipso, sic et dedit Filio habere vitam in semetipso, Ca:. lans.) neque de vita, quatenus Verbum efficit omnia viventia et causa et fons est vitae naturalis eamque largitur et conservat (Chr. Theoph. Euth. Theod. M. Schegg). Utrumque enim in antecedentibus iam propositum est. Quare vita etiam non intelligi potest sensu prorsus generali, ut Verbum dicatur fons vitae naturalis, ethicae, supernaturalis (ScAanz). Verum rerum constitutione in ordine naturali in v. 3 absoluta evangelista progreditur ad ordinem supernaturalem , ἐπ :pso veluü in fonte et origine erat vita gratiae et gloriae pro hominibus (Mai/d., Tol. Lap.), erat in ipso tamquam effectus in causa efficiente (Corl.). Dicitur erat quia haec vita supernaturalis a primordiis generis humani homini erat destinata et proposita ; similiter 1 Ioan. 5,11 vitam aeternam dedit nobis Deus, et haec vita in Filio eius est; qui habet Filium habet vitam; hic quoque , uti nostro loco prius dicitur ζωή, dein ut Aaec vita designotur ἡ ζωΐ: et vtta ἢ ;wi, haec vita quae erat in Verbo erat luz hominum; lumen naturale, ut Sa/m. bene notat, homines per creationem acceperunt, de qua dixit : omnia per ipsum facta sunt; ideo hoc loco de supernaturali et divina luce et vita gratiae loquitur; ita Cr. quoque et Tol. explicant; plerique tamen de luce utraque, naturali et supernaturali, mentionem faciunt (cf. Aug. Rup. Alb. Thom. Bar. Ians. Schg.). Sed lumen naturale et quae ex eo consequuntur in ipsa creatione et conservatione inclusa intelliguntur. Illa itaque vitai. e. gratia et gloria cuius fons et origoest Verbum erat lux, illuminatio, institutio, doctrina, gaudium ac beatitas hominis ἃ primordio. Est quippe gratia participatio quaedam naturae divinae (2 Petr. 1,5), est semen Dei (1 Ioan. 3,9); unde bene dicitur vita in Verbo; gratia haec est illustratio intellectus; luce autem homo ducitur; lux simul imaginem felicitatis praebet; unde luce bona cuncta indicantur quae ope gratiae illius homini proponebantur et quae absolvuntur ita, ut in lumine Dei videatur lumen increatum, essentia divina. Unde sensu sublimiore accommodaveris illud : apud te est fons vitae et in lumine tuo videbimus lumen (Ps. 35,10); ceterum vide 17,3. S1 itaque in v. & agnoveris progressionem a v. 31. e. a creatione et consequenter ab iis quae creatione tribuuntur et cum ea conservantur, habebis in v. 4 indicatum ordinem supernaturalem qui homini creato est superadditus. Vix opus est monere vitam, lucem constanter apud evangelistam de supernaturali ordine reperiri v. g. 3,15.16.19;5,24. 39.50;6,33.458.59.55;8,12; 10,10;11,25;19,35. 36;15,0;20,31. Atque ut significaret perpetuo atque indesinenter hanc lucem lucere ab exordio generis humani usque in hunc diem (lans.) non obstante miserabili lapsu protoparentum atque posterorum, subiunxit
1:5
v. 5 et lux 1n tenebris lucet; qui& primi parentes a dignitate illa exciderunt et facti sunt tenebrae , ideo subdidit et [uz..., ut sciamus lucem illam defuisse nemini, quae sese omnibus obiicit ut apprehendatur (Saílm.). Tenebris itaque accommodate describitur conditio hominum ignorantiae et peccatorum caligine obvolutorum , uti moris est in s. litteris. In ea etiam rerum conditione lux sese hominibus offert; cf. v. 9;3,19; Deus enim omnes homines salvos fieri vult et ad agnitionem veritatis venire (1 Tim. 2,4); quare gratiam omnibus offert, e? tenebrae eam non comprehenderunt , homines tenebrosi (TAom.), cf. Eph. 5,8 eratis aliquando tenebrae; peccatis obnoxii et impliciti lucem illam sibi oblatam recipere noluerunt (Mald.), eam ignorabant (Cyr. Rup.), id quod v. 10.11 et 3,19 explicatur : in mundo erat et mundus eum non cognovit (Bar. lans. Mald.); nam lux venit in mundum et dilexerunt homines magis tenebras quam lucem 3,19. Lapsu itaque protoparentum inductae sunt tenebrae et peccatis serpentibus obscuratum est insipiens cor (Rom. 1, 21) « quomodo homo positus in sole caecus, praesens est illi sol, sed ipse soli absens est, sic omnis stultus, omnis iniquus, omnis impius caecus est corde. Praesens est sapientia, sed cum caeco praesens est, oculis eius absens est, non quia ipsa illi absens est, sed quia ipse ab illa absens est » (Aug. Bed. Bar.). lllud οὐ κατέλαδεν aliter concipit CAr. : tenebrae non superarunt lucem; est quippe lux inexpugnabilis, tenebrae lucem impedire seu exstinguere non valebant (sim. ZAeoph. Euth. Bar. Weiss; Or. utramque vocis acceptionem quae ex usu vocis admittitur proponit) et similiter dicitur de sapientia : inexstinguibile est lumen illius; sapientiam non vincit malitia Sap. 7,10.30. Verum hoc loco prior acceptio a plerisque merito retinetur. Ea enim omnino suadetur ex seq. v. 10.11; lucem non superari nec superatum iri non erat necesse post v. & efferre; lucem non esse superatam iam enuntiatur eo ipso v. lux in tenebris /ucet. Tristis quidem generis humani conditio tenebris istis exhibetur; at lux semper lucens in tenebris tamen certam facit spem semper fuisse quos lux illa ad lucem Dei perduxerit. Enuntiaverat evangelista v. 5 in universum /ucet; quare nullo non tempore hominibus offerri lucem declarans iam ulterius modum exponit quo suo tempore haec notitia lucis sit insinuata. Facilis itaque et obvius est transitus a forma temporis /ucet ad tempus evangelistae. Plerumque dicunt nunc fieri transitum ad Christi. manifestationem et Incarnationem ; verum id non adeo clarum est, cum solum v. 1& tandem Incarnationem factam esse dicatur et insuper plura antea inserantur quae ad eam referri nequeant. Melius repetit Bar. nexum ex v. 5; sed ex membro altero : homines non comprehendisse lucem ; addit igitur hoc loco misisse Deum testem summae auctoritatis, cuius testimonio excitarentur ad comprehendendam lucem;
1:6
v. 6 futt homo missus a Deo, ἐγένετο... ἀπεσταλμένος exstitit homo missus a Deo (Mad. Corl. Schg. Schz. Weiss), quamvis CA?. dicat poni pro ἀπεστάλη, sed eo modo γίνεσθαι non iungitur cum participio; cf. ἐγένετο Marc. 1,5, Luc. 1,5 et dictio haec habet aliquid sollemnitatis et gravitatis quae prologo plane congruit. Eo quod missus dicitur auctore Deo, dignitas et munus prophetae ei adscribitur, qui scil. auctoritate ἃ Deo accepta agat et annuntiet quae Deus ei commisit. Atque revera se prophetam esse manifestavit illud exhibens signum, quo verus propheta a falso lege mosaica dignosci debet (Deut. 18,292; cf. Ier. 28,9); edit scil. vaticinium , quod verum esse mox eventu comprobatur (v. 27. Matth. 3,11. Marc. 1,7. Luc. 3,16); cut nomen erat Ioannes, cf. 13i, 1n Iahve propitius est; Rup. interpretatur Domini gratiam ; et sane magnus Dei favor populo est exhibitus, cum Deus post longum illud a Malachia et deinceps prophetale silentium iterum prophetam misit. Quam excellenti ratione ille sit a Deo praeparatus et missus, narratur Luc. 1,5-25.57-80; 3,1 seq. Quae fuerit eius missionis ratio, dicitur
1:7
v. 7 Atc venit 1n testimonium, ut testimonium perhiberet de lumine (de luce , περὶ τοῦ φωτός), t omnes crederent per illum ; gravissimum et apud Iudaeos gratissimum testem evangelista iis citat (Ma/d.); quantae enim auctoritatis apud eos Ioannes baptista fuerit, luculenter proditur Matth. 3,5. Ioan. 5,35. Act. 13,94 et Iosephus quoque testatur narrans ludaeis fuisse persuasum Herodis exercitum ab Areta rege esse devictum, quia in ultionem necis baptistae Deus Herodi infensus eam stragem immisisset (Antiq. 18,5,2). Testimonium perhibere debet non propter defectum luminis. sed credentium (Bon.). Maximus est prophetarum, ipse a propheta praedictus (Mal. 3,1. Matth. 11,10. Marc. 1,2. Luc. 7,297), praecursor Domini; « magnum aliquid iste Ioannes, ingens meritum , magna gratia, magna celsitudo » (Aug.). Utique non omnes credebant; sed quantum est ex parte Dei mittentis et ex parte Ioannis venientis sufficiens modus adhibitus est (Thom.); porro, uti notant Aib. Bon., finis proximus adventus eius, finis in se, habebatur qui est finis operis, scil. testimonium perhibere, finis utique remotus, qui est in altero, finis intentionis, hominum culpa non totus effectus est. Cum emphasi repetitur
1:8
v. 8 non erat ille luz τὸ φῶς, sed ut testimonium perhibere de lumine , venitscil. seu missus est. Cur tam graviter asseritur : non erat ille τὸ φῶς, id quod tamen post v. & satis erat clarum? Veteres monent evangelistam cum varios de [Ioanne sparsos rumores nosset id necessario subiunxisse (Cyr.) &d tollendam suspicionem, ne quis putaret aliquid fidei verbis Domini ab eo addi (CAr.) et contra opinionem eorum qui Ioannem pro Christo habebant (fup. Bar. Tol. Cai. Lap.). Atque ex recentioribus quoque L:gAtfoot (Dissertations on the apostolice age, London 1892, p. 388) censet indicari narratione modoque loquendi in Asia proconsulari 'sparsas esse opiniones Hemerobaptistarum , immo exstitisse eiusmodi coetus (cf. Clem. Recog. 1,55. 60.63; Const. apost. 6,6. Clem. Homil. 2,23, Euseb. ἢ. e. 4,22, Epiph. haer. 17,1; M. 1,917.1238 seq.; 2,99; 20,381; 41,255 — quibus addi potest Vigilius tapsensis, c. Arianos, Sabell. 1,20; M. 62,194). Atque Act. 19,1 Ephesi Paulus discipulos Ioannis invenit, neque tamen inde probabile est sectatores Ioannis diutius sectam quandam constituisse. - Adnotant solum negari Ioannem fuisse τὸ 95;; quare ei non demi laudem illam sanctis omnibus communem, quam Christus et apostolus fidelibus tribuant (Matth. 5,14; Eph. 5,8; Cyr. Thom. Cai. Mald. Lap.). Eadem ratione qua praecedens in v. 8 inductum est membrum : non erat ille lux, subiungitur ad excludendam omnem dubitationem et ad apertius explicandum, quomodo Ioannem dixerit evangelista non fuisse lucem (Alb. Tol. Ians.)
1:9
v. 9 erat lux vera; ipso modo loquendi magis explicari videtur illum non fuisse lucem (Mald.), unde declaratur accuratius, qualis lux Verbum fuerit (Rup.), vel potius ob v. &.5 quae sit vera lux hominum. Alium nexum adstruit Aug., dici nunc de quo lumine Ioannes testimonium perhibuerit (Ca:.); at cum Ioannes non testimonium exhibuerit de iis quae v. 9.10 continentur, iste nexus admit nequit. Melius est quod Beda habet : testimonium perhibere Ioannis erat, gratiam vero lucis pectoribus infundere, illius solius est de quo dicitur : erat lux vera; simili modo nexum considerare videtur TAom.; dicit enim in v. 9 et 10 adstrui necessitatem Incarnationis, in v. 11 et 12 eius utilitatem, in v. 15 eius modum; ita quoque Aib. Bon. Dicitur vera luxi. e. genuina, vera, non participatione lux, sed per essentiam (Thom. Alb. Bar. Lap.), quae proinde simul est summa lux, cui maxime proprie nomen lucis plenissime conveniat (Ca?.) adeoque vera lux. Vera lux illa est, ut ait Aug., quae illuminat scil. per se, sancti autem gratia illuminati tum demum fiunt lux in Domino (cf. Arm. cat. Cr.). Eiusmodi lux per se illuminans exsistebat; /ux vera est scil. subiectum grammaticale. Et quam proprie ei conveniat nomen verae, genuinae lucis ostenditur ex eius efficacia : quae illuminat omnem hominem venientem in (hunc) mundum; cf. v. & lux hominum. Intelligenda est illustratio supernaturalis per gratiam (CÀr.), uà iam ex v. & consequitur et etiam plerique agnoscunt. Nam lumen naturale cognitionis (quod hic aliqui explicant, Theoph. Cai. Schz.) pertinet ad ea quae necessario Thom. Nat.) utrumque, riaturale donum ac supernaturale, intelligendum est. Veniebat haec lux, ut Aug. ait, ad mentes infirmas, ad corda Strationem quam in Adam omnes perdiderunt, « quadam enim luce, scil. luce rationis quam habent ex eo quod ad imaginem Dei facti sunt, omnes homines illuminati veniunt; quadam autem illustratione privati nascuntur in hunc mundum »; de qua illustratione per gratiam explieant CÀr. Bon. Bar. Salm. Tol. Lap. Mald.; cf. 18.31. Enuntiatur itaque neminem a gratia excludi, omnibus lucem illam veram, quae est lux hominum v. 5, offerri neque unquam lucem illam hominibus defuisse : lux in tenebris /ucet. At non omnes illuminantur! utique effectus totus et integer non semper habetur; at quis negare audebit Deum revera animos omnium gratia sua tangere neque semel tantum, verum saepius vel remote et iudirecte vel proxime et directe? Itaque ex sua parte revera illuminat luce gratiae (CAr.), lux ex parte sua nulli deest (TAom.); id enim iam consequitur eo quod Deus omnes homines vult salvos fieri. Homo utique potest se avertere 8 luce illuminante, illi opponere tenebras peccatorum et ita pro se eius efficaciam tollere. Illud ἐρχόμενον Theod. M. retulit ad τὸ φῶς, quam coniunctionem etiam Tol. Calm. praeferunt et Weiss (qui explicat : in eo erat ut veniret); eam commemorant Aug. (de peccat. mer. 1,25,38) Salm. Bar. Mald. Lap. Nat. etc. neque tamen approbant atque merito contra eam iam excepit Cyr. necessario ipsum loannem verum exponere et suorum verborum vim et sensum interpretari , quia illico de luce subdat : in mundo erat, ut illud ἐρχόμενον intelligas de homine. Quam connexionem et versiones et plerique interpretes retinent. Et cum in v. 9 magis explicetur id quod in v. 4. 5 dictum est, iunctio illa : erat lux veniens, vel in eo ut veniret, neutiquam admitti potest. Dictio quidem videtur abundans, si ad hominem refertur. Attamen haec copia habet aliquid sollemnitatis et gravitatis, quia omnem hominem qui nascatur illuminatum iri edicitur. lam Ma/d. monet de illo rabbinico n2 x12 venire in mundum i. e. nasci; venit quia totus homo apparet ibi, ubi non erat, antequam nasceretur (Bar.); venit, bus terrenis affixi et terrena solummodo sapientes (Amm. c. Cr); amor mundi enim inimicum Dei constituit (Thom. cf. lac. &,&). Idem indicat apostolus : in Dei sapientia (in opere Dei sapientiae eius teste) non cognovit mundus per sapientiam (suam falsam et superbam, qua impediebatur) Deum ; ideo placuit Deo per stultitiam praedicationis salvos facere credentes (1 Cor. 1,91). Similiter, uti vidimus, ex hoc versu Thom. aliique necessitatem innui Incarnationis colligunt. Atque sicuti gentes (mundus) non usae sunt subsidiis concessis et oblatis, ita populus quoque ille quem Dominus sibi elegerat in peculium de cunctis populis, in regnum sacerdotale (Ex. 19,5.6), Dominum suum magna ex parie non agnovit, sed respuit;
1:11
v. 11 zn propria venit et sui eum non receperunt, ei; τὰ ἴδια, οἱ ἴδιοι; cum nunc dicatur in propria, non potest, ut aliqui volunt (Aug. Thom. Bar. lans. Lap. Nat.) intelligi idem quod antea per mundum significabatur, neque valet ratio quam afferunt, quia omnia condidisset, totum mundum omnesque homines esse ei proprios. Verum oppositio quaedam et peculiaris quidam proprietatis titulus hic ratione habita praecedentis enuntiatur. Exprimitur itaque singularis illa habitudo quam Deo cum populo Israel inire placuit, uti Sapientia loquitur : in omni gente primatum habui, in omnibus requiem quaesivi et in hereditate Domini morabor; tunc dixit mihi Creator omnium : in Iacob inhabita et in Israel hereditare et in electis meis mitte radices (Eccli. 24,10 sq.); ita populus Israel dicitur hereditas Domini (cf. Ex. 15,17; 19,5. Deut. 7,6; 9,99; 32,9. 2 Reg. 15,16; 20,19. 3 Reg. 8,51. 53. Ps. 32,19; 67,10. Is. 19,95; 47,06. Ier. 2.1. Eccli. 94,7-19 etc.). Cum itaque in v. 9 de illuminatione omnium sermo sit, exponitur in subsequentibus, qua ratione et quo successu haec et gentibus generatim etspeciali modo populo electo contigerit. Quare etiam in v. 11 id videtur enuntiari membro priore quod iam in libris Vet. Test. proponitur de Sapientia : et sic in Sion firmata sum et in civitate sanctificata similiter requievi et in Ierusalem potestas mea et radicavi in populo honorificato (Eccli. 24,15) etquod de Sapientia Baruch dicit : in terris visa est et cum hominibus conversata est (3,38 graece). Utique verba evangelistae non ad Vetus Testamentum coarctanda sunt, sed tempus quoque complectuntur novi foederis quo Verbum modo excellentissimo venit in propria; at modum quo venerit, nondum tangit ; Incarnationem factam demum refert v. 1& et eam ibi narrat eiusque effectus ita, ut hoc loco censeri nequeat iam explicite et diserte loqui de Verbo incarnato. Neque obstat vox venit, ἦλθεν, quin sententiam ea amplitudine capiamus, ut tempus et antiquum populi electi et recentissimum evangelistae comprehendatur. Nam Deus in sacris litteris di- accommodate, dum dicitur venit, in oppositione ad generale illud erat in v. 10, sicut generali illi dictioni ἐπ mundo , hic opponitur specialis : in propria. Neque valet quod obiicit Corl. : falsum videtur Israelitas Deum Verbum ante Incarnationem non recepisse. Nam, uti ex v. 12 statim modo loquendi affirmatur, quod pro tempore antiquo prorsus valere ex libris sacris abunde colligitur et pro tempore ipsius Verbi incarnati ex evangeliis et Act. satis clare apparet. Quot enim querelae de universa omnium impietate continentur in libris historicis (cf. Deut. 32,15; lib. Iudicum; ἃ Reg. 17,7-23 etc.), in Psalmis (13,2 seq. 16, 8 seq. 49,17 seq. etc.), apud prophetas singulos (Is. 1,11-95; 3,14; 50,29; 57,3. Ier. 5,1. Ez. 16,1 seq. Os. 2,2; &,2 etc.)? Praeterea cogita magnam illam apostasiam 1 Mach. 1,19 seq. et tempore Christi et apostolorum etiam longe maiorem Iudaeorum partem considera remansisse contumacem. Quare si quod effectum sit in universum spectatur, dici potest : sui eum non receperunt. Quae tamen sententia statim suis circumscribitur limitibus
1:12
v. 12 quotquot autem receperunt eum, dedit eis potestatem filios Dei fieri, his qui credunt in nomine etus εἰς τὸ ἔνομα αὐτοῦ nemo excluditur, « sive servi sive liberi, sive Graeci sive barbari vel Seythae, sive insipientes sive sapientes, sive viri sive mulieres, sive pueri sive seniores, sive nobiles sive ignobiles » etc. Chr.; οἵ. Act. 10,34. Rom. 10,11. 12. Qui eum receperint, declaratur ultimo membro; qui in eum credunt, isti eum recipiunt i. e. eius doctrinam, illuminationem amplectuntur; credere namque est, ut Rup. loquitur, semen Dei verbum cum amore susceptum impraegnata mente portare; in nomen eius 1. e. in ipsum (Ew/A. Ians. Lap.); nomen enim ponitur pro persona, quia haec nomine noscitur et ab aliis distinguitur; porro nomen Dei omnia illa quoque complectitur, quae Deus de se manifestavit et quae de Deo innotescunt. His itaque qui illuminationem sibi oblatam receperunt vel doctrinam fidei sibi annuntiatam (quocumque demum modo) fide susceperunt, dedit potestatem ἐξουσίαν, vim (Anrecht, Befugniss, Ermaechtigung), ius ut fierent filii Dei. Sola quippe fide nondum fiunt filii; fide vero suscepta etiam ulteriore gratia iuvabuntur. Non dicit, ut Cr. notat, fecit illos filios Dei, sed dedit..., « vult scil. declarare gratiam non in quemlibet temere infundi, sed in eos qui voluntatis propositum et diligentiam adhibent; in horum enim potestate situm est ut filii Dei fiant ». Fiunt autem actu perfectae caritatis aut suscepto baptismate. In vetere foedere solum prior via erat aperta. Quandoque ἐξουσίαν explicant facultatem , dignitatem (lans.); id quod tamen ab usu vocis nimium recedit. Dici autem dedit potestatem , ait Thom. quia in potestate hominis est ut consentiat et non consentiat et dat potestatem movendo liberum arbitrium hominis, ut consentiat ad susceptionem gratiae. Hanc vero filiationem bene describit Cyr. pulchritudinem imaginis coelestis hominis, Christi, impressam nobis, « participes enim eius facti per Spiritum obsignati sumus in similitudinem cum ipso et ad exemplarem formam illius imaginis conscendimus ». Assimilatio autem haec ad Deum fit per infusionem gratiae sanctificantis, qua divinae efficimur consortes naturae (2 Petr. 1,4) et quacum coniuncta est inhabitatio Spiritus sancti in anima iusti (cf. Gal. 5,6). ἢ Dein facta comparatione cum nativitate naturali explicatur excellen- ($ tia istius filiationis divinae (Chr. Theoph. Maid. Lap.), v. 13 qui referri (4 debet ad filios, neque enim credentes simpliciter dici possunt nati ex Deo, nec obstat τέχνα (quod Mald. Lap. obiiciunt); nam constructio ad sensum obvia est; ii itaque filii Dei sunt, quippe qui non ez sanqguinibus neque ez voluntate carnis neque ez voluntate viri, sed ex Deo nati sunt; in nativitate naturali affert causam materialem, ex qua corpus formari ac nutriri concipitur (cf. Sap. 7,2 coagulatus sum in sanguine); pluralem ex sanguinibus non esse usus latini, sed « quia graece positum est pluraliter maluit ille qui interpretabatur sic ponere et quasi minus latine loqui secundum grammaticos », advertit Aug.; ipse aliique pluralem explicant quia homines nascantur ex sanguinibus maris et feminae (Bed. Rup.) vel ex commistione seminum (Bon. Salm. Cai.) ; ali sanguinem menstruum quod sit nutrimentum.jintelligunt (Theoph. Bar. Ians.). Pluralem Ma/d. hebraismum esse dicit; quod 7Aom. habet : ex sanguinibus : intelligitur quidquid ex sanguine generatur, ut materia ad carnalem generationem, fere coincidit cum usu graeco, secundum quem pluralis explicari potest quasi complexio quaedam partium singularum sanguinis (ScAz.). Assignatur porro causa motiva generationis carnalis : neque ez voluntate θέλημα l. 6. ἐπιθυμία (Euth.) , concupiscentia , appetitus carnts neque ez voluntale viri, designantur duo illa quae in generatione humana communiter reperiuntur : concupiscentia et desiderium gignendi liberos; quare Jar. haud inepte voluntate carnis et viri patrem dici carnalem censet. Veteres saepe carnem hoc loco feminam intelligi volunt (Aug. Rup. Alb. Thom. Salm. lans.) vel etiam concupiscentiam, et voluntatem viri appetitum intellectualem (Thom. Salm. Cai. Ians.), Tol. autem ita distingui censet nativitatem ex inhonesto et honesto concubitu. Proinde ez Deo nasci est non carnaliter, sed spiritualiter, non iam apud prophetas indicatur : spiritum novum tribuam in visceribus eorum; spiritum novum ponam in medio vestri et spiritum meum ponam in medio vestri (Ez. 11,19; 36,26. 27), effundam spiritum meum super semen tuum (Is. &5,3). quid Verbum singulari ratione populo electo prae aliis gentibus largitum sit, evidens est. Et si v. 10 explicaveris de mundo ante Incarnationem (ut fere omnes exponunt), num tibi persuaseris evangelistam totum illud quod Deus pro Israel fecit et quod in libris sapientialibus adco praeclare de Sapientia effertur voluisse silentio premere, quamvis sibi proposuerit in v. 4.9.10 illa recensere quae Verbum ab exordio generis humani pro omnium salute praestiterit? Insuper attendendum est in v. 14 aliter sermonem fieri de Verbo, de eius inter nos habitatione, de gloriae manifestatione quam in v. 11-13; quare statui nequit utrimque idem enuntiari. Porro si v. 11-13 solum de tempore post Incarnationem exposueris, id agnoscere debebis incommodi, dici quidem Verbum illuminasse omnem hominem, at ante Incarnationem eam illuminationem non habuisse ullum effectum salutarem, saltem nullum indicari, cum unice statuatur : mundus eum non cognovit. Et tamen profecto in vetere foedere etiam reperiebantur sancti, et eos plane defuisse inter gentes quis affirmare audebit? Iam vero fide et caritate imbuti sancti isti habebant gratiam sanctificantem , erantque igitur ex Deo nati, filii Dei. -Obiicit Corl. ei explicationi auctoritatem Patrum ex consensu, ut videtur, unanimi. Verum observari debet Patres quidem v. 11-13 explicare de tempore post Incarnationem (et verba illa hoc quoque tempus complecti, nullus nego), at neminem asserere de hoc solum tempore verba esse dicta, neminem negare antea quoque filios Dei exstitisse. Quare explicatio supra proposita non est contra interpretationem Patrum, sed eam includit et eam latius extendit secundum ea ipsa quae indubie a Patribus docentur. Quam insigni modo Verbum id compleverit et absolverit quod ab exordio generis humani et in populo electo ad salutem cunctorum effecit, iam exponitur serie narrationis ad ipsam Incarnationem perducta
1:14
v. 1& et Verbum caro factum est; nexum varie proponunt, afferri causam nostrae filiationis adoptivae ; « verus Dei Filius factus est filius hominis, ut homines Dei filios efficeret » (Chr. Theoph. EutA. Aug. Bed. Schg., et Tol. illud et explicat quia), vel haec addi ne incredibile videatur homines ex Deo nasci, cum ipse Deus ex homine natus sit (Thom. Ians. Lap.) vel describi nunc modum veniendi, postquam dictum est in v. 11 ipsum venisse (Thom. Bon. Cai. [ans.). Sed ad totius prologi formam et progressum accommodatum magis est, ut sicut in v. 2-8, ita in v. 9-1& quoque series narrationis temporisque succedentis attendatur. Alia quae excogitata sunt, ex ipsa Incarnatione facta deduci utique possunt; inde tamen nondum sequitur ea hic ab evangelista explicite proponi vel innui. Carnem poni pro homine : Verbum homo factum est!, veteres jam ex usu vocis ostendunt ; unde evangelista voce carnis utens « nihil nobis inusitatum aut peregrinum ingerit, cum saepe s. Scriptura solius carnis vocabulo totum hominem significet; v. g. effundam de Spiritu meo super omnem carnem » (lol 2,98; Cyr.). Simul tamen quaerunt, cur eam potius vocem prae alia adhibuerit; significari ea voce quam maxime veritatem assumptae naturae, vel « ut una cerneretur vulnus et remedium , aeger et medicus, quod in mortem prolapsum est et qui excitavit ad vitam, quod corruptióni cessit et qui corruptionem amovet, quod morte superatum est et qui morte superior est, quod orbatum est vita et qui vitam largitur » (Cyr.). Potissimum tamen efferunt eo vocabulo significari efficacius immensam Verbi benignitatem ac misericordiam , quod carnem assumpserit i. e. id quod maxime alienum ac peregrinum sit a natura divina; describi eo modo quam maxime distantiam illam, dum Verbum spirituale, intellectuale, invisibile ad carnem sensibilem, corporalem, visibilem descenderit; carne porro significari summam abiectionem, infirmitatem, ut appareat quantus Deus quantillus sit factus homo (cf. Theoph. Euth. Thom. Tol. Mald. Cai. Bar. Schz.) Unde ea voce indicat id quod apostolus dicit : semetipsum exinanivit formam servi accipiens (Phil. 2,7). Descripta autem Verbi divinitate v. 1 seq. statim patet in Verbo nullam inferri posse mutationem. Cum itaque dicatur factum esse carnem, non mutatio substantiae, sed carnis, humanae naturae, assumptio declaratur; manens quod erat formam servi accepit (CAr.). Recte tamen dicitur ἐγένετο; nam effectum est, ut Verbum iam haberet coniunctam sibi et unitam humanam naturam ; significatur itaque actio et unio, quae facta est, « qua divina Verbi natura in unitate personae Verbi humanae est copulata, manente integra et impermista utraque natura, ifa ut sit unica persona in duplici natura, simulque sit Deus et homo » (To/.). Proin Verbum quod eousque erat solum habens naturam divinam, nunc revera factum est ἐγένετο habens etiam naturam humanam; id quod melius atque significantius et verius exprimi non potest quam dictione hac: Verbum caro seu homo factum est. Ceterum evangelista satis ipse indicat Verbum mansisse sine ulla sui mutatione; nam statim loquitur de Unigenito a Patre, item
1:15
v. 15 Ioannes testimontum perhibet de ipso; cf. v. 6. 1 et clamat χέχραγεν significatione quoque temporis praesentis, qua res quasi praesens sistitur ad vim narrationis augendam ; clamat i. e. cum fiducia, cum libertate, omni abiecta formidine praedicat (Chr. Theoph.), cum ardore mentis (Thom.), non ambigue, sed clare, aperte, palam (Matd.), est enim vox clamantis (Cyr. Tol. Mald. Lap. j, dicens : triplici enuntiatione non sine sollemni quadam gravitate eius in medium profertur teshümonium : Aic erat quem diri : proin testimonium de eo reddidit antequam apparebat publice, uti asseritur quoque v. 30 et patet ex Matth. 3,11 (Chr. Theoph. Thom.) et ad eiusmodi testimonium etiam provocat postquam Christus se publice ostendit; inde modus loquendi sequitur A:c erat elc. i. e. hunc designavi cum dicebam : qui post me venturus est $py5ysvoc scil. ad praedicandum , ad munus divinitus sibi commissum exsequendum; uti loannes se a Deo missum profitetur, ut nomine Dei populum doceat et praeparet, ita hac ipsa locutione iam indicat illum ἐρχόμενον pariter a Deo mitti ut opus Dei in populo peragat; dein excellentiam dignitatemque longe maiorem testatur : ante me factus est, quia prior me eral; βαθὺς ὁ λόγος xa πολλὴν ἐφ᾽ ἑαυτῷ τὴν βάσανον ἀπαιτῶν Cyr. ; prius membrum non potest intelligi de tempore; nam Christus homo post Ioannem conceptus et natus est; praeterea inembrum alterum exhiberet tautologiam intolerabilem. Quare necessario explicari oportet, uti veteres interpretati sunt, de dignitate : ἔμπροσθέν μον τέγονεν V. 6. μείζων, λαμπρότερος, ἐντιμέτερος Chr. Theoph. Euth., ἐπιδοξότερος Cyr., antepositus Aug., « sublimitatem eiusdem humanitatis, quae ceteris omnibus creaturis erat merito praeferenda designat; quod enim ait ante me, non ad ordinem temporis, sed ad distantiam pertinet dignitatis, iuxta quod de Ioseph filiis benedicente lacob scriptum est : constituitque Ephraim ante Manasse (Gen. 48,20), ubi recte potuit dicere Manasses : qui post me venit, ante me factus est » (Bed. sim. Alb. Salm. etc.); unde idem enuntiatur ratione generali quod dicitur Matth. 3,11 : qui post me venturus est, fortior me est, cuius non sum dignus etc. (Bar. lans. etc.). Quod Mald. asserit £yxpoσθεν nunquam de tempore dici, saltem stare videtur, si usum in libris s. NoviTestamenti spectaveris. Facessit negotium illud γέγονεν ; esse praeteritum propheticum Chr. Euth. explicant; item Theod. M. : si dicit γέγονεν ἀντὶ τοῦ Ὑενήσεται, οὐ θαυμαστόν; hanc enim esse s. Scripturae saepe dicendi consuetudinem; ergo : qui post me venturus est, maiorem me dignitatem consequetur. Quandoque, uti TAeoph., gloriosior et dignior me factus est propter miracula quae circa ipsum acciderunt in partu, in educatione, in sapientia. Alii ita : a Deo praedestinatus, designatus, constitutus est in maiore dignitatis gradu (Mad. lans. liar. Lap.). Atque revera nullo modo opus est cogitare de praeterito prophetico; neque enim loannes primo et per se loquitur de futura agnitione et aestimatione in qua Christus habebitur, verum de interna illa dignitate in qua iam est constitutus et ratione cuius sibi longissime est antepositus; dicit autem γέγονεν, quia significare vult Christum hominem non usurpasse dignitatem illam, sed a Deo in ea esse constitutum (Mald.) ; proin anterior ei factus est inordine gratiae (Ca?.). Quantopere vero anterior factus sit homo ille, cui testimonium perhibet, quantopere maior dignitate, ita enuntiat, ut coelestem eius personae originem eminentiamque humana longe sublimiorem clare significet : quia prior me erat, qui& is iam erat, quando ego nondum exsistebam ; proinde is iam erat antequam ut homo nasceretur ; πρῶτός μου 1. 8. πρότερός μου; hic usus non alienus est a recentiore graecitate ; immo notandum quod Hermann notat (ad Eurip. Med.) : Graecos ibi superlativum pro comparativo dicere, ubi haec duo simul indicare volunt et maius quid esse alio et omnino maximum. Unde merito explicaveris : prius me erat, immo quam maxime, proin ante omnia; « antiquissimam ei gloriam adscribit et praestantiam supra res omnes non temporariam sed superne inexsistentem, ut Deo secundum naturam, confirmat » (Cyr.). Atque ita de aeternitate secundum divinitatem personae explicant hoc membrum communiter (cf. Theoph. Euth. Bed. Rup. Alb. Thom. Bon. Cai. Bar. Lap. lans. Schg. Schz. Fil. Corl. Keil, Weiss, Godet etc.). Pauci interpretantur πρῶτος de praestantia maiore (Maid. Tol. Sa, Menochtus, Tirtnus); quae tamen acceptio ἃ proprietate dictionis recedit, quae hoc loco eo minus negligenda est, quia ratio temporis initio enuntiationis exprimitur; neque apte diceretur : quia praestantior erat, sed debuit dici est; inepte enim assereretur de venturo : mihi praelatus est quia natura erat excellentior; id quod a fortiore valet, si prior me cum Tol. refertur ad praeclariora venturi facinora et officia. Quae sequuntur etiam verba esse baptistae censent Aug. (tract. 13,8; de baptismo c. Donat. 5,9; M. 43,182) TAeoph. Rup. Cai. Tol.; at veterum quoque plerique et recentiores ea esse verba evangelistae recte existimant; ia Cr. Cyr. Euth. Bed. Alb. Thom. lans. Salm. (esse sententiam magis consonam) Mald. (probabilius), Bar. (propensior ad hanc) Lap. Nat. Calm. Patr. Schg. Schz. Fil. Weiss elc. quae sententia verbis ipsis plane imponitur, neque enim baptistae erat pronuntiare : nos omnes accepimus, verum potius accipiemus; verbis enim illis manifeste significatur fideles post Christum in carne apparentem accepisse de plenitudine eius (Jans.), neque baptista dicere potuit v. 18; ipsi enim Christus non enarravit. Quaeri itaque solum potest quo nexu ad superiora adiungantur;
1:16
v. 16 et (ἔτι quia) de plenitudine eius nos omnes accepinius , et gratiam pro gratia; nam proxime haec referri videntur ad plenum gratiae v. 14, ita ut evangelista ad illud redeat idque explicet (TÀom. Mald. Lap. Corl. Fil.) testimonio Ioannis baptistae per parenthesin inserto (lans. Bar.). Qua tamen connexione satis mirum esset hoc loco omnino inveniri baptistae testimonium. Quare potius dicendum est cum CAr. evangelistam suum testimonium adiungere ad testimonium baptistae et, ut Cyr. ait, probare ac demonstrare eminere Salvatorem et res omnes creatas οὐσιωδῶς substantialiter excedere; vel secundum Αἰό. : hic signa veritatis narratae testificalionis describuntur: patet quod ante Ioannem est, quia etiam nos omnes accepimus hoc quod habemus de eius plenitudine. Qua scil. et eius excellentia declaratur et quae plenitudo suam habet causam quia est Verbum, in quo est vita et lux hominum v. 4. Plenitudo πλήρωμα quasi necessario consequitur ad πλήρης v. 1^; ceterum cf. ΠΣ πλήρωμα Ps. 25,1; 50,12 terra et plenitudo eius (ScAz.) i. e. copia, abundantia, bonorum copia; « ipse est fons, ipse radix bonorum omnium, ipsa vita, ipsa lux, ipsa veritas, qui bonorum divitias non inse retinet, sed in alios omnes effundit, et postquam effudit, plenus remanet, nihil minus habens postquam aliis elargitus est, sed semper scaturiens et aliis bona impertiens in eadem manet perfectione » (Chr.). Ex v. 18 pariter et ex hoc et sequenti patet plenitudinem eius esse thesauros gratiae et veritatis in Iesu repositos, ex quibus nos ditamur. Nos omnes, cum gaudio et actione gratiarum dicit evangelista senex, laeto recolens animo, quanta iam bona in Christifideles effusa sint. Recogita quae et quanta in Act., in epistolis paulinis etc. referantur! percurre singula saecula; nos quoque cum admiralione de istis inexhaustis gratiarum thesauris in eadem verba prorumpere cum evangelista decet. Uti tunc, ita hodie quoque omnium nomine voces omnium enuntiat evangelista, ut CAr. advertit: « nos omnes, duodecim, trecenti, ter mille, quinque millia, multae myriades, oninis plenitudo fidelium, qui tunc fuere, qui nunc, qui futuri sunt, de plenitudine eius accepimus » et (est explicativum, scil., vel emphaticum, Maid.) i. e. et quidem gratiam pro gratia ἀντὶ χάριτος; usu dictionis ἀντί spectato commode explicatur de successione gratiarum, ita ut gratia succedat gratiae, ut quasi serie continua una in locum alterius succedere concipiatur, sicuti gratiae excitantes, adiuvantes etc. et saepe dantur et inter se excipiunt. Unde ea locutione optime designatur continuus ille in iustos influxus quem parabolice Iesus declaravit : ego sum vitis, vos palmites (15,5). Ita recentiores fere communiter ἀντί accipiunt vel fere ut χάριν ἐπὶ χάριτι (cf. Phil. 2,27; Schz. Schg. Fil. Weiss, Keil). Ad quam acceptionem etiam veteres aliqui propensi sunt; ita Aug. : accepimus de plenitudine eius primo gratiam et rursum accepimus gratiam, et : pro hac gratia in qua ex fide vivimus recepturi sumus aliam; quid tamen, nisi gratiam? et 7ol. - loco unius succedit alterum , ita scil ἀντί explicandum esse ex LXX quoque ostendit; similiter Mald. gratiam super gratiam, cumulatam gratiam exponit; melius tamen Vat. iugiter succedentem dicit. Verum in diversas abeunt explicationes : pro gratia veteris testamenti accepimus gratiam novi; quae est sententia Chr. Z'heoph. Euth. Barh. Rup. Thom. Ians. etquam praeferunt quoque Calm. Pair., quamvis iam Maíd. verissime monuerit legem veterem nunquam vocari gratiam; quod et verum est et hoc loco evidenter quoque ex v. 17 patet; vel pro gratia in praesenti gratiam accipiemus in futuro i. e. vitam aeternam (Bed. Rup. Thom.) , vel nos accipere gratiam propter gratiam Christi, pro gratia Christi (Tol. Bar. Lap. Corl.), vel gratiam sub ratione gratuiti beneficii (Cai.) i. e. pro gratia, tamquam gratiam ; en qualis tautologia Cai. placuit! Iam ostendit necessitatem accipiendi gratiam per Christum ( TÀom.) eamque probat
1:17
v. 17 quia lez per Moysen data est, gratia et veritas per Iesum Christum facta est ἐγένετο; bene effert. dictionis discrimen Chr.; nam ἐδέθη ministri erat qui ab alio acceptum dedit quibus iussus erat; illud vero ἐγένετο gratia et veritas, regis est qui cum potestate peccata dimittit et dona sua largitur (TAeoph. Bed.); Moyses itaque declaratur promulgans, Iesus Christus autem dominus et auctor; ille legem promulgat, hic dominus et auctor est gratiae et veritatis (TÀho.). Et quae est inter legem et gratiam distantia? per servum lex data reos fecit, per Imperatorem indulgentia data est, reos liberavit (Aug.); lex quid vitandum sit decernit, sed quod illa praecepit, non nisi gratia Christi completur; monstrare peccatum , iustitiam docere, transgressores reos ostendere lex valebat; sed gratia Christi facit ut quod lex praecipit impleatur; umbram habebat lex'futurorum bonorum; pro ad eius cum Patre consubstantialitatem (EutA. Thom. Tol. Mald. Bar. Corl.), uti ipse Christus idem indicat dicens se esse in Patre et Patrem in se(15,11) et se esse in coelo (3,13; Cyr. Bon.); alii tn sinu. magis intimam omnium secretorum Dei cognitionem (Aug. Bed. Alb. Tol.) declarari efferunt, quae cognitio utique consequens est ad intimam illam ac familiarissimam cum Deo societatem, qua apud Deum esse imagine illa Filius dicitur. Cum emphasi profertur : zpse, ἐκεῖνος ille, ille scil. qui est Filius unigenitus in sinu Patris quiescens in eum reclinatus, ille enarravit, non alius quidam; ἐξηγήσατο est quasi educere res latentes et obscuras in lucem proferre, penitus explanare (Mald.), ut Cr. advertit clariorem et apertiorem doctrinam et institutionem designari; ideoque etiam Λόγον Verbum dici. Quaerunt quid enarraverit; sane quod ipse dicit : omnia quaecumque audivi ἃ Patre meo nota feci vobis (15,15); verba quae dedisti mihi dedi eis (17,8); omnia illa quae gratia et veritate continentur, ergo divina consilia (Ma/d.) ad hominum salutem , brevi totam revelationem (Bed. Thom. Schg.). Is itaque qui est in sinu Patris enarravit. Dein cum dicatur : Deum nemo vidit unquam, etiam ratio redditur, cur non Moyses neque alius propheta ea nobiscum potuerit communicare, quae Christus nos edocuit. lam ex hisce videtur consequi ratio valida pro illa inter theologos communi sententia : animam Christi habuisse visionem essentiae divinae. Nam enarratio illa facta est a Christo homine; proinde proxime ex illa scientia quae animae eius humanae οἱ intellectui humano erat communicata. Si proinde animae eius aut intellectui humano res enarranda fuisset solummodo revelata vel indita a Verbo, ipse ille homo enarrans qua homo non adeo distingueretur a Moyse et prophetis, quibus etiam revelatione res divinae patefactae sunt. At evangelista Christum hominem enarrantem qua enarrantem, ergo in humana natura testem asserere vult immediatum ex ipso Deo viso; haec est vis illius : Deum nemo unquam vidit, ratione contextus cum v. 17 et cum altero membro v. 18 habita. Dein 3,13 Filius hominis dicitur esse in coelis, et ipse affirmat : quod vidimus testamur; at cum loquatur in humana natura, non videtur proprietati verborum satisfieri, si haec de solo Verbo, de sola Verbi persona, intelliguntur. Simili modo monet Sa. Christum qua hominem nobis testem veritatis proponi; proinde cum testimonium eius ex visione ortum et ipse testis in coelo esse dicatur, necesse esse, ut etiam qua homo habeat testificationem ex visu.
1:18
v. 18; 3,16; 5,18 etc. et 1 Ioan. 1,1; 5,9 in carne venisse etc. Verbum caro factum, humana natura indutum Aaóitavit in nobis ἐσχήνωσεν tabernaculum fecit, fixit inter nos (lans. Satin. Bar. Mald. Lap.); « alludit ad tabernaculum testimonii, in quo Deus in medio filiorum Israel habitabat quasi in domo propria » (Sa/m.). Vox illa itaque in memoriam revocat modum quo in vetere foedere gloria Dei in populo electo habitavit et sese manifestavit. Ibi Deus se nube lucida symbolo quodam praesentem sistebat : et habitavit gloria Domini super Sinai (Ex. 24,16), nubes habitabat super tabernaculum (Num. 9,92; 10,12, 129; unde manifestatio illa vel symbolum praesentiae Dei appellabatur postea 1725); nunc vero ipsum Verbum homo factum habitationem suam faciebat inter homines, implens ratione sublimiore quae promissa erant : habitabo in medio eorum , xai ἔσται ἡ χατασχήνωσίς. μου ἐν αὐτοῖς (Ex. 25,8; 29,55. Lev. 26,11. Ez. 37,97; 43,9). In notione tabernaculum faciendi quandoque deprehendunt Verbum Dei non tamquam indigenam in patria sua, sed tamquam hospitem et peregrinum in aliena terra apud nosad tempus tantum habitasse (Ma/d. Lap. ScAg.). Illud ἐν ἡμῖν etiam explicant : tabernaculum, habitationem fecit in carne nostra, habitavit in carne, qua dictione ostendatur nihil mutationis in ipso Verbo evenisse (Chr. Cyr. Theoph. EutÀ.), quam explicationem etiam Thom. Salm. Bar. lans. commemorant; at merito hi et alii (Bed. Tol. Mald. Lap. etc.) priorem praeferunt monentes in nobis esse idem quod inter nos ; de quo usu ἐν cf. Matth. 2,6; 11,11. Luc. 1,1. Ioan. 13,35. Act. 2,29. 1 Cor. 3,18; 5,1 etc. Et planum est hanc solam posse admitti ; nam, αἱ Cai. monet, pronomen nobis demonstrat non de habitatione in assumpta natura esse sermonem; neque tamen, ut ipse vult, in nobis solum significat in cordibus nostris, quae explicatio hoc loco pariter excluditur. Vult enim evangelista probare Verbum revera hominem esse factum ; quare primo dicit : Verbum hominem factum revera inter nos testes habitasse et conversatum esse. Deinde alterum adiungit testimonium , quo pateat in illo homine revera maiestatem Verbi apparuisse, suum scil. testimonium quod scil. simul cum aliis apostolis et discipulis testis fuit : et vidimus gloriam eius, gloriam quasi Unigeniti a Patre i. e. talem gloriam atque maiestatem, qualem habet et habere debet Unigenitus a Patre; illud ὡς quasi non est similitudinis, sed βεδαιώσεως xoi ἀναμφισδητήτου διορισμοῦ, ac si diceret : vidimus gloriam, qualem decebat habere unigenitum et germanum Filium Dei (CÀr. Cyr.) etita omnes concipiunt. Atque revera ὡς saepe notionem exhibet : talis qualis; of. Matth. 7,29 erat docens eos sicut ὡς potestatem habens, Act. 17,22, Rom. 6,13 exhibete vos Deo tamquam ex mortuis viventes; 15, 15; 1 Cor. 3,1. 15; 7,25; 2 Cor. 6,5 etc. , uti etiam 2 Ioan. 5; et ea notione particulam hic esse accipiendam patet quia evangelista de Verbo incarnato loquitur et probare vult in homine illo talem esse manifestatam et visam gloriam ac maiestatem, qua ostenderetur palam eum esse Unigenitum a Patre. Complectitur itaque omnia illa, in quibus virtus divinitatis Christi eluxit; plurima miracula, qualia nunquam ab alio propheta facta sunt, transfigurationem, miracula in passione, gloriam post resurrectionem ostensam, E YN . : . e ' e . , . . e ἘΠῚ UM ascensionem in coelum. Haec omnia ἐθεασάμεθα, « quod non simpliciter VADO videre significat, sed spectare, hoc est diligenter et fixe intueri aliquid 8 : seu novum et admirandum spectaculum » (lans. Tol. Maid. Lap. Cai. spectavimus). Verbum caro factum appellatur Unigenitus a Patre μονογενὴς παρὰ Πατρός, unicus Filius proprie genitus a Patre, ita ut eo nomine omnino distinguatur ab iis quos modo dixerat filios Dei ex Deo natos; hic itaque Patre auctore ac genitore (παρὰ) est solus Unigenitus, ᾿ unicus ortus, genitus a Patre, unicus, qu'eo modo quo ipse est genitus non habet fratres. Advertunt illud a Pat^e posse iungi quoque aliter: gloriam a Patre illi exhibitam (lans. Maid. Schz.); at iure priorem modum statuunt. Nam evangelista non efferre vu|t gloriam ei esse datam ἃ Patre, verum eum habuisse talem gloriam qualem deceat habere eum qui sit Unigenitus procedens a Patre; proinde talem eum ostendisse maiestatem qualis ipsius dignitati vere conveniat et naturae veri Filii Dei. WE Quae autem sit huius gloriae ostensionis utilitas et bonorum copia ἋΣ pro hominibus, declaratur : plenum gratiae et veritatis, πλήρης ; cum ERBOC legatur nominativus, iam veteres (Faber, lans. Mald. Bar. Lap. Calm.) PME et aliqui recentiores vocem referunt ad : habitavit in nobis, ceteris quasi parenthesi inclusis (vel πλήρη, uti D habet, et plenum iungunt ad vidimus, Lap.); sed πλήρης potest considerari ut appositio ad αὐτοῦ, uti recentiores plerumque assumunt (ScAg. Schz. Weiss), id quod eo magis praeferendum est, quia coniunctio est simplicior et magis obvia neque a dicendi genere Ioannis aliena , quippe qui saepius appositionem in nominativo Adiungat (Apoc. 2,20; 9,14; 154,154; 3,12; 15,7.12 etc.). Ex qua appositione etiam patet plenum etc. referri ad eum, cuius gloriam viderunt apostoli i. e..ad Iesum Christum. Unde quo sensu Verbum qua Verbum sit plenum, non erit inquirendum. Fuit itaque Christus homo plenus gratiae, non enim ad mensuram dat Deus spiritum (3,34. Thom. Mald.); « non dubito quin gratiam Ioannes intelligat, de qua v. 17 dicit; illa ergo omni gratia quam omnes homines unquam acceperunt, ille plenus erat; omnes gratiae et dona spiritus s. et aliae gratiae quas nemini fortasse dedit in eo fuerunt cumulate, redundanter, affluenter, tamquam in fonte, tamquam in capite, unde in rivulos, in membra, derivantur » (Maid.). Bene notat Tol. haec duo respondere duobus superius explicatis in v. 4, gratiam scil. ad vitam, veritatem ad lucem referri. Hisce duobus genus humanum quam maxime indigebat : reconciliatione cum Deo, auxilio supernaturali, institutione divinitus 2,3); est enim eius anima humana summa sapientia et verissima rerum omnium cognitione decorata (Bar.). Veritatem alii exponunt opponi figuris et referri ad implendas promissiones (Bon. Ma!d.), quatenus, ut apostolus ait, quotquot promissiones Dei sunt, in illo Est (2 Cor. 1,20) i. e. in illo factae sunt Est, in illo adimpletae sunt. Comparant quoque now! Ton 23 (multae miserationis el verax, Ex. 35,6; Vulg.) universae viae Domini misericordia et veritas (Ps. 25,10; 35,6; Corl. Schz.). Quanta bona in gratia et veritate conclusa sunt, quae modo adeo excellenti, summo Incarnationis miraculo et mysterio nobis allata sunt! — Verbum naturam humanam assumpsisse evangelista docet; modum conceptionis ac nativitatis non narrat. Eum enim synoptici, Matthaeus et Lucas, ante eum perspicue tradiderunt. Ex eo quod conceptus virginei non meminit, unus alterve conclusit eum ignoratum esse a Ioanne. Num ignoravit synopticos, quos respici ab eo omnes agnoscere debent? Dein qui ita cum emphasi effert filios Dei non nasci ex voluntate viri (v. 13), satis indicat quid dicturus fuisset de Filio Dei naturam humanam sibi copulante. Porro qui narrat adeo frequenter Iesum solum Deum vocare patrem, quomodo cogitare potuisset de patre humano? Testem sibi adiungit evangelista, qui pariter de gloria Verbi incarnati ferat testimonium et eum quidem qui tantam apud ludaeos habebat auctoritatem (Chr. Cyr. Theoph. Salm. Tol. Mald. Lap.)
1:19
v. 19 e! Aoc est testimonium loannis, quando miserunt Iudaei, habitatores Iudaeae, qui generali locutione nominantur pro primoribus, pro synedristis, quorum erat inquirere, si quis sese tamquam prophetam exhiberet et quibus generatim cura rerum ad religionem cultumque pertinentium incumbebat; similiter loqui et scribere solent : Romani miserunt legatos, etsi solum senatus vel duces militum miserunt. Qui modus loquendi de Iudaeis generatim peculiaris est Ioanni, et explicatur facile ex eo quod longo intervallo et temporis et regionis de rebus illis olim factis scribit iis potissimum qui ipsi non sunt Iudaei i. e. incolae Iudaeae. Etillo tempore iam longe maior populi iudaici pars fidem Christi repudiaverat annuntiatam; quare Tudaei generatim apud Ioannem ut ii describuntur qui Christo fidem adhibere detrectant. Miserunt itaque synedristae αὐ lerosolymis sacerdotes et levitas, agitur de re religiosa, de ritu lustrationis; unde ii mittuntur, quibus earum rerum cura et studium incumbit, et levitas quoque legem et caerimonias docuisse iam habetur 2 Par. 19,8- 10; 17,8. 9; ad eum, ut ?nterrogarent eum : tu quis es? scil. qui talia nunc moliris in populo et praedicas; qua auctoritate haec fiunt? Cum baptista sciret quid de se populari rumore spargeretur (Luc. 3,15), merito supposuit legatos ea de causa ad se mitti (Or.); unde statim hanc eis suspicionem eximit. Aliis videtur probabilius illos statim interrogasse, essetne Christus (Mald.). Cum einphasi narratur
Ex synopticis scitur, quantam in populo commotionem excitaverit baptista qui post longum illud prophetale silentium more et habitu prophetae surrexit; cf. Matth. 3,5 seq. Marc. 1,5. Cum itaque ad eum ἼΟΑΝ. 1,19. undique homines confluerent et ipse praedicaret et novo quodam ritu eos lustraret, et cum insuper rumor popularis iam spargi coeptus esset eum esse, Christum, profecto mirum esset, si ea in conditione (cf. Luc. 3,15) summus Iudaeorum magistratus plane ab omni inquisitione abstineret. Unde hic quoque evangelista id supplet quod synoptici non retulerunt. Et quja Ioannes ea potissimum tangere vult, quae Christus in urbe cum ducibus populi disputabat, aptissime ab hac legatione suam incipit narrationem, qua statim adumbratur quadam quasi praelusione, qui sit animorum habitus illorum ducum nova illa manifestatione divinitus facta. Ex ipsa re narrata certum est eam legationem missam esse postquam baptista iam per longius tempus suo . munere functus est et ex v. 29 seq. (altera die etc.) simul patet haec acta esse post baptismum Christi et eius e deserto tentationibus transactis reditum. Haec enim utpote ex synopticis nota supponuntur. Evangelista id unum ob oculos habetut a limine ostendat qualem fidem baptistae testimonium: invenerit apud duces et (v. 29 seq.) apud suos discipulos. Ita ab exordio narrationis delineare incipit, qui Christum non recipiant, qui eum recipiant et recipientes fiant filii Dei (v. 12). Enarrat itaque, uti iam in prologo v. 6. 7 indicavit, quale testimonium de lumine perhibuerit
Prima hac parte continetur manifestatio gloriae Iesu in vita eius publica et simul enarratur quomodo haec manifestatio recepta sit. Et primo quidem exponitur manifestatio Ioanni baptistae et discipulis facta 1,19-2,11; dein prima manifestatio in Iudaea facta 2,19-3,36, manifestalio facta in Samaria &,1-42, in Galilaea 4,&3-5&. Cui adiungitur altera manifestatio in Iudaea 5,1-47 et altera in Galilaea 6,1-79. lam tertium pascha vitae publicae actum est. Ultimo eius vitae spatio & festo scenopegiae tres aliae manifestationes in Iudaea exhibentur 1,1-10,291 festo scenopegiae, 10,92-11,56 festo encaeniorum, 12,1-50 prope festum paschatis. loannes baptista ipso suo testimonio saepius de Iesu edito declarat qualis manifestatio sibi facta sit. Iesu gloriam et divinam eius missionem testificatur coram legatis synedrii. Synedristae quaestionibus ei propositis agnoscunt baptistam singulari quadam dispositione divina esse missum ; quare, si sibi constare velint, eius testimonium de Iesu debebant fide recipere. Saltem praeparantur animi, dummodo non voluntarie oculos claudere velint, ad manifestationem illam quam ipse Iesus de se est exhibiturus. Ioannes testimonium suum coram suis discipulis viso Iesu repetit et rationem suae missionis et Iesu dignitatem opusque quod perfecturus sit indigitat. Eius testimonio primi discipuli se Iesu adiungunt, quibus ita se manifestat, ut hi et alios ad manifestat fidemque eorum auget et confirmat. Exponitur itaque, quomodo primi discipuli se Iesu adiunxerint et fidem in eum conceperint. Synoptici descripserunt conciones baptistae ad varios ordines eiusque testimonium de fortiore post se venturo ad populum; narrarunt quoque baptisma Iesu. Haec Ioannes, utpote ab 115 iam exposita, relinquit (ita tamen, ut 1,33 baptisma Iesu et descensum Spiritus sancti omnino tangat); at alia refert et narrationem synopticorum multis supplet. Ita solus narrat legationem synedristarum ; solus nobis exponit quomodo Iesus primo acquisierit discipulos et qua ratione illos ad sui cognitionem et fidem adduxerit. Discimus itaque qua ratione Iesus paulatim suos docuerit, fidem eorum excitaverit et roboraverit, antequam cum iis in urbem ascenderit et ipsa illa purgatione templi ut talem sc publice manifestaverit qualis a Malachia praedictus erat : et statim veniet ad templum suum, ipse quasi ignis conflans et purgabit filios Levi (3,1-3), et qualis a baptista quoque annuntiatus erat : cuius ventilabrum in manu eius et permundabit aream suam (Matth. 3,12. Luc. 3,17).
1:20
v. 20 et confessus est et non negavit et confessus est : quia non sum ego Christus; ipso narrandi modo declaratur et quasi depingitur, quanto pondere illam de se opinionem reiecerit, quanta asseveratione et firmitate locutus sit. Exstitisse quippe eo tempore exspectationem Messiae, satis quoqueex synopticis colligitur; et quam alte ea inhaeserit, hoc loco aperte ostenditur, quia de omnibus interrogant, quos vulgaris opinio praecursores esse Messiae iactabat; adeo iis persuasum erat tempus messianum appropinquasse. Unde hoc? tempore quidem machabaico summis pressi calamitatibus prophetam quendam iterum venturum esse sperabant (1 Mach. &,56; 14,51), de spe autem messiani temporis ibi non apparet vestigium. Verum ex vaticinio Danielis omnino apparet eo tempore terminum a propheta assignatum adesse debere (cf. Comment. Dan. p. 250);
1:21
v. 91 et interrogaverunt eum : quid ergo? ex modo abrupto quaestionum ostenditur eos non bene esse affectos erga baptistam ; quid ergo? i. e. quare igitur adeo singulari agendi et praedicandi ratione tantam ubique commotionem excitas? quid hoc sibi vult? E/tas es tu? 1. e. praecursor Messiae Elias habebatur ex Mal. &,5, dequa opinione vide Matth. 17,10. Marc. 9,10; e£ dizit : non sum; in spiritu quidem et virtute Eliae praecessit ante Dominum, quod testimonium ipse quoque Christus ei dedit (Matth. 11,154); at alia mente illi interrogabant neque baptista tantum sibi tribuisset honorem ut se similem Eliae putaret vel diceret. Urgent illi : propheta 5 προφήτης es tu? scil. magnus ille propheta, quem Iudaei quoque ex Deut. 18,15 similem Moysi surrecturum sperabant qui scil. mediatorem ageret inter Deum et homines et acceptum ἃ Deo testamentum foedusve novum discipulis traderet (Or.). Alludi ad Deut. 18,15 omnes agnoscunt; et respondit : non; adnotant brevius post quamvis quaestionem responderi, qua maiore brevitate haud ambigue significetur, quanta vi et asseveratione falsam de se opinionem repudiet. Postea ipse Christus ab aliquibus ille propheta ὁ προφήτης habebatur (7,40). Demum se missos esse a legitima auctoritate indicant; quare postulant, ut plane dicat quissit
1:22
v. 22 dixerunt ergo ei : quis es ut responsum demus his qui miserunt nos; quid dicis de teipso? ille vero ita respondet ut ex multis titulis quos sibi vere potuerit attribuere (doctoris, indicis, praecursoris Christi) eum solum tribuat qui humillimus videbatur (Maid.) sed quo nihilominus quale tempus instet et quam vere Messiam exspectent demonstrat;
1:23
v. 23 a:t : ego voz clamantis tn deserto : dirigite viam Domini, sicut dixit Isaias propheta; cf. Is. 40,3, quem locum messianum esse patet tum ex 40,5 (de gloria Domini omnibus revelanda), tum quia est prooemium duplicis liberationis, per Cyrum CERO SEMESTER nm ὙΠ pK t Es MD . πο οῤῥνλησο vipera tet Were ticam de vu E 96 IOAN. 1 23-35 B YA. etper servum Domini, per Messiam efficiendae; iam ex 40,8-19 indu- Nn | bie constat alteram liberationem maiorem i. e. messianam spectari. AS Ceterum a rabbinis quoque hunc locum habitum esse messianum cer- A tum est (cf. Edersheim II p. 726). Affirmat itaque suum esse constanter, E | firmiter, fortiter clamare et omnium auribus indesinenter ingerere : d dirigite , εὐθύνατε, complanate statim (imperativo aoristi id praecipitur ἘΣ quod statim, sine tergiversatione fieri debet) viam Domtni i. e. iam S CE proxime adest; ita vos parate, ut ad vos venire possit Dominus. Proinde ES removete impedimenta quibus arcetur a vobis; « servus, inquit, sum que ullo modo percipiunt baptistam revera adventum Messiae praeparare; proinde ostendunt se nihil curare de indole spirituali regni messiani neque eam intelligere. Porro cum ex toto habitu baptistae et eius morum vitaeque sanctilate et salutari in populum efficacia concludere deberent eum esse a Deo missum, tamen ei negant ius ritu baptismi populum ad poenitentiam excitandi. Eorum scil. sententia iam ea est, ut Deus, si tandem nova quaedam periodus inauguranda sit, solum mittat quem ipsi volunt, et eo modo quo ipsi volunt, eum scil. Messiam quem sibi fingunt, vel Eliam, vel eximium sicut Moysen prophetam, qui signis et prodigiis, uti ille Aegyptios, ita nunc hostes Israel prosternat. Verum ab alio se edoceri dedignantur. Unde cum stomacho quaerunt : quid ergo etc. Baptista ea reponit quibus etiam clarius edocentur de ad ventu Messiae, ita ut iam non possint ignorantiam praetendere
1:26
v. 96 respondit eis Ioannes dicens : ego baptizo in aqua; ad hoc missus erat a Deo v. 33; iterum eo baptismo commemorato indicat se populum ad poenitentiam provocare quae est secundum prophetas praeparatio ad regnum messianum. Addit ἐπ aqua; et quia baptismus, lotio fiat aqua, necessario tacitam oppositionem indicat ad aliam eamque multo sublimiorem emundationem ; alias enim illud zn aqua plane supervacaneum esset. Quid intelligatur, patet ex vaticiniis (cf. ad v. 13) et ex iis quae baptista de baptismo Messiae in Spiritu sancto dicit (v. 33. Matth. 3,11. Marc. 1,8. Luc. 3,16). Eo quoque baptismo « praecursionis suae ordinem servans, quia nasciturum nascendo praevenerat, baptizaturum quoque Dominum baptizando praevenit et qui praedicando factus est praecursor Christi, baptizando etiam praecursor eius fiebat imitatione sacramenti » (Beda) ; neque tantum praeparatio regni messiani coram vobis in aperto posita est, ait baptista , immoiam inter vos adest ipse Messias: medius (autem, melius omittitur; sermo redditur magis concisus, adeoque vehementior ; cf. graece) vestrum stetit, azixa , vel ἔστηγχεν stat iam versatur inter vos, quem vos nescitis; Iesus enim in baptismo testimonio coelesti est sollemniter manifestatus (Matth. 3,16.17. Luc. 3,22), et nunc inter eos conversatur; at illi eum non agnoscunt, quia non ea rerum pompa quam aestimare unice solent sese venditat, ideoque non cognoscunt quantae sit dignitatis (lans.). Insuper quae erat pharisaeorum superbia, qui selegis mosaicae doctores et vindices iactabant, suo quasi jure postulabant, ut Messias primo se adiret, a pharisaeis et synedristis accepturus fidem et approbationem. Simul repetit eum mox multo maiora et insigniora esse exhibiturum
1:27
v. 21 ipse est qui post me venturus est, proinde praedicans, populum ad poenitentiam excitans et sui fama omnem implens regionem; qvi ante me factus est; cf. v. 15; cutus ego non sum dignus, ut solvam etus corrigiam calceamenti , quem itaque ita se maiorem et digniorem celebrat, ut ne inter ultimos quidem eius servos computari mereatur ; calceamentum quippe solvere infimum est ministerium (Chr. TheopA.); maior est, inquit, inter me et ipsum excessus, quam inter dominos temporales et eorundem servos, quandoquidem ego ne minimus quidem servus esse mereor; egregia conclusione Ioannes responsum concludit; existimabatur esse Christus ; concludit : non sum dignus solvere calceamentum Christi (To/.). Quare quantus sit ille, cui testimonium perhibet, alio modo ostendit simulque suo demissionis exemplo docet pharisaeos deponere fastum. Abeunt legati. Synedristas nihil doctrinae et utilitatis ex loannis testimonio cepisse statim manifestum factum est, cum Messias primo in templo auctoritatem suam et gloriam palam exhiberet (3,14-20). « Locum notat, ut accurate diligenterque factam esse narrationem significet; solemus enim cum de rebus magnis facienda nobis est narratio, etiam meminisse locorum, in quibus eas fieri contigit » (Cyr.). Uti synedristae ex officio et iure magistratus inter Iudaeos summi inquisiverunt, ita iis per baptistam pariter ex vi muneris et officii sollemnis transmissus est nuntius de adventu Messiae, cuius exspectatio iam omnium animos tenebat suspensos et occupatos. Habent itaque quod perpendant. Lege mosaica tenentur ei qui se prophetam probavit obedire (Deut. 18,19). Ducum populi praeprimis est populum ad eum adducere, qui tot oraculis ἃ prophetis est annuntiatus, qui ab omnibus expetitur, invoco hodie coelum et terram, quod proposuerim vobis vitam et mortem, benedictionem et maledictionem; elige ergo (Deut. 30,19);
1:28
v. 98 haec tin Bethan:a facta sunt trans Iordanem, ubi erat Ioannes baptizans ; per Iordanem populus olim ingressus est in terram hereditatis, terram Domini, typum regni Dei (Hebr. 4,5-9); quare consentaneum est ut praeparatio ad regnum messianum eodem loco fiat. De hoc viculo Bethania trans lordanem nihil notum est; vicus ille prope urbem 11,18 accurate describitur; quare ridiculi erant quievangelistam ignorantiae accusabant quasi Bethaniam prope urbem, nunc trans Iordanem collocaret. Fortasse hoc nomen est ΠΝ rv3 domus navis; nomen haud ineptum, si ibi rates seu naviculae erant ad traiüiciendum. Alii legunt Bethabara (i. e. domus transitus) ; etiam Or. prorsuscenset (ἐπείσθημεν) ita esse legendum ; cum enim esset in Palaestina, audivit ad ripam Iordanis esse Bethabara, ibique loannem baptizasse. Etiam CAr. censet accuratius legi ita (sim. 7/eoph. Euth.). Ceterum eius quoque situs ignoratur. Verum cum Ο». testetur in omnibus fere exemplaribus poni Bethania, altera lectio videtur esse tentata quaedam emendatio quae post Or. et propter eius auctoritatem inducta est. Alia fertur opinio haud spernenda : Bethaniam esse hebr. 103 ad quandam formam graecàm redactum , quo idem significetur hebr. quod graece dicitur αὐλών, χοιλάς apud Iosephum aliosque, scil. vallis illa depressa Iordanis. Qua explicatione eadém regio assignatur quae ἃ synopticis περίχωρος τοῦ 'Iop3ávou (Luc. 3,3) appellatur, addita determinatione magis distincta trans ordanem (cf. Riess, Bibel-Atlas s. v.). b) Primi ad Iesum adducuntur discipuli 1,29-51. Israel in dativo uti gr.) ben cav eg ing for car tol val harl. In v. 34 o txAextoe tov θεου N* 77. 218. syr (sin, cu) Amb; filius Del electus dub rush et similiter ἃ b ff*. In v. 38 sin om videns eos; pariter in v. 40 qui audierant et secuti fuerant eum; et in v. 41 sin et Andreas vidit Simonem fratrem suum eo die et dixit ei : frater mi et in v. 42 interpretatum graece Petrus; in v. 44 genus eius ex Bethsaida; in v. 45 om sin in lege. In v. 42 Iohanna am dub dun med ox ken rush st wil corp lind steph; Ioanna fuld sixt, filius Iohannis ben big eg a b f ff*1 r. Testimonium baptista perhibuit legatis synedrii. Subiungitur aliud quod omnibus qui forte aderant dedit
1:29
v. 29 altera die i. e. postero die, die post legationem v:d:t loannes Iesum venientem ad se βλέπει videt, quod , ut Maid. dicit, est ἐμφατικώτερον, quia magis expressam sententiam ante oculos ponit; et videt praebent 14 codices Vulg. et 3 vet. vers. Merito notat Rup. baptistam , qui tanto clamore praeco veritati obsecutus sit, nunc fidei et devotionis praemium accipere; videt scil. Iesum ad se venientem; « qui enim exsultavit infans in gaudio (Luc. 1,54), cum adhuc esset parvus in utero, quanto exsultavit tripudio iuvenis praedicans, cum idem Rex Christus coram alloquendus adesset? et qui tam digna, quae supra elocutus est, de illo sentire meruit, dum sola mente videns exterioribus illum quaereret oculis, «quanto magis ubi illum invenit, dignum aliquid exclamando effari debuit ac potuit » (Rup.)? Bene advertit CAr. diversum narrandi tempus synopticorum et Ioannis; illos breviter transcurrere tempora quae Ioannis B. vincula praecesserint, properare ad sequentia ; loannem vero in illis maxime immorari; tacere quidem profectionem in desertum, utpote ab iis narratam, ea vero quae post descensum a monte gesta sint narrare. Synoptici enim narratis Christi tentationibus statim subiungunt reditum Iesu in Galilaeam eum postquam loannes traditus est in carcerem (Matth. 4,19; Marc. 1,15. Luc. 4,44), de quo reditu loan. k,1 demum sermo fit (quare 3,24 inseruit : nondum enim...). Venit autem Iesus ad Ioannem, ut testimonium iteraret confirmaretque et coram Iudaeis testaretur ipsum esse Christum eumque digito demonstraret (Lap.), certe etiam, ut praecursorem gaudio et consolatione afficeret. Baptista itaque videns Iesum ad se appropinquantem ait : ecce agnus Dei , ecce qui tollit peccatum mundi; ἴδε interiectionis instar ponitur plerumque, etiam si ad multos sermo fit, uti en, ecce (Matth. 26,65. Marc. 16,6. loan. 1,47; 19,5. 14). Hic eo magis apte ponitur, « quia multi saepe ex iam dictis et a multo tempore quaerebant eum ; ideoque praesentem illum ostendit et dicit : ecce, ostendens illum ipsum esse qui iam olim quaerebatur » (CAr.). Antea fortiorem se annuntiaverat tamquam qui baptizaret in Spiritu sancto i. e. gratiam coelestem infunderet (Matth. 3,11), nunc autem designat rationem, cur et quomodo gratiam Spiritus s. omnibus proponat : sui ipsius scil. oblatione et sacrificio aufert peccatum, Deum placat et thesauros coelestes omnibus pandit. Est etenim agnus Dei ; nomen desumi ex Is. 53,1 plerique adnotant (Chr. Cyr. Theoph. Euth. Theod M. Salm. Tol. Mald. Bar. Lap. et recentiores); aliqui addunt ler. 11,19 (Or.) et sacrificium quotidianum quod mane et vespere offerebatur (Or. TÀhom.). Declaratur itaque eum esse agnum illum, seu illam victimam sacrificii quam Deus miserit et pro expiatione populi providerit et vaticiniis et ritu sacrificali promiserit, proinde eo sensu verissime agnum Dei (cf. Euth. Salm. Bar. Corl. Schz.). Uti enim apostolus ex ritu vetere dicit : omnia pene in sanguine secundum legem mundantur et sine sanguinis effusione non fit remissio (Hebr. 9,22), ita notio ablationis peccati et notio sacrificii secundum totam institutionem caerimonialem erant inter se colligatae. Praeterea Is. 53 Messias describitur ponens animam suam, vitam, tamquam sacrificium pro delicto, in quo Deus posuerit iniquitates omnium et qui propterea tamquam ovis ad occisionem ducetur et quasi agnus omnia tacens perferet (53,6. 7. 10). Quare pronum erat Messiam, in quo Deus posuit iniquitates omnium nostrum, tamquam agnum , victimam quam Deus designavit misitque et sibi quasi pro expiatione mundi elegit, ergo tamquam agnum Dei nomine efferre. Alii ea in appellatione cernunt vel divinam Christi naturam (Euth. θεῖος, Thom. Bar. Mald. Lap.) vel agnum a Deo, eius scil. voluntate oblatum (A/ó. Bar. Maid. Lap., uti dicitur sacrificium Abraham i. e. ab Abraham oblatum) vel agnum qui Dei sit, ad Deum pertineat (ScAg. Weiss). Quod ex notione sacrificii vel victimae statim sequitur, hoc loco ita &adiungitur, ut non populi Israel (quod ex lege videri posset) tantum expiatio, verum totius mundi reconciliatio asseratur : ecce qui tollit peccatum mundi ὁ αἴρων, explica : auferens; ita Or. vocem explicat allegans illud : qui est propitiatio pro peccatis nostris, qui chirogra. phum delevit et sustulit e medio (110oan.92,1. 2 Col. 2,14), CAr. : aliorum peccata abluit, TAeoph. exponit vocem per ἀφανίζειν, Theod M. κατα- λύειν, Cyr. : hostia pro omnibus, ut mundi peccatum amoveat, ut orbis exterminatorem evertat, ut solvat maledictionem etc., Euth. ἀφαίρειν, χαθαΐρειν. Et merito ita; nam etiam apud LXX αἴρειν eo sensu adhibetur (1 Reg. 15,25; 25,98) et etiam 1 Ioan. 3,5. Dicitur autem ὁ αἴρων, ut eius vis naturalis significetur; eo enim loquendi modo perpetuas rerum naturas et indeficientes exprimimus, ut cum dicimus : ignis calefacit (Tol. Mald.); ergo est attributum quod ei ex rei natura et constanter convenit et munus ei proprium ac singulare denotat. Quod autem dicitur in singulari peccatum τὴν ἁμαρτίαν, non minuit significationem, sed potius auget; nam tota species rei significatae singulari numero exprimitur (Tol.), ita ut genus omne peccatorum aut quidquid est in mundo peccati per eum auferri significetur ( Maid.) , omnis scil. peccatorum colluvies et scaturigo (Lap.). Pariter indicat dicens : ecce agnus ille tollens peccatum, sacrificiorum veterum insufficientiam et inefficaciam ad auferenda peccata : hic demum ille est agnus qui vere tollit, et ita Christum designat redemptorem mundi, sicut figuratum in lege et per prophetas praedictum erat (Tol.). Et quasi digito demonstrans Christum ad se appropinquantem omnibus in memoriam revocat vaticinium et testimonium quod ediderat antequam Iesus veniret ad baptismum :
1:30
v. 30 Áic est de quo dizt : post me venit vir qui ante me factus est, quia prior me erat; videad v. 15; hoc est testimonium illud quod etiam simili modo refertur Matth. 3, 11; Marc. 1,7; Luc. 3,16 et quod perhibuit ante baptismum Christi. Vix erit cum pluribus laborandum, quid hoc loco vir significet; vox non habetur in locis parallelis; explicant eam de aetate perfecta (Theoph. Thom.) de homine omni virtute praedito et perfecto (Rup.) et ex prophetis (Is. 53,3. Ier. 3,11; 31,92. Zach. 6,12, in quibus etr appellatur, 70/.); « potius hebraismum esse credo, quo vw vir pro quodam ponitur, quasi diceret: post me venturus est quidam maior me » (Mald.). Quod eius testimonium eo maioris est momenti, quia non conieciura seu cognitione humana, sed revelatione divina et mandato divino profectum est
1:31
v. 31 et ego nesctebam eum , sed ut manifestetur in Israel τῷ Ἰσραήλ, Israeli (Aug. Ca:.; vide lect. var.), propterea veni ego 1n aqua baptizans; voluit itaque Deus, ut Iesus baptismum susciperet; quare Iesus dixit, cum baptista eum prohibere vellet : sine modo; sic enim decet nosimplere omnem iustitiam (Matth. 3,15); atque in hoc baptismo voluit eum manifestare Israeli illis scil. signis quae facta sunt (Matth. 3,16. 17. Marc. 1,9-11. Luc. 3,21. 22). Quare apertum est hoc loco id notum supponi quod synoptici de baptismo [Iesu referunt. Baptistae itaque missio erat, ut et Iesu adventum praediceret, ei per poenitentiam animos praepararet, et suo ministerio eum sollemni modo populo manifestaret. δεῖνι itaque baptista post se venturum esse quendam maiorem, qui prior ipso exstiterit. Verum huncne etiam recte designavit in persona Iesu? ad hoc respondet evangelista, enarrans quali signo baptista divinitus sit edoctus, quis esset ille « venturus »
1:32
v. 32 e/ testimonium perhibuit Ioannes dicens : quia vidi Spiritum descendentem quasi columbam de coelo et mansit super eum ; Luc. 3,22 et descendit Spiritus sanctus corporali specie sicut columba in ipsum; ita quasi columbam exponunt ὡς ἐν εἴδει περιστερᾶς Chr. , ἐν σχήματι, εἴδει, σχηματίσμῳ Cyr. οἱ communiter; falso Weiss id solum dici vult, apparitionem quandam lucidam descendisse non in figura vel forma columbae, sed ita placide sicut columba placide soleat descendere ; sed id in quo esset comparatio non exprimeretur, et insuper columbae placidus ac lentus volatus nullatenus est ita proprius, ut sola mentio columbae sufficeret ad descensum placidum ac lentum designandum. lam ulterius explicat vim et significationem huius signi
1:33
v. 33 e/ ego nesciebam eum ; sciebat quidem Christum esse venturum, Iesum autem facie non novit; « nam toto vitae tempore in deserto versabatur extra paternam domum » (Chr. Luc. 1,80; 3,2); « et quomodo mittebatur Samuel in Bethlehem sciens esse in filiis Isai quem ungeret in regem , sed quis filiorum eius esset nesciens, sic et ego veni in Iordanem Christum iam venisse sciens, sed in persona quis Christus esset nesciens » (Rup. Salm. Tol. Bar. Lap.). Neque contrarium est quod Matth. 3,14 narratur. Cum enim sciret Christum esse ad se venturum, profecto magno animi desiderio eum exspectabat et oculis quasi eum quaerebat. Iesus autem eo erat habitu, ea dignitate, modestia, ut Ioannes facile sibi persuaderet iam adesse quem desideraret; adde tunc ei minime defuisse peculiarem Spiritus sancti impulsum ; ut eum sensit olim latens in utero materno, ita eum praesentem agnovit (cf. Comment. Matth. I p. 135); signo dein divinitus dato persuasio eius firmissimam fidei certitudinem consecuta est, qua certissimum redderet testimonium; sed qui misit me baptizare in aqua, ille mihi dizit : super quem videris Spiritum descendentem et manentem super eum , hic est qui baptizat in Spiritu sancto i. e. qui Spiritum sanctum tribuit, per quem regeneratio spiritualis efficitur. Ceterum vide quae pluribus exposita sunt in Comment. Matth. I p. 130 seq. Ex quibus verbis concludit CAr. : vides, ad hoc venisse Spiritum sanctum, ut Christum ostenderet, et quo testimonium loannis fide dignius exhiberetur, ad Deurn et Spiritum sanctum reducitur. Et Cy r. : loco signi et indicii datam sibi esse descensionem Spiritus, beatus baptista profitetur; simili modoiste descensus dicitur signum certificans ratione ostensionis (Bon.) et factus solum ad manifestandum (TAom.). Anima Christi ab initio plenitudinem habuit gratiae infusae, quae plenitudo ex unione cum Verbo in eam redundabat; quare de augmento huius plenitudinis sermo esse nequit. Neque tamen inde sequitur descensum Spiritus sancti essesolum signum externum, ita ut foris ostendatur quod in Christo homine aderat semper. Sicut enim anima Christi nobis exhibetur variis affectibus agitata, aliis profecto in transfiguratione , aliis in horto ante passionem; aliis quando exsultavit Spiritu sancto, aliis quando infremuit spiritu (Luc. 10,21. Ioan. 11,33.38), ita facile tibi persuaseris, in sollemni hacintroductione ac manifestatione etiam animam Christi singulari quodam ac sublimissimo affectu caritatis in Deum et homines fuisse imbutam et maximo quodam fervore munus sibi demandatum suscepisse. Quem singularem Spiritus impulsum post baplismum synoptici quoque notant (Matth. 4,1. Marc. 1,12 : Spiritus expulit eum in desertum; Luc. &,1 plenus Spiritu sancto regressus est a Iordane). Quare bene advertit Rup. : non ergo ea tantum causa, ut signum daretur Ioanni, Spiritus sanctus in Dominum Iesum descendit , sed ut evangelizandi officio et summi sacerdotii ordine fungeretur unita Deo natura humana. Cur specie columbae Spiritus s. descenderit, vide quae dixi in Com - ment. Matth. I. p. 140, Marc. p. 35, Luc. p. 166. — Demum baptista repetit testimonium denuo affirmans se ex certissima revelatione et scientia Iesum designasse Messiam
1:34
v. 34 et ego vidi, quod opponiturilli : et ego nesciebam ; ἑώραχα, vidi signum illud mihi promissum, et testimonium perhibui, μεμαρτύρηκα; nota tempus perfectum, quo significatur actio praeterita quae per effectus suos durat. Postquam vidit, statim testatus est et nunc quoque affirmat visionem suam et testimonium pleno cohsistere robore; testatus est quod in ipsa illa manifestatione audivit (cf. Matth. 3,17) quia Aic est Filius Det, certe non adoptione, uti alii; ergo natura (Ma/d.). Aliud est, utrum qui audierint id plene intellexerint necne. Et dici potest cum Cat. Hebraeis tunc temporis appellationem filii Dei significasse Messiam, non explicite verum Deum; similiter ait Corl., eum consubstantialitatem Christi cum Patre docere voluisse non " constare. Ipse tamen baptista vero sensu intellexisse censendus est ex suis ipsius verbis v. 15.93.30, quibus Christi divinitatem ita enuntiat, ut etiam qui eum audiebant eam suspicari potuerint. Tria eousque testimonia protulit, ut Salm. scribit, in quibus descriptus est Christus; quia est agnus Dei, ideo peccata auferre potest; quoniam ipse est qui baptizatin Spiritu sancto, idcirco et gratiam et dona sua valet elargiri; rursus quoniam Filius Dei est, potest adoptionem filiorum Dei atque hereditatem regni coelorum nobis impertire. Baptista munere suo fungitur eo quoque quod suos discipulos ut Iesu adhaereant edocet. Quare veteres eum vocant paranymphum, pronubum, quippe qui Christo sponso adducat et tradat sponsam;
1:35
v. 35 altera die iterum stabat Ioannes et ez discipulis eius duo, iterum, scil. uti v. 29, stabat exspectans venturusne esset Christus; cum duo solum nominentur, inutile est quaerere, num adfuerint praeter eos multi discipuli, ex quibus solum duo testimonio eius obsecuti sint (Euth. Tol.)
1:36
v. 36 et respiciens Iesum ambulantem ἐμβλέψας 1. e. intuitus, uti postea vertit interpres; plus dicit quam respiciens, scil. quod fixe, intentis oculis eum intuebatur, cum animi gaudio et admiratione (Chr. Ians. Tol.), stabat admirabundus, quasi stupore defixus (Ma/d.). Iesus non ad baptistam appropinquabat, uti v. 29 die antecedenti, sed obambulabat ea in regione, ubi baptista erat, qui discipulis dic: : ecce agnus Dei; « non longo utitur sermone, quia unum tantum curabat, ut illos cum Christo coniungeret; sciebat enim illos, si hoc semel suscepissent et obtemperassent, non ultra testimonio opus habituros, ut etiam evenit » (CÀr.); ecce « quod non solum est demonsirativum, sed admirativum virtutis ipsius; nec dicit : ite ad eum, ne videantur discipuli gratiam praestare Christo, si eum sequerentur; sed commendat Christi gratiam, ut quasi in beneficium sibi computent, si Christum sequuntur » (Thom.). Notat Chr. : nihil Christus loquitur, sed omnia ille; sic sponsus solet; nihil ipse sponsae dicit, sed adest silens; alii illum indicant sponsamque ipsi tradunt; illa comparet neque sponsus illam per se accipit, sed alio tradente. Id circa Christum evenit; venit in sponsam ducturus Ecclesiam; nihil ipse dixit, sed adfuit tantum; loannes autem amicus eius dexteram sponsae ipsi tradidit verbis illi hominum animas concilians (sim. Theoph. Euth. Thom.). Ponitur fructus proveniens ex eius testimonio (Thom.)
1:37
v. 81 et audierunt eum duo discipuli loquentem et secuti sunt. Iesum; incedentem (v. 36) subsecuti sunt verecunda quadam diligentia (CAr.) neque enim audent statim ad eum accedere el eum alloqui; sequebantur autem taciti flagrantes amore sublimioris doctrinae, cuius spem ex Ioannis testimonio conceperant, sed interpellare non audent eum, quocum nulla eis intercesserat familiaritas et cuius summam dignitatem ex Ioannis verbis intellexerant (Ians.). Verum ipse Christus pro sua benevolentia iis obviam venit et, ut Thom. ait, quod loannes inchoavit, consummatur per Christum ;
1:38
v. 38 conversus autem Iesus et videns eos sequentes se dicit eis : quid quaeritis? « quid hoc est? qui novit corda hominum, cui cogitationes nostrae patent, hic interrogat? sed non ut discat (quomodo enim?), sed ut per interrogationem illos ad se admittat maioremque addat fiduciam eosque colloquio dignos ostendat; verecundiam igitur et metum ut iis eximat, interrogat » (Chr. Euth. Cyr.); facit itaque eos familiares et audentiores (Tol.); qui dixerunt ei: rabbi (quod dicitur interpretatum magister) ubi habitas? nam quiete ipsum alloqui, audire et discere cupiebant volentes diutius cum eo conversari (Chr. EutA.); liabitationem scire volebant, ut frequenter eum adire possent (TÀom.), ut ex otio et privatim eum interrogarent, cuius se iam discipulos profitentur (Maid.). Fortasse verebantur etiam, ut lans. censet, ei molesti esse hora adeo tarda, hora scil. diei decima; et simul declarant se familiarius secretiora quaedam discere velle, quae fortasse non esset docturus in publico. Iesus autem delectatus eorum pio ardore eos statim comiter et blande invitat ad domesticum colloquium
1:39
v. 39 dicit eis : venite et videte. Venerunt et viderunt , ubi maneret et apud eum manserunt die illo; « cur manserint, evangelista non addit, quod manifesta res esset, neque enim alia de causa secuti sunt eum vel Christus accivit eos, quam ut doctrinam acciperent, quam tam copiose et cum tanto studio una nocte perceperunt, ut mox uterque ad alios advocandos properaret » (Chr. ἐφ᾽ ἑτέρων θήραν ἐλθεῖν); hora autem erat quasi decima diei scil. ergo haud ita multum ante solis occasum; nonne duodecim sunt horae diei (11,9)? intelligi horas ab ortu solis, veteres communiter et recentiores plerumque docent, et merito quidem ; eo enim modo in libris novi test. horae computantur, neque ulla est ratio cur apud loannem id non fiat; immo id quam maxime congruit aliis eius locis (4,6.52; 19,14; vide quae dixi in Comment. Marc. p. 414). Eodem modo losephus quoque horas computat (etiam Vit. 54). Extota hacnarratione patet, quam viva memoria Ioannes in summa senectute retinuerit recordationem beatissimi illius eventus, quo primo timida quadam exspectatione et reverentia Iesum sit secutus, dein summa eius comitate et affabilitate fuerit a Iesu invitatus et in ipsa eius habitatione familiari colloquio et dulcissimo cum Iesu commercio recreatus! « venerunt et fuerunt cum illo; quam beatum diem duxerunt! quis est qui nobis dicat quae audierint illi a Domino? faciamus nosmetipsi in corde nostro domum quo veniat ille et doceat nos; colloquatur nobiscum » (Aug.). Nondum utique, ut bene notat Aug., illi ita adhaeserunt, ut non recederent; nam ad relinquenda omnia et continuam Christi sequelam vocati sunt postea (Luc. δ); nunc vero paullatim ad discipulatum et apostolatum praeparantur. Ioannes, uti solet, se non nominat, sed tamen ipsa narratione se satis prodit. Id veteres quoque senserunt (quamvis praeter loannem fortasse alium intelligi posse etiam commemorent) et recentiores confirmant;
1:40
v. 80 erat autem Andreas frater Simonis Petri unus ez duobus qui audierant a. Ioanne et secuti fuerant eum; primi accesserunt ad Iesum Andreas et loannes; primi etiam post.Petrum enumerantur in albo apostolorum (Matth. 10,9. Marc. 3,17. Luc. 6,14. Act. 1,13). loannes de se lam nihil narrat; sed cum frater eius lacobus simul cum eo inter primos apostolos recenseatur, probabile est Ioannem idem fecisse quod hic solum de Andrea refert, ad quod suadendum ab aliquibus allegatur in v. 41 lectio πρῶτος. Petrus hic vocatur per anticipationem. Andreas autem non in se abscondit thesaurum inventum , sed festinat et currit ad fratrem, ut ipsum reddat eius thesauri consortem (ChAr.) et talenti ἃ Domino accepti quaestum uberiorem Domino offert (Cyr.),
1:41
v. &1 invenit hic primum fratrem suum Simonem , primum i. e. cum rediret a Iesu plenus gaudii et plenus desiderii thesaurum inventum cum aliis communicandi, divina providentia factum est, ut primum omnium inveniret fratrem (Mald.) et dicit οἱ : invenimus Messiam (quod est interpretatum. Christus), o vera pietas! statim ut invenit thesaurum, margaritam , fratri nuntiat, fratrem vocat (Bed.) ; Messias, hebr. mv, unctus (cf. Ps. 2,9. Dan. 9,25); qua voce simul docemur, ut Chr. notat, quid apud Iesum didicerint. Hoc quippe verbum est animae adventum eius summe desiderantis gaudioque exsultantis atque festinantis tantam rem nuntiare (sim. Ew/Àh.), quasi dicat : gaude mecum, quem tam anxie exspectamus, iam invenimus (Jans.); vide quam prompti sint ad docendum qui Christum agnoscunt (Saím.). Cum Simonem fratrem statim inveniret in Iudaea, haud procul a regione baptistae, probabile est Simonem quoque vel discipulum Ioannis fuisse vel adiisse eum baptismi causa (/ans.) v. &2 et adduzu
1:44
v. && erat autem Philippus a Bethsaida, civitate Andreae et Petri; non desunt qui putent addi patriam, ut insinuetur Philippum ab Andrea et Simone fuisse dispositum ad sequendum Iesum et Philippum motum esse ad sequendum, quia concives suos viderit sequentes, ἃ quibus iam antea de Iesu audierit (Bon. (αὶ. lans. Corl. Schz.); ita scil. facile explicari, cur tam prompte secutus sit. Sed haud immerito contra id Maíld. monet : « humanum hoc est et malim credere tantum apostolum solo incitatum spiritu, nullo humano respectu secutum Christum ». Aliis placet notare, commendari gratiam divinam, quod de civitate illa adeo ingrata et peccatrice quam fore Iesus praesciverat (cf. Matth. 11,291) tres illos vocaverit (Rup. sim. Chr.). Sed sufficiet dicere cum Mald. : simplex mihi et satis idonea videtur causa, ut historice Ioannes fecerit ; pertinet enim ad diligentiam, ornamentum et fidem historiae, ut insignium personarum patria ceteraeque circumstantiae describantur (sim. Corl. Schz.). Exipsis nominibus graecis Andreae, Philippi, satis colligitur in Galilaea et praesertim in regione illa ad lacum Tiberiadis etiam multos genere graecos incoluisse. De Bethsaida vide ad Matth. 11,21. « Consequenter ponitur fructus discipuli ad Christum conversi » (Thom. Aib.)
1:45
v. &5 invenit Philippus Nathanael 5w3n1 (nomen saepe obvium ; cf. Num. 1,8 seq. 1 Par. 2,14; 15,98 etc. Deus dedit!, Theodorus) et dicit ei : quem scripsit Moyses. in lege et prophetae, invenimus Iesum filium Ioseph α Nazareth; « admodum cito fructum affert discipulus, ut vel hinc eiusdem animi ac studii cum prioribus esse videretur; invenit Nathanael, non certe casu oblatum, sed multo studio quaesitum » (Cyr.). Nathanael esse eundem qui filius Tolmai, Bartholomaeus, alias vocatur, tum ex ordine colligitur quo ille cum Philippo in albo apostolorum recensetur, tum ex loan. 21,9, tum quia discipuli alii qui hic nominantur, revera postea inter apostolos recensentur et evangelista hoc loco etiam synopticos supplens ostendere vult, qua ratione Iesus prima semina discipulatus iecerit; porro cum Nathanael ἃ Iesu commendetur a sinceritate, a fide, et ei promittatur se visurum maiora, nullatenus supponi potest eum a familiaritate Christi esse exclusum. Quare merito censetur esse Bartholomaeus (cf. fup. lans. Patr. Corl. Schg. Schz. Weiss etc.; vide quae dixi ad Matth. 10,3). Ex iis quae Philippus de Moyse et prophetis dicit veteres quandoque concluserunt ipsum vel saltem Nathanael fuisse doctos et litterarum sacrarum peritos; immo Aug. ideo quia Nathanael fuerit doctus, non esse a Domino inter discipulos positum existimat. At quae Philippus dicit, sane quivis Iudaeus scivit et dicere potuit, scil. Messiam in lege et prophetis promitti; in lege agitur de Messia futuro Gen. 3,15; 19,3; 18,18; 22,18; 49,10. Num. 25,17. Deut. 18,15. Atque Messiam Se a3 Det rure Meses r μι »» AP; da wu in n Sese tres et Marc. 1,20 narretur; e contra hac invitatione et prima hac cum Iesu consuetudine declaratur quomodo tandem una Iesu voce audita omnia reliquerint et eum secuti fuerint. — Monent quoque ob 2,1 illam Jesu in deserto commorationem apud Ioannem non posse locum habere! At res est valde plana : statim post baptismum, qui 1,33 iam supponitur, Iesus abit in desertum; evangelista autem suam orditur narrationem a tempore reditus Iesu ex deserto. | Quod Philippus incepit, Iesus perficit et Nathanael per praenuntiationem occultorum ad fidem trahit; tria occulta ei insinuat : praesentia quae sunt in corde, praeterita facta et futura coelestia (TAom.);
1:47
v. 41 vidit Iesus Nathanael venientem ad se et dicit de eo : ecce vere Israelita, in quo dolus non est; vere i. e. qui moribus et vita id exprimit quod nomine Israelitae indicatur, qui scil. verus est imitator lacob, cui cognomen Israel, qui est homo antiquae probitatis et simplicitatis , qualis fuit Israel (Ma/d.); et cur eum vere Israelitam vocet, subiuncta verba satis produnt, quia in eo.nullus erat dolus, id est, simplex erat et rectus, simplicique ac sincero animo Deum colens (lans.);
1:48
v. &8 dicit οἱ Nathanael : unde me nosti? admirationis interrogatione est usus, in qua non negatur veritas et dum tacite approbatur, non laeditur humilitas; simul Christi cognoscendi non deseritur via, dum interrogatione responsum postulat per quod veritatem assequendi aperitur via (ToJ.). Iesus duo occulta ei manifestat ; respondit ei Iesus et dizit : priusquam te Philippus vocaret, cum esses sub ficu, vidi (e; cum in
1:49
eum ad Iesum; Iesus autem qui venerat, ut desponderet sibi Ecclesiam, iam laetus eam prospicit statim pandens se assumere discipulos Ecclesiae fundandae causa, cuius lapidem fundamentalem in Simone salutat; intuitus autem eum Iesus , intuetur qui corda et renes novit et cernit ad quantam sublimitatem sit evehendus (Cyr.), dizit ὁ tu es Simon filius Iona, lonas i. e. Ioannes (ita 4 Reg. 25,93 'Iová pro hebr. 1:ni'; vide quae notavi ad Matth. 16,17), uti plurimi quoque codices Vulg. et veteris versionis habent (cf. lect. var.). tu vocaberis Cephas , quod interpretatur Petrus; *2 saxum, petra (ler. 4,29. Iob 30,6) aram. N5*3 petra, lapis; graece πέτρος adhibetur etiam eadem significatione ac πέτρα saxum (ceterum vide ad Matth. 16,18); « hiciam incipit Iesus divinitatem suam sensim revelare ex praedictionibus ; sic etiam cum Nathanaele fecit et cum samaritana muliere » (Chr. Mald.). Nomen Cephae, Petri, hic praesignatur, imponitur Marc. 3,16 in electione apostolorum, confirmatur Matth. 16,18 et explicatur (cf. A/6.). Censet Aug. hoc iam loco accepisse nomen Cephae (de cons. evang. 2,17,34; Bon. addit : impositum fuisse nomen, sed nondum vulgatum); verum obstat vocaberis; i. e. hoc nomen postea ei imponetur (cf. Marc. 3,16). Ceterum haec non eodem die, sed postero die acta esse, iam Salm. monet; neque obstat v. &3 in crastinum , id quod aeque facile (non post v. 35) intelligitur referri ad ea quae post v. 41-42 narrata sunt (Schz.). In primis discipulis adumbratur modus varius et multiplex vocandi homines quo Deus uti solet. Accesserunt ad Iesum moniti verbis baptistae ; alios discipuli adducunt; alios Iesus immediate ipse vocat. Primos voluit accipere a baptista ; Simonem per industriam et zelum discipuli; iam ipse per se vocat; v. 43 in crastinum i. e. postridie; dictum est autem respectu eius quod proxime narratum est; ergo postridie eius diei quo Andreas frstrem adduxerat (Tol. lans. Patr. Schz.) voluit exire in Galilaeam et invenit Philippum , « non eo modo quo nos invenisse dicimur, cum quidlibet videmus quod antea non videntes quaerebamus; sed quomodo dicit pastor bonus : inveni ovem meam » (Rup.), invenit ex intentione quaesitum (A/6.) ; et dicit ei Iesus : sequere me « jam gralia sua nescientem praevenerat et antequam vocem ad aures dirigeret, manum suam ad trahendum illum in cor eius miserat » (Rup.). Eum voci vocantis obsecutum esse, evangelista ex eventu intelligendum reliquit (v. 45). Merito notant efficaciam vocis Iesu et potentiam; simul enim cum voce in eius animum virtutem infundit qua incensus continuo fuerit ad sequendum statim maiestate Iesu captus (cf. Theoph. Tol. Mald. Ians.);
1:50
v. 50 dicatur : vidi te sub ficu, etiam hic ξἔντα etc. referri debet ad εἶδον ; uti etiam versione Vulg. indicari videtur. Ait itaque : priusquam ad te veniret Philippus, ego licet corpore absens vidi te sub ficu (Cyr.), et ita videtur iungendum esse, ut priusquam ei occurrisset Philippus, sub ficu fuisse dicatur (Euth. Tol. Cai. Ians. Mald.) non, ut Philippus eum sub ficu sedentem vocarit (Chr. Theoph. Thom. Schz.). Dicit quidem Maid. : « quaerere quid Nathanael sub ficu egerit, nescio an satis moderati sit ingenii » et Sa/m. quoque ait non opus esse fingere quod aliqui meditantur, Nathanael sub ficu de se aliquam magnam habuisse victoriam vel aliquod magnum Dei donum impetravisse; at certum est, ibi sub ficu aliquid notabile eum egisse (Tol.) vel cum illa commoratione aliquid singulare esse coniunctum, quia illa mentione statim ad agnoscendam superiorem virtutem in Christo est commotus. Modus quippe loquendi est, quando alicui quid in occulto loco egerit significare volumus, locum tantum notamus per eum simul quid factum sit insinuantes; ita in praesenti factum est. Respondet itaque Dominus : si vis scire, unde te noverim, scito te a me visum sub ficu, et a me visum Philippum cum vocaret te (To/.). Stupefactus ea Iesu scientia quae hominum vires longissime superat Israel! hac responsione et promptitudine fidei probat se esse vere Israelitam, qui animo simplici gratiam oblatam amplectatur; plane itaque profitetur omnino ita esse ut Philippus dixerat, scil. esse Iesum Messiam, scil. eum quem Moyses et prophetae annuntiarunt. Messiam autem designat eo modo quo in s. litteris appellatur : Filius Dei, rex Israel. Cum enim et populus ipse et praeprimis rex theocraticus appellaretur filius Dei (cf. Ex. 4,99. Is. 1,9. Ier. 3,19; 31,20. 2 Reg. 7, 14), rex Messias singulari prorsus et excellentissimo modo censeri et nominari debuit Filius Dei , sicut sublimiore ratione fore existimabatur rex Israel. Certum quidem mihi est divinam Messiae naturam declarari Is. 9,6; verum eam a [udaeis esse intellectam non puto. Quare eam hoc loco & Nathanael enuntiari, mihi persuadere non possum, praesertim cum constet discipulos diu eam non agnovisse et soli Petro Matth. 16,16 eam cognitionem divinitus esse revelatam asseratur. Praeterea sola illa revelatio secretorum nondum sufficit; nam, ut Lap. advertit, revelare cordium secreta possunt et prophetae ex instinctu Dei, uti Eliseus revelavit Giezi secreta cordis et quae absens fecerat, et revelavit secretas insidias regisSyriae (& Reg. 5,96; 6,19). tur, Nathanaelem filium Dei vocasse Christum eo modo quo Iudaei communiter futurum Dei fllium Messiam credebant. Illi enim quibus Trinitatis mysterium adhuc non erat revelatum filium Dei credebant futurum eminenti quadam filiatione supra omnem adoptionem angelorum et hominum, non autem distincte intelligebant filium esse naturalem et consubstantialem. Et simili modo loquitur Zans. et alii. Atque Salm. quamvis ab initio explicet de filio naturali, unigenito , tamen mox scribit : maius his videbis, nempe ut agnoscas me Filium Dei naturalem, per omnia Deo aequalem Patri. Et apposite monet Corl. hoc mysterium de Verbo incarnato ab ipso Christo plene revelari debuisse. Alii tamen id iam a Nathanaele esse enuntiatum et Iesum ab eo ut Deum esse agnitum existimant. Ita Cyr. Rup. Thom. Alb. Bon. Mald. Fil. At si aliqui ex eo arguunt, quia Iesus ei dixit : credis, vehementer falluntur; nam cum Iesum credat Messiam, vere credit et id quod verum erat et credi debuit, credit; ergo de ea fide quam alii diu non amplexi sunt, potuit laudari etsi ista fides nondum plenam perfectionem habuit. Laudat Iesus fidei promplitudinem, quam utique adeo raro in Israel erat inventurus , et augmentum fideique perfectionem promittit v. 50 respondit Iesus et dixit ei : quia dizi tibi : vidi te sub ficu, credis : maius his videbis, « inferendum reliquit : ergo maiora de me tunc confiteberis; quibus verbis tacite insinuat eius confessionem laudandam quidem, sed imperfectam esse » (T0/.); μείζω matora his videbis. Et quaenam haec sint subditur
1:51
v. 51 et dicit ei, hoc inserit evangelista ad sermonis pondus et momentum patefaciendum , amen, amen dico vobis, oratione iam ad alios quoque directa; affirmationis formula in hoc solo evangelio et frequenter quidem usurpata (immo 235 vicibus, ScAz.), dum synoptici in simili formula unum amen adhibent (Cai. Patr. Corl.) , videbitis coelum apertum et angelos Dei ascendentes et descendentes supra Filium hominis; alludi ad Gen. 28,12 satis in aperto est positum , idque Aug. Bed. Rup. Thom. etc. monent. Obscurius autem et vario modo tentatum est quo tendat oratio. Cum Iesus vellet exire in Galilaeam profectus a lordane (v. 45), probabile est quod aliquibus videtur, haec dicta esse prope Bethel, ubi scil. Iacob patriarcha illam habuit visionem de angelis ascendentibus et descendentibus. Verbis exprimitur et depingitur commercium quod per angelos instituitur inter terram et coelum ; ascendunt in coelum apertum , descendunt in terram. Qua imagine exprimi videtur eos quasi internuntios quibus homines indigeant in coelo eloqui et e coelo auxilia opemque in terram conferre. Quod autem ἐπὶ τὸν viz» -. a. istud commercium instituunt, ad eum descendentes et proin ab eo quoque ascendentes, depingi videtur, istius commercii inter coclum apertum et terram auctorem et dominum, omniumque bonorum eius effectorem &c largitorem esse Filium hominis i. e. Messiam. lacob vidit Dominum stantem super scalam, qui ei promissiones confirmat et specialem promittit protectionem. Pro Domino stante super scalam habemus hic : videbitis coelum apertum, sensu eodem; proin protectionem coelestem, gratias, thesauros coelestes ita paratos et apertos, ut per angelos deferantur in terram. Unde videbitis idem erit ac re ipsa experiemini, cognoscetis, oculis mentis videbitis, per Messiam fieri ut bona coelestia terrigenis obveniant; in quo commercio utique partes haud exiguae angelis deputantur; videte ne contemnatis unum ex his pusillis; dico enim vobis, quia angeli eorum in coelis semper vident faciem Patris mei qui in coelis est (Matth. 18,10) et : nonne omnes sunt administratorii spiritus in ministerium missi propter eos qui hereditatem capiunt salutis (Hebr. 1,14)? Maiora itaque quae Iesus iis promittit cognoscenda seu videnda, est ipsum opus messianum : reconciliatio inter coelum et terram, bonorum coelestium in homines effusio (cf. Eph. 1,3; 3,10. Col. 1,20). Se vocat Iesus filium hominis, quae est designatio Messiae deprompta ex Dan. 7,13. 14 (vide quae dixi in Comment. Matth. I p. 325, Marc. p. 72; et vide postea ad 5,97). « Christus hic finem dicendi facit sinens illum dicta secum reputare nec volens omnia statim effundere, sed iacto in bonam terram semine sinit eam fructus per otium proferre » (Chr. Euth.). Cum quidam indolem historicam huius evangelii negent vel in dubium vocent, non erit abs re monere ut attendatur, quanta rei gestae veritate singula sub aspectum subiiciantur, quam accurate verba referantur et quanta simplicitate cuncta ita narrentur, ut rem coram geri fere videas. Porro ad quid haec fingerentur? Si quis voluisset gloriam Verbi extollere, sane non narrasset primos discipulos Iesum accepisse per alios ita ut ex quinque ipse solum unum immediate vocarit.
1:1
Trois articulations, scandées sur le même rythme : antériorité du logos à la création, son existence auprès de Dieu, sa participation à la nature divine. Ce sublime crescendo dans la révélation d’une pensée sûre d'elle-même suffirait à justifier la comparaison de la manière de Jean au vol de l'aigle. ἐν ἀρχῇ allusion évidente à Gen. 1, 1, non pas pour reprendre l'histoire évangélique 8 même point que l'histoire du monde, mais pour placer au delà ns du Verbe. Ionace, ad Magn. vi : Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, ὃς πρὸ αἰώνων παρὰ πατοὶ ἦν χαὶ ἐν τέλει ἐφάνη. Les Pères ont très bien compris ce renvoi, quelques-uns Éi4 trouver dans Gen. τ, 4 la même doctrine que dans Jo. en comprenant ἀρχή du Verbe. Ἱκέν. (Demonstratio. 43, trad. Weber) : Quem primus annuntiavit Moyses,.….et hoc translatum dicitur : Filius in principio, constituit Deus postea terram et coeum. Mais Jo. n'a pas nommé le Verbe ἀρχή; c'est plutôt celui qui est ἀπ᾽ ἀργῆς {£ Jo., 1, 1; n, 13.44). En soi, d’ailleurs, ἀρχή peut signifier principe, point de départ comme cause, ce qui n’est pas synonyme de commencement, car Dieu est un principe qui n'a pas commencé. Ainsi Paul ἃ nommé J.-C. ἀρχή, πρωτότοχος ἐκ τῶν νεχρῶν (Col. 1, 48), et même dans Apoc. τι, 44, il est h ἀρχὴ τῆς χτίσεως τοῦ θεοῦ. Mais ce passage doit être entendu selon la pensée de l'Apocalypse elle-même (cf. Allo, ad L. L.). Au moment où Dieu crée, le Verbe agit comme principe : il est donc à la fois sorti de lui et le premier principe des créatures. D'ailleurs, la difficulté n'existe pas pour l’évangile qui ne pose pas la question de savoir comment le Verbe ou J.-C. est principe, ni celle de son origine, mais pose simplement l'existence du Logos d’une façon absolue avant que rien n'ait commencé. La suite indique que cette antériorité est celle qui appartient à Dieu, c'est-à-dire l'éternité. — ἦν revient une seconde fois, avec πρὸς τὸν θεόν, marquant cette fois l’inhérence, et indirectement la distinction (Calmes). Si Jo. avait dit tout d'abord que le Logos était Dieu, on eût pu croire qu’il annonçait simplement que Logos était le nom qui convenait le mieux à Dieu. En réalité le Logos est d'une certaine facon distinct de Dieu, puisqu'il est auprès de lui dans une union très intime. On prétend que πρός ne signifie pas autre chose que παρά, pour répondre à Ia question : auprès de qui est-il? Il semble cependant qu'il y ἃ une nuance et que πρός exprime spécialement qu'on se tient proche d'une personne, et παρά qu'on habite ensemble (cf. 1v, 40; xiv, 23), c'est-à-dire que πρός indique mieux un contact. [ Jo. 1, 2 la vie ἥτις ἦν πρὸς τὸν πατέρα rappelle ce passage mieux que xv, ὅ : la gloire (notion plus extérieure) % εἶχον πρὸ τοῦ τὸν χόσμον εἶναι παρὰ σοί (cf. var. 38). L'union est donc très étroite, mais le Verbe n'est pas un attribut de Dieu; c'est ce qu'on nommerait naturellement dans la langue d'aujourd'hui une personne distincte. — ἦν, encore une fois, exprime l'identité. Ces trois imparfaits montrent le logos dans une situation immuable, et nous le comprenons maintenant que nous entendons que le Logos est Dieu. Jcan évite cette fois l'article. Avec l'article, θεύς signifie le seul être qui soit Dieu. De même que les Arabes distinguent üah οἱ allah : la ilah ill allah, il n’y ἃ de dieu que Dieu, Philon avait déjà mis en relief le sens plein de ὁ θεός. Sans article, θεός pouvait se dire par catachrèse et c'est dans ce sens que Philon nomme le Zogos dieu, c'est-à-dire par un emploi abusif : à propos de Gen. xxx, 43, ἐγώ εἶμι ὃ θεὸς 8 ὀφθείς σοι ἐν τόπῳ θεοῦ, il glose : «ne passe pas rapidement, mais examine exactement cette parole, pour savoir si réellement il y a deux dieux : Car ilest dit : « je suis Dieu (ὁ θεός) qui fai apparu », non pas « dans mon lieu » mais « dans un lieu de dieu » (θεοῦ), comme s'il y en avait un autre. Que faut-il donc dire? le Dieu en vérité est un, mais par abus de langage on parle de plusieurs. C’est pourquoi l'Écriture sainte dans cet endroit a fait mention du Dieu en vérité avec l'article, disant ἐγώ εἶμι ὃ θεός, mais pour celui qui ne l'est que par abus de langage, il dit « celui qui Va apparu dans le lieu non pas τοῦ θεοῦ, mais seulement θεοῦ, il nomme dieu maintenant son plus ancien logos ». (De Somniis, 1, 228-230). On voit que Philon excuse l'auteur sacré d’une catachrèse, et qu'il confesse en même temps ne pas prendre au sens strict le caractère divin du Logos. I ne se fait donc pas serupule d'employer des termes inexacts pour alteindre son but, qui est de concilier la doctrine juive et la conception philosophique des Grecs. On voit aussi quel abîme le sépare de Jean qui dit tout uniment que le Logos était Dieu, mettant même θεός (attribut) en tête de la phrase. L'absence d'article n'indique évidemment pas un dieu de second ordre (pour un monothéiste!}, ni un abus de langage, puisque l'affirmation est aussi nette que les deux premières. C'est le même Dieu, dont il vient d'être question, non pas avec une personnalité distincte, mais comme nature divine. Le Verbe est Dieu, comme il était auprès du seul Dieu, Il possède donc la nature divine sans être le seul de qui cela püt être affirmé. Que signifie λόγος ἢ En grec c'est le mot propre pour signifier « la parole mais c'est aussi « la raison ». Le logos des stoïciens était certainement la raison, quand il désignait l'élément actif et intelligent du monde, mais, quand ils interprétaient la mythologie, et disaient qu'Hermès était le logos, ils entendaient la parole. Et lorsqu'ils distinguaient un λόγος ἐνδιάθετος qui signifiait une pensée conçue dans l'esprit, et un λόγος προφοριχός, parole proférée, même dans le premier cas le logos-raison n'était plus seulement une faculté intérieure, mais une mise en mouvement de la raison. Si Jo. n'avait pas dépassé l'usage du mot λόγος dans l'A. T., il viserait ici la parole de Dieu, telle qu'elle avait été adressée aux prophètes, non point comme un son extérieur à la façon humaine, mais comme une pensée sortie de Dieu en forme de commandement, ayant un terme en dehors de lui. Si Jo. avait été inspiré par les stoïciens, il eût pu penser à la raison divine. Or son Logos n'est certainement pas une simple raison, qui se confondrait dans le monothéisme avec l'intelligence divine; autant valait-il dire νοῦς qui exprimait mieux la faculté. Mais il n’est pas non plus synonyme de la parole de Dieu dans les prophètes, puisqu'ici le Logos est avec Dieu, est Dieu, sans aucune allusion aux rapports de Dieu avec ses créatures. Il reste donc que c'est une parole immanente, un λόγος ἐνδιάθετος, et peut-être λόγος maurait-it pas été employé par Jo., si on ne s'était habitué à l'idée d'un logos intérieur. Augustin: est verbum ct in ipso homine, quod manet intus, nam sonus procedit ex ore. En latin le logos-raison avait été rendu ratio, le Jogos-parole répondait à sermo, et c'est l’expression dont se sert Tertullien ici ; mais les versions latines (sauf un ms.) ont traduit unanimement verbum, qui signifiait aussi parole mais avait moins que sermo le sens d’un discours, et qui sans doute a paru plus propre à rendre l'idée d’une parole intérieure. On a d’ailleurs compris la difficulté de traduire, et la version latine d'Irénée a conservé le mot logos “eus autem tous exisiens mens et tolus existens Logos, quod cogitat, hoc οὗ loquitur ; et quod loquitur, hoc et cogitat (H, xxvunr, ὃ). Il est clair qu'ici le Logos est celte individualité distincte que nous nommons une person ; Chrys. : οὗτος ὃὲ 6 λόγος οὐσία τίς ἔστιν ἐνυπόστατος.
1:2
Cette phrase résume les trois articulations précédentes, mais, comme Origène l’a fait remarquer, récapitulation ne signifie pas répétition; c’est plutôt une manière de lier les trois formules isolées. οὗτος, avec une certaine emphase ce Verbe dont j'ai dit qu'il était Dieu, qu'il était au commencement, et qu'il était auprès de Dieu, je dis que dès le commencement il était auprès de Dieu. — ἐν ἀρχῇ nous ramène encore au souvenir de la Genèse. Gelui qui alors était déjà a manifesté alors son action : érunsiturus ad eius insinuandam virtutem, prius collegit quasi in summa epilogando quue in primis tribus dixerat, în ἰδία una clausula (Thom.).
1:3
Nous renvoyons au v. suivant les preuves de la coupure de la Vg. — La leçon οὐδὲ ἕν n’est pas douteuse, mais la leçon οὐδέν (R D minn., des Valentiniens, ete.) peut très bien s'être produite fortuitement ou du moins sans intention dogmatique. C'est ainsi que dans Sros. Anfh. LIT, 35, 6 (Hense, III, 688) l'éditeur citant Philonide : ἅπαντ᾽ ἐρίζεις καὶ συνίης οὐδὲ ἕν, note οὐδὲ ἔν correxit S1, D'autres mss. avaient donc οὐδέν. Et que οὐδὲ ἕν puisse terminer une phrase, cela est prouvé par Épict. τι, 48, 26 : νῦν δὲ μόνον τὰ λογάρια καὶ πλέον οὐδὲ ἕν, cf. Ench. τ, 3 (cités par Bauer). Maldonat avait déjà fait remarquer dans la Bible ces additions d'apparence négative qui confirment la proposition principale en insistant, et cité Is. χχχιχ, 4: omnia quae sunt in domo mea viderunt, non fuit res quam non ostenderim eis, et Jer. xLu, # : omne verbum quodcumque responderit mihi, indicabo vobis, nec celabo vos quidquam. ll n'y a donc pas d'argument philologique qui contraigne à y ajouter ὃ γέγονεν, La question de la coupure doit être tranchée par d’autres motifs. D'autre part ὃ γέγονεν ajouté à οὐδὲ ἕν, loin d’être une tautologie, donne un sens excellent. On n'oserait dire avec Chrys. que Jo. ἃ voulu mettre hors de cause la personne du Saint-Esprit; c'est trop spécialiser. Mais il serait très naturel qu'après avoir élevé nos regards vers la vie divine, pour redescendre ensuite vers les choses créées, Jo. ait entendu délimiter rigoureusement ces dernières. Ce qui se passe au sein de Dieu est un mystère; les choses divines sont réservées. Quant à ce qui devient, tout cela devient par le Verbe. L'idée est énoncée d'une façon positive, puis tout doute sur quoi que ce soit (de créé) est exclu par une formule négative. C'est en cela que consiste la doctrine du verset, ὃ γέγονεν ne faisant qu'expliciter la restriction aux choses créées. -- πάντα indique mieux que τὰ πάντα (l'univers) l'origine de chaque chose. Quel est le rôle du Logos dans la création? δι᾿ αὐτοῦ indique un intermédiaire (1 Cor. vin, 6; Col. 1, 46) ce qui ne veut pas dire un instrument, comme a pensé Philon (Cherub. 172) : εὑρήσεις γὰρ αἴτιον μὲν αὐτοῦ (du monde) τὸν θεὸν ὑφ᾽ οὗ γέγογεν... ὄργανον δὲ λόγον θεοῦ δι᾽ οὗ χατεσχευάσθη. Le rôle d'instrument est exclu ici par la nature du Logos qui est Dieu. Cependant la tradition savait que Dicu avait créé le monde par sa parole et le même rôle avait été attribué à [ἃ sagesse de Dieu comme conseillère (Prov. var, 30; Sap. vi, 12). Le Logos, parole intérieure d’abord, c'est-à-dire concept intellectuel, était done bien celui par qui Dieu ἃ créé : Quicumque enim aliquid facit, oportet quod illud praeconcipiat in Su« sapientin.… Sic ergo Deus nihil operatur nisi per concepium sui intellectus, qui est sapientia ab aeterno concepla, seilicet Dei Verbum, et Dei Filius; et ideo impossibile est quod aliquid faciat nisi per Filium (Thom.). Le rôle de l'intelligence dans la création n'avait pas échappé aux Grecs, qui ont admiré l'ordre des choses. Mais en donnant Athéna comme conseillère à Zeus, ils divisaient la divinité en plusieurs dieux; cf. ARISTILE, Or. in Minerv. ΧΧΧΥΠ, ὃ : οὐ γὰρ ἄν ἄλλως ὃ Ζεὺς ἕχαστα διεῖλεν, εἰ μὴ πάρεδρόν τε καὶ σόυθουλον τὴν Ἀθηνᾶν παρεχαθίσατο. C'est sûrement la doctrine de saint Paul que Dieu a créé par Jésus-Christ, non point comme incarné, évidemment, mais comme Fils de Dieu : { Gor. voi, ὁ : εἶς θεὸς ὁ πατήρ, ἐξ οὗ τὰ πάντα καὶ ἡμεῖς εἰς αὐτόν, χαὶ εἷς κύριος ᾿[ησοῦς Χριστός, δι᾽ οὗ τὰ πάντα, οἱ Heb. 1,2 Dieu et son Fils : δι᾽ οὗ χαὶ ἐποίησεν τοὺς αἰῶνας. Dans ce dernier cas, Dieu est le sujet, el il n'est pas douteux que le Fils soit en quelque façon intermédiaire. [1 faut noter aussi Col. 1, 16 τὰ πάντα δι᾽ αὐτοῦ χαὶ εἰς αὐτὸν ἔχτισται, Où le Sens est le même, quoique celte fois τὰ πάντα soit le sujet. C'est le cas de notre verset. Le R. P. Lebrelon (Les origines du dogme de la Trinite, Le éd., p. 479) eslime que cette expression ne manifeste pas un principe inilial dont le Verbe serait l'agent ou le ministre. Mais si les termes d'agent et de ministre indiquent presque une subordination et sont à laisser de côté, on entrevoit bien le principe initial par le seul fait de la préposition διά, qui ne peut naturellement avoir pour régime la cause première. Il est vrai que d’après Chrys., Jo. a voulu relever la toute-puissance, d’après Hilaire l'éternité, d'après Augustin La consubstantialité du Verbe, mais Thomas a essayé de pénétrer plus avant, etil a constamment supposé le Père comme premier principe de la création. Quel est done le rôle du Verbe? On peut l'entendre par simple appropriation. Lorsqu'il s’agit d’une opération ad exira, c'est Dieu qui agit, sans distinction de personnes, mais il agit par sa sagesse, qu’on aftribue au Verbe. Mais il y ἃ plus : Si vero ly « per » denotet causalitatem ex parte operali (comme pour un instrument employé pour un but déterminé) tune hoc quod dicimus Patrem omnia per Filium facere, non est apprapriatum Verbo, sed proprium eius quia quod est causa creaturarum habet ab alio, scilicet a Patre ἃ quo habet ut sit; nec tamen propter hoc sequilur ipsum esse instrumentum Patris… et la raison c'est que le Fils opère par la vertu qu'il a reçue de son Père. Philon, qui n’admettait pas la divinité de son Logos pouvait le qualifier d'instrument (Cherub. 472). La pensée de Jo. est simplement que le Verbe qui était Dieu coopérait à la eréation de ioutes choses. étant la pensée que Dien avait conçue et qi exprimait au dehors en quelque facon. Le logos F collabore sans cesser d'ètre Dieu. τ “ 4&\ Nous avons joint ὃ γέγονεν à ce qui précède avee Ti Vos. contre HS, et parmi les commentateurs avec Schanz, Holtz. Grill, Eahn contre Calmes, etc. Sur Ia tradition : Soden cite pour là coupure (1) après ἕν WCRLAN) ΟΥ̓ quelques autres de la tradition d'Antioche, plus e a δῷ fer. les Nasséniens, les Valentiniens, Héracléon, Théodote. Ptolémée, tous gnostiques: parmi les catholiques : Théophile d'Antioche, Clément, Origène, Ensèbe, Cyrille de Jéresalem,. Athanase, Tertullien, Hilaire, Ambroise, Augustin. ἢ eùt pu et δὰ ajouter Irénée, Ambrosiaster, Crrille d'Alex. le sek. syrewr, probablement Tatien (HMces. 5) et Ephrem. D'après Zahn {Æxcursus, p. 709 Le plus ancien témoin connu pour l'autre cou pure ‘IF est Alexandre d'Alexandrie, au début des controverses sriennes. Elle ἃ été soutenue par Chrys. Théoët.. Jérûme. On pourrait donc préférer ls cou pure 1 d'abord comme plus ancienne, ensuite parce que la coupure Il 8. été introduite pour combattre l'arianisme. Celte seconde raison m'est cependant pas valable, parce qu'Ambroise et les autres adversaires de Farienisme nent va aucun inconvénient à soutenir la coupure L Quant à l'aneiennelé, elle est, Ἡ est vrai pour I, mais avec cette ponctuation du moins implicite ὃ series ἐν αὐτῷ, ζωὴ ἣν, Or la lecon n'a été soutenue par les catholiques, notamment par Aus. et Thomas. qu'en préférant expressément la ponclnation τ ὃ vers, ἐν so ζωὴ ἦν. D'ailleurs aucune de ces deux manières ne donne un sons satisfaisant, La manière la plus ancienne. celle des gnostiques. est impossible, parce que Je. n'a sûrement pas l'intention d'installer les créatures dans le Verbe. Origène, en les raillant, ἃ admis ün sens assez plausible : ce qui est devenu éans le Verbe, c'est-à-dire les hommes qui ont participé à sa vie. étaient vie, ei en ant αὐ Ἐξ étaient vie, ils étaient aussi hamière : εἴς ἂν et ζωὴ τῶν fabru, dr καὶ si ἔστι, mais il a eu le sentiment que ce sens demandait ἔξτι : τοῖς pére = ταῖν ἀντινοάξων ἔχει, χαὶ τάχα οὖχ ἀπιθάνως" ὃ y. ἔστον, Et surtout l'ohiection est'que Jo. parle du Verbe qui était la lumière des hommes, non de la vie et de la lumière dans les hommes. d'autant qu'ils ont agi contre cette lumière. La manière d'Augustin aboutit à un sens admissible en soi : les créatures sont vie quand elles sont dans le Verbe avant d'exister, c'est-à-aire daus le Verte comme cause exemplaire : foris corpora suaf, in arte via suuf | dug.). À cela en doit objecter que st juste que soit le concept en lui-mème, il serait exprimé d'une façon bien énigmatique, et il n'aboutiraït à rien dans le contexte de Je. Les créatures ne sont ici que comme l'œuvre du Lagos. C'est lui qui est seul en scène : il est la Vie et aussi [ἃ Lumière. Que les créatures soient vie en li avant d'exister, cela est hors de propos et cela contrarie mème Httérairement l'attribution au Verbe seul de la Vie. Ce n'est pas en tant que cause exemplaire des créatures que le Verbe est la Vie, est la Lumière : il l'est essentiellement. On notera aussi que dans les deux manières il serait peu grammatieal de faire du parfait ὃ γέγονεν le sujet de l'imparfait ἕν. Ce qui est devenu eæiste, et Cest sans doute pour remédier à celle difficulté qu'est néc la Jecon ἔστιν au lieu de ἦν 15, soutenu par HD af Λε ayreur. sa, c'est-à-dire qu'elle 4 ét jugée indispessable par dé nombreux représentants de la coupure T. C'est dire qu'elle ἃ le “caractère d'une correction : l'en résulte qu'on ne peut pas l'admetire, ni lexégése qui 16 rendaïl nécessaire : Aug. lisait vite est. Thomas devait lire erut, mais il cormente comme 5 y avait est : secundum quoi sunt in Verbo. Bover à bien reconnu l'impossibilité d'aboutir à une exégèse solide avec 18 coupure 1; ἢ yremédie en effaçant Ὁ γέγονεν, qu'il est si simple de joindre ἃ ce qui précède. Loisy explique ἐν αὐτῷ « en cela». Au lieu de dire siraplement : «ce qui fut avait fa vie », 6€ qui serait assez banal dans ce contexte, Jo. aurait dit « ce qui fut, en cela méme il y avait de la vie ». Mais comment célte vie participée devient-elle la lumière dés hommes? Cette solution est encore plus désespérée, car ἐν αὐτῷ ne peut s'entendre que du Verbe. Loisy reconnait d’ailleurs (p. 91) que 14 coupure Τ| « paraît commandée par le sens ». Quant à sa difficulté que la loi rythmique du morceau serait outrageusement viclée, elle confend un rsthme toujours assez souple avec un rmétré strict, Burney suppose un araméen NT signifiant « car était » en Jui la vie, rendu : « ce qui arriva Mais outre que nous avons à expliquer un texte grec, on ne voit pas comment la Vie serait ja cause de la créalion et au méme temps (ἦν; la lumière de Yhumanité créée, Le texte prétendu primitif serait plus obscur que le grec qui serait censé le résultat d’un malentendu. 4π' Ce qui regarde la création est terminé au v. 3 par une formule qu'on trouve pléonastique, mais qui est seulement arrondie et définitivement close. Il n'y avait pas à dire que ie Verbe était Créateur parce que vivant, d'autant que la création comprend des étres qui ne vivent pas. C'est donc un retour vers le Verbe, mais qui n'est plus nommé le Verbe, parce que 10. voulait faire appapaitre deux idées importantes de l'évangile : vie et lumière, atiribuis essentiels du Fils de Dieu Sauveur de l'humanité. D'aprés Loisy, le Christ dira : «je auis Ja Vie » Jo. xx, 25 ; χιν, 6), parce que « le Verbe devient lumière et vie pour les hommes par son incarnation 5 (Loisy, 4°, p. 461;. Mais nous n'en s0rnmes pas evendant ce n’est pas là une théorie, sur le Verbe en soi, à l'incarnation. Et C auquel cas Jo. aurait peut-être dit : « Le logos élait vie », mais un acheminement ἃ Fœuvre du salut. Il m'est pas probable qu'en évitant de dire : « ἢ était la vie 10. ait éprouvé un serupule d'attribuer à Dieu Ja vie. ἢ l'a affirmé au contraire {1 Jo. 1, 5. C'est comme philosophe que Phiion répugnait à atiribuer à Dieu une qualité qui paraissait indiquer une succession; aussi a-t-il dif que Dieu est plus que la vie (De fuga et int. 36; Cohn, ΤΠ, 452) ὁ 3e Vans πλέον τὶ ἡ, ζωὴ, πη ταῦ Lis, ὡς αὐτὸς εἶπεν, ἀένναος. Mais Jo. ne se préoccupait pas de ces distinctions métaphysiques (Griz, p. 210}. Envisageant le Verbe avant son Incarnation, non pas en lui-même, mais par rapport aux hommes, il était plus indiqué de dire « en lui était la vie », donc il pouvait la communiquer, que de dire : « il était la vie », ce qu’on eût pu entendre de toute la vie divine. 45) L'article cetie fois devant ζωή, comme pour dire : cette vie dont il vient d'être question; ef. Apoc. iv, 2. Cette vie était la lumière des hommes. Ὀὰ l'on voit bien que c'était à cause d'eux qu’il en ἃ été fait mention. La vie véritable d’un être qui est esprit, est une vie spirituelle; donnée aux hommes c'est la ζωὴ μετὰ φρονήσεως (Philon, 1. 1.); en elle-même elle est donc une lumière pour l'intelligence. Cette déduction est assurément logique. C'est un fait cependant que Vie et Lumière ne se trouvent aussi étroitement associées que dans Île Ps. xxxv, 10 : ὅτι παρὰ σοὶ πηγὴ ζωῆς" ἐν τῷ φωτί σου ὀψύμεθα φῶς. On peut seulement comparer Baruch, τα, 44 : ποῦ ἐστιν μακροθίωσις καὶ ζωή, ποῦ ἐστιν φῶς ὀφθαλμῶν χαὶ εἰρήνη, qui doit s'entendre de la vie et de la paix dans le service de Dieu. Philon n'offre rien de semblable. Il serait étrange que Jo. ait tiré toute sa théorie d'un passage isolé. C'est parce que le Christ lui est apparu comme une source de vie spirituelle dont l’action commençait par la lumière, qu’il ἃ dès le début posé ce rapprochement. Jo. dit encore ἦν : nous ne sommes donc pas encore à l’Incarnation, qui apparaît tout au plus au v. suivant avec φαίνει. Mais c'est trop spécialiser que de s'arrêter au Paradis (contre Schanz). Même avant l’Incarnation, tout ce que les hommes avaient de lumière utile, venant de La vie et conduisant à la vie, leur venait du Verbe. Pourquoi du Verbe, et non pas simplement de Dieu, comme l’affirme la théologie lorsqu'il s'agit des actions divines ad extra? Mais la théologie admet aussi les attributions de ccrlains actes à une personne divine, comme on attribue au Verbe ce qui regarde la vérité, à l’Esprit-Saint ce qui regarde la charité. Dans le contexte de Jo., le Verbe seul s'étant incarné pour éclairer les hommes et les sauver, il était très conséquent de lui attribuer la révélation antérieure, comme au docteur de l’humanité, préludant à son action définitive. On sait comment saint Justin ἃ accentué et développé cette idée du Logos révélateur dans l'A. T. et parmi les gentils; c’est ainsi que Socrate a connu le Christ « partiellement, car il était et est la raison partout présente, et c'est lui qui a prédit l'avenir, par les prophètes et par lui-même en devenant semblable à nous », etc. (11 Apol. x, trad. Puech; cf. LAGRANGE, Saint Justin, Ὁ. 137 ss.).
1:5
Ce verset offre deux difficultés : A) quel est le sens littéral? B) de quel temps faut-il l'entendre ? A) De toute façon il y a une comparaison. Le Verbe est comparé, non pas à la lumière qui paraît dans sa splendeur et qui dissipe les ténèbres (1 10. 11, 8), mais à une lumière qui est seulement assez claire pour guider quelqu'un qui est dans les ténèbres. De toute façon aussi, Jo. ne s'intéresse pas à une lutte cosmique des ténèbres contre la lumière, mais à l'attitude des hommes à l'égard de la lumière. On peut cependant l'entendre de deux manières, selon le sens donné à xarélabev. 19 Le sens de χαταλαμδάνω au propre est « saisir », non pas ici pour s’approprier, car la voix moyenne serait alors plus naturelle (Act. IV, 18; x, 34; Eph. τη, 18 et Sir. xvi, 7); ce devrait être ici saisir pour entraver, dominer (les Pères Grecs, Zahn, sens difficile à établir : on a cité xn, 35, où c’est plutôt « surprendre »). Alors la lutte s'engagerait entre la lumière et les ténèbres qui représentent les hommes : ces derniers seraient comparés à un brouillard de plus en plus épais, qui menace d’offusquer la lumière. 20 Mais χαταλαμδάνω, comme le latin comprehendere peut avoir le sens de « comprendre », la métaphore étant résolue dans l’ordre intellectuel : cf. PaiLow, de mut. nom, ἀν 1, p.879; Pouvse, Hist. VIII, 2(4), 6; Denys D'IaL. An. V, 46, 3; Épict. 1, 5, 6, mais non Pap. Tebt. 15, ὃ; 38, 18, cités par Bauer). L’an de ces deux sens suffit, et il est inutile de supposer (Βαϊ, cité par Burney) que κατέλαδεν était en araméen Drap au sens d’obscurcir (Am. v, 8), que le traducteur grec aurait mal compris et traduit par recevoir. Conjecture inutile, car le sens propre de χαταλαμδάνω équivaudrait presque à l’idée d'obscurcir, mais avec plus de vraisemblance, car les hommes ne peuvent avoir la prétention extravagante d’obscurcir positivement la lumière divine, à la facon dont la nuit succède au jour dans Amos. B) À quel moment sommes-nous : avant l'Incarnation ou quand elle se produit? L'indication donnée par les deux verbes paraît contradictoire : 15 φαίνει au présent plane au-dessus des temps, comme ἈΠῸ action divine. Mais Bauer ἃ noté le mélange de l'imparfait et du présent pour marquer l’action de Dieu μόνων ἀγαθῶν ἐστιν ὁ θεὸς αἴτιος... ἐπειδὴ χαὶ τὸ πρεσδύτατον τῶν ὄντων χαὶ τελειότατον ἀγαθὸς αὐτὸς ἦν (ΡΗπΟΝ, de conf. ling. 180: 1, p. 432). Par là même il semble que 18 Verbe ἃ brillé sur les hommes dès leur création. 2° Mais l'aoriste κατέλαδεν semble plutôt indiquer une occasion déterminée, comme l’Incarnation. Dans ce cas le v. 5 serait comme une première esquisse, SOUS une forme métaphorique, de ce qui sera dit plus loin (10.14) οὐκ ἔγνω, où παρέλαθον. On peut déjà conclure que À 4° comme sens littéral, indiquerait B 1° comme époque, tandis que À 2° conduirait à B 2°. Dans le premier sens c'est la lutte des ténèbres contre la lumière avant Fincarnation, sans que leur situation réciproque soit changée, l'ambiance générale luttant en vain contre la lumière qui d’ailleurs ne déploie pas tout son éclat. Dans le second sens les ténènres s'entendent plus nettement des hommes qui se comportent comme ils l'ont fait au moment de l'incarnation. I est difficile de se prononcer. On peut objecter contre le second sens, soutenu par Calmes, Loisy, Schanz, Holtz., οἷο, une sorte de va-et-vient, puisque Jean va nous être présenté comme le précurseur de la lumière. Mais cela même est bien dans ia manière de Jo., habitué à proposer ses idées sous une forme de plus en plus claire (voir Introduction, Ῥ. xcvr). On entendra donc φαίνει du moment où la lumière, qui est par nature une lumière pour les hommes, brille pour un dessein particulier et dans une circonstance donnée et n'est pas comprise.
1:6
ἐγένετο est placé après les lignes du début, précisément comme dans Mc. x, & et Lc. 1, 5, pour indiquer le commencement d'une histoire. ΠῚ y a une opposition entre ἦν (6 fois dans 1-4), l'être permanent, et ἐγένετο, le devenir, mais non pas précisément comme au v. 2 où le monde devient par le Verbe, comme si Jean en était distinct par le fait de n'être qu’une simple créature. C'est plutôt qu'à un temps indéfini, plus conforme à la nature éternelle du Verbe, succède une intervention dans l’histoire. Jean advint, et c'était un envoyé de la part de Dieu; ἀπεσταλμένος indique une qualité, plutôt qu'une action, car il ne se relie pas à ἐγένετο comme si les deux mots étaient un équivalent de ἀπεστάλη. — Le nom de Jean complète la physionomie humaine de cet envoyé de Dieu, envoyé après tant d'autres. Mais sa mission était trop spéciale pour que Jo. l'ait qualifié simplement de prophète. D'autre part il ἃ évité de lui attribuer un rôle distinct et personnel en rappelant son surnom de Baptiste. Quoique ce nom de Jean ait été très répandu, on ne pouvait se tromper sur celte personnalité. — La formule ὄνομα αὐτῷ ’luéwnepeut passer pour sémitique (Burney), mais elle est grecque aussi; cf. Oxyrh. m1, 465, 42 ὄνομα αὐτῷ ἔστιν Νεδύ (Deb. 8 144).
1:7
Entendu dans l’ordre physique, ce v. serait encore plus étonnant que le x. 5. La lumière ἃ en elle-même son évidence. À quoi servirait un témoignage sur la lumière? À moins qu’on ne suppose un témoin placé à l’entrée de la caverne de Platon, ce qui n'est pas indiqué. La lumière est donc ici une clarté spirituelle, le Verbe vérité que les hommes n'ont pas compris. Il faut désormais qu'ils croient en lui, et il convient qu'il ait un témoin. Cette notion du témoin, une des idées maîtresses de Jo., apparaît ici pour la première fois. μαρτυρέω signifie proprement affirmer ce qu'on ἃ vu pour fixer la conviction des autres, spécialement des juges dans un procès, d’où le sens large d’attester, c’est-à-dire d'affirmer une conviction, et le sens spécial de rendre justice à quelqu'un, plus précisément d'obliger à lui rendre justice. L'attestation est le sens normal dans l'Islam, et comme sa formule propre « j'atteste que Dieu est Dieu », etc.; dans Epictète (τ, 29, 47-49.56; τι, 22, 86: IV, 8, 32), le juste par sa conduite rend témoignage à Dieu, il est son témoin, il le justifie des reproches élevés contre sa Providence. Mais ici « témoigner » a sa valeur primitive. La lumière sera voilée, le Verbe apparaîtra sous une forme étrangère. Jean est celui qui sait, et qui témoigne, de facon que par lui (δι᾽ αὐτοῦ) les autres puissent croire, Comment Jean a-t-il été informé, cela sera expliqué plus tard. En progrès sur ἐγένετο (v. 6) qui ne précisait pas le rôle de Jean, ἦλθεν le montre s’avançant pour un témoignage, à savoir celui qu'il devait rendre à la lumière. C’est sa raison d’être historique. πάντες indique bien que le témoignage de Jean avait une portée universelle pour ceux qui l'ont entendu d'abord, puis pour ceux auxquels ses paroles ont té transmises d’une manière sûre. Π était difficile d'élever plus haut le rôle de Jean dans l'économie du salut. Mais il allait de soi que d'autres seraient associés à cette fonction de témoins, que l’évangéliste revendiquera pour lui-même (v. 44).
1:8
Cette insistance étonne, et le v. a presque l'air d’une répétition. On convient que Jo. n'a nullement l'intention de rabaisser Jean dont l'attitude vis-à-vis de Jésus est si profondément humble. Il ne semble pas non plus qu'il ait voulu brider les prétentions d’une secte qui se réclamait de Jean (Baldensperger), ni même la sourde opposition des Juifs tendant à opposer Jean à Jésus (Bauer). 1] est plus vraisemblable que Jo. suit son desscin très arrèté de mettre Jésus dans une situation tout à fait inaccessible aux autres spécialement dans une autre sphère que Jean (cf. 1, 15.49-27.29-34; nr, 26-36; v, 33-36; x, 40 5.). Jean n’est pas {a lumière, et il ne semble méme pas qu'il soit une lumière. IL n’y ἃ en présence que la lumière et celui qui lui rend témoignage, qui sera qualifié de lampe (v, 35), ou de support pour la lumière. — ἐχεῖνος est un peu atténué, comme il arrive dans Jo. (Deb. 8 291, 6), pour désigner la même personne que οὗτος (7). — ἀλλ᾽ ἵνα est une tournure elliptique. 11 ne faut sousentendre ni ἦν, ni ἦλθεν, mais « cela est arrivé »; c'est ainsi que Me. xiv, 49 ἃ été développé par Mt. xxvi, 56 τοῦτο δὲ ὅλον γέγονεν vx... La même ellipse Jo. 1x, 3; x, 18; xv, 25; 10. 1, 19. Dans notre verset on pourrait supposer un texte araméen de signifiant : il était « celui qui » devait rendre témoignage, et que ce de ἃ élé pris pour une conjonction (Burney); mais les autres cas cités ne comportent pas cette explication, et ils sont sur le même type.
1:9
Deux opinions : a) les anciens, Schanz, Kn., Burney, joignent ἐρχόμενον à ἄνθρωπον, avec les anciennes versions, sauf la sahidique, du moins en partie. Schlatter (p. 48 5.) a cité ». Lev. xxx, 6 : « tu éclaires ceux d'en haut, et ceux d'en bas, et tous ceux qui viennent dans le monde » (y 1N2-0D), Ce rapprochement avec une tournure rabbinique fréquente est très séduisant. Mais il faut noter (Zahn) que chez les Rabbins « ceux qui viennent dans le monde » est une expression pour remplacer les hommes, non pour les désigner mieux. Car ou bien ce serait une tautologie pour dire : « Tous les hommes qui naissent », ou αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο, nai ὁ κόσμος αὐτὸν oùx ἔγνω. 1} Εἰς τὰ ἴδια ἦλθεν, χαὶ οἵ bien ce serait dans un sens précis : « Tout homme au moment où il vient au monde », ce qui serait faux, Jean doit donc être entendu d’après son texte, sans recourir à une alliance: de mots étrangère au N. T. et même au rabbinisme qui n’a pas « tout homme δ) Les modernes après Théodore de Mopsueste, Loisy, Holtz., Bauer, Calmes, Vogels, etc. mettent une virgule après ἄνθρωπον, de sorte que ἐρχόμενον se rattache à ἦν, imparfait dont τὸ φῶς est le sujet. La séparation des deux parties du verbe étonne un peu; mais elle est dans le style de Jo. cf. 11, 6; x, 40; Ces cas ne sont pas précisément des imparfaits périphrastiques à la manière de l’araméen, car le verbe substantif garde une valeur propre et un certain accent sur l'idée d’être (cf. Introd., Ὁ. civ). Cette coupure n'étant pas contraire à l'usage de la langue, elle est certainement préférable pour le sens, car l’autre n’aboutit qu’à une expression explétive, tandis que celle-ci amène précisément l'idée qui est en situation après que le v. 6 s'est placé sur le terrain de l'histoire évangélique, la venue de la lumière; ἐρχόμενον la montre s'avançant, comme Jésus vint au baptême de Jean. Après la mention du Baptiste, c’est bien ce que semble indiquer l'image, mais le contexte n'y conduit pas, et s’en tient à la venue du Verbe. — τὸ ἀληθινόν, non pas la lumière sensible, mais la lumière spirituelle, véritable parce que divine; cf. vi, 32; xv, 1, — La parenthèse ὃ φωτίζει rappelle le φαίνει du v. 5, au présent aussi, parce que c'est l'office de cette lumière. d'éclairer tous les hommes. Cette lumière, qui éclaire d'en haut, venait alors, quand Jean était là pour lui rendre témoignage. — Sur le xdouos, un des concepts favoris de Jo., avec des nuances variées, cf. xvir, 9.
1:10
I! semble bien que Jo. ἃ délibérément évité ἐγένετο pour le Verbe jusqu’au v. 14, de sorte que ἦν ἃ pu paraître aux Anciens se rapporter comme au début à l'existence éternelle du Verbe. Cependant il n'y a aucune difficulté d'entendre: cet imparfait comme une conséquence de celui du v. 9. S'étant dirigé vers le monde, le Verbe était dans le monde. La philosophie ne serait pas embarrassée de montrer comment Dieu peut être dit dans le monde, sicut causa effciens et conservans... ut dans esse mundo (Thom.), ou comme dit Augustin : Deus autem mundo tnfusus fabricat, ubique positus fabricat mais précisément cette action créatrice va être mentionnée. Le plus naturel est donc de penser que le Verbe: était dans le monde sicut locatum in loco, comme le fut Jésus. Le sujet de ἦν est toujours la fumière, maïs la lumière était le Logos, et nous revenons insensiblement à la notion du Logos. De toute éternité auprès de Dieu, le Logos est maintenant dans le monde, et c'est bien de lui qu'il s’agit, puisque Jo. rappelle, comme au v. 3 que le monde a été créé par lui. Saint Thomas a très bien vu la correspondance du début et du v. 9 ets. Εἰ ideo totum hoc quod sequitur ab illo loco, Erat lux vera, videtur quaedam explicatio superiorum. Seulement cette explication, au lieu d'être une répétition assez oiseuse, est du plus grand effet entendue comme ane application au Verbe incarné de ce qui avait été dit. du Verbe au v. 3. — Jo. explique maintenant en langage clair que cette lumière du Verbe, par lequel le monde avait été créé, ἃ été méconnue par ce monde. « Le monde » remplace ici les ténèbres. Si donc on entendait le v. 5 405 temps antérieurs à l'Incarnation, il faudrait en dire autant de ce v. (Aug. Thôm.); mais précisément il se continue par le v. 41, qui est vraiment une allusion au ministère du Christ, de sorte qu’il y a ici comme une indication subséquenie que le v. 5 lui-même regardait l'incarnalion. D'ailleurs le pronom masc. αὐτόν indique bien que Jo. ne poursuit pas plus longtemps le thème de la lumière. Ce masculin c’est peut-être le Logos, mais en même temps la personnalité historique à laquelle l'évangéliste pense déjà, ét dont il prépare la manifestation de cette facon mystérieuse. Au v. 11, cette personne agira comme tout autre homme. — Le second καί signifie presque « et cependant » (cf. Introduct., p. ci).
1:11
Ce verset est manifestement un crescendo ou une spécialisation du précédent : et comment méconnaitre qu'il s’agit de la venue historique du Verbe — Lumière — Jésus? Sur le sens des ἴδιοι les avis sont partagés. Il n'est pas douteux que ce mot indique une appartenance très étroite : τὰ ἴδια c'est le home, le chez soi (Esth. v, 10: vi, 42); cf. P. Tor. 1,8, 21 (449 av. J.-C.) εἰς τὰς ἰδίας αὐτῶν μετοικιαῇῆναι, etc. El les ἴδιοι sont les commensaux, ceux qui habitent la même demeure. Mais quels sont-ils ici? a) Les Juifs (Schanz, Calmes, Till, Zahn, Kn.), parce qu'ils sont le peuple particulier de Dieu, ce qui est reconnu de tous, et surtout parce que c'est seulément de cette facon que le verset avance sur la situation du v. 10. b) Les hommes en général (Thom., Holtz. 2e éd., Ieit., Grill, Loisy, Bauer). En effet rien n'indique les Juifs en particulier. Ayant créé le monde, ie Verbe y était chez lui, et les hommes lui appartenaient. Puisque Jean ἃ identifié le Christ avec le Logos, il faut lui laisser le bénéfice de cette vue si large : πᾶς ἄνθρωπος κατὰ τὴν διάνοιαν ὠχείωται λύγῳ θείῳ, ἃ dit Philon, précisément à propos de la création (De Opif. mundi 146; I, 35, cité par Bauer). Entre ces deux opinions on peut hésiter, comme Chrys. Mais si la seconde parait plus dans l'esprit du Prologue, la première, incontestablement, indique un thème principal de l'évangile, pour lequel le Prologue a été composé. Le Verbe qui est partout n’est venu en somme qu'en Judée, où il était vraiment parmi les siens. 1] serait ciseux de rappeler tous les textes qui signalent l'appartenance spéciale d'Israël à son Dieu, caractère qui n'est pas méconnu par l'évangile. Et méme à s'en tenir à la structure du Prologue, on ne voit pas dans la seconde opinion ce que Île v. ajouterait à ce qui précède; sans doute la conduite des hommes parait plus odieuse s'ils sont qualifiés de ἴδιοι, mais ce titre même suggère un crescendo réel en suite d'un rapport partieulier avec ceux qui, en fait, n'ont pas reçu le Verbe. 12 s.) En suivant la lecon commune des mss., ces deux versets forment un ensemble dont il faut indiquer le sens général : c’est l'avantage de l’Incarnation pour les hommes. L'accueil qu'ils avaient fait à la Lumière, spécialement les Juifs, semblait représenter sa venue comme un échec. Il ne pouvait en être ainsi. D'autres lui ont donné satisfaction, ce qui, de l’homme à Dieu, signifie s'ouvrir à ses bienfaits. Et comme la venue du Verbe dans le monde est une union avec la chair, en d'autres termes une naissance, le bienfait accordé aux hommes qu'il voulait semblables à lui est la faculté de devenir enfants de Dieu. Ce sera le cas de tous ceux qui auront reçu le Logos, dans lequel nous avons déjà reconnu le Christ. Le recevoir, d'après l’économie nouvelle, c'est croire en lui : hoc est recipere eum, in eum credere (Thom.). Jusque-là aucune difficulté. Mais quel est le rapport entre : devenir enfants de Dieu, et être nés de Dieu? Deux opinions a) Chrys., Thom., Mald., Schanz, Calmes, Loisy, pensent que la génération ou la naissance est présupposée à une action de la volonté qui rend enfant. En effet ἐγεννήθησαν est à l’aoriste, et τέχνα θεοῦ γενέσθαι indique un devenir qui après le don de la faculté (ἐξουσία) suppose un effort humain. Même les baptisés peuvent devenir enfants de Dieu plus parfaitement, s'unir à lui, et devenir vraiment ses enfants dans la vie éternelle : Dedit eis, qui eum receperunt, potestatem, idest infusionem gratiae, filios Dei fieri, bene operando, et gloriam acquirendo (Thom. 1° modo). Ce système est parfaitement concu; mais il se heurte à une difficulté insurmontable. On ne devient pas enfant de Dieu quand on l'est déjà. Or le chrétien est absolument enfant de Dieu dès cette vie, comme V’affrme 1 Jo. mr, À s., qui semble réserver pour la vie future un autre terme νῦν τέχνα θεοῦ ἐσμεν, καὶ οὕπω ἐφανερώθη τί ἐσόμεθα. En réalité Maldonat transerit tout uniment filii par haeredes, tandis que la qualité d'héritier est une conséquence de la filiation : si fit, et haeredes (Rom. vi, 17). δ) I semble donc (Holtz., Bauer, Heit.) que le v. 43 soit l'explication de la manière dont on devient enfant de Dieu. C'est par une naissance divine. Nom sè non nascuntur, filit quomodo esse possunt (Aug.)? Le verbe γενέσθαι ne suppose pas un intervalle entre la naissance et la qualité d'enfant de Dieu. Par le fait de la naissance, la qualité est acquise, et c'est notre argument contre la première opinion. Mais la naissance étant la base de la relation peut être conçue comme antérieure, d'où l'aoriste ἐγεννήθησαν, et la qualité, en parlant des hommes, est pour eux une chose acquise : ils deviennent, ce qu'ils n'étaient pas el ne pourraient être naturellement. En somme, de la part des hommes, il y ἃ une première démarche de bonne volonté. Jo. ne dit pas qu’elle ait lieu sans la grâce, mais il ne l'attribue pas non plus à la grâce dans cet endroit : il reviendra sur ce sujet (νι, 44), Cette démarche ouvre la voie au don divin : Dieu donne à ceux qui la font la faculté de devenir enfants de Dieu, ce qu'ils n'étaient pas et ne pouvaient devenir sans un don spécial. Suit une double explication : du côté de l'homme, cetle démarche c'est la foi; en regardant vers Dieu, devenir enfant de Dieu, c’est être engendré par lui d'une facon spirituelle, qui n’a rien de commun avec la génération charnelle.
1:12
ὅσοι tous ceux qui. Au temps de Jean, chacun savait que la perspective ouverte ici était indéfinie : personne n’était exclu du salut proposé à tous. Néanmoins, dans le sens historique, Jo. fait allusion à ceux dont la conduite fut en contraste parfait avec ceux qui n'ont pas recu la lumière ni celui qui était la lumière. Dès le prologue nous voyons donc se dessiner la grande opposition qui domine tout l'évangile et qui ἃ même influé sur son plan (οἵ, Introd. — ἔλαδον opposé à où rapéhafov, sans nuance appréciable. Ceux qui ont tout à fait reçu le Christ sont déjà enfants de Dieu. Mais en expliquant que ceux-ci sont les croyants, Jo. distingue une première adhésion confiante, une certaine docililé à recevoir l’enseignement, de la régénération qui ἃ lieu par le baptême, comme il l’expliquera plus tard (mr, 3.5). — ἐξουσία signifie primitivement le pouvoir de faire telle ou telle chose, la libre disposition des choses. Ce sens est fréquent dans la foinè (MM.), c’est le sens dans Jo.; il n’y ἃ pas à faire intervenir ici la notion de droit, titre, privilège. L'homme a donc le libre pouvoir de devenir enfant de Dieu : mais c'est par un don spécial de Dieu, ensuite de la venue du Verbe. Il n'est pas dit que cette action ne sera pas consentie par l'homme, mais le terme étant [a génération par Dieu, il est bien évident que ce sera surtout l'œuvre de Dieu. Nous ieterprétons donc ἐξουσία comme on le fait dans la première opinion ci-dessus: mais l'action humaine est antérieure ou concomitante à l'acquisition, non postérieure. Selon les termes de la théologie, cette faculté surnaturelle s'exerce par la grâce actuelle : Ideo dat (Deus) polestatem movendo liberum arbitrium hominis, ut consentiat ad susceptionem gratiae (Thom.). τς τοῖς πιστεύουσιν se rattache à αὐτοῖς, qui lui-même se rattache à ὅσοι, C'est une explication sur la facon dont on recoit la lumière. Dans l'ordre intellectuel on adhère à la vérité par la science ou par la foi. Comme il s’agit d’une lumière voilée, l'économie du salut est dans le second mode, comme Jo. l’a déjà indiqué au v. 7.
1:13
A la génération spirituelle qui est entièrement due à Dieu, Jo. oppose Îa génération humaine. C'est-à-dire qu'il expose ce que n'est pas la génération dont le propre est de venir de Dieu. Pour la génération humaine, il faut le dessein arrêté de l'homme, au sens de vr, de l'individu homo du sexe maseulin; c’est lui qui prend l'iniliative de l'union matrimoniale. Il faut aussi un désir de l'union charnelle, qui est naturellement commun aux deux époux. Π faut enfin cette cause matérielle qui est la semence, nommée plus noblement le sang. C'est ainsi qu'ont compris les anciens; cf. P. Lips. 1, 28, 16. (381 ap. J.-C.) πρὸς τὸ εἶναί σου υἱὸν γνήσιον χαὶ πρωτότοκον ὡς ἐξ ἔδίου αἴματος x γηθέντα σοι (HW). Dans notre verset cet ordre est renversé, afin que la volonté de l'homme seit rapprochée de l'origine divine pour accentuer le contraste. — ἐξ αἱμάτων. Le pluriel a été expliqué par plusieurs anciens du double sang de inormme et de la femme (Aug, eic.). On ne peut guère songer à une influence sémitique, car les LXX ont très rarement le pluriel, mème quand le sang est répandu, auquel cas le grec emploie aussi le pluriel. Dans Evripide (Jer δα on trouve le pluriel pour désigner la parenté, mais c'est un usage poétique. est vrai que Jean dans Apoc. xix, 18.21 et Jac. v, 3 disent « les chairs », et Ay avait peut-être une tendance à meltre le pluriel au lieu du singulier; cependant Jo. dans le cas présent n'a pas employé ce pluriel rare sans une intention, telle que Fa comprise Augustin. Pour celte allusion au sang on peut comparer Hénoch, xv, ὁ ἐν τῷ αἴματι τῶν γυναικῶν ἐμιάνθητε, χαὶ ἐν αἵματι σαρχὸς ἐγεννήσατε, nat ἐν αἵματι ἀνθρώπων irclumenre M «καὶ ἐποιήσατε» χαθὼς χαὶ αὐτοὶ ποιοῦσιν σαοχὰ χαὶ alue … Sans conclure à une dépendance directe, on raltachera au mème genre d'esprit sémitique cetie« insistance sur le sang et la chair à propos de la génération. et cela expliquerait la longueur de la descripiion négative de Jo. Γ — θέλημα est au sens propre pour désigner une volonté délibérée, celle de l'homme. Il est étonnant que le même terme désigne l'instinct sexnel. Aussi Aug. a-t-il écrit : ponitur ergo caro pro uæcre, ce qui n'est plus un sens ltiéral. do. a très bien pu employer une fois θέλημα dans le sens de désir {M Che.rx, 42; Is. vit, 3. 43), et dans un sens plus rationnel conau aussi de la Bible grecque. Ce mot, presque étranger au grec profane, se retrouve dans les écrits hermétiques Venons maintenant à l'examen de la lecon concurrente. Au lieu de ἐγεννήθησαν, Loisy et Zahn lisent ἐγεννήθη, le premier avec & qu début, au lieu de οἵ, le second en supprimant le relatif. Zahn a probablement “ senti l'inconvénient de rattacher une confession de foi distincte et importante à un pronom tel Τυ αὐτοῦ (v. 12). Mais sa construction est encore plus invraisemblable, et il se prive de l'appui de quelques textes. Dans ce qui suit nous envisageons seulement le texte ὃς... ἐγεννήθη. Quels sont ses témoins? Justin (Dial. Lui, 21 : ὡς τοῦ αἵματος αὐτοῦ οὐχ ἐξ ἀνθοωπείου SRISUXTES γεγευνεεένου ἀλλ᾽ ἐκ θελήματος θεοῦ. Cf. D. μὲν, 2; get, 45 exxva, 4. Dans I Apol. wxg, 89 πλύνων τὴν στολὴν αὐτοῦ ἐν αἵματι σταφυλῆς (Gen. xx, 14), lui fournit ce svmbolisme : l'habit, ce sont οἱ πιστεύοντες αὐτῷ, le sans du Christ est réel, mais non ἐξ ἀνθρωπείου σπέρματος. Justin ne se serait pas exprimé ainsi s'il n'avait connu de. τ, 15, qui revenait souvent à sa mémoire. Incontestablement il a appliqué au Christ cette négation d'une naissance ordinaire, el dans des termes plus où moins rapprochés de ceux de 20., comme il arrive pour des réminiseences; une fois cependant B. Ἐπὶ, ὁ) il l'entend de la naissance divine du Logos : ἐχ τοῦ ἐπὸ τοῦ πατρὸς θελέσει veves τῆσθαι, nouvelle indication qu'il lisait ἐγεννήϑε;. On dira la mème chose du texte d'Hippolyte (Re. vi, 9) versé par Zahn dans le débat. Simon n'était pas le Christ ξυατος, γέννημα γυγαῖχος, ἐξ αἰμάτων χαὶ ἐπιβυμίας σαρκικῆς χαθάπερ καὶ of λοιποὶ γεγεννημένος. Justin s'était servi de Jo. 1, 13 pour affirmer la conception virginale de Jésus; Hippolyte s'en sert pour la nier de Simon. On doit supposer que ce qu'il niait de Simon n'élait pas par opposition aux chrétiens, mais au Christ. Méthode est moins clair (de resurrect. 1, 26) : τὸ τοῦ χριστοῦ σῶμα οὐχ ἦν ἐκ θελήματος ἀνδρός, ἡδονῆς ὕπνῳ συνελθούσης... ἀλλὰ ἐκ πνεύματος ἁγίου χαὶ δυνάμεως ὑψίστου... La formule de Jo. ne suffisait pas, quoique complétée par une réminiscence profane, puisque l'affirmation se rattache à Luc. Zahn n'a rien proposé d'autre chez les Grecs : Clément d'Al. (Strom. II, 58) et Origène (Fragm. 8 Preuschen, Ὁ. 486 5.) ont la lecon ordinaire. Il y a, il est vrai, Irénée en lalin. Haer. ΠῚ, 46, 2. Au cours d'une argumentation sur Mt. 1, 1, entre parenthèses comme nous dirions : non enim ex voluntate curnis, neque eæ voluntate viri, sed ex voluntate Dei, verbum caro factum est. Pourquoi Irénée a-t-il passé le mot topique ἐγεννήθη pour terminer sa phrase par le v. 14? Un autre passage est plus formel ΠῚ, 49, 2 : quoniam is qui non ex voluntale carnis, reque ex voluntate viri natus est filius hominis, hic est Christus Filius Dei vivi. La citation n'est pas textuelle, mais nous avons le natus est, sans ex Deo. ΠῚ, 21, 5 : Non ex voluntate viri erat qui nascebatur ; et cf. V, 21, 7 : uti non -ex voluntate viri, sed ex voluntate Dei adventum eius, qui secundum hominem est intellegamus. V, 1, 3. Et propter hoc in fine, non ex voluntate carnis, neque de voluntale viri, sed ex placito Patris manus eius vivum perfecerunt hominem, ut fiat Adam secundum ümaginem et similitudinem Dei. De même la traduction arménienne d'irénée. — wii fiut Adam, etc. se rapporte à ce qui précède, mais in fine est une allusion à l'incarnation. On ne peut douter que le texte lalin représente ici le grec d'Irénée. On trouve la même lecon dans le cod. Veronensis (b), qui... natus est, et dans le Liber comicus (Anecd. Mareds. 1, p. 60) : qui non ex sanguinibus neque ex volumptate viri, sed ex deo natus est (Lectionnaire de Tolède). D'après Terlullien, c'est le texte authentique, l’autre est l'œuvre des Valentiniens. Voici le texte, mal imprimé dans Migne (P.L. II, c. 829), tel que Sabatier l'avait déjà restauré (de Carne Christi, xx) : Quid ergo est, non ex sanguine, neque ex voluntate carnis, neque ex voluntate viri, sed ex Deo natus est? Hoc quidem capitulo ego polius utar, cum adulteratores etus obduxero. Sic enimscriptum esse contendunt : non ex sanguine, nec ex carnis voluntate, nec ex viri, sed ex Deo nati sunt, quasi supra dictos credentes in nomine eius designet, utostendat esse semen illud arcanum electorum et spiritualium, quod sibi imbuunt. Cette fois le texte est cité intégralement. Les Valentiniens sont accusés de l'avoir altéré pour y trouver le type de leurs élus-spirituels. Mais comment? S'ils ajoutaient of, ils confondaient ces élus avec la masse des croyants, ce qui était contre leur dogme. S'ils ne connaissaient pas de relatif (Zahn) comment auraient-ils amené ces spirituels? Et comment le relatif se trouve-t-il dans tous les textes, sauf D et a? Tertullien n'objecte pas la tradition ancienne. Il rejette le texte commun par une raison d'évidence grossière : les spiriluels, Valentin Jui-même, sont nés comme tout le monde. Cette raison, personne ne l’aliègue aujourd'hui; elle méconnaïit le sens symbolique du lexte. νήθησαν. Ὁ Καὶ ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο χαὶ ἐσχήνγωσεν ἐν ἡμῖν, καὶ Quand Tert. ajoute (eod. loc. XXIV) : ef, non ex sanguine, neque ex carnis ef dirt voluntate, sed ex Deo natus est, Ebioni respondit, il laisse entendre que son texte lui paraît à propos pour combattre ceux qui nient la conception virginale. Le changement pour défendre ce dogme est aussi vraisemblable que le motif qu'il impute aux Valentiniens. D'ailleurs l'affirmation de Tertullien demeure tout à fait isolée dans le monde latin. On cite Ambroise (in Ps. 37, col. 817 b des Mauristes) : Christus etsi naturalem substantiam carnis huius susceperat, non tamen contugia ulla susceperat. qui non ex sanguinibus, neque eæ voluntale carnis, neque est voluntate viri, sed de Spiritu sancto natus eæ virgine, ete. Au moment où il lui faudrait changer le texte en écrivant ex Deo natus est, il tourne court et finit par une allusion à Luc, comme Méthode. D'autant que pour l'ordinaire, et quand il va jusqu’au bout, il écrit nati sunt, comme Hilaire et comme Augustin. Il est vrai que ce dernier dans ses Confessions (VII, 9) attribue aux néo-platoniciens : item legi, bi, quia verbum, deus, non ex carne, non ex sanguine neque ex voluntate viri, neque ex voluntate carnis, sed ex Deo natus est. Mais il s’agit ici de la génération du Verbe. Dans quelle mesure Augustin cite-t-il les platoniciens ou Jo? Il reste Sulpice Sévère (Hist. Sacr. Il, p. 67) : is enim non conditione humana editus, siquidem non ex voluntate viri, sed ex Deo nalus est, mundum istum… in nihilum rediget, qui se rattache peut-être à la manière d'Ambroise, mais plutôt à un texte latin. Et peut-être faut-il y joindre avec Zahn ke texte primitif de Tychonius (Texts and studies, p. 7) dont les manuscrits portent : Verbum caro factum est et caro Deus, quia non ex sanguine sed ex Deo nati sumus ou sunt, à corriger en natus est. Quant aux Syriens, tous ont qui au pluriel; que le syrcur. et six mss. de la Peschitta aient cthiled au lieu de ethiledou, on ne s'en étonnera pas, le waw du pluriel étant omis assez souvent, sans compter que la phrase suivante com- Enfin, il faudra désormais citer le texte éthiopien de l’Epistola apostolorum, car on lit dans la traduction allemande de Wajnberg : « il est le Verbe devenu chair, porté dans le sein de Marie, la Vierge sainte, engendré par l'Esprit-Saint mais non par un désir charnel, mais par la volonté de Dieu (Gespréche… per les éditeurs disent seulement : ef. Joh. 4, 14 ἢ), La leçon de Tertullien et d'Irénée ne peut assurément se présenter en vertu de la tradition manuscrite comme une lecon originale. La question est de savoir si cette leçon ne doit pas prévaloir pour des raisons intrinsèques. Eu effet, quoique nous estimions suffisante l'explication que nous ayons donnée de l’aoriste ἐγεννήθησαν qui met au passé en la molivant la faculté indiquée pour l'avenir, cette construction, il faut l'avouer, n’est pas très naturelle; l’autre explication étant encore moins bonne. εν» plus, on s étonne que Jo. donne une description si détaillée des conditions d une naissauce ordinaire pour dire que ce ne sont point celles d’une naissance spirituelle ct métaphorique. On comprendrait très bien au contraire cette insistance s’il fallait opposer une naissance physique surnaturelle à une naissance ordinaire. Encore : dans ce prologue si chargé d'idées, comment se fait-il que Jo. développe si longuement la qualité des enfants de Dieu, sans dire un mot de cette naissance temporelle du Christ qui en est le prototype? On devra la sous-entendre dans « le Verbe s'est fait chair », mais combien cette phrase serait plus claire, si la naissance du Christ avait été indiquée! D'autant que le καί de début du v. 14, qui serait limpide dans ce cas, ne s'explique guère si J'incarnation vient après une explication sur les enfants de Dieu, qualité qui découle de cette Incarnation. Ces raisons sont assez plausibles; néanmoins il est un argument décisif en faveur de la génération spirituelle des enfants de Dieu, c’est l'importance de cette idée dans la pensée de l’auteur de la 1re Épiître, qui est aussi l'auteur de l’évangile. On peut être d’avis qu'il lui fait trop de part dans ce prologue où tout converge vers l'Incarnation du Verbe, mais ce n’est pas notre jugement qui doit prévaloir, c’est le sien, manifesté dans 1 Jo. τι, 29; 1, 9; 1v, 73 v, 4. 48; οἵ, ΠΕ Jo. 3-8. Toujours est-il que si l'on admet la lecon de Tert., il faut être logique et reconnaître avec Zahn que l'intention de Jo. était de donner une formule nouvelle à la croyance en la conception surnaturelle professée par Mt. et Le. Avec cette lecon il est parfaitement clair que Jo. ἃ voulu éliminer de cette naissance presque tout ce qui caractérise les autres. Loisy essaie de parer l'argument en l'exagérant, comme si la mère aussi était exclue. Alors que signifiait cette naissance qui n’en serait pas une? Selon le texte reçu, on n'a pas cependant le droit d'écrire que Jean « ignore la conception virginale ». Il ne pouvait l'ignorer, eùt-il été un simple chrétien de la fin du 18: siècle. Il ἃ pu la supposer sans reproduire les détails donnés par Le., comme il a supposé le baptème sans le raconter. Aussi bien pour tout lecteur de bon sens, il va de soi que le Logos qui désormais sera simplement le Fils de Dieu n’est pas né d’un père humain comme tout le monde il faut une réflexion philosophique très exercée pour reconnaître que, absolument parlant, l'incarnation n’exige pas la conception virginale. Jo. n’a donc pas cru avoir à insister sur une croyance générale, répondant à une convenance non moins généralement sentie. rs
1:14
D'après la lecon de Tertullien nous ne pourrions commencer ici une nouvelle strophe, et le καί indiquerait naturellement une suite. Avec la leçon reçue, c'est une reprise de tout le discours qui en révèle le sens caché : après des préparations mystérieuses, le jour se fait. De sorie que καί doit indiquer la cause comme le waw hébreu, sinon tout à fait dans le sens de « car » (Gen. vi, 17 etc.), du moins comme nous disons : « oui » dans le style noble, pour une affirmation qui étonne : « oui, c'est Agamemnon.. Oui, je viens dans son Temple »... ὃ λόγος nommé trois fois au v. 1 n'avait plus paru sinon dans sa manifestation comme vie et Lumière. L'effet est d'autant mieux senti quand ce Logos suprême reparaît en opposition avec la chair, et pour s'unir à elle. Ordinairement l'opposition biblique est entre πνεῦμα et σάρξ, « l'esprit et la chair ». Mais il est clair que le Logos est plus même qu'esprit, puisqu'il est Dieu. — ἐγένετο comme au v. 6 indique un devenir historique, nettement opposé à ἣν du début. Les modernes conviennent (même ZLoisy) que Jo. n'a pas songé à une transformation du Logos en chair. Le Logos demeure ce qu'il est, mais il se manifesle dans la chair, il vient dans la chair {1 Jo. 1v, 4-3; IT Jo. 7), ou, plus énergiquement, afin qu'on ne voie pas là une simple apparence, il devient chair, c'est-à-dire homme, car personne ne pouvait douter que Jo. fit allusion à l'homme parfait, Jésus, le Christ. [l a dit chaër, parce que la chair désigne l'homme dans l'Écriture sous son aspect périssable (Gen. vi, 3; Is. xt, 6 etc.), infirme, le moins noble. Le contraste est ainsi plus saisissant. Jo. n'a sûrement pas pensé à exclure l'âme; mais peut-être a-t-il évité le mot homme qui désigne un homme complet, ce qui eût risqué de faire paraître moins étroite l'union du Logos avec Jésus, moins dominant le rôle du Logos dans cette union unique. — D'après la lecon courante, Jo. ne dit pas, il est vrai, comment le Verbe est devenu chair. D'après Loisy, qui cependant admet la lecon de Tert., « l'incarnation se confond, dans la perspective actuelle de la narration si ce n’est dans la pensée de l'écrivain, avec la descente de l'Esprit sur Jésus lors de son baptème » (p. 104). Mais Bauer ἃ bien répondu que : 4e) ce n'est pas le Logos mais PEsprit qui se manifeste au baptème; 2°) le baptème est un signe pour le Baptisle, sans rien changer à l'existence de Jésus; 3°) venir dans la chair, devenir chair, c'est naturellement venir au moment où la chair prend naissance. Si Jo. avait pensé à autre chose, il eût ἀὰ le dire, surtout en présence de la foi des chritiens, attestée par ML, et Le., en la conception virginale. Si d’ailleurs Jésus est né, c'est qu'il avait une mère, mais pas d'autre Père que Dieu. Aussi est-ce sur cette Paternité que Jo. va insister. — ἐσκήνωσεν, Jolie expression biblique pour désigner la vie nomade (Jud. vu, 11). Le nomade transporte son abri cà et là : image du caraclère transitoire de la vie humaine. Mais ceux qui vivent sous la tente, s'ils semblent moins compter sur la durée que ceux qui habitent des maisons de pierre, s'en vont ensemble et n’en sont que plus solidaires 165 uns des autres. La traduction hubitavit retrouve le sens de l’hébreu pw. L'intimité est indiquée par ἐν ἡμῖν, qui, d'après la suite, doit être restreint au groupe des disciples parmi lesquels Jésus ἃ vraiment vécu. — Un lecteur étranger aux idées d'Israël n'aurait peut-être rien vu de plus dans ces deux mots. Mais Jo. n’a pas dù choisir ce mot de vivre sous la tente, à une époque où la vie nomade était restreinte au désert, si ce n'était précisément cn mémoire de la présence de Dieu au milieu d'Israël. D'autant que cette habitation avait été manifestée par une nuée, dans le Tabernacle (Ex. xxxitr, 7-11) et ensuite dans le Temple (III Regn. νι, 40.41), de sorte que la Chekina, « habitation était une présence sensible de Dieu et une expression pour signifier Dieu. Au lieu de dire (Lev. xxvi, 42) : « Je marcherai au milieu de vous », le Targum disait : « Je ferai demeurer ma Chekinta (araméen) parmi vous », etc. Dans les passages où il est question de l'habitation de Dieu, les LXX n'avaient pas employé σκηνόω, mais Aquila le fera, avec la satisfaction de mettre en grec les mêmes consonnes qu’en hébreu. Saint Jean semble avoir déjà été frappé de ce rapprochement; dans Apoc. vir, 45 καὶ ὁ καθήμενος ἐπὶ τοῦ θρόνου σχηνώσει ἐπ᾽ αὐτούς, οἵ. χχι, 3 : καὶ σχηνώσει μετ᾽ αὐτῶν. D'ailleurs il n'est pas le premier qui en ait usé ainsi. La Sagesse qui avait planté sa tente dans les hauteurs, avait reeu de Dieu l'ordre de s'établir de même en Jacob : ἐν Ἰχχὼδ χατασχήνωσον (Sir. χχιν, 8), en quoi elle était bien le prototype du Logos. _— ἐθεασάμεθα est manifestement l'expression d'un témoin oculaire, (même Loisy). ἢ se peut que l’auteur parle au nom d'un groupe de témoins oculaires qui seraient les disciples. Mais il est assez vraisemblable que ce « nous » est celui des écrivains, assez usité dans la koinè, et que l’auteur parle ici pour son compte (cf. Introduction, p. xxT s.). Quoi qu'il en soit, cette affirmation gêne ceux qui ne veulent ni reconnaître dans l'auteur un disciple, ni lui attribuer une contre-vérité un peu trop forte. Bauer rappelle que la contemplation des choses divines n’est pas le fait des témoins oculaires, mais est une action de l'âme. On peut citer Philon (de Abrah. 236 Cohn) : ἀσώματα δὲ rot χαὶ γυμνὰ θεωρεῖν τὰ πράγματα δύνανται, οἱ ψυχῇ μᾶλλον ἢ σώματι ζῶντες, et aussi le « toucher » de Act. xvu, 27. Mais précisément Jo., au lieu de parler de cette contemplation spirituelle qui fait abstraction des sens, ἃ montré le Verbe devenant visible, et il a vu, à l'aoriste, donc dans le temps déterminé de l'habitation du Verbe parmi les hommes. Ge qui ne veut pas dire qu'il ait vu des yeux du corps tout ce qu'il a compris. Mais la vue sensible était le point de départ. Ce serait méconnaitre la haute spiritualité de Jo. que d'imaginer une sorte de surenchère sur les manifestations sensibles de la gloire que les anciens jsraélites avaient pu constater de leurs yeux. Bien plutôt pour lui la gloire est au dedans, et même voilée plutôt que révélée par la chair. Cependant elle a éclaté par les miracles, prouvant la toute-puissance de Jésus et sa nature divine. C’est en ce sens que Jean à vu la gloire du Fils unique, sans parler de la contemplation du ressuscité dont les actions révélaient mieux encore les attributs divins. Si l'on doutait que oxnvdw fût une réminiscence de la Chekina, on ne pourrait hésiter pour δόξα, la gloire, en hébreu 722, en araméen ΝῊ), la splendeur, d'autant que la Chekina οἱ la Iegara sont nommées l'une à côté de l’autre dans les Targums; le texte d’Is. vi, 5 : « car mes yeux ont vu le Roi, le Seigneur des armées » devient : « car mes yeux ont vu la legara de la Chekina du Seigneur des siècles » (cité par Burney, avec d'autres textes). Or précisément après avoir cité celte vision d'isaïe, Jo. ajoute x, 41 : ταῦτα εἶπεν ᾿Ησαίας ὅτι εἶδεν τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ. Cette gloire élait la Iegara du Targum (Is. vi, 4) : « J'ai vu Ja Iegara du Seigneur. » Cette gloire est celle du fils unique, ὡς n'est pas comparatif. Comme Chrys. l'a bien vu : τὸ δὲ ὡς, ἐνταῦθα, οὐχ ὁμοιώσεώς ἐστιν, οὐδὲ παραδολῆς, ἀλλὰ βεῦαισεως. Bauer le nie, maïs la construction est parfaitement grecque. Dans ce cas ὡς peut restreindre le sens, mais il peut aussi indiquer que le sujet possède à un haut degré la qualité dont il s’agit; cf. ὥστε θεός, « en qualité de déesse. » (Γ 384 cité par Kühin.-Gerth, Il, 2, p. 493). Ici μονογενοῦς est en apposition avec αὐτοῦ, qui lui-même représente le Logos. Gette expression de monogène ou fils unique est propre à Jean (ici et v. 18; τπ, 46.18; I Jo. 1v, 9) pour désigner le Fils de Dieu. Elle l'iscle davantage dans la région divine que πρωτότοχος, qui se prête à l’idée d’autres fils, fût-ce seulement par adoption (Rom. vur, 29). Dans Platon (Tim. 92 B) c'est le monde qui est μονογενής, mais ce terme ne semble pas avoir eu beaucoup de diffusion. Il se trouvait dans Hésiode (Cosm. 426.448) et semble avoir été en vogue chez les Orphiques (Womsenmw, Relig. Stud. p.118), mais non dans l'hermétisme. Sur Dusarès μονογενὴς δεσπότου, οἴ, Er. rel. Sém. 2e 6d., p. 88 (Holl lit Χααμου et non Xaaëou dans Ἐριρη. haer. Lt, 22, 41). — Dans le paganisme l'épithète prouvait seulement que tel dieu n'avait pas eu d'autre enfant. Pour Jo. celte possibilité n'apparaît nulle part : le Fils auquel le Père ἃ tout donné (χνπ, 10) est nécessairement ct dans un sens très auguste « unique ». Philon ne se sert pas de monogène (Drum. I, Ῥ. 185) et dit du Logos qu'il est πρωτόγονος, Dans Valentin (fr. I, u, 4), c'est une imitation de Jo. Faut-il entendre ce μονογενής de la filiation éternelle du Verbe ou de l'Incarnation? Il serait certainement faux de l'entendre de l'Incarnation, s'il fallait conclure avec Loisy : « il est devenu Fits de Dieu en se faisant homme » (p. 106), car telle n’est pas la pensée de Jean, d'après in, 46 et 1 Jo. τὰ, 49% où le Fils unique ἃ été donné, envoyé; il était donc engendré déjà par le Père. D'autre part, Jo. n'a pas dû parler seulement de la génération éternelle, puisque le terme μονογενής vient après l'affirmation de l'ncarnation, et précède « plein de grâce » qui s'entend sûrement du Christ. Ce point serait encore plus clair avec la lecon de Tertullien au v. 42. Il reste que Jo. n'a pas distingué deux naissances du Verbe en tant qu'il s'agit de sen rapport avec Dieu le Père. Maldonat : loquitur autem loannes, ut opinor, de verbo, eliam quatenus homo erat; nam etiam ut homo unigenitus erat Dei, et omnem eius gerebat gloriam. Le Christ historique est précisément le Fils unique de Dieu : il n’y ἃ pas à distinguer en lui le Verbe et une autre individualité. C'est le Verbe qui est ce Fils de Dieu qu’adorent les chrétiens en J.-C. — Faut-il joindre παρὰ πατρός à δόξαν ou à povoyevoëc? Il faut sans doute exclure une gloire venue du Père pour étre accordée au Verbe une fois incarné. Mais on ne saurait entendre παρὰ πατρός d’une filiation, comme ἃ fait Origène : τὸ « ὡς μονογενοῦς παρὰ πατρός » νοεῖν ὑποδάλλει ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ πατρὸς εἶναι τὸν υἱόν, οὐδὲν γὰρ τῶν χτισμάτων' παρὰ πατρός, ἀλλ᾽ ἐχ θεοῦ διὰ τοῦ λόγου ἔχει τὸ εἶναι (Preuschen, p. 490), en effet παρὰ ne peut signifier la filiation (contre Kn., Tüll.). C'est donc la gloire qui appartient au Fils et qui lui convient comme Fils, que le Père ne pouvait manquer de lui transmettre. Loisy : « comme celle qu'un fils unique » peut tenir « de son père » (0. 106). Quoique ni « monogène » ni « père » n'ait l’article, on comprend qu'il s'agit du Père dont la gloire est connue et éclatante et de son Fils. incarné, ce Fils unique devait donc apparaître plein de grâce et de vérité. πλήρης a été reconnu comme ur génilif, en apposition avec μονογενοῦς, selon lusage de la koiné qui le traite comme indéclinable, quoique, d'après Moulton (Gram. 162) on ne connaisse qu’un exemple avant l’ère chrétienne. D'ailleurs il ne serait pas impossible de regarder πλήρης comme une sorte de nominatif absolu qui reprendrait la phrase. — La grâce et la vérité ont été rapprochées de ΤΙΝῚ 7Dn, dans l'A. T., d'autant que Dieu se déclare Seigneur de ces deux attributs (Ex. xxxiv, 6) après avoir promis de montrer sa gloire à Moïse (Ex. xxx, 48.22). Mais le sens de l'hébreu paraît être « faveur (les LXX ἔλεος) οἱ stabilité », c'est-à-dire en somme faveur stable ou fidélité (Dirzmann, Handb. der alttest. Theol., p. 270). Si Jo. a pensé à ces textes, comme on peut le croire d'après tout le caractère du passage, il semble que, cette fois encore, il ἃ dû entendre quelque chose de plus que l’économie de l'A. T. Non que les attributs de Dieu puissent devenir plus parfaits, mais il peut se manifester plus complètement. C’est ce qu'il a fait dans son Fils unique. La grâce est la bonté tout à fait gratuite et prévenante, la faveur à laquelle on ne pouvait s'attendre, et cela dans sa source elle-même, car le Verbe est Dieu, et l'on ne doit pas oublier que ces attributs lui appartiennent en essence, il est lui-même ce qu'ils signifient : οὐχ ἄλλος ὧν τούτων ὧν λέγεται εἶναι πλήρης (Orig. ed. Pr., p. 491). La vérité se définit par elle-même : c’est la vérité substantielle, qui nous a été présentée jusqu'à présent comme la lumière, la vérité qui se répandra avec les paroles de Jésus comme un principe de sanctification (xvr, 16 s.). La grâce accorde une manifestation de vérité et cette lumière ramène à la vie. ΠῚ faut l'entendre en même temps, et même surtout, dans l’ordre historique, du Verbe incarné : Fuit ergo plenus gratia, inquantum non accipit a Deo aliquod donum speciale, sed quod esset ipse Deus... plenus veritatis…. Scilicet quod ille homo esset ipsa divina veritas (Thom.). Cette plénitude suppose une communication à d’autres : Jo. l'indiquera au v. 16.
1:15
ον εἰπὸν (TSV) et non ο εἰπων (Η).
Il est très facile de constater que ce verset est inséré dans le développement qui va du v. 14 au v. 46. Loïsy (p. 107) : « On dirait que le rédacteur a été pressé de faire proclamer par Jean, dès le prologue, l'éternité du Logos-Christ. » C'est bien cela, mais pourquoi un rédacteur et non pas l'auteur? C’est l'auteur qui a signalé dans le Prologue les idées principales de l'évangile, parmi lesquelles le témoignage de Jean. Au v. 6 il était indiqué, mais sans qu'on sante sur quoi ilavait porté, I fallait attendre que le dogme principal ait été proclamé. Aussitôt Jean reparait, et cette fois les verbes marquent le présent, parce que son témoignage, dans le prologue, n'entre pas dans le développement de l'histoire passée, mais se perpétue. C’est un résumé anticipé de ce que nous saurons par le récit des faits. C'est ainsi qu'une symphonie indique par quelques notes, plusieurs fois reprises, la mélodie qui va éclater dans toute son ampleur. — κέχραγα, parfait au sens du présent, comme dans les LXX (Ps. oxut, 4; Job, xxx, 20, etc.) et dans Plutarque (Cato min. LVII, p. 787, cité par Bauer) οὐχ br£- peuvev ὁ Κάτων, ἀλλὰ μαρτυρόμενος καὶ χεχραγὼς ἐν τῷ συνεδρίῳ... qui offre précisément l'exemple d'une attestation énergique, rendue avec force, à la manière des prophètes (cf. Is. ἀντι, 1 ἀναδόησον). On dirait que l'évangéliste, ancien disciple du Baptiste, entend encore retentir la voix qui ébranlait le peuple aux rives du Jourdain. Mais les paroles étant seulement un écho du passé, le Baptiste dit ἦν et non ἐστιν comme au v. 30 (Zahn, Bauer). — ὃν εἶπον est parfaitement grec pour ὑπὲρ οὗ ἐγὼ εἶπον (ν. 30). C'est peut-être parce que celte intervention posthume du Baptiste leur a paru étrange que Βα et N° ont lu ὁ εἰπών, leçon qui serait à préférer et rentrerait plus naturellement dans le contexte si λέγων que ces autorités n’ont pas omis ne marquait clairement le commencement du discours direct. — ἔμπροσθεν dans le sens de l’espace comme ὀπίσω, non du temps. Les Ariens avaient insisté sur γέγονεν, comme indiquant l'origine postérieure et done créce du Logos. Chrys, ἃ très bien vu que ce mot marquait le rang. Augustin : Post me venil, ef praecessit me. non factus est antequam factus essem ego; sed antepositus est mihi. Les modernes (Cahmes, Loisy, Zahn, Bauer, etc.) précisent qu'il s’agit moins de la dignité que de la place occupée. — L'image est très simple. Jean est entré en scène le premier par sa prédication. Jésus le suivait, mais ἃ passé devant par l'exercice d'une fonction plus hauté. C'était juste, car il existait avant lui. L’argument ne prouverait rien entre hommes, car le plus ancien n'a pas Loujoursle droit de passer avant le plus jeune, et Jean, né le premier, était en somme le plus ancien. C’est donc qu'il confesse la préexistence du Christ. — ὅτι explique pourquoi Jésus ἃ dépassé Jean : c'est qu'il était avant lui. Donc ἔμπροσθεν ne signifiait pas une antériorité de temps; car autrement ce serait prouver une affirmation en la répétant. τ πρῶτος pour πρότερος; voir les exemples cités, RB., 4914, p. 80 ss. Rien de nouveau n'a été produit. Traduire « mon chef » comme Abbott (Jok. Gram. 510), c'est remplacer le sens profond du prologue par une niaiserie rabbin ique, 16) Des anciens (Héracléon, Clém. Αἱ Orig.) attribuaient ces mots au précurseur. Mais Chrys. a bien vu que l’évangéliste reprend ici la parole, et les modernes sont tous avec lui, car ἡμεῖς πάντες ἐλάθομεν se rattache à ἐθεασάμεθα (v. 44), comme la plénitude au πλήρης du même verset. C’est reconnaître une fois de plus que le v. 15 est comme un fil de couleur spécial entrelacé dans un tissu, ce qui ne veul pas dire : étranger au dessin de l'auteur. — καί serait bien préférable à ὅτι, qui a l'air de boîter après ὅτι πρῶτος. Et c'est sans doute pour cela que la tradition d’Antioche ἃ mis χαί (aussi Vg.), qui ne saurait prévaloir contre l'ancienne lecon de Ν᾿ BCD... latt. Or. Hipp. Comme on ne peut pas dire que le Logos était plein de grâce. pour cette raison essentielle que nous avons reçu de lui, Je sens est donc : il est si vrai que le Logos est plein. que nous avons reçu; le second ὅτι (47) dépend du premier mais simplement comme une explication complémentaire : ce sont deux faits qui mettent en lumière la proposition énoncée. La causalité n’est pas intrinsèque, mais elle existe dans l'ordre de la preuve ὅτι — si bien que. Le πλήρωμα est simplement le substantif répondant à πλήρης du v. 14. Il n'y ἃ pas à se préoccuper du sens que ce mot a pris chez les gnostiques, « ensemble des éons », ni même de celui qu’il ἃ dans saint Paul. C’est le fait d’être rempli de grâce et de vérilé. — ἡμεῖς πάντες ne peut guère remonter à tous ceux qui ont eu déjà dans l'A. T. une participation à la lumière (Caimes); d'autre part πάντες indique un cercle plus étendu que celui des premiers témoins de choix (ἐθεασάμεθα y. 44); ce sont donc fous ceux qui appartiennent au Christ. De la plénitude de de vérité (ν. 14), Jo. discerne d'abord la grâce; καί, « c'est à savoir grâce et y ἀντὶ χάοιτος d’après Calmes (et presque Loisy) s'entend de l'Évangile dé à la Loi. Mais il est bien clair que la Loi n'appartient pas à la qui ἃ succé ès le v. 17 elle est remplacée par la grâce. Ici c'est une succesgrâce; d'apr concevoir le don de Dieu comme accordé à une démarche sion de grâces. Au lieu de humaine, Jo. l'entend comme un pur don qui en appelle d’autres. On cite Philon (de poster. Cuini, 145) : « C'est ainsi que toujours il suspend οἱ ménage les. premières grâces, avant que CEUX qui les reçoivent en soient rassasiés et l'insultent, et il en donne d’autres à la place de celles-là et des troisièmes à la place des secondes, et toujours des nouvelles à la place des anciennes, tantôt différentes, tantôt les mêmes » (ἑτέρας ἀντ᾽ ἐχείνων rat τρίτας ἀντὶ τῶν δευτέρων καὶ αἰεὶ νέας ἀντὶ παλαιοτέρων). C’est bien le même emploi de ἀντί, mais Philon insiste plus sur la sagesse de la dispensation qui évite la surabondance des mêmes dons, tandis que Jo. parait avoir en vue la libéralité divine. Encore est-il que Jo. n'a pas marqué l'accumulation qui eût demandé ἐπί, peut-être parce que la première grâce était la condition qui permettait de recevoir la seconde : il n'y ἃ pas un amas de grâces, mais une gradation sagement ordonnée. Si la seconde vient à la place de la première, c’est qu'elle est plus haute. Naturellement χάρις sans l'article indique une grâce reçue de celui qui a la plénitude.
1:17
Mais lorsqu'il s'agit de la collectivité, de l'effet produit dans le monde, c'est bien ἴα grâce qui entre en scène. La vérité l'accompagne comme au v. 44. Ce qui a précédé c'était la Loi. Trois différences : 1) La Loi était un don. quelque” chose qui était imposé du dehors : la grâce devient. pénètre: 2) la Loi ἃ Éte donnée par Moïse; la grâce par Jésus-Christ; 3) d'un côté la Loi, une obligation, de l'autre la grâce. une faveur. Jo. ne prend pas la peine de dire que Fsus Christ est plus grand que Moïse; quelle comparaison eût-on pu instituer me fois posée l'identité de Jésus-Christ avec le Verbe incarné? Car c'est à cela que Jo. aboutit enfin. Il ne nommera plus ie Verbe, et Jésus-Chrisine figure plus que dans xvi, 3, comme dans une confession de foi.
1:18
Il restait à expliquer en quoi consistait cette vérité venue par Jésus-Christ. C'est la révélation de Dieu, impossible à tout autre qu'au Monogène. Le texte ἃ été très discuté (Zanx, Exeursus TI, p. 712 ss.). I. Movoyevrs sans υἱός mi θεός, maïs avec l'article. Ces lecons courtes, qu'on suppose complétées de deux manières, sont assez séduisantes. Mais celle-ci est par trop mal appuyée. Comme ms. seulement deux de la Vg. X εἰ gaë. dans Wordsworik). Parmi les Pères, Éphrem (Moës. 3) et Aphraate {éd. Parisot, p. 269 à traduire : solitarios omnes laetificat Unigenitus qui est e sinu patris) ne prouvent même pas pour le texte de Tatien, car ce ne sont pas des citations textuelles. D'autant qu'Épiphane qui connaît une forme pleine emploie aussi μονογενής seul (Ancor. $ 2). On peut en dire autant des épitres pseudo-ignatiennes (Philipp. 9}, d'Origène (iv, 102), d'Ambroise (ep. 40). On ne connaît pas d'autre forme pour Victorin (ται, 157) et Cyr. de Jér. (117), mais ils ne cîtent pas textuellement. IT. μονογενὴς θεός (Hort, Zahn) sans article. Mais nous traitons d'abord seulement l'alternative u. θεός où LIT 6 μονογενὴς υἱός, l'article étant certain dans cette lecon. Pour la lecon θεός N'RO*L 33, sah. boh. eth. Tout cela est une seule famille très nette qui est égyptienne; Soden ajoute K°. Parmi les Svriens, la palestinienne qu'on peut ratiacher à Origène, mais aussi la peschitta et Tatien arabe. Parmi les anciens auteurs : chez les Valentiniens, Ptolémée cité par Irénée 8, 5\cité par Epiph. (Baer, ANT, 21 ; éd. ΗΟ δ : Ἰωάννης, ἀργὴν τινα δποτίθεται τὸ πρῶτον γευνηθὲν ὑπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ" ὃ δὴ χαὶ υἱὸν χαὶ βονογενῆ θεὸν χέχληκεν, Théodote, cité par Clém. pd 6, 2) : ἀρχὴν μὲν γὰρ τὸν Movoyevf λέγουσιν, ὃν χαὶ θεὸν προσαγορεύεσθαι... ὁ μονογενὴς θεὸς ὃ ὧν εἰς τὸν κύλπον (éd. Siählin, p. 407, Héracléon : du moins Origène semble lui attribuer le texte qu'il suit lui-même (éd, Preuschen, p. 408), où le vrai texte est μονογενὴς θεός qui avait été carrigé dans un ms. _On pourrait donc soupconner d'après l'accerd des Yalentiniens qu'ils ont introduit cette leçon, mais aucun Père ne 16 leur ἃ reproché. Parmi les Pères, Irénée latin ἃ unigenifus Deus dans IV, xx. 41 et umigenites filèus (IV, xx, 6) ou même : nisi unigenitus Filius Dei dans HI, xt, 6. Clément (dans quis div. Salv. 37) ἂν ὃ μονογενὴς θεὸς μόνος ἐξηγήσατο (éd. SééAlin, contrairement à ce que dit Preuschen sur Origène, p- 108) et dans Sfrom. 1, 169 μονογεγὴς υἱός, cf. Paed. 1, 8, mais dans des allusions vagues. Origène n'a jamais υἱός, si ce n’est dans un fragment latin Unigenitus filius salvator noster, à côté de Unigenitus ergo Deus salvator (Preuschen, p. 562). IL faut ajouter Didyme, Basile (2 sur 3), Épiphane, Cyrille d'Alexandrie; Eusèbe incline vers l’autre lecon. Chez les Latins, le seul traité sur Isaïe vi, 1-7, attribué à saint Jérôme par dom Morin (Anecd. Mareds. IT, 3, 108) : Sed et lohannes clamat : Deum nemo vidit unguam; Unigenitus Deus, qui est, etc. ΤΠ 6 μονογενὴς υἱός. Toute Ia tradition manuscrite qui n’a pas été citée pour IF, Hippolyte (contra Noet. 5), mais sans l'article, de sorte que peut-être υἱός ἃ remplacé θεός dans son texte (Zahn), Alexandre d'Alexandrie, Ath. Chrys., etc. les Latins. 302) ou un faussaire dont le traité περὶ τῆς ἁγίας Anthime de Nicomédie (ἢ ἐχχλησίας a été publié par Mer Mercati (Studi ὁ testi 5, p. 81 58.) cite la mauvaise de la variante θεός : ὅθεν (pour influence d'Hermès Trismégiste comme cause obtenir un second dieu) αὐτῷ χαὶ ὃ μονογενὴς θεὸς παρὰ τὸν θεῖον Ἰωάννην λέγοντα υἱὸν μονογενῆ προσερρύη (s'est glissé). αὐτῷ désigne Astérios, probablement un des chefs des Ariens mort vers 341. Nous croirions plutôt que la leçon vide est d'origine arienne, mais elle ἃ pu venir aussi d’un adversaire des Ariens qui eùt été dans les sentiments de Photin de Sirmium. Dans cette situation, il est assez clair que υἱός a supplanté ϑεός qui est la leçon ancienne. Deux raisons : 1) La lecon θεός est difficile ; 2) elle est isolée dans Jo. tandis que Jo. πι, 16.18 et I Jo. 1v, 9 suggéraient presque nécessairement υἱός au Jieu de θεός. cho‘dad on trouve les trois lecons, mais on voit très bien Par exemple dans I γενὴς θεός. Le fils devait naturellement venir une fois ou que son texte est povo t il a fini par remplacer θεός. J'autre sous la plume, € est de savoir s’il faut lire ὁ avec la leçon 11. La seule question pour nous Nous concluons négativement (contre Vogels). Des mss. grecs, seul 33 ἃ 6. Les versions coples et syriennes (pes οἱ Jer) aussi, mais cela est moins significatif. Quant aux Pères, l'article ne se trouve guère que dans les allusions libres, mais non dans les citations complètes {avec le premier θεόν). Et en effet il est impossible de justifier l'article dans cette leçon. Écrire ὃ θεός après avoir écrit simplement θεόν semblerait différencier le second dieu du premier. C’est donc la leçon μονογενής θεός que nous avons à expliquer. Jo. connaissait assurément la vision de Dieu accordée à Moise (Ex. xxxint, 11) et à Isaïe (νι, 1). Il faut donc supposer qu'il les regardait comme d'un ordre inférieur, ou encore enveloppées d'images, comme on pouvait le conclure de Ex. xx, 20. 23. Ccite incapacité qui frappe tous les hommes n’atteint pas celui qui est le fils unique, Dieu comme son Père. Même doctrine dans vi, 46; vint, 38. Il n’y ἃ pas à se demander si θεός est attribut ou μονογενής. Ce sont deux qualités du même sujet : une personnalité qui est à la fois né unique et Dicu, c'est celui-là, ὁ ὧν x. τ᾿ À. Inutile de dire du Père qu'il est Dieu. Mais le Père n’est pas une simple répétition de θεόν, Ce n'est pas comme Père que Dieu est invisible, c'est la nature divine qui est invisible, mais non pour le Fils, qui la possède et peut en parler. Quel est le temps marqué par &v? Jo. fait-il allusion à la présence du Fils avant l'Iacarnation, ou à son retour après l'incarnation? Il semble plutôt que ὁ &y indique une présence éternelle, car rien n'indique ici une allusion au retour du Christ auprès de son Père (contre Zahn), d'autant que ce retour a succédé à la révélation; s'il y a retour, il est purement littéraire et nous ramène au premier verset par une sorte d'inclusio ou d'encadrement (cf. Infrod. p. xcrx). — εἰς relève donc d’un emploi peu grammatical pour ἐν τῷ, admis dans la hoiné; cf. Le. σι, 7, εἰς τὴν χοίτην εἰσιν : ils y sont venus, c'est sûr, mais ils y sont. Il est possible que Jo., qui ἃ écrit ἐν τῷ χόλπῳ (χη, 23), ait voulu indiquer ici une pénétration plus complète comme il a dit πρός et non παρά au v. 2. « Dans le sein » se dit de l'intimité conjugale (Dt. xxvur, 54. 56, etc.) ou de l'enfant sur le sein de sa mère ou de sa nourrice (ΠῚ Regn. ur, 20; Ruth 1v, 16} et par comparaison de la bonté de Dieu (Num. xt, 12), ou encore des animaux familiers (ἢ Regn. x, 3; Pur. Periclès 1). L’analogie humaine la plus semblable est la tendresse de Cicéron pour son fils : iste vero sit in sinu semper et complexu meo (Ep. ad fam. xiv, 4, 3). ἐχεῖνος ni, et lui seul. ἐξηγήσατο n'a pas de régime. {l n'y ἃ pas à préciser en suppléant τὸν θεόν. On n’explique pas Dieu. Le Monogène incarné a dit ce qu'il fallait dire et ce que les hommes pouvaient comprendre (xv, 15; xvir, 8). Jo. insiste donc sur la connaissance connaturelle du Fils. C’est comme Verbe que Jésus ἃ connu le Père. Cependant c'est durant sa vie humaine qu'il l’a révélé, et il serait étonnant que sa nature humaine n'ait pas été associée à la connaissance du Verbe. Étant donnée l’étroite union du Verbe et de la chair, c'est-àdire de la divinité οἱ de l’humanité, et la connaissance requise pour être, à un degré unique, le révélateur, c'est laisser entendre que Jésus était gratifié de la vision b'atifique dès cette vie. La thèse théologique nous semble avoir ici un appui solide (Kn.). — ἐξηγεῖσθαι se disait des choses divines comme des autres, mais on ne saurait dire.que ce terme « est emprunté au langage religieux du monde hellénique » (Loisy, 110\. faute d'exemples de ce temps. L'origine de l'idée et de l'expression « Logos Nous regardons comme acquis par l'explication du Prologue qu'il contient une doctrine sur le Verbe, c'est-à-dire qu'il entend donner ce nom à une entité divine, celle-là même qui ἃ apparu en Jésus-Christ, Verbe incarné. En d’autres termes qui sont ceux de saint Thomas : Verbum proprie dicéum in divinis personaliter accipitur et est nomen personae Εἰ; significat enim quandam emanationem intellectus (1" p. qu. xxxiv, ἃ. 2.). Sans employer une expression aussi théologique, on ἃ cru dès saint Justin — sans parler de l'épitre à Diognète (wr, 2) — que do. avait exprimé dans son prologue une conception spéciale. Il est vrai qu'Origène a pris logos au sens métaphorique, comme l'un quelconque des noms donnés au Christ, et MM. Zahn et Belser ont soutenu encore tout récemment que le Prologue ne parle dès le v. 4 que du Christ, c'est-à-dire du Fils de Dieu incarné, auquel Jo. donne le nom de Verbe comme représentant la révélation Givine. Dans cette opinion, on n’a évidemment pas à se préoccuper de l’origine du terme ni de l'idée, qui seraient simplement bibliques. Mais tel n'esl pas le sens du prologue qui distingue deux élats du Verbe (1-5; 6-18). Ceux au contraire qui tiennent pour une doctrine spéciale doivent constater que ni le mot ni l'idée ne sont appliqués à Jésus-Christ en dehors des écrits johanniques, où ils figurent seulement : quatre fois dans le prologue, une fois dans 1 Jo. 1, 1 et une fois dans Apoc. xix, 13, avec un sens moins clair. L'usage restreint se comprend assez bien, et fait honneur à la probité de l'auteur (Zahn). Ayant conscience que le terme n'a pas été prononcé par Jésus, car on ne peut trouver cette désignation dans Jo. xvir, 47? ὃ λόγος σὸς ἀληθεία ἐστιν, Jean s’est abstenu de le faire figurer dans l'histoire évangélique, soit sur les lèvres de Jésus, soit sur d'autres. Il en a fait une qualification du Christ préexistant, avant son incarnalion. Et le fait qu'il ne se trouve nulle part chez les autres auteurs du N. T. est aussi un indice qu'il n'émane pas de Jésus, οἱ qu'il ne fut guère connu de la première génération chrétienne. Ce n'est pas une preuve qu'il n'appartient pas à la Révélation, qui ne fut elose qu'à la mort du dernier apôtre, mais enfin pourquoi Jean l’a-t-il promulgué ? On peut même demander avec les exégètes catholiques, quelle fut la raison de son choix? Personne sans doute ne prétendrait affirmer que Jean ἃ entendu résonner ce mot à ses oreilles, el, quand il l'a écrit pour la première fois (Ap. xx, 43), il ne dit pas qu'il lui ait été révélé dans sa vision, mais que le cavalier mystérieux s'appelle, ou est appelé, du moins dans certains cercles, le Verbe de Dieu : καὶ xérAntat τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ ὁ λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ. Aussi bien dans ce passage il n’est pas évident que le Logos n'est pas simplement la parole de Dieu. De toute facon, pourquoi Jo. a-t-il placé ce mot en tête de l'évangile? Jo. étant un écrivain juif et palestinien, sans même nous prévaloir ici de son identité avec Jean le disciple, il est naturel de chercher d’abord du côté de la Bible et des opinions juives palestiniennes. C'est ce que l’on a fait. Mais l’élude de la Bible a montré que le Logos-parole n'avait fait aucun progrès dans le cours des siècles vers le sens d'une personne distincte. C'est à peine si dans le livre de la Sagesse, tout entier ou presque, consacré à l'éloge de la Sagesse, il y a une phrase où le Logos figure comme une personnification, comme l'instrument d’un châtiment divin (xviu, 45 5.). Spécialement, lorsque Dieu assisté non pas du Logos, mais de la Sagesse. C’est elle dont crée, il est DAC e constituait, ou peu s'en faut, une hyposon comprenait de mieux en mieux qu'ell tase en Dieu. Quant aux juifs palestiniens, on s'est demandé si dès celte époque ils avaient l'habitude de désigner Dieu par les mots 1memra où dibboura, « parole » de Jahvé, qu'on prononçait Adonaï. Il est vraisemblable que oui, sans qu'on puisse le prouver, car on peut raisonner par analogie : c'est ainsi que le « lieu » (magém) pour désigner Dieu n'apparaît chez les Juifs que dans la Michna, mais Philon (de Somniis, 1, 228-230; I, 655) suppose clairement cet usage. Seulement memra comme magom n'était qu'une manière de ne pas prononcer le nom divin quand Dieu eût paru engagé dans quelque anthropo-- morphisme. On n'aurait pu faire sortir de ce scrupule une théorie sur la per- τ sonnalité distincte de la Memra. Quant à transposer directement la Sagesse en Logos, ce n’était pas impossible, mais on l’'admeltrait plus aisément s'il y avait des amorces, des préliminaires dans ce sens. Or ces préliminaires existaient dans la doctrine de saint Paul. Cette doctrine n'est pas une déduction des prémisses bibliques; elle part d'un fait, l'existence de Jésus, Messie, et Fils de Dieu. De ses miracles, de ses paroles, de sa résurrection, les apôtres et spécialement Paul dont la foi nous est mieux connue, ont conclu à la préexistence de l'individualité de Jésus, personne réellement et proprement divine. Paul ne spécule pas sur ce qu'était le Christ avant l'Incarnation comme personne distincte, si ce n'est qu'il était Fils de Dieu et dans la forme de Dieu (Phil. n, 3 ss.}; ordinairement c’est du Christ qu’il parle, méme: lorsqu'il lui décerne des prédicats divins. Parmi ces attributs, il est la Puissance de Dieu, la Sagesse de Dieu (I Cor. 1, 24) χριστὸν θεοῦ δύναμιν χαὶ θεοῦ σοφίαν. Le Christ étant la Sagesse de Dieu, était aussi son image antérieure à la création (Col. 1, 15) ὅς ἐστιν εἰκὼν τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ἀοράτου, πρωτόύτοχος πάσης χτίσεως, CE qui peut passer pour un renvoi à la doctrine des Proverbes (vu) et de la Sagesse (vu, 26), qui employait le mot εἰχών, à propos de la Sagesse. « Image » convenait bien au Christ comme illuminateur (Il Cor. 1v, 4), ce qui est aussi l'office de la Sagesse (Sap. vi, 22). L’Ancien Testament suggérait une certaine participation de la Sagesse à la création du monde. Quand Paul dit que tout a été créé par le Christ, après lavoir qualifié d'image du Dieu invisible, c’est comme s'il l'identifiait avec la Sagesse, image et aussi industrieuse ouvrière (τεχνῖτις) de toutes choses (Sap. vu, 22). Deux fois, et non sans veiller au choix de la préposition (διά 1 Cor. vin, 6 et Col. τ, 16), Paul dit que tout a été créé « par le moyen » du Christ, non qu'il en fasse un simple instrument, puisqu'il est la fin (Gol. τ, 46) : τὰ πάντα δι᾽ αὐτοῦ χαὶ εἰς αὐτὸν ἔχτισται, mais pour distinguer son aclion de celle du Dieu invisible dont il est l’image. Dans l'épitre aux Hébreux, ἀπαύγασμα οἱ χαρακτήρ (1, 3) qui se disent du Fils de Dieu sont à comparer avec ἀπαύγασμα et εἰκών qui se trouvent au même endroit dans la Sagesse (vu, 26). Le Christ était donc investi de prédicats qui appartenaient à la Sagesse, et spécialement il avait eu une part spéciale à la création du monde. Or, si cette part se déduisait sans aucune difficulté des textes des Proverbes (ντπ) et de la Sagesse (vu), il n'était pas moins clair d’après la Bible que Dieu avait créé par sa parole (Ps. xxx, 6). De sorte qu'on pouvait par ce chemin donner au Christ le nom de Logos aussi bien que celui de Sagesse. Jo. parait bien avoir suivi cette voie, car la première chose qu'il nous dit du Verbe, c'est que tout a été Créé δι᾽ αὐτοῦ, par lui, par son moyen. Une fois l'attention attirée sur le mot Logos, il apparaissait plus convenable comme nom maseulin d'jà, mais surtout comme exprimant plus aisément que la Sagesse une hypostase distincte, car la Parole étant un acte se distingue plus aisément qu'un attribut. Et d'autre part la Parole n'était pas nécessairement un acte de Dieu ayant son terme au dehors, puisque les Grecs connaissaient la parole intéricure. En Dieu le Verbe était parole intérieure; mais pour les hommes il était une lumière. Cette construclion est tellement simple, tellement logique, que l'on ne voit aucune nécessité de chercher ailleurs. Ce n’est pas [ἃ Memra qui a dù suggérer le Verbe personnel, mais le choix du mot répond dans les deux cas à la même suggestion biblique. Pour désigner Dieu parlant aux hommes, se montrant à eux, les rabbins dirent : la Parole. Pour exprimer cette personne divine qu'était le Christ révélateur, rien ne valait : la Parole. Et il est très naturel que Jo. qui connaissait le sens de la « gloire » et de 1" « habitation », et qui s’est complu à employer ces termes (1, 14), ait vu aussi un certain avantage à employer un terme connu en Palestine comme un équivalent de Dieu : Voluëit ergo Ioannes accommodate ad uswm loqui; voluit intelligi (Mald.). Le même souci ne devait-il pas le disposer à faire aussi des avances aux Gentils, ou du moins aux Juifs parlant grec, à supposer que leurs conceptions n'aient pas eu d'influence sur lui? On peut examiner diverses hypothèses. Celle des purs philosophes n'offre guère de probabilité. L'auteur a pu entendre dire que les philosophes grecs parlaient volontiers du logos. Mais une impression aussi vague ne pouvait le déterminer à employer le même terme qu'eux. Il fallait savoir ce qu'ils entendaient par Logos, se rendre compte de l’enchainement de leurs conceptions; Héraclite n'avait plus de disciples directs, du moins dans l'opinion moyenne, et son Logos n'était qu'une loi inflexible. Les Stoïciens seuls comptaient ; ils étaient la philosophie. Philon ἃ bien essayé de transformer leur Logos, mais cela se voit; il n’y ἃ pas dans Jo. la moindre trace de cette intention. Mais le judaïsme alexandrin n’a-t-il pas servi d'intermédiaire? C’est encore une opinion courante dans la critique. Le R. P. Lebreton (Les origines. Ὁ. 591) opine qu'on peut : « avec la plus grande probabilité, attribuer au terme de logos une origine alexandrine ». Dans sa première édition (p. 454) M. Loisy écrivait : « L'influence des idées philoniennes sur Jean n'est pas contestable. » Aujourd'hui (p. 88) : « Ii n’est pas autrement probable que l'évangile johannique dépende littérairement des écrits philoniens. » Π faudrait d'abord déterminer ce que l'on entend par une origine alexandrine. Un écrivain peut subir l'influence d'un autre en lui empruntant des éléments qu'il adapte à sa doctrine, soit tels qu'ils sont, soit en les modifiant quelque peu. Mais il se peut aussi que son propre système naisse dans son esprit en prenant conscience des défauts d’un autre système, et s'il lui arrive encore d'emprunter un terme,ce sera pour lui donner une valeur toute différente. Dans ce dernier cas on parlerait plus exactement d'opposition que d'influence, quoiqu'il y ait encore un certain enchainement dans la genèse des idées. À prendre la question sous cet aspect tout à fait vague, elle n est guère susceptible de solution sans témoignages positifs, el elle est assez oiseusc. Nous pourrions nous résigner à ne savoir jamais si Jean ἃ vaguement entendu parler du système philonien, s’il s'est dit qu'il y aurait avantage à lui emprunter le mot de Logos, sauf à lui donner un sens différent, mème à le contredire. Ce qui au contraire est possible, et important, c'est de confronter les deux systèmes et de juger de leurs points de contact et de leurs différences. Le point de contact entre Jo. et Philon est le rôle considérable du Logos. Dans Philon, le Logos est la raison de Dieu, mais aussi sa parole. 1 est l'intermédiaire de la création du monde, étant l'image intelligible de Dieu, qui s’en est servi pour créer le monde sensible. Il est le révélateur et lilluminateur des hommes, le canal et le distributeur des grâces, même leur nourriture et leur breuvage spirituel. Il est l’intercesseur pour les hommes, et les amène au repentir, après quoi il ménage leur réconciliation; enfin il est fils de Dieu et comme tel peut être l'objet du culte des imparfaits (cf. RB., juillet, 1923). Il faut reconnaître que l'ensemble de ces traits ressemble étonnamment au portrait de Jésus dans Jean. Mais il faut cependant en venir à déterminer de plus près la pensée de Philon. Son logos est-il seulement un attribut de Dieu, de sorte qu'il soit en somme Dieu lui-même? Car on ne saurait songer à ‘en faire une pure abstraction. Tous les offices qui lui sont assignés deviendraient des fonctions divines, détaillées dans l'intérêt de notre intelligence, dramatisées par une personnification pour émouvoir notre sentiment. Si Jo. avait entendu parler d’un logos philonien de cette sorte, il ne pouvait employer le même terme qu'en lui donnant un sens très différent, car ce qu’il cherchait c'était le nom propre d’une personne divine distincte, qui avait apparu dans la chair, ensuite d'une union très étroite qui répugnait absolument à tout le système de Philon. Si au contraire, et nous sommes persuadé que c’est le cas, Philon a parlé pour dire quelque chose, et ἃ délibérément introduit dans la religion un être intermédiaire distinct, dont il dit très nettement qu'il n’est pas Dieu, il a commis la plus caractérisée des hérésies, une véritable apostasie du judaïsme, inconsciemment peul-être, mais avec des conséquences inévitables. C'est pourquoi la question de la personnalité ou de l’individualité du Logos n’est point affaire de mot, mais problème fondamental dans l’ordre religieux. C'est toute la religion monothéiste qui est ébranlée s’il existe entre Dieu et le monde, entre l'âme et Dieu, un pareil intermédiaire, dont la fonction est bien de conduire à Dieu, mais qui peut cependant demeurer le terme des aspirations religieuses moyennes. Supposons que Jo. ait perçu ce sens du philonisme, il est bien assuré que, à l'instar de tous les Juifs palestiniens et sans doute de la majorité des Alexandrins, il aura eu horreur de cette conception bâtarde. La transformer en donnant au Logos le rang divin, ce n'était plus une simple adaptation d philonisme. ὶ Ainsi la différence fondamentale entre Philon οἱ Jo., c'est que le premier hésite soit à attribuer la divinité au Logos, ce qu’il pourrait faire sans inconvénient s’il ne le distinguait pas de Dieu, soit à le distinguer nettement, sauf à lui refuser la nature divine. Il penche cependant manifestement vers le second parti, et par conséquent ce qui donne au Logos de Jo. son caractère spécial c’est de maintenir la divinité de J.-G., Fils de Dieu distinct de son Père, et cependant une même chose, c’est-à-dire un même Dieu avec lui. Mais sa doctrine Jo. la possédait, d'après les déclarations de Jésus, dans la foi de l'Église, sans le terme de Logos : eüt-elle été mieux établie, eût-elle eu plus d'éléments de succès par l'emprunt à Philon d'un terme qui signifiait autre chose dans ses propres écrits? Le risque d'une contamination était évidemment plus grand que les chances de la propagande. De plus, ce qu'on néglige trop souvent dans des analyses d'ailleurs soignées, i} faut comparer l'esprit même de Philon dans le choix de son Logos et celui qui pouvait animer Jo. Pour Philon, le Logos, qui est raison pour les Grecs, est la maitresse pièce de son œuvre, l'outil indispensable. Il entend prouver aux esprits cultivés d'Alexan- ‘dre que la religion juive, qui leur parait bizarre et peu rationnelle, n'est autre “chose que l’expression figurée de la droite raison. H faut donc établir l'identité dé la Loi, parole du Dieu d'Israël, avec la raison, telle que l'ont mise en lumière les meilleures têtes de l’hellénisme : le Logos est le terme rêvé pour cette équation qui dépouille en somme la révélation de ses prérogatives, et remplace la foi à la parole de Dieu par l'adhésion de l'esprit aux principes de la raison naturelle. Jo. avait-il besoin du Logos pour cela? Son but est d'obtenir la foi en la parole de Dieu, parole prononcée par celui qui est vraiment la Parole de Dieu, et qui est en même temps le terme de l'adoration aussi bien queson Père. Tout l’échafaudage philonien croulait par terre. L'évangéliste aurait-il eu recours à ce méprisable artifice de suggérer aux Grecs que le Verbe de Dieu c'était précisément cette raison dont ils faisaient tant de cas? On n'en était pas encore au moment où il parut souhaitable, comme il est en effet, de montrer que la foi n'est pas contraire à la droite raison, et qu'elle peut l'employer à son service, sins cesser d’être l'adhésion de l'intelligence au Dieu révélateur. Concluons donc que si Jo. a employé le terme de Logos, ce n'est pas parce qu'il avait cours — au titre de fausse monnaie; — ni pour s'approprier les avantages d’une conception qu'il rejetait dans son ensemble, mais simplement parce que c'était le terme le mieux choisi pour exprimer les rapports du Fils avec le Père dans l'unité d’une nature spirituelle (cf. Inérod. Ὁ. cLxxx s8.). Donc si l’on tient à serrer le problème de près, il faut surtout insister sur le « littérairement » de la deuxième manière de M. Loisy. Nier toute espèce de suggestion alexandrine serait téméraire, d'autant que par la Sagesse c’est bien une influence alexandrine qui s'exerçait. Mais je ne puis prendre sur moi d’admettre une influence directe. Un lecteur de Philon, subissant tant soit peu son attrait, eût pu s'empêcher de faire à son tour le philosophe. Si tout cet étalage, véritable bric-à-brae philosophico-religieux lui déplaisait, — il est si étranger à Yäme de Jean! — il n’eût pas cru faire merveille en lui prenant quelque chose, voire dans le dessein de l'améliorer. Cette prétendue mystique sublime, qui risquait de rompre le rapport immédiat de l’âme avec Dieu sous prétexte de les - rapprocher par un « pont », n'a rien fourni à cette page qui met en contact, bien plus, en union, le Verbe intelligence et la chair. Celui qui a tracé en une page la solution divine de la médiation, unissant à Dieu les âmes de bonne volonté, parce qu’une personne qui est Dieu a pris la nature humaine, n'avait rien à emprunter à Philon. Le nom de Logos donné à cette personne ne vient pas non plus de chez lui, puisqu'il n'est pas pris dans le même sens, et qu'il n°y ἃ aucune trace qu'il lui ait été dérobé dans un instinct de polémique. En disant que le Logos est Dieu, Jo. ne contredit pas directement Philon, dont la pensée n'était pas nette. Tout au plus en insistant sur le Fils monogène a-t-il paru protester contre Philon qui donnait à Dieu deux fils, le monde intelligible et le monde sensible, mais y at-il pensé? Philon est très célèbre parmi nous, parce que ses œuvres nous sont parvenues, mais son influence fut sans doute plus grande au sein du christianisme que parmi ses coreligionnaires et de son temps. Après cela il est sans doute inutile de demander si Jo. n'aurait pas été influencé par l'Hermès mythologique. Ce n'est même pas le cas pour Philon, car alors ÉVANCILE SELON SAINT JEAN. Ἢ Hermès, spécialement l'Hermès de Cornutus, n'était guère que le logos humain, la parole. Certaines ressemblances, Hermès messager et le Logos envoyé par Dieu, viennent de postulats semblables. Philon ayant l’ange de Iahvé n'avait que faire d'Hermès. À supposer qu'il ait connu Hermès comme le Logos entité métaphysique, c'était l'explication philosophique qui l'intéressait, non le dieu de la mythologie, car il ne se proposait certes pas une fusion du judaïsme et des cultes païens, si indulgent qu'il fût pour l'erreur polythéiste. — Alors que penser de Jo. qui est, lui, étranger à tout ce qui se passe dans le paganisme? C'est après coup qu’un apologiste comme Justin a pu trouver une ressemblance entre Hermès et le Logos divin (1 Apol. xxrr); encore Hermès ne figure-til pas comme le Logos métaphysique des Stoïciens, mais comme l'interprète et le messager du dieu son père. PREMIÈRE PARTIE : JÉSUS SE MANIFESTE AU SEIN DU JUDAISME (1, 19-χπ, 50).
1:19
Καί pourrait passer pour le début d’une histoire à la manière des livres bibliques, mais αὕτη est une allusion à τ, 45. Ce n'est pas ici un nouveau témoignage, c'est l’exposé historique de ce qui avait figuré dans le prologue à l'état absolu. Un temps déterminé est indiqué maintenant par ὅτε, dans une circonstance donnée. — Aussitôt apparaissent les Juifs, A raisonner historiquement, il n’y avait qu'un pouvoir central qui représentât la nation à Jérusalem, et c'était le Sanhédrin, que plusieurs exégètes mettent en scène. Mais Jo. n'entre pas dans ce détail, et nous n'avons pas à changer la physionomie de son texte. Pour lui ce sont les Juifs, c'est-à-dire la nation incarnée dans ses chefs qui se dressent devant la figure du Christ, non point encore comme des opposants acharnés, mais déjà comme des enquêteurs qui se croient le droit de juger sur tout mouvement d'apparence messianique (cf. Introd. p. cxxxrs.). On délègue des prêtres et des lévites. Le choix des prêtres s'explique par leur autorité officielle. On peut justifier la présence des Lévites par les risques du voyage (Zahn), les Lévites constituant la police du Temple (Scaürer, Geschichte… 4e éd. 11, p. 328 ss.). Mais c’est là encore une précision qui n’est pas dans la manière de Jo. : il a simplement associé les Lévites aux prêtres pour compléter l'organisme sacré du culte. En fait il est tout naturel que les prêtres se soient fait accompagner par cette sorte de domesticité supérieure, pour organiser les étapes, le logement, etc. La démarche des Juifs se comprend très bien; on serait même tenté de la placer auparavant. Aussitôt que Jean ἃ pris sur lui d'attirer les foules, de les amener à un rite bien connu, mais qui ne se pratiquait pas en masses, de présenter ce rite comme une préparation à l'intervention divine, le Sacerdoce et les autres chefs spirituels et temporels des Juifs ont dù s'émouvoir. De tout agitateur on pouvait se demander s’il ne se donnait pas comme Messie. L'agitation est censée connue, ce qui donne son vrai sens à la question : qui es-tu? 1] eût paru naïf de demander : es-tu le Messie? peu sympathique d’insinuer : te donnes-tu pour le Messie? C’est exactement ainsi que les Athéniens, étonnés du rôle que se donne Socrate, lui demandent (dans Épictète, IL, 1, 22) σὺ οὖν τίς εἴ; Origène a noté la circonspection (τὸ εὐλαδές) des prêtres.
1:20
Jean comprend très bien qu'on ne lui demande pas son état civil, et répond à la pensée des interrogateurs. La formule positive et négative n'est point rare : Eur. El. 1057 φημὶ καὶ οὐχ ἀρνοῦμαι, Jos. Ant. VI, νι, 4 Σχοῦλος δὲ ἀδικεῖν ὡμολύγει καὶ τὴν ἁμαρτίαν οὐχ ἠρνεῖτο, résumant les Septante; l’insistance qui ramène ὡμολόγησεν est dans la manière un peu diffuse de Jo. — Mais ἐγώ qui ne reparaît pas dans les deux autres réponses a sa valeur; simple insinuation très légère : si ce n'est pas moi c’est donc un autre. .
1:21
σὺ Ἦλιας εἰ (Η) plutôt que Haras εἰ ou (SV) T on. ou.
Au lieu de suivre Jean sur cette voie, les envoyés officiels qui ont une mission précise, continuent leur interrogatoire dans le même sens, mais l'éclat avait été tel, le Messie était tellement à l'horizon, qu'ils ne croient pas se tromper en demandant à Jean s'il n'est pas Elie, que l’on attendait comme le précurseur de la restauration. C’est ainsi que le Siracide (xrvur, 40 5.) expliquait l’oracle de Malachie (ur, 23 s.; cf. Le Messianisme... Ὁ. 210), si bien que Jésus ἃ expliqué à ses disciples après la Transfiguration que le Baptiste avait joué le rôle d'Élie (Mc. 1x, 11-13; Mt. xvn, 40-12). Mais les Juifs attendaient Élie en personne, revenu sur la terre pour révéler el oindre le Messie (Jusriv, Dial. VIII). On s'étonne qu'ils aient pu supposer que Jean était Elie, surtout lorsqu'on a lu dans Luc l'histoire de sa naissance, de ses parents, etc. Mais comme Jean avait vécu ensuite dans le désert, qu'il avait apparu aux bords du Jourdain avec le costume d'Élie (Comm. Mc. 1, 6), et avec les mêmes paroles enflammées, le même zèle, on ne savait que penser. Il n’est pas interdit d'imaginer que la question a été posée avec un pli sceptique des lèvres, d'autant que Jean répond assez sèchement à la question d'identité. Quant à l'analogie de son rôle avec la fonction esquissée par Malachie, elle n’est ni soulignée, ni évitée par Jo., la question n'ayant pas été soulevée à ce moment, comme le prouve l'attitude des disciples dans les synoptiques (Mt. xvn, 10; Me. 1x, 41). — Troisième question relative au prophète. Moïse avait dit : « Iahvé, ton Dieu, te suscitera du milieu de toi, d’entre tes frères, un prophète tel que moi; vous Pécouterez » (Dé. xvir, 45). Il était très naturel que cet oracle fût appliqué au Christ Jésus, révélateur et prophète (Act. mr, 22; vrr, 87; cf. Me. 1x, 7), d'autant que la prophétie étant muelte depuis longtemps, sans avoir produit personne d'aussi grand que Moïse, l'espérance avait grandi en se projetant dans l'avenir. Quelques-uns attendaient donc « le » prophète, soit qu'ils y vissent une manière de désigner le Christ (σι, 44), ou quelque grande figure de son temps (var, 40 5.). La question est donc plausible, quoique le rabbinisme n'ait pas interprété le texte de Dt. xviu, 48 dans le sens d'une unité exceptionnelle. On peut dire que les anciens (sauf Origène et Jérôme) ont excédé en n'y voyant que le Christ, mais il serait non moins inexact de l’exclure de cette promesse qui touche omnes prophetas veteris Testamenti non excluso Chrisio (Hummelauer ad ἢ. 1.). — τί οὖν; comme Rom. mr, 9; νι, 45, etc. en grec plus souvent τί οὖν δή; Jean entend probablement « Je » prophète dans un sens équivalent à Messie: d’où sa réponse. Les Pères ont célébré à l’envi la modestie et l'humilité du Précurseur, qui refase même les noms d'Élie et de prophète, qu'il eût pu interpréter en sa faveur. L'énergie de son caractère apparait aussi dans ces réponses précises, de plus en plus courtes. Il semble même qu'il y perce une certaine fierté sinon ombrageuse, du moins réservée. Avec leur politesse affectant de le prendre pour une très grande figure, les Prêtres ont dû lui paraître peu sincères. Ce n'était pas le moyen de tirer quelque chose de lui. Les envoyés l’ont compris.
1:22
Aussi désormais, sans quitter un ton courtois, et alléguant l'autorité qui les envoie comme une excuse pour leur indiscrétion, et aussi comme une autorité à laquelle Jean doit se rendre, ils reprennent la première question en lui donnant une application plus directe à sa personne; ils l’estiment assez por ne vouloir s’en rapporter qu’à lui.
1:23
Mais qu'importe à Jean sa propre personne, qui s'efface devant la mission qu'il remplit? Π répond par l’oracle d'Isaïe (x, 3), déjà cité par les synoptiques en leur nom, mais combien plus émouvant dans la bouche de Jean lui-mêmel Tandis que Mec. (1, 3), Mt. (ur, 3), Le. (mr, 4) citent tout le verset exactement dans les mêmes termes, Jo. ne cite que la première partie, et remplace ἑτοιμάσατε par εὐθύνατε, ce qui est moins conforme à l'hébreu, mais qui le dispense d'ajouter avec les synoptiques : εὐθείας ποιεῖτε τὰς τρίδους αὐτοῦ, Cette condensation a pu se faire aussi bien d’après le grec que d’après l’hébreu. La coupure qui lie ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ à βοῶντος et non à ce qui suit (contre l'hébreu) est d’ailleurs plus naturelle dans ls bouche de Jean qui parle au désert que sous la plume des synoptiques alléguant un texte dans un ouvrage écrit. — Le renvoi à Isaïe est bien attribué à Jean par Jo., mais peut être du fait de ce dernier. Entre Jean et les prêtres de Jérusalem il n’était pas besoin d’une allégation précise.
1:24
La leçon ἀπεσταλμένοι sans article est la mieux attestée (HTS V d’après NBCLA bo. sah., contre Loisy); avec l’article 1] serait évident que la délégation est la même, et c'est peut-être pour cela qu'il à été ajouté. Mais le défaut d'articte ne prouve pas que Îles Pharisiens soient venus après les prêtres. Zahn le soutient : sinon Jo. aurait dû nommer les Pharisiens dès le début, et de plus le Sanhédrin n'aurait pas envoyé des Pharisiens, d'autant qu'ils étaient très peu nombreux parmi les prêtres. Mais la conversation est manifestement la même, sans aueun indice d'interruption. Le Sanhédrin n’a pas été nommé, et il y avait des prêtres Pharisiens, comme celui du papyrus 840 d'Oxyrhynque (RB. 1908, 538 ss.). Les Pharisiens sont nommés sans beaucoup d'art au moment où ils interviennent (cf. Introd. p. xcrv). Les prêtres se sont montrés polis; ils ont insisté pour avoir une réponse; l'ayant obtenue, leur rôle est terminé, Mais voici les Pharisiens, avec leur caractère agressif. Origène ἃ même pensé aient approuvé le baptème comme un rite convenable pour que les prêtres av préparer les voies du Seigneur : les Pharisiens, ceux qui sont séparés, font opposition et obstruction. — Le sens n'est pas que la délégation avait été envoyée par les Pharisiens, il faudrait παρά et non ἔχ, mais que quelques Pharisiens étaient parmi les envoyés, ce qui est du style de Jo., cf. vir, 40; xvi, 47; I Jo. 4; Apoc. π, 10 (Field).
1:25
Ceux qui interrogent n'ignorent pas la réponse du v. 23; sans la discuter, ils estiment que cet office de prédicateur n'autorise pas Jean à baptiser, surtout avec cet éclat. Nous n'avons aucune indication que le Messie ou Élie ait dû être jnvesti de cette mission spéciale, et l'intention des Pharisiens n’est pas de la leur réserver. Quoi que fasse l’envoyé de Dieu, on n'a pas à lui demander de comptes s’il ouvre une voie nouvelle de salut; mais toi? 26 5.). La réponse de Jo. n'est pas directe, mais elle résout l’objection ôle, car je ne baptise que dans l'eau, rite déjà pratiqué, je ne dépasse pas mon r 27. om. o a. ontow (H) ou add. (TSV). et qui, selon l'usage, n'était que préliminaire. C'était d’ailleurs l'office que Jean s’attribuait dans les synoptiques (Me. 1, 8; Mt. mr, 41; Le. mm, 16), en ajoutant dans Mt. et dans Le. une allusion à celui qui vient après lui, et auquel il n’est pas digne de rendre un modeste service, allusion qui précède dans Mc. Jo. suit donc l'ordre de Mt. et de Le. avec la formule « délier la courroie des chaussures » (Mc. Le), et non « les porter » (Mt.). Au lieu de dire que cet autre est plus fort que lui, s'adressant à des enquêteurs indiscrets, il leur reproche de ne pas le connaître, alors qu'il est au milieu d'eux; le baptëme par l'Esprit, qui est dans ce contexte chez les trois synoptiques, est réservé à une audience plus intime, en présence de Jésus (33), comme aussi son origine surnaturelle. Ce premier témoignage est comme une esquisse mystérieuse bien propre à éveiller l'attention, car on savait que le Messie serait longtemps caché. Les Pharisiens durent s’en contenter et se retirèrent, car il y a un dessein de clore lépisode, sinon d'une manière directe, du moins en indiquant le lieu. — ἵνα n'a plus du tout le sens final.
1:28
Lorsque rien n'indique le lieu de la scène, tel critique en conclut qu’elle se passe entre ciel et terre, done en dehors de l'histoire. Ici M. Loisy écrit (Ρ. 11) : « Notre évangile offre plus d’un exemple de cette précision voulue, et suspecte parce que voulue », etc. D’autres, plus modérés, allèguent que l'auteur a pu faire un pèlerinage en chrétien, sans être pour cela un témoin oculaire. ΤΙ faut cependant noter que dès le temps d'Origène tout souvenir de Béthanie au delà du Jourdain avait disparu, si bien qu'il a lu Bethabara (ΗΒ. 1895, p. 50288.) que la mosaïque de Mâdaba place ἃ l’ouest du Jourdain. (Icho‘dad est pour Bethabara, « d'autant que ‘Abara est une grande localité dans Le voisinage de la Galilée et de Gadara ». Mais c'est une confusion avec l'au delà du Jourdain qu’il appuie sur des textes de Me. (in, 8; v, 4)). Il est vrai qu’un gué a deux issues, mais une localité fixée à l'est ne peut avoir été à l'occident. Nous lisons donc Βηθανια (HTSV d'après NABC, etc. lait. vg. bo. pes. etc.) et non Βηθαόαρα ou Βηθεθαρα, ou Βηθαραῦα, dont le succès très restreint vient d'Origène, lequel reconnatt cependant que Βηθανια figure dans presque tous les mss. (σχεδὸν ἐν πᾶσι τοῖς ἀντιγράφοις χεῖται), et doit être ancien, d'autant qu'il se trouve dans Héracléon. Loisy suppose que Béthanie ἃ supplanté Bethabara, parce qu'un village de ce nom était nommé presque dans le même contexte que l'endroit où Jean baptisait (x, 40); mais que fait-il de la distance de 15 stades de Jérusalem (Σι, 18) à celte Béthanie? 1] ÿ avait donc deux villages de ce nom; celui qui était au-delà du Jourdain, plus ou moins près du fleuve, était probablement la transcription de MIN TNA, maison du bateau, tel qu'on en voit un sur la carte de Mâdaba en forme de bac, glissant le long d’un câble. Le même lieu pouvait se nommer Bethabara, maison du passage, mais la mosaïque à placé Bethabara plus au sud. Il faut donc chercher Béthanie à lorient du Jourdain; le R. P. Féderlin, des missionnaires d'Alger, estime lavoir repérée en 1908 à une ruine qu'il nomme Khirbet el-Medech (Béthanie, tirage à part de « Jérusalem » revue des Pères Assomptionnistes). Je l'ai visitée le 7 févr. 1923. El-Medech est le nom de tout l'estuaire, très étendu, du ou. Nimrin, nommé là esch-scha‘ib. La ruine a été nommée par un Adwan le KA. et-Tawil (le long), nom qui ne peut être qu'une désignation d'après son aspect. Ce tell est situé à environ 40 minutes du pont du Jourdain au nord-est, sur la rive droite du ouadi, à environ 300 mètres du Jourdain. 11 domine la plaine et avait même une petite acropole. Au pied du tell les eaux coulent très abondantes, du moins en hiver : il a dù être très facile de les capter et d'organiser un lieu de baptème beaucoup plus commode que le Jourdain, lequel n'est pas toujours accessible, mais qui cependant était à proximité. L'installation serait parallèle à celle d’Aenon (πι, 23), mais plus rapprochée du fleuve. L'identification du R. P. Féderlin est donc très plausible, sans être encore confirmée par l'onomastique locale. . D'ailleurs il ne résulte nullement du texte de Jo. que Béthanie ait été le lieu du baptême de Jésus. Ce baptême avait déjà eu lieu lors du témoignage, et, d'après les synoptiques (Mc. et Mt.) dans le Jourdain. Au temps d'Origène on croyait connaître le lieu où Jean baptisait, par où l'on entendait sans doute le lieu du baptême de Jésus, et depuis lors la tradition n'a pas dû changer: elle est demeurée fixée au monastère du Prodromos ({Qasr el-Yehoud). D'après x, 40, Le lieu où Jean baptisait d'abord, dans la perspective de l'évangile, c’est-à-dire quand il rendait son témoignage, était nettement au delà du Jourdain.
1:29
Le lendemain, pour mettre un intervalle, en se dispensant de dire que la délégation est repartie (contre Belser). On ne sait à qui s'adresse le Baptiste, mais son âme s'épanche si librement que l’auditoire était sans doute syÿmpathique, sinon restreint. ἴδε, impér. ἀ εἶδον, devenu synonyme de voici. Ce qui ὑτό ἡ λέγει Ἴδε ὁ ἀρνὲ ü θεοῦ ὁ αἴρων τὴν ἁμαρτίαν τοῦ πρὸς αὐτόν, χαὶ λέγει [δε ὁ ἀρνὸς τοῦ ὑέοὺ p 1 p χόσμου. 30 οὗτός ἐστιν ὑπὲρ οὗ ἐγὼ εἶπον ᾿Οπίσω pou ἔρχεται ἀνὴρ ὃς ὄ dTé ἦν. 3: χἀγὼ οὐκ ἤδειν αὐτόν, ἀλλ᾽ ἔμπροσθέν μου γέγονεν, ὅτι πρῶτός μου ἣν. “᾿χαγὼ οὐκ HG αὔτον, GA 31. om. τω a. ὑδατι (THV) et non add. (8). suit est interprété le plus souvent, surtout depuis Luther, comme une indication du rôle du Messie, agneau destiné à être immolé pour le salut du monde, pour enlever les péchés en les prenant sur soi (Kn., Schanz, Belser, etc.). Cet agneau est, ou bien l'agneau des sacrifices du Temple, ou bien l'agneau pascal, ou bien une figure du serviteur de Tahvé dans Isaïe (Lim, 7), semblable à l'agneau à la boucherie (Jér. χι, 19). 11 y ἃ d’ailleurs plus d'accord sur le sens messianique expiatoire que sur l'image et le rôle de l'agneau. — Cette interprétation souffre de graves difficultés. Il n’y aurait pas un inconvénient absolu à. attribuer à Jean une appréciation du messianisme de Jésus si supérieure à celle de Pierre, même après sa Confession de Gésarée de Philippe. Mais il fau— … drait admettre que, entre sa première prédication et ce moment, l'idéal messianique du Baptiste a bien changé, puisqu'il regardait surtout le Messie comme un Juge qui vient nettoyer son aire (Mt. nr, 42; Le. nr, 47). De plus on s'expliquerait mal l'ambassade du Baptiste (ME. xr, 2-6; Le. vu, 48-23), et tout le monde n'est pas disposé à dire avec Belser qu'il s’est plaint que Jésus n'ait pas encore nourri les Juifs de manne. Aussi il est admis comme démontré par la critique indépendante que Jo. prête ici à Jean sa propre conception du rôle du Messie, figuré par l'agneau pascal. Maldonat semble avoir préludé, quoique prudemment, à une explication de ce genre : Proprium inter evangelistas Ioanni est, ut Christum agnum appellet… (suivent les exemples nombreux de l’Apocalypse). Habet vocabula quaedam Ioannes, quibus delectatur. Jo. aurait donc fait dire à Jean ce que la Passion du Christ avait appris aux chrétiens. Le seul moyen d'éviter cette conséquence, c’est de renoncer à une exégèse qui n’est pas traditionnelle. Augustin ne voit ici aucune allusion au Messie souffrant, mais seulement à l'innocence de l'agneau : qui non assumpsit de nostra massa peccatum, ipse est qui tollif nostrum peccatum. La spécialisation au péché originel vient de l’obsession d’Augustin à cette époque, mais l’idée générale est très juste, c’est celle de Thomas d’abord : peccatum nullum fecit, sed venit peccatum tollere. Chrysosiome : « celui qui est assez pur pour effacer les péchés des autres n’est sûrement pas venu pour confesser (ses propres) péchés ». Il y a là un tact très juste. Jean n’est pas dans une chaire occupé à expliquer et à combiner des textes. Il baptise, et tout le monde confesse plus ou moins bruyamment ses péchés (Me. 1, 5; Mt. m1, 6). Cependant il sait très bien qu'il ne baptise que dans l'eau. Le baptême provoque des dispositions dont Dieu tiendra compte, mais ce n’est pas encore le remède efficace qui fait disparaître le péché. Dans cette foule, Jésus apparaît comme un agneau innocent, et c'est lui, Lui, qui doit enlever le péché! Le sens de αἵρω n'est pas douteux : c'est enlever! et non prendre sur soi, Irénée et Cyprien lisaient qui auferet, la préface pascale dit encore : qui abstulit. C'est le sens de 1 Jo. 11, 5, avec un contexte tout ἃ. fait semblable. Cette idée correspond très bien aux espérances messianiques d'alors. Le roi attendu serait pur de tout péché, et son rôle serait de faire disparaître le péché (Ps.-Sal. xvur, 41, 21 ss.), sans qu'il soit nullement question d’expiation. Cette intelligence du rôle du Messie est en harmonie avec l'idéal de celui qui nettoie son aire (Mt. πι, 42, Le. ur, 47), de sorte qu'il n'y ἃ pas d'opposition entre Jo. et les synoptiques. Une pareille explication, conforme à la méthode historique, et on peut dire traditionnelle, ne doit pas céder à l'exégèse de Luther, trop fortement impressionnée par des concepts pauliniens qu'elle anlidate. Il ne faut pas non plus mettre les deux interprétations bout à bout comme on le voit dans Loisy «cette déduction même [fondée sur les anciens textes] ἃ été provoquée par la notion mystique du dieu souffrant et victime salutaire » (p. 419), et aussitôt après : « L'Agneau chasse le péché sans que le péché Fait seulement touché » (p. 420). C'est ce second point qui est juste. Il n’est même pas nécessaire de dire que Jo. a prêté au Baptiste cet agneau d'une innocence divine; car l'agneau était bien un symbole du juste parmi les pécheurs : καὶ οἱ ὅσιοι τοῦ θεοῦ ὡς ἀρνία ἐν ἀκακίᾳ ἐν μέσῳ αὐτῶν (Ps.-Sal. γι, 28), ce qui était bien la situation de Jésus au baptème. Aussi bien les partisans du séns expiatoire pe s'entendent pas : Zahn ne veut rien savoir d'Isaïe, ni Schanz de l'agneau pascal, et en effet aucun texte ancien ne rend compte de l’image. Les agneaux immolés dans les sacrifices étaient surtout célèbres par le sacrifice bi-quotidien (Ex. xxx, 38) qui n'était pas expialoire. Pour l'agneau pascal, son sang avait arrêté l'ange exterminateur, il avait sauvé les Israélites, mais il n'avait pas un rapport direct avec le péché même quand il fut cité comme type du Christ (1 Cor. v, 7; cf. Jo. x1x, 30). Quant au texte d'Isaïe, il est saisissant pour nous, mais une allusion si brève et si vague eût-elle été comprise? Encore n'est-elle en situation que si l'Agneau prend sur lui les péchés, ce qui n'est pas dit. Noter le participe αἴρων, pour une action qui n’est pas commencée, mais qui caractérise une personne, et τοῦ χόσμου, ce n'est pas seulement Israël, mais le monde dont le péché doit être enlevé, quoique, à vrai dire, l'opposition soit plutôl entre Dieu et le monde pécheur qu'entre Israël et le reste du monde.
1:30
Cette déclaration est la même pour sa première partie que celle du v. 27, mais avec une raison que Jean n'avait pas donnée aux Pharisiens, et que 60. avait déjà fait figurer dans le témoignage succinct du prologue, v. 15; id ἢν ἃ ἀνήρ en plus, amené peut-être par la présence humaine de Jésus. Jean déclare donc que dès à présent, quoique les apparences paraissent contraires, Jésus ἃ passé devant lui, du droit de sa préexistence. L 31) Une affirmation aussi extraordinaire devait être justifiée, car Jésus n'avait encore rien fait au dehors qui la motivât. Aussi Jean se réfère à une révélation ance générale se comprend, et Jean spéciale. κἀγώ οὔκ, « moi non plus »; l’ignor à fait extraordinaire dont îl vient n'avait pas non plus cette connaissance tout de parler : la vocation de Jésus qui est d'enlever le péché, son existence antérieure à celle d’un autre, né cependant avant lui. Jo. a pu écrire cela sans dessein de contredire M. nr, 14, qui ne supposait encore ni cette connaissance, ni la manifestation publique que Jean accomplit maintenant. Le Messie devait être caché jusqu'à ce qu'Élie le fit connaître (καὶ φανερὸν πᾶσι ποιήσῃ, Justin, Dial. vin, 4), et c'est précisément pour cela que Jean a eu mission de baptiser. C’est donc à l’occasion de son baptême que Jésus devait être connu de Jean, et il est bien étrange qu'on ait attribué à Jo. l'intention de mettre de côté le baptême (Bauer) et de le remplacer par autre chose. La manifestation du Messie, que Jean ne nomme toujours pas, était réservée d’abord à Israël. Le Baptiste s'attribue donc le rôle d’Élie, que les synoptiques lui ont reconnu d'après les paroles de Jésus (Me. 1x, 42; Mt. xvur, 12); et cependant il vient de dire aux prêtres qu'il n'est pas réellement Élie en personne. L’auteur semble donc nous inviter à le lire avec attention, à ne pas voir des contradictions où il n’y en a pas, dédaignant de s'expliquer lui-même (cf. Introd. p. xcv).
1:32
Jean avait donc mission de manifester le Messie, ce qui supposait qu’on le lui ferait connaître. Il n’a pas encore dit comment; c'est ce qu'il fait ici. L’enchaînement des idées est si étroit qu’on ne peut supposer une reprise du discours après un temps notable. Le signe était la descente de l'Esprit en forme de colombe, comme elle était racontée par les synoptiques au baptême de Jésus (Mc. τ. 40 et par.); Jo. ajoute que la colombe demeura (cf. Is. χε, 2), ce qui ctait plus significatif, et indiquait aussi que pour le moment l'Esprit n’était pas donné à d’autres (vir, 39). — Loisy note que « dans la logique de l'Incarnation, le Logos fait homme n'a aucun besoin d'être sacré par l'Esprit » (p. 122); il en conclut que ce passage est ajouté au thème primitif. Il suffisait de constater qu'en effet il n’y ἃ pas d'onclion, telle que les Juifs l’attendaient (Jusrin, Dial. VAL, 4) χριστὸς dé, εἰ καὶ γεγένηται καὶ ἔστιν που, ἄγνωστός ἐστι χαὶ οὐδὲ αὐτός πω ἑαυτὸν ἐπίσταται οὐδὲ ἔχει δύναμίν τινα, μέχρις ἂν ἐλθὼν Ἠλίας χρίσῃ αὐτὸν χαὶ φανερὸν πᾶσι ποίησῃ. Manifestement le Logos incarné ne ressemblait pas à ce Christ qui s'ignorait, dépourvu de toute puissance jusqu'au jour de son onction, qui le sacrait roi ou Messie. Et c'est peut-être pour cela que Jo. a évité jusqu'ici le terme de Messie comme trop au-dessous du Verbe incarné. La descente de l'Esprit qui s'arrête sur Jésus est simplement le signe donné à Jean, et conformément aux Ecritures (Is. ΧΙ, 1 ss., xuur, 4; τσὶ, 2). Dans l'A. T. il n'était pas dit non plus que ce don de l'Esprit serait la nature divine ajoutée à la nature humaine du Messie; selon la manière ordinaire, c'était plutôt un don, une impulsion en vue de l’action. C'était bien aussi le sens de la descente de l'Esprit dans les synoptiques ; Jo. n'a donc pas changé ce qui se conciliait très bien avec sa théologie du Verbe, quoique le signe donné à Jean ait dû avoir sa raison d’être par rapport à Jésus lui-même; aussi bien Jean ne dit-il pas que le signe ne fut donné qu'à lui et en vue de lui seul.
1:33
Jean a bien indiqué le signe, mais comment en a-t-il compris la portée et C’est ce qu'il explique maintenant, en accentuant de nouveau son ignole sens? rance antérieure, dissipée par la révélation de celui qui l’a envoyé pour baptiser, mais seulement dans l'eau. Nouvelle insistance pour dmener le trait définitif, celui du baptême dans l'Esprit-Saint. L'ordre est irréprochable, à la condition que la descente de VEsprit-Saint ait eu lieu au moment du baptême de Jésus. Par celte déclaration, Jo. se réfère enfin à la mission du plus fort dans les synoptiques (Mc. 1, 8; ΜΙ. πὶ, 11; Le. 111, 16). — 6 βαπτίζων, comme 6 αἴρων (29), participe immuable, entrant en exercice quand le temps sera venu, après le don de l'Esprit (var, 39).
1:34
ἐχλεχτὸς ou υἱὸς (THSV).
Au lieu de υἱός, Ναὶ (cf. Ox?) 77 218 ὁ syrsin et cur Amb. ont ἐκλεχτός, d’autres ont les deux (57 etc. ab ff? sah.). « Le mot « Fils » convient mieux à la théologie de l'auteur » (Loisy, 123), mais cette raison a pu frapper un copiste. récit des synoptiques (Me. 1, 41; ME. ur, 17; Si on lit υἱός on supposera connu le Le. πα, 22) sur la voix qui s'est fait entendre, sous la forme de MH. : « Celui-ci est mon Fils bien-aimé. » . 1 faut beaucoup de parti pris pour écrire : « C’est très délibérément qu'il [Jo.] ἃ passé sous silence le baptême et qu'il y substitue le témoignage de Jean touchant la descente de l'Esprit. » « Sans doute notre auteur estimait-il que le baptême conféré par Jean ne relevait point comme il faut le Logos-Christ » (Loisy, 134). — Sans doute il ne le relevait pas du tout, pas plus que la Passion, si ce n'est comme un acte d'obéissance (xvur, 11, etc.). Si Jo. avait voulu contredire les synoptiques, il n’eùt pas dù écrire de façon à laisser croire qu’il tirait parti de leur récit. C’est en effet ce récit qui sert de base au témoignage de Jean. il ya cependant encore, d'après Loisy, une grosse différence : « La tradition synoptique avait bien osé faire consacrer, en quelque sorte, Jésus comme Christ par Jean tenant la place d'Élie, mais elle ne s'était pas risquée à lui faire révéler publiquement le Christ, comme ja tradition juive (ef. Jusrin, Dial. (vin; cx) disait qu'il serait révélé par ce prophète » (p. 121). C'est exagérer pourtant l'audace des synoptiques : Jean n'y consacre pas le Christ, ce seraient l'Esprit et la voix du 85. ο. ἃ. Ιωαννης (TSV) et nor om. (Η). ciel, si l'on pouvait appeler cela une consécration. Il est vrai cependant qu'ils n'avaient pas accentué comme Jo. le caractère de révélateur et de témoin du Baptiste. Apparemment cela n’entrait pas dans leur plan. Que Jo. ne l’ait pas fait sans avoir une cerlitude historique, c'est ce que montrent les rapports de Jean avec les premiers disciples.
1:35
πάλιν ne dit pas « assez naïvement » (Loisy) que Jean était là « de nouveau », car ce mot peut signifier « encore » (cf. xir, 39, etc.); c'était le lendemain de ce qui vient d'être dit. Jean est mis en scène avec deux disciples, ce qui ne prouve pas qu'ils fussent seuls ou que les deux n'eussent pas été présents la veille, mais leur présence est tout ce qui importe pour le moment. Jo. signale volontiers celte situation debout (τα, 29; vu, 37; xn, 29; xviu, 18. 25; xx, 44), qui est une position d'attente. Ce n'est pas Jean qui va chercher Jésus; c’est Jésus qui passe.
1:36
Alors Jean fixe sur Ini son regard. La veille Jésus était venu vers Jean: ce jour-là il passe, comme pour ne pas attirer l'attention du Baptiste et provoquer une nouvelle déclaration. Cependant Jean répète les premiers mots de son témoignage de la veille. Il arrive que des discours très incisifs ne font impression que sur l'intelligence, et qu'un léger rappel ébranle la volonté. Ou bien les disciples entendant ce mot pour la première fois, frappés de ce qu'il avait d'énigmatique, ont-ils réselu soudain de s'enquérir auprès de Jésus lui-même? L'auteur ne le dit pas; la première hypothèse est plus vraisemblable.
1:37
οἱ ὃνο μ. α. (TH) platôt que αὐτοῦ ot duo μ.. (SV).
Les deux disciples de Jean suivent Jésus, non pas comme ses disciples, mais dans l'intention de lui parler. La première démarche vient d'eux, mais provoquée par les paroles du Baptiste, qui parurent en singulière harmonie avec k douceur et la candeur que respirait toute la personne de Jésus. On ne voit pas d’ailleurs que Jean ait rien fait pour diriger ses disciples vers le Messie. Son rôle est seulement de le montrer. Aussi est-ce une fantaisie de Strauss d’avoir vu dans les deux disciples l'équivalent des deux messagers des synoptiques (ΜΙ. xr, 2 55.; Le. νη, 18 ss.).
1:38
Si l’on veut « suivre » quelqu'ux sans qu’il s’en doute, on le précède, ΤῈ est naturel que Jésus se soit aperçu de l'intention des disciples si naïvement manifestée, aussi Jo. ne parle d'aucune connaissance surnaturelle. Jésus donc se tourne et les regarde attentivement. Sa demande — la première parole qu'il prononce dans lévangile — est moins banale que : « désirez-vous me parler »? qui serait peu encourageant. Elle équivaut à : « avez-vous besoin de quelque chose? » tout en autorisant un sens plus profond. Si les deux disciples suivent Jésus dans une telle circonstance, c’est qu'ils attendent de lui un bien de l’ordre moral. Cette question est posée à tout lecteur de l'évangile. — Les deux répondent par une interrogation, parce que, dans leur pensée, les choses qu'ils cherchent sont trop importantes pour être traitées sur le grand chemin. Es disent Rabbi, quoique Jésus n'ait pas l'allure d'un docteur de profession, maïs aussi était-ce souvent un simple titre de politesse (Monsieur), — quoique Jo. donne lexplication littérale, διδάσκαλος, « celui qui enseigne ». L'emploi de mots sémitiques, le soin de les expliquer, prouvent que l’auteur ἃ conservé à Ce MOrccau son aspect primitif, comme si, dans ce cas, les mots retentissaient encore. Loisy concède qu'il avait une certaine connaissance des choses juives; il y mêle un goût décidé pour l’allégorie : « C'est à raison de cette valeur mystique, et non par coquetterie d’érudit, que la forme sémitique des noms lui ἃ paru bonne à garder» (p. 130). Serait-ce donc que la valeur mystique était attachée aux syllabes sémitiques ef non au sens des mots, le même en grec qu’en hébreu ou en araméen? Cela relèverait plutôt de la magie que de la mystique. — μένω peut s’entendre d'un séjour très court, même dans Jo. (π, 42; 1v, 40). Loisy « Le Christ johannique n'est pas sans asile, comme le Christ synoptique » (tt. ναὶ, 20; Le. 1x, 38) il a « sa maison ».… (P. 127). Mais les synoptiques ne prétendent pas que Jésus ait toujours couché à la belle étoile, et Jo. ne parle pas d'une maison. La grande foule qui venait au baplôme ne pouvait se loger dans les petits villages des bords du Jourdain; c'est là, et même mieux qu'en Galilée, qu'on pouvait dormir en plein air ou dans des cabanes de roseaux. Jésus avait un abri temporaire, pour le temps qu'il avait résolu de passer aux alentours du Baptiste, c’est tout ce que sugsère le texte.
1:39
La réponse est agréablement calquée sur la demande, mais comme la demande impliquait plus que ne disaient les termes, la réponse a dû être accom- 89. 1ôete plutôt que οψεσῦς (ΤῊΒ Υ). pagnée d'un sourire : Vous verrez où je demeure; soyez-les bienvenus. Et en effet, c'est bien ce qu'ils virent. Quand nous voudrions tant savoir ce qui s'est dit, Jo. le tait et insiste sur des minuties; on peut cependant en déduire que l'entretien fut long. Commencé à la dixième heure, c'est-à-dire vers -4 heures du soir, il dura le reste de la journée. L'heure, calculée depuis le lever du soleil, doit marquer le moment où l'on arriva au gîte de Jésus, l'indication étant en rejet; cf. 1v, 8; xix, 14. Il serait tout à fait contraire aux usages de -l'Orient que les deux disciples n'aient pas passé la nuit dans cet endroit (Chrys. Cyr. Aug.), mais ce n'était plus rester auprès de Jésus, c’est-à-dire pour l’entretenir. D'après Bauer (en 1912, et Loisy en 1921) syrsin et syreur placent expressément le contenu de 40-42 au même jour. Il n'est pas tenu compte de la découverte de Mrs. Lewis qui lit dans syrsin v. #1 « au matin» (om. syreur.) comme 8 : et mane invenit, avec ὃ et r!, C’est donc le lendemain matin, d'après ces témoins et selon la vraisemblance, qu'André se mit en quête de son frère. — Nous lisons ἴδετε qui correspond à la formule rabbinique courante « viens et vois »; cf. 1, 46 et σι, 34; ὄψεσθε de B CL doit être une élégance. Des copistes auraient pu harmoniser, mais il est plus probable que Jo. n'a pas changé cette formule.
1:40
André était l'un des deux : qui était l’autre? Chrys. a bien posé le dilemme ou bien c'était un disciple qui ne joua aucun rôle, ou bien c'était l’auteur de l'évangile. Dans la première hypothèse (Maldonat, etc.), le disciple de Jean ne serait pas devenu tout à fait disciple de Jésus, et alors pourquoi le mettre en avant sans parler de son recul? D'autant que, sur cing disciples, quatre seront nommés. Il semble donc (Zahn, Schanz, etc.) qu’on voie commencer ici le procédé de l’auteur qui évite de se nommer, mais qui se laisse suffisamment entrevoir (x, 23; xix, 26; xx, 2; xxr, 7.20). Ici il ne dit pas : le disciple que Jésus aimait, car ils en sont à la première entrevue. La conjecture est tout à fait probable; M. Loisy lui accorde une certaine chance, mais à la condition que ce disciple ne soit qu'un symbole, « l'idéal de l’évangéliste, et, en ce sens, l’'évangéliste lui-même » (p. 128). On ne voit guère ce que signifierait ici le symbole. D'autant que la principale raison pour reconnaître ici l’auteur, c’est la précision des détails qui lui est même peu habituelle, surtout quant à la succession des jours. Il tient à montrer dès le début qu'il est parfaitement bien informé et laisse entendre — ce que ses amis et disciples savaient plus clairement — qu'il était lui-même un des acteurs de ces premières scènes.
1:41
La lecon πρῶτος (T) adoptée par Zahn après beaucoup d’autres lui fournit un autre argument. Si André le premier a trouvé son propre frère, c'est que son compagnon, en second lieu, ἃ trouvé son frère à lui, c’est-à-dire que Jean ἃ amené Jacques, et que nous avons ici implicitement les quatre premiers appelés au bord du lac. C’est un peu trop subtil. D'ailleurs la leçon πρῶτον (om. syrcur.) est beaucoup plus soutenue (HSV), et s'explique sans difficulté pour désigner une première rencontre avant celles des vv. 48 et 45. La leçon πρωΐ proposée par Mrs Lewis (The old syriac Gospels, etc. p. xxvrir 5.) d'après syrsin b e r serait excellente, car elle préciserait le temps selon l'esprit de toute cette péricope : le lendemain, de bonne heure, car André a hâte de communiquer la bonne nouvelle. Mais elle est bien peu appuyée. — ἴδιος est assez souvent l'équivalent dans la koïné du pronom possessif (cf. Mt. xxnr, 5), et on doit le déduire ici du contexte qui ne parle d'aucun autre frère. — Il est difficile de donner au premier εὑρίσκω le sens de rencontrer par hasard, et aw second le sens de trouver après avoir cherché. Dans les deux cas André ἃ cherché, seulement la première recherche était aisée; la seconde, dans laquelle il avait un compagnon, est l'objet d’une joie presque inespérée. Μεσσίας dans le N. T. ne figure qu'ici et iv, 25, les deux fois avec son explication de « oint c'est la transcription de l’araméen ΝΠ ou de l'hébreu num (cf. Le Messianisme… p. 213 ss.); l'article indique que l'Oint n'était pas tout à fait un nom propre. Cependant on ne pouvait se méprendre sur l'individualité qu'il désignait, à savoir le roi attendu pour sauver Israël; les conceptions d'André sont celles du peuple.
1:42
Toute l'initiative appartient à André qui amène son frère à Jésus. On a l'impression qu’André ἃ trouvé, lui et un autre, celui que Pierre désirait aussi rencontrer, de sorte qu'il suffisait d’un mot pour le mettre au courant et pour l’entrainer. Les Pères n'ont donc pas tort de relever la foi et la docilité de Pierre; la meilleure preuve de ses bonnes dispositions est dans l'accueil qu'il va recevoir. Jésus fixe son regard (comme Jean au v. 36) avant de prononcer une parole importante; il parle avec autorité, prenant en quelque sorte possession de son disciple en changeant son nom. Bauer cite Strabon XII, π, & Τύρταμος δ᾽ ἐχαλεῖτο Eurpooûev ὁ Θεόφραστος, μετωνόμασε δ᾽ αὐτὸν ὃ ᾿Δριστοτέλης Θεόφραστον, nom plus harmonieux et qui marquait le goût du disciple pour un style abondant. Jo. ne dit pas ici à quoi répondait dans la pensée de Jésus le nom de Képhas (ef, Comm. Mi. xvi, 17s.). Pour ne pas multiplier les noms sémitiques, il nomme Simon υἱὸς Ἰυάννου, tandis que dans ΜΙ. il est Βαριωνᾶς, simple transcription de l'araméen. Ἰωάννης était peut-être un équivalent admis pour N3%, comme il l'était pour Yan, nom beaucoup plus fréquent. Σίμων était luimême un équivalent vraiment grec de τον, transcrit plus strictement Συμέων, ce dernier, à propos de Pierre, seulement dans Act. xv, 14 et plus probablement II Pet. 1, 1. On dirait bien que dans la pensée de Jo., Jésus ἃ connu de sa science propre le nom du nouveau venu aussi bien que celui qu’il convenait d'y substituer; le premier point n’est pas mis en vedette, d'autant qu'André avait pu parler des siens. Mais il attache de Fimportance au second, puisque Σίμων ne sera pas employé seul, mais toujours avec Πέτρος (sauf dans linterpellation solennelle de xx1, 15.16.17), tandis que Πέτρος, dont le sens est désormais connu, paraîtra seul. Il a donc bien voulu marquer que le changement de nom eut lieu dès le premier jour, — ce qui est conforme à l'usage de Mt. 1v, 18, etc. — mais sans en donner la raison, réservée pour plus tard dans Mt. — Jo. n'entend pas le contredire tacitement sur ce point, car il ne prétend pas dès lors signifier « l'institution de l'Église chrétienne » {Loisy). L'impression faite sur André nous est connue; il n’est rien dit de celle de Pierre. André lui-même aurait-il alors fait une confession aussi ferme que celle de Pierre à Césarée? Il y ἃ beaucoup de distance entre un premier enthousiasme et une conviction réfléchie (οὗ vi, 68).
1:43
Si l’on ne connaissait par ailleurs quelque chose de l’histoire de Jésus — et l’on avait les synoptiques, — on s’étonnerait que Jésus ne restât pas chez lui en Judée. Et d’où venaient Pierre et André? Jo. ne le dira qu'à propos du lieu d’origine de Philippe, v. ἀφ. I] compte donc sur les données acquises à ses lecteurs. Ils devaient penser que Jésus, venu de Galilée pour être baptisé, après avoir passé quarante jours dans le désert était revenu près du Jourdain, comme pour prendre congé du Baptiste, et qu'il se disposait à retourner en Galilée. ἐξελθεῖν n'indique pas nécessairement sortir de son pays, mais seulement du lieu où l’on est, ou même s’en aller : ἀφ᾽ ὡς C2 ξῆλθες ἀπ’ ἐμοῦ (MM) « depuis que tu m'as quitté », et cela est ici indiqué par εἰς. Jésus ne sort pas de la Judée, il part pour la Galilée. Il faut aussi noter (Mald.) la force du mot ἠθέλησεν : certo consilio. Jésus veut aller en Galilée parce que c’est là qu'il doit se manifester. Et pour Jo. cefte volonté exprimée clairement suffit à indiquer le fait du voyage. Au ch. n, 1, nous sommes en Galilée; on ne dit pas quand Jésus y est arrivé. Nous préférons (avec Muld. Loisy) placer le voyage ici plntôt qu'après la vocation de Nathanaël. Comment tous ces Galiléens se seraient-ils trouvés en Judée? I y ἃ des figuiers à Jéricho, mais Nathanaël sous le figuier ἃ l'air d'être chez lui. — εὑρίσκει doit donc se placer près de la Galilée. C'est le même verbe que v. 41, ce qui donne l'apparence d’une continuité au même lieu, mais cette continuité n'est en réalité que dans le même dessein de Dieu et de l’évangéliste, poursuivant le thème des premières vocations. Jésus rencontre Philippe à point nommé pour lui dire : « suis-moi»! non pas : viens en ma compagnie en Galilée (Schanz, etc.), mais « sois mon disciple », comme pour Matthieu (M. vru, 22 et par.|. 4%) Jugeant inutile de dire que Philippe a obéi à cet appel, puisqu'il le présentera comme un propagandiste, Jo. note seulement que Philippe était de Bethsaïda, que nous savons par les synoptiques être sur les bords du lac de Tibériade (el. Comm. Mc. νι, 45; Le. 1x, 40), et nous apprenons en même temps que c'était la patrie d'André et de Pierre; on dirait que, rentrés chez eux, ils ont causé avec leur compatriote, si le dessein de Jo. ne paraissait assez clair d'attribuer cette fois toute l'initiative à Jésus.
1:45
Α son tour, toujours selon le même dessein divin, Philippe, qui s'était un moment détaché des autres, rencontre Nathanaël, et lui parle comme André avait parlé à Pierre, au pluriel, parce que désormais il fait partie du groupe. Au lieu de dire le Messie, il se sert d’une périphrase; le rappel de Moïse ne doit nullement être restreint à Dt. xviu, 45. 18; la Loi, en tant que distincte des Prophètes, comprenait tout le Pentateuque, avec des textes comme Gen. xn, 3, xrix, 10, si bien que Moïse, dans la Loi, avait en vue le Christ (v, 45). Quant aux prophètes, sans dresser ici la liste des prophélies messianiques, rappelons qu'isaïe avait annoncé un miraculeux rejeton de Jessé (ΣΙ, 1 ss.). Cet objet des Écritures, c'est Jésus, fils (υἱόν) de Joseph de Nazareth. En disant τὸν υἱόν, Philippe aurait insinué qu'il était connu des deux interlocuteurs (Schanz); c’est donc un certain fils de Joseph. Philippe s'était informé vaguement et parlait comme tout le monde, sans probablement en savoir davantage. L'évangéliste montre ici sa probité; ce n’est pas lui qui parle (contre Bauer, Loisy), c'est Philippe, et c'est pour cela qu'il ajoute, ce qui était très vrai, que Jésus était de Nazareth, puisqu'il n'était né à Bethléem que par une circonstance providentielle. D’après Loisy, l'évangéliste ignore délibérément le miracle de la conception virginale et la naissance à Bethléem. Mais, du moins, il n'ignorait pas que Jésus était le Fils de Dieu incarné: Loisy dit très bien : « Son langage ne prouve pas qu'il ait regardé le Christ comme. étant réellement, en son humanité, fils de Joseph et de Marie; il a voulu signifier plutôt que le Logos en chair avait été pour les Juifs « Jésus fils de Joseph, de Nazareth » (p.134). Plus simplement : il a fait parler Philippe selon l'opinion commune, sans engager sa personne et son 46. om. o ἃ. ῷιλιππος (TSV) plutôt que add. (H). 49. om.xa Xeyet p. Ναθαναηλ (TH) plutôt que add. (SV). autorité dans une formule qu'il jugeait fausse; et ce sera encore le cas νι, 42: va, 27.28. Le nom de Nathanaël est en hébreu massor. San (Dieu ἃ donné), mais Nafavaf\ garde mieux la prononciation ancienne (ef. babyl. natan-ili) il pouvait étre porté dans une population parlant araméen. Dans xu, 2, Nathanaël est de Cana en Galilée; sa présence prouve bien que nous sommes déjà en Galilée, et explique l'arrivée de Jésus aux noces. On admet volontiers que ce Nathanaël ἃ dû être un apôtre, et que c'est Barthélemy, associé à Philippe dans les catalogues des synoptiques (M x, 3; Me. m1, 48; Le. vr, 44). Barthélemy serait une désignation qu'il était fils de Tolmaï. Zahn ne connaît aucun témoin de cette opinion avant le xme 5.; c'est cependant celle d'Ich‘odad (vers 850) : « il est admis que Nathanaël, c'est-à-dire Bar Toulmi, était bien instruit des écritures. » Peut-être les Grecs et les Latins ont-ils été arrêtés par ce nom différent, ne comprenant pas comme les Syriens qu'il était patronymique. — Sur Nazareth, cf. Comm. Mt. τι, 23.
1:46
L'objection de Nathanaël n'est pas celle des Juifs de Jérusalem contre la Galilée (vi, 1), car elle eût porté contre sa propre région. C’est une querelle de voisins. Étant de Cana, il n’a pas meilleure opinion de Nazareth que les Athéniens des Béotiens. Il sait d’ailleurs que cela ne peut fâcher Philippe qui n'en est pas. Mais aucun préjugé ne tient contre un fait. Philippe persuade à Nathanaël de venir voir, probablement au lieu où s’élait arrêtée la petite caravane. 4) ἀληθῶς ᾿Ισραηλίτης ne doit pas être simplement synonyme de ἀληθινός Ἴ., « un Israélite vrai », mais signifie « vraiment digne du nom d'israélite cf. Plat. 1,642 D ἀληθῶς καὶ οὔτι πλαστῶς ἀγαθοί, Il serait étonnant qu'il n'y ait pas là une allusion au sens d'Israël, qu'on pouvait rattacher à la racine μὲ... «être droit », sans aucune prétention à l'étymologie philologique. Du moins lechouroun, nom bienveillant donné à Israël (Dé. xxxm, 5.26; Is. xuv, 2), est traduit par Jérôme reatissimus, Sym. ὁ εὐθύς, En effet, ce qui suit explique la première pensée : être digne du nom d'Israélite, c'était n'avoir pas de ruse; cf. Ps. xxx, 2 οὐδέ ἐστιν ἐν τῷ στόματι αὐτοῦ δόλος, Cette qualité n'était pas d'ailleurs si fréquente en Israël ρον xu, 4) qu'il ne valût la peine de la relever magnifiquement.
1:48
Nathanaël ne se laisse pas séduire par un compliment. Sa réponse, en forme interrogative, prouve qu'il ne voudrait pas être dupe. La réplique du Maître ἃ le caractère d’un signe extraordinaire. Que Jésus ait vu à distance Nathanaël sous 16. figuier de son jardin (HI Regn. 1v, 25 (Vg.); Mich. 1v, 4; Zach. ur, 10), quand Philippe l’a appelé, cela témoignerait d’une vision extraordinaire, mais ne répondrait pas à la question. « Je t'ai vu » doit signifier ici j'ai vu qui tu es. Il est nécessaire de supposer que ce figuier rappelle à Nathanaël une circonstance, une crise de sa vie intérieure, car il ne saurait pour lui être question d’un péché grave. Peut-être Nathanaël ouvrait-il son cœur à Dieu en le priant de lui faire connaître l'avènement du Messie. C'est quelque chose comme le signe de sainte Jeanne d’Arc donné au roi Charles VII. Loisy l’a très bien compris. Il ajoute : « Toute cette mise en scène est incohérente et bizarre si l'incident du figuier n'est pas symbolique » (p. 136), mais il néglige de dire quel est le symbole du figuier. L'ombre du péché (Aug.)? L'ombre de La Loi (Grég.)? Inutile de chercher. Ce qui demeure voilé n'est pas pour cela incohérent Jo. marque très clairement que Jésus ἃ su se faire comprendre à demi-mot.
1:49
La confession de Nathanaël dit la même chose de deux façons. Il recorinaît le Messie comme roi d'Israël, ou sous le nom de fils de Dieu. Thomas Si enim intelleæisset eum esse Filium Dei per naturam, non dixisset : Tu es rex Israel solum, sed totius mundi. Loisy exagère : « Mais il est plus conforme à l'esprit johannique de supposer. que le nouveau disciple ἃ reconnu le Logos- Christ à sa science divine » (p. 136). Si Jo. ne parle jamais plus du Logos, c'est qu'il a conscience d'en avoir dit aux chrétiens de son temps plus que n'en savaient d’abord les disciples. D'ailleurs si Nathanaël avait été si avancé, il n’eût pas eu besoin d'en voir davantage (Thom.).
1:50
Le signe donné était suffisant pour reconnaitre l'envoyé de Dieu. Jésus cependant promet d'autres signes, et cela à Nathanaël lui-même. Il est donc demeuré un fidèle disciple. Augustin l’exclut de la liste des Douze comme {rop savant. Mais cela ne résulte pas de ses entretiens avec Philippe et avec Le Sauveur; et ils serait mis sans doute au niveau de ceux qui avaient tout à apprendre,
1:51
ἀμήν répété, ce qu'on ne trouve pas dans les synoptiques, tandis que Jo. a toujours la répétition, comme plus solennelle; mais c'est bien l'écho de la même manière. Dans l’A. T. héb. on trouve amen répété (Num. v, 22; Neh. vou, 6; Ps. χα, 143 Lxxut, 49), mais seulement comme adhésion à ce qui vient d'être dit. La formule de Jésus est donc originale. Il s'adresse à Nathanaël, mais aussi aux autres, ὄψεσθε, Ce qui suit est manifestement une allusion à la célèbre échelle de Jacob, le long de laquelle les anges montaient et descendaient (Gen. χχνπι, 10-17). C'est une manière de dire qu'aux miracles de Jésus les disciples reconnaîtront que le ciel est ouvert, et que les anges montent et descendent alternativement, sans doute au service du Fils de l'homme : ἐπί s'entend de toute la manœuvre qui se passe au-dessus de sa tête, comme pour Jacob. Il ne faut donc point demander à quel moment de la vie de Jésus ce phénomène s’est réalisé littéralement par une vision sensible. Et en effet ce ne peut être ni le baptéme déjà passé, ni la résurrection, ni l'ascension, ni le jugement (Mald.), trop loin dans l'avenir, puisque c’est une manifestation suivie qui doit conduire à une foi plus haute que celle de Nathanaël en ce moment. Thomas, résumant Augustin : Angeli autem ascendunt et descendunt, inquantum ei adsunt obsequendo et ministrando. Philon (cité par Bauer), de Somnits, 1, 140 5. (Mang. 1, 642) interprétait le songe de Jacob comme une allégorie du ministère des anges ou plutôt des raisons par lesquelles Dieu éclaire les hommes selon les lois ordinaires de sa Providence. Ici c’est tout le programme de la manifestation divine qui va s’accomplir. — On ἃ dit très bien que « Fils de l’homme » n’a pas une importance spéciale dans le quatrième évangile; si donc Jo. emploie ce terme treize fois, c'est qu'il entend bien garder le contact avec la tradition des synoptiques; et si dans onze cas c’est Jésus lui-même qui prend ce titre, c’est une preuve que telle était bien la tradition, écho fidèle du fait (cf. Comm. Me. p. cxxxv ss.). SUR LES PREMIÈRES VOcaTIONs. Nous nous sommes abstenu d'insérer (avec Zahn) implicitement un appel de Jean, le disciple innommé, à son frère Jacques, de façon à retrouver les quatre premiers appels de Me. et de Mt., celui de Philippe, le cinquième, remplaçant celui de Matthieu-Lévi. — Il nous semble plutôt que ces premières relations de Jésus avec ses disciples sont distinctes des vocations décisives des synoptiques (Me. 1, 14 ss. et par.). Celles-ci ont eu lieu après l'arrestation de Jean, sur les bords du lac; elles ne nomment pas les mêmes personnes, si ce n'est André et Pierre ; elles ne procèdent pas de la même facon. Nathanaël qui a tous les honneurs dans Jo. ne parait pas dans les synopliques. On note surtout que les disciples dans Jo. reconnaissent aussitôt le Messie, tandis que d'après les synoptiques ils ne l'ont confessé que longtemps après. Bauer conclut que Jo. a écrit en vue de sa théologie : « Le verbe incarné doit dès le début marcher dans la pleine lumière de la filiation divine », ou comme dit Loisy : « La manifestation du Logos en chair n'admettait point de tels retards » (p. 131). Ces savants s'obstinent donc à mettre Logos où Jo. a dit Messie. On peut penser aussi que le détachement complet des apôtres selon les synoptiques vaut bien un hommage verbal. Ne dirait-on pas, en lisant cette page printanière, animée de l'enthousiasme de jeunes cœurs prompts à se donner, qu'il leur manquait une conviction plus solide pour résister à l'opposition des chefs - spirituels de la nation? La réflexion de Jésus à Nathanaël ne le bläme pas d'avoir cru, mais promet à cette foi naissante un nouvel appui. On voit bien que, présentée par Jean avec une humilité respectueuse et attendrie, la personne de Jésus a exercé une séduction extrême, mais tout indique — sans reprendre l'idylle galiléenne de Renan — qu'il en fut bien ainsi. Jo. n'a donc pas sacrifié la réalité à un théorème théologique, sachant bien et disant que la lumière ne s’est pas répandue toute d'un seul coup. Dans sa pensée, celle première attache est une aurore; elle en ἃ le charme, et en partie le caractère passager. Après ces préliminaires, on comprend mieux comment Jésus ἃ pu si brusquement adresser son appel à des pêcheurs occupés à leur métier. Le moment d'agir étant venu, il les entraînera à sa suite, 8. ouvov… εἴτα (T) plutôt que υστερήσαντος οινου (HSV).
1:1
ỷ. 1. IN PRINCIPIO ERAT VERBUM. Au commencement étoit le Verbe. La parole essentielle du Pere, son Verbe consubstantiel, sa Sagesse égale à lui-même, par laquelle il a créé toutes choses, étoit au commencement, subsistoit de toute éternité, & avant la création du monde. Elle ne subsistoit pas simplement comme les essences des Etres créés, qui font de toute éternité dans l’idée de Dieu; ce Verbe, cette Parole, cette Sagesse y étoit réellement, & actuellement existante, & de toute éternité; elle étoit une en essence avec le Pere, mais différente en Personne. Saint Jean commence son Evangile comme Moyse a commencé la Génése, par in principio, au commencement; mais avec cette différence que Moyse ne marque que le commencement des tems, & l’Evangéliste désigne l’éternité, qui précede la création de tous les Etres visibles, & invisibles. Il veut nous marquer que dès avant l’origine du Monde, le Verbe subsistoit dans son Pere, & qu’il n’est pas du nombre des choses qui ont un commencement, & dont on peut fixer l’époque, & l’origine. Salomon dans les Proverbes, l’Auteur du Livre de la Sagesse, & celui de l’Ecclésiastique nous donnent un éloge de la Sagesse, qui revient assez à ce que dit ici saint Jean du Verbe de Dieu: Le Seigneur m’a possédée, dit la Sagesse, au commencement de ses voies, & avant qu’il produisît aucune chose au commencement. J’ai été établie dès l’éternité, & avant que la terre fût créée…… Lorsqu’il disposoit les cieux, j’y étois; j’assistois à tout ce qu’il fit au commencement de la création. L’Auteur de la Sagesse n’en parle pas d’une manière moins magnifique. La Sagesse m’a instruit de toutes choses; car elle renferme l’esprit d’intelligence, qui est saint, unique, multiplié dans ses effets, … que rien ne peut empêcher d’agir, bienfaisant…. Car la Sagesse est plus active que toutes les choses les plus agissantes, & elle atteint partout, à cause de sa pureté. Elle est la vapeur de la Vertu de Dieu, & l’essusion toute pure de la clarté du Tout-puissant; …. elle est l’éclat de la lumiere éternelle, le miroir sans tache de la Majesté de Dieu, & l’image de sa bonté. Quoiqu’elle soit seule, elle peut tout; & toujours immuable en ellemême, elle renouvelle toutes choses, elle se répand parmi les nations dans les ames saintes, & elle forme les amis de Dieu, & les Prophètes. On remarque ici des traits de ce que dit saint Jean, que le Verbe de Dieu est la Vie, & la Lumiere, & c’est lui qui éclaire tous les hommes. L’Auteur ajoute que la Sagesse atteint avec force depuis une extrémité jusqu’à l’autre, & qu’elle dispose tout avec douceur; qu’elle est la source de la folie gloire, & de tous les biens. Il dit ailleurs que c’est la Parole toute-puissante du Seigneur, qui a créé toutes choses; que c’est elle qui a nourri les Israélites dans le désert, qui les a guéris des morsures des serpens, & qui a fait périr les premiers-nez des Egyptiens. Jesus fils de Sirach : Je suis sortie de la bouche du Très-Haut, & je suis la fille première-née avant toutes les créatures : C’est moi qui ai fait luire dans le Ciel une lumière qui ne s’éteindra point. … J’ai été produite dès le commencement, & avant tous les siècles, & je ne cesserai point dans les siècles futurs. … Je suis la mere de l’amour pur, de la crainte du Seigneur, de sa connoissance, & de la sainte espérance : c’est dans moi que subsiste la grace de la voie, & de la vérité, & l’espérance de la vie, & de la vertu. Ce qui est parallèle à ce qui est dit ici ỷ. 4. Dans le Verbe étoit la Vie, & la Vie étoit la Lumière des hommes. Les Platoniciens pour marquer le Créateur de toutes choses, se servoient quelquefois du mot Logos, qui est employé ici, & qui signifie la raison, ou la parole, Les Stoïciens s’en servoient aussi contre les Epicuriens, qui soutenoient que tout étoit fait sans raison, & au hazard; au lieu que les Stoïciens, & les Platoniciens soutenoient que tout avoit été fait par la raison, Logos, ou par la Sagesse Divine. Philon, qui avoit beaucoup lû Platon, & qui avoit pris de lui la plûpart de ses principes, se servoit souvent des mêmes termes pour désigner la Sagesse qui préside à la création de l’Univers. Mais & les Platoniciens, & les Stoïciens, & Philon lui-même entendoient par ce Logos, ou par cette raison divine, un Etre inférieur à la Divinité. Saint Jean fait voir ici non seulement que le Verbe est éternel, qu’il étoit en Dieu dès le commencement, & qu’il présidoit à l’ouvrage de la création; mais aussi qu’il étoit Dieu, & égal au Pere. Ces véritez fondamentales de l’éternité, de la toute-puissance, & de la divinité du Verbe, & de la Sagesse du Pere, qui avoient été comme ébauchées dans les Proverbes de Salomon, dans l’Auteur de la Sagesse, & dans Jésus fils de Sirach, & dans les Platoniciens, se remarquent aussi dans Onkelos, Auteur de la Paraphrase Caldaïque, & que les Hébreux regardent comme un Ecrivain inspiré. Pour l’ordinaire lorsqu’il trouve le nom de Jéhovab, il le rend par Memar Adonaï, la parole de Dieu; ce qui a fait croire à quelques-uns qu’il avoit connu la sainte Trinité. Jéhovab, ou Adonaï, marque le Pere, Memar le Verbe, ou le Fils, & Sebckina, qui signifie la préence de Dieu, le Saint Esprit. Et ce n’est pas dans un, ou deux passages séparez qu’il fait cette distinction; on la remarque en un très-grand nombre d’endroits. Je ne veux pourtant pas soutenir que ni lui, ni les Juifs ayent distinctement connu la Trinité. Ceux qui ont étudié ces Auteurs, reconnoissent qu’ils n’ont jamais eu d’idée distincte sur cela. La révélation de ce mystère est un avantage de la Religion Chrétienne; c’est JESUS-CHRIST qui l’a dévoilé; il nous a marqué distinctement la Divinité du Pere, celle du Verbe, & du Saint Esprit; & entre tous les Auteurs facez, saint Jean l’Evangéliste est celui qui en a parlé d’une manière plus claire, & plus expresse. C’est de-là que l’Eglise dans les Conciles, & les Peres dans leurs Ouvrages ont emprunté les preuves de ces grandes véritez. Ce saint Evangéliste écrivit son Evangile, pour l’opposer aux hérésies de Cérinthe, & d’Ebion qui faisoient alors de grands ravages dans l’Eglise, en niant la Divinité du Fils. Les Gnostiques qui parurent quelque tems après, affûroient que la premiere Substance, ou du premier Etre, étoit fort, après plusieurs siécles, Noûs, ou l’Intelligence; de l’Intelligence, le Premier-né, & du Premier-né, le Logos, ou le Verbe. Saint Jean, si l’on y fait bien attention, dans les premiers versets de ce Chapitre, renverse les erreurs des Juifs, qui nioient que JESUS fût le Messie; celles des Platoniciens, & des Stoïciens, qui reconnoissoient un Verbe, mais inférieur à Dieu; celles des Epicuriens, qui donnoient tout au hazard; celles des Cérinthiens, & des Ebionites, qui nioient la Divinité du Verbe, celle des Gnostiques, qui reconnoissoient d’autres principes existans plusieurs siècles avant lui; & enfin celles des Ariens, & des Sociniens, qui sont venus depuis, & qui ne reconnoissent pas la Divinité de JESUS-CHRIST, ni sa consubstantialité avec son Pere.
VERBUM ERAT APUD DEUM. Le Verbe étoit avec Dieu, ou dans Dieu; car apud se prend souvent pour in. Par ces paroles, le Verbe est distingué du Pere, comme une Personne différente; & en même tems on montre son union intime, & sa parfaite égalité de puissance avec le Pere. L’Evangéliste dit ci-après dans le même sens, que le Fils est dans le sein de son Pere: Unigenitus qui est in sinu Patris.
ET DEUS ERAT VERBUM. Le Verbe étoit Dieu. Les Platoniciens, & les Hérétiques reconnoissoient en Dieu un Verbe, ou une Parole: mais ils ne vouloient pas que ce Verbe fût Dieu. Saint Jean réfute ici leur erreur. Le Verbe est donc Dieu de Dieu, Lumière de Lumière, consubstantiel au Pere. L’Evangéliste dans ce peu de mots: Au commencement étoit le Verbe, & le Verbe étoit dans Dieu, & Dieu étoit le Verbe, nous découvre trois grands mystères; l’éternité du Verbe, la Divinité du Verbe.
1:2
ỷ. 2. HOC ERAT IN PRINCIPIO APUD DEUM. Il étoit au commencement avec Dieu. De peur qu’on ne crût que le Verbe n’étoit dans Dieu que par accident, & feulement depuis un certain tems; en forte que le Pere auroit engendré son Verbe avant toutes les créatures, mais non pas de toute éternité, comme le vouloient les Ariens; l’Evangéliste insiste, & dit que le Verbe étoit en Dieu dès le commencément ; en un mot, qu’il est coéternel au Pere, & qu’il n’est pas un Dieu différent du Pere, mais seulement une autre Personne. Photin ponctuoit ainsi le Texte du premier, & du second verset : Au commencement étoit le Verbe, & le Verbe étoit dans Dieu, & Dieu étoit : Ce Verbe étoit au commencement dans Dieu.
1:3
OMNIA PER IPSUM FACTA SUNT. Toutes choses ont été faites par lui. La création de tous les Etres visibles, & invisibles est l’ouvrage de toute la très-sainte Trinité : mais l’Ecriture l’attribuë d’ordinaire au Verbe, parce que la Sagesse, la Raison, l’Intelligence, qui sont propres au Fils, font ce qui y éclate principalement. En effet par quelle autre chose les créatures ont-elles été faites, que par la parole, par le Fiat du Tout-puissant ? Inter dicentem Deum, & factam creaturam, quid est per quod factum est, nisi verbum, per quod Deus dixit, & factum est ? Ceci est opposé à l’erreur des Epicuriens, qui attribuoient au hazard la création des Etres ; & au sentiment de Cérinthe, qui l’attribuoit à une vertu fort éloignée, & fort séparée du premier Principe, qui est au-dessus de toutes choses : Non à primo Deo factum esse mundum, sed à virtute quadam valdè separata ab ea Principalitate qua est super universa. Philon le Juif a parlé de même que saint Jean sur la création, quoiqu’il n’eût pas la même idée de la parole du Pere, qu’en avoit saint Jean. Celui-ci croit le Verbe vraiment Dieu, & consubstantiel au Pere ; Philon ne l’appelle Dieu que par abus ; il ne lui attribuë la création, que comme à un instrument dont Dieu s’est servi.
ET SINE IPSO FACTUM EST NIHIL, QUOD FACTUM EST. Rien de tout ce qui a été fait, n’a été fait sans lui. Il y a deux manières de ponctuer ce verset. La première est celle que nous avons marquée dans le Texte, & dans la Version ; l’autre lit ainsi en le joignant au ỷ. suivant : Sine ipso factum est nihil. Quod factum est in ipso vita erat. L’une & l’autre manière de lire est autorisée dans les anciens Peres, & dans les Exemplaires Grecs, & Latins, imprimez, & manuscrits ; l’un & l’autre rend un fort bon sens. La première paroît la plus naturelle, & voici le sens qu’on lui donne. Non seulement Dieu est le Créateur de tout l’Univers, & sa parole a donné l’être, & la forme au Ciel, & à la terre; mais elle a produit tous les Etres en particulier, depuis les plus petits, jusqu’aux plus grands. Rien de ce qui existe n’a été produit sans lui. S. Jean renverse jusqu’au fondement la fausse idée des Epicuriens, qui soutenoient que dans le monde il y avoit trop de dérangemens, trop de choses fâcheuses, nuisibles, venimeuses, inutiles, dangereuses, pour croire que la Sagesse souveraine, & l’Etre tout-puissant s’en fût mêlé. Philon croyoit ces objections si solides, qu’il a crû être obligé d’avouer que les animaux venimeux n’avoient point été produits par la Providence, mais qu’ils étoient de simples fuites de ses productions, comme les monstres ne sont point des productions naturelles, mais des êtres produits par l’union des causes secondes, appliquées, & agissantes contre la premiere intention du Créateur. Il en est de même de certains infectés, qui naissent, dit-on, de la corruption. C’étoit l’opinion des anciens Philosophes. Le sentiment des modernes, qui attribuent la formation de tous les êtres à des causes réglées & uniformes, est beaucoup plus raisonnable, & plus conforme à l’idée de l’Ecriture. Ceux qui lisent le Texte de cette manière : Sans lui rien n’a été fait. Ce qui a été fait étoit vie dans lui, l’entendent ainsi: Ce qui a été fait, & créé par le Verbe, étoit en lui d’une manière intellectuelle, & en quelque forte vivant dans ses idées, & dans sa raison éternelle. Tout cela vivoit dans l’idée de Dieu; en ce sens, tous les êtres réels font éternels, parce que le Verbe n’a jamais cessé de les connoître, & de les voir dans lui-même, ainsi que saint Augustin, & la plûpart des Théologiens l’entendent. Saint Cyrille d’Alexandrie l’entend autrement: Tout ce qui existe, & tout ce qui est créé, a reçu l’être, la vie, l’existence par le Verbe, & c’est le Verbe qui confère, & qui anime tous les êtres en l’état où ils font.
1:4
ỷ. 4. IN IPSO VITA ERAT, ET VITA ERAT LUX HOMINUM. Dans lui étoit la vie, & la vie étoit la lumière des hommes. Dans le Verbe étoit la vie, & la lumière qui rendent l’homme voyant, & clairvoyant pour l’éternité; elles étoient dans lui dès le commencement, & avant la création des choses créées: mais depuis l’Incarnation du Verbe, & sur tout depuis la manifestation de JESUS-CHRIST, la vie s’est manifestée, nous l’avons vûe, nous en rendons témoignage, & nous l’annonçons cette vie qui étoit dans le Pere, & qui s’est manifestée à nos yeux. C’est ainsi que saint Jean s’explique lui-même. Le Sauveur déclare dans l’Evangile, qu’il est la voye, la vérité, & la vie; qu’il est la résurrection, & la vie; qu’il est la lumière du monde, que c’est lui qui éclaire tout homme qui vient dans le monde. Ce qu’il est, il l’a toujours été; il est la vie, & la lumière de l’homme de toute éternité; mais elle s’est feulement manifestée dans le tems. Les Philosophes se vantoient d’éclairer les esprits, & de montrer la voye de la béatitude, & de la vérité. L’Evangéliste leur fait voir ici que leur prétendue lumiere n’est que ténèbres; que toute lumière vient du Verbe; qu’en lui seul est la vie, & la vraye félicité.
1:5
ỷ. 5. LUX IN TENEBRIS LUCET, ET TENEBRE EAM NON COMPREHENDERUNT. La lumière luit dans les ténèbres, & les ténèbres ne l’ont point comprise. Saint Jean après avoir parlé du Verbe, sous les noms allégoriques de vie, & de lumière, parle ici des hommes sous un nom figuré, en les appellants ténèbres. La lumière, le Verbe, la Sagesse éternelle étoit dans le sein du Pere dès le commencement; elle s’est manifestée dans le tems; elle a paru aux hommes qui étoient dans les ténèbres: mais les ténèbres ne l’ont point comprise: Ils ont mieux aimé les ténèbres que la lumière; ils se sont révoltés contre une lumière qui leur faisoit voir leur nudité; ils ont brisé le miroir, qui leur découvroit leur difformité; & pour le dire plus simplement, ils ont persécuté, & fait mourir JESUS CHRIST, qui étoit leur Vie, leur Salut, & leur Lumière. Saint Jean écrivoit ceci soixante ans après la mort de JESUS-CHRIST. Le monde, les hommes déreglez, le péché font souvent désignez dans l’Ecriture sous le nom de ténèbres. Le Démon est appellé le Prince des ténèbres, & l’autorité dont les méchans abusent, la puissance des ténèbres. Saint Jean s’explique que lui-même ci-après: Il étoit dans le monde; le monde a été fait par lui: & le monde ne l’a point connu. Et Zacharie dans saint Luc dit que le Sauveur est venu dans le monde pour éclairer ceux qui étoient dans les ténèbres, & dans l’ombre de la mort, & pour conduire nos pas dans la voie de la paix. Le saint Evangéliste comprend ici tous les hommes sans exception sous le nom de ténèbres. Il réprime par-là la présomption des Juifs incrédules, qui ne croyoient pas avoir besoin de lumière; & le faste des Philosophes Payens, qui ne vouloient pas reconnoître leur playe, ni leur aveuglement. La lumière luisoit dans la Loi, & dans les Prophètes; & les Juifs ne l’ont pas apperçûe: Elle brilloit de toute part dans les créatures; & les Philosophes l’ont vûë sans lui rendre la gloire qui lui étoit dûë. JESUS-CHRIST la vraie Lumière a paru dans le monde; mais son humilité, & sa Croix ont été un scandale aux uns, & aux autres; ils n’ont pas voulu le recevoir: Non comprehenderunt; ou plûtôt, non apprehenderunt, selon le Grec.
1:6
ỷ. 6. FUIT HOMO MISSUS A DEO, CUI NOMEN ERAT JOANNES. Il y ent un homme envoyé de Dieu, qui s’appelloit Jean. Ici commence le récit historique de l’Evangélite. Ce qui précede, est une espèce de Préface, pour disposer l’esprit du Lecteur à entrer dans ce qu’il a à dire. Jean-Baptiste fut envoyé de Dieu dans l’esprit, & dans le vertu d’Elie, pour préparer les voies devant JESUS-CHRIST, pour prêcher aux Juifs la pénitence, pour les ramener au Seigneur. Il remarque que ce saint Homme fut envoyé de Dieu, pour relever son autorité, & pour donner à son témoignage tout le poids nécessaire dans une légation de cette importance, & dans laquelle il devoit rencontrer tant de contradiction.
1:7
ỷ. 7. HIC VENIT IN TESTIMONIUM. Il vient pour rendre témoignage à la Lumière, afin que tous crussent par lui. Jean-Baptiste vient pour annoncer la venue du Verbe, de la Sagesse, de la Lumière éternelle, du Fils de Dieu: C’étoit une lumière qui rendoit témoignage à une autre Lumière; une lumière créée, à la Lumière incréée. Personne n’étoit plus en état de faire cette fonction, que Jean-Baptiste; témoin irréprochable par sa sainteté, par sa vie admirable, par la pureté de sa doctine, par sa naissance accompagnée de signes miraculeux. Le Fils de Dieu, qui est la splendeur de la gloire, & la figure de la substance du Pere, l’éclat de Lumière éternelle, le miroir sans tache de la bonté de Dieu, qui habite une Lumière SUR S. J. JEAN. CHAP. I. inaccessible, & inconnuë aux mortels, a bien voulu se rabaisser jusqu’à nous, & se proportionner à notre foiblesse, en s’unissant à notre nature, & en se revêtant de notre chair. Pour préparer les hommes à croire un mystère si fort élevé au-dessus de notre portée, il ne falloit pas un moindre témoignage que celui de Jean-Baptiste, en attendant que JESUS-CHRIST lui-même par sa Doctrine, & par ses miracles, confirmât le témoignage de son Précurseur.
UT OMNES CREDERENT PER ILLUM. Afin que tous crûssent par lui. Afin que tous crûssent en JESUS-CHRIST par le témoignage de Jean, & par sa prédication. Les termes de l’Original Grec sont équivoques. On peut les traduire ainsi : afin que tous crûssent par lui ; par la Lumière, par JESUS-CHRIST ; ou afin que tous crûssent par lui ; par Jean-Baptiste. Ce dernier sens est le meilleur & le plus suivi.
1:8
ỷ. 8. NON ERAT ILLE LUX. Il n’étoit pas la lumière ; mais il vint pour rendre témoignage à celui qui étoit la lumière. Jean-Baptiste n’étoit pas la lumière ; mais le prédicateur de la lumière. Il eut des qualitez assez grandes, pour faire croire à plusieurs qu’il étoit le Messie : mais il s’en falloit bien qu’il le fût ; & lorsqu’on vouloit lui en faire honneur, il le rejetta avec force : Et confessus est, & non negavit ; & confessus est, quia non sum ego Christus. Jean étoit une lampe allumée qui éclairoit ; mais il ne brilloit que par l’éclat qu’il recevoit d’ailleurs : il étoit comme tous les autres éclairé par cette lumière qui éclaire tous les hommes.
1:9
ỷ. 9. ERAT LUX VERA, QUE ILLUMINAT OMNEM HOMINEM VENIENTEM IN HUNC MUNDUM. Celui-là étoit la vraie Lumière, qui illumine tout homme venant en ce monde. JESUS-CHRIST étoit la vraie Lumière du monde ; la Lumiére incréée, éternelle, essentielle, & source de toute Lumière. C’est par elle que tous les hommes sont illuminés ; comme la lune, & les planètes reçoivent leur lumière du soleil. Les plus grands Saints, les hommes les plus éclairés, ne luisent que par un éclat emprunté de cette première source de toute clarté. Quiconque vient à cette Lumière, est éclairé. Que ceux qui demeurent volontairement dans les ténèbres, n’ouvrent ils les yeux, pour découvrir ce Soleil de Justice, qui se lève pour les méchans comme pour les bons. Je croy qu’il faut traduire, Erat lux vera, quæ illuminat omnem hominem veniens in hunc mundum, parce que JESUS, qui est la vraie lumière qui éclaire tous les hommes, étoit venu au monde. La suite favorise cette traduction : Il étoit dans le monde, & le monde a été fait par lui. Le Grec peut recevoir un autre sens : Il étoit la lumière véritable, laquelle venant dans le monde, illumine tous les hommes. En effet JESUS-CHRIST est venu dans le monde, pour éclairer des lumières de la foi non-seulement les Juifs, mais les Gentils, les Barbares, les Etrangers ; en un mot, tous les hommes ; : Je suis la Lumière qui suis venue dans le monde, afin que tous ceux qui croyent en moi, ne demeurent pas dans les ténèbres. Les Philosophes se font faussement, & injustement attribuez l’honneur de leurs connoissances ; tout ce qu’ils ont eu de favor, & de talens naturels, ou acquis, leur est venu de Dieu. Il est le Pere des lumières, & l’éclat éternel qui luit dans tous les cœurs. Depuis que JESUS-CHRIST a paru dans le monde, c’est de lui que nous devons tirer toutes nos connoissances utiles pour l’éternité. Lui seul est la voie, la vérité, & la vie. Sans lui nous ne sommes que ténèbres, qu’également, que foiblesse, quand il s’agit de notre salut.
1:10
ỷ. 10. IN MUNDO ERAT, ET MUNDUS PER IPSUM FACTUS EST. Il étoit dans le monde, & le monde a été fait par lui, & le monde ne l’a point connu. Le Verbe, ou la Lumière ou la Sagesse du Pere; car tout cela marque la même chose; étoit dans le monde dès le commencement. Il donnoit des preuves de sa présence dans toutes ses œuvres; les Cieux, le soleil, les astres, la terre, tous les Etres sensibles publioient sa présence: mais le monde ne l’a point connu; ou s’il l’a connu, il ne l’a point glorifié: Qui cùm cognovissent Deum, non sicut Deum glorificaverunt. Depuis son Incarnation, il a paru dans le monde d’une manière visible; il y a éclaté par une infinité de miracles; il y a prêché une doctrine admirable: mais les hommes l’ont méconnu. Les Juifs qui soupiroient depuis tant de siècles après leur Liberateur, lui ont tourné le dos, lorsqu’il a paru parmi eux; ils ont fermé leurs yeux aux preuves qu’il leur a données de sa mission, & de sa divinité. La Doctrine qu’il leur a prêchée, les a irrités jusques-là, qu’ils lui ont donné la mort. Les Gentils qui gémissoient fidèvement long-temps dans les ténèbres, & qui sembloient n’attendre que le lever du Soleil de Justice, pour accourir à sa lumière, se sont révoltés contre elle, lorsqu’elle s’est manifestée; ils ont persécuté ceux qui leur annonçoient leur bonheur, & leur salut: Et mundus eum non cognovit. ỷ. II. IN PROPRIA VENIT, ET SUI EUM NON RECEPERUNT. Il est venu chez soi, & les siens ne l’ont pas reçu. Ceci regarde principalement les Juifs. JESUS-CHRIST est venu chez eux, comme dans sa maison, dans son héritage, dans son Royaume: mais les Juifs ne l’ont pas reçu. Il parle des Juifs en général, & du gros de la nation, qui n’a pas adhéré à JESUS-CHRIST; mais qui l’a persécuté jusqu’à la mort. On peut aussi l’expliquer de tous les hommes : Le monde entier étoit l’ouvrage du Verbe ; c’étoit son temple, & sa maison ; il avoit lieu d’espérer qu’il y feroit reçu comme chez soi : il y vient, il y paroît, & ses propres serviteurs, ses créatures l’ont rejeté. La fuite fera voir qu’il faut prendre avec restriction ces paroles, qui semblent être générales. Il y eut des Juifs & des Gentils, mais en petit nombre, qui reçurent le Seigneur, & qui embrafferent la foi. Salomon dans les Proverbes nous dépeint la Sagesse comme la fille du Très-Haut, subsistante de toute éternité, qui aide en quelque forte le Seigneur dans la création du monde, & qui met ses délices à demeurer parmi les enfans des hommes. Jésus fils de Sirach, Auteur de l’Ecclefiaftique, dit d’une manière encore plus exprefe, que la Sagesse étant forte de la bouche du Très-Haut, après avoir parcouru toutes les créatures, & tous les Royaumes du monde, s’est enfin arrêtée dans Israël ; & que c’est-là où elle a fixé sa demeure. Baruc dit que le Seigneur Auteur de toute science, & de toute connoissance, a communiqué toutes ses inventions, & ses fécrets aux Israélites ; & qu’à la fin ; lui-même a paru sur la terre, & a conversé avec les hommes. Enfin l’Auteur de la Sagesse, après avoir fait un éloge magnifique de la Sagesse, dit qu’elle se communique aux ames saintes, & qu’elle forme les Prophêtes. Il témoigne que dès le commencement, il a été touché de sa beauté, & qu’il a souhaité de l’avoir pour épouse ; qu’enfin il l’a demandée à Dieu de tout son cœur, en lui disant : Accordez-moi, Seigneur, la Sagesse qui demeure toûjours auprès de vôtre trône, afin qu’elle demeure avec moi, & qu’elle m’aide dans mes travaux, &c. Toutes ces manières de parler si communes, & si anciennes parmi les Hébreux, les difpofioient de longue main à entendre ces sublimes veritez que fait Jean nous révèle dans cet Evangile. Leur esprit étoit tout préparé à voir paraître dans leur pays, & dans leur nation la Sagesse incréée, & le Verbe fait Chair, vivant, conversant parmi les hommes, les instruisant, leur communiquant ses divines lumiéres. Il est inutile de recourir au Platonisme, pour expliquer les paroles de l’Evangélise, & pour entrer dans son intention. Ce divin Ecrivain trouvoit dans son pays, & dans les Auteurs sacrez des expressions, des traditions, des promesses conformes à ce qu’il savoit de la Personne, & de l’Incarnation de JESUS-CHRIST. Il ne paroît rien dans saint Jean, qui témoigne qu’il ait lû ni Platon, ni les autres Profanes; & quand il les auroit lûs, il n’y auroit certainement pas trouvé ce qu’il nous apprend dans son Evangile.
1:12
ỷ. 12. QUOTQUOT AUTEM RECEPERUNT EUM, &c. Mais il a donné à tous ceux qui l’ont reçu, le pouvoir d’être faits enfans de Dieu. Les Juifs se flattoient d’être les seuls enfans de Dieu, les seuls héritiers de ses promesses. Ils n’avoient que du mépris pour les autres nations; ils les considéroient comme une race odieuse, & maudite. Saint Jean leur apprend ici que le Fils de Dieu venant dans le monde, a accordé le droit d’adoption, & la grace de devenir enfans de Dieu, à tous ceux qui croiront en lui, & qui le reconnoîtront pour Dieu, sans aucune diftinétion de race, de nation, de condition, d’âge, de qualité. Tous les hommes sont à Dieu; & quiconque rend à Dieu ce qui lui est dû, merite que Dieu le traite en Pere: Non est personarum acceptor Deus; sed in omni gente, qui timet Deum, & operatur justitiam, acceptus est illi. Quant à ce qu’il dit, que le Fils de Dieu a donné à ceux qui croyent en son nom, le pouvoir d’être faits enfans de Dieu, il faut entendre sous le nom de pouvoir, le droit d’être appellez enfans de Dieu. Par la foi, ils font déja enfans de Dieu, ils entrent dans l’adoption des enfans: mais pour l’être dans un sens parfait, il leur manque une chose, qui est la charité, qui anime leur foi ; & les bonnes œuvres, qui l’accompagnent, & sans lesquelles ils ne peuvent parvenir à la béatitude, qui est la fin & la conformation de leur adoption, & de leur filiation : Quos prædestinavit, hos & vocavit, & quos vocavit, hos & justificavit ; quos autem justificavit, illos & glorificavit.
1:13
ỷ. 13. QUI NON EX SANGUINIBUS NEQUE EX VOLUNTATE CARNIS, &c. Qui ne sont point nez du sang, ni de la volonté de la chair, ni de la volonté de l’homme ; mais de Dieu même. Il a donné le droit d’adoption à tous ceux qui croient en lui, sans avoir égard au sang, neque ex sanguinibus. Soit qu’ils soient de la race d’Abraham, ou non ; circoncis, ou Gentils ; tout lui est égal. Ce n’est point non plus une adoption fondée sur un amour charnel, comme seroit celui d’un homme qui adopteroit un enfant à cause de sa beauté, & de ses graces ; ni une union semblable à celle de deux personnes qui s’attachent l’une à l’autre par les liens du mariage, neque ex voluntate carnis. Dieu n’a consulté ni la chair, ni le sang, ni nos prétendus mérites ; il a trouvé dans lui-même le motif qui l’a porté à nous mettre au nombre de ses enfants. Sa seule bonté l’a déterminé à nous faire cette faveur. Ce n’est point non plus une filiation fondée sur la volonté de l’homme ; c’est-à-dire, une adoption pareille à celle d’Ephraïm, & de Manassé, adoptez par Jacob, ni comme celle de Moyse, adopté par la fille de Pharaon. Ces faveurs sont toutes arbitraires, & ne donnent à ceux qui les reçoivent, tout au plus qu’un droit à une héritage temporel. La qualité de Fils de Dieu, que J E S U S - C H R I S T nous a méritée par sa mort, nous donne droit à la felicité éternelle, & nous élève à un degré de gloire supérieur à tout ce que le monde estime le plus. Elle est fondée sur la volonté de Dieu Dieu : Sed ex Deo nati sunt. C’est lui seul qui par une misericorde toute gratuite, nous appelle, nous choisit, nous justifie, & nous comble de gloire. En vertu de cette adoption, il nous éclaire des lumières de la foi, il nous régénère dans le baptême, il nous accorde la charité, & la béatitude éternelle : Bienfaits que nous ne pouvons tenir ni de la chair, ni du sang, ni de l’homme. On peut aussi lui donner ce sens : On n’entre dans l’alliance d’Israël, & dans la filiation d’Abraham, que par trois voies. La première est la voie du sang, par la naissance d’un pere, & d’une mere Israélites ; ou par la volonté de la chair, lorsqu’un Hébreu épousoit une étrangere prise à la guerre ; ou enfin lorsqu’un Payen renonçant au Paganisme, fasoit profession de la Religion des Juifs, & recevoit la circoncision, & le baptême. C’est ce qu’on peut appeller le choix, ou la volonté de l’homme. Mais quant à l’alliance dont nous parlons, ce n’est aucune de ces trois voies qui nous y donne entrée.
1:14
ỷ. 14. ET VERBUM CARO FACTUM EST. Et le Verbe s’est fait Chair, & a demeuré parmi nous. Pour nous procurer l’honneur de devenir enfans de Dieu, le Verbe divin s’est fait Chair ; il est devenu semblable à nous, pour nous rendre semblables à lui. Il s’est chargé de nos insirmitez, il a pris sur lui nos péchez, pour nous rendre la force, la santé, & l’innocence ; il est devenu fils de l’homme, afin que nous devinssions fils de Dieu. La chair est souvent mise pour l’homme ; Verbum caro factum est, pour Verbum homo factum est. Ce n’est pas que la divinité soit devenue homme, ou chair, ni que la chair, ou l’homme soit devenu Dieu. Cette union ineffable des deux natures s’est faite en une seule personne, ians mélange, ni confusion. L’humanité, & la Divinité ont conférée reciproquement tous leurs droits, sans aucune diminution; en forte que l’Ecriture parle tantôt de JESUS-CHRIST suivant son humanité, & tantôt suivant sa Divinité. Tantôt elle le considére comme homme Dieu, & réunissant dans sa Personne divine, & sous l’apparence extérieure de l’homme, toute la plénitude de la Divinité: In ipso inhabitat omnis plenitudo Divinitatis corporaliter. La Divinité ne lui servoit pas d’âme, comme l’ont crû quelques Arians; il a pris toute l’humanité, la chair, & l’âme. L’un sans l’autre ne fait pas l’homme. Or JESUS-CHRIST s’est fait homme. L’Evangéliste réfute ici les Simoniens, & les Cérinthiens, qui nioient la Divinité de JESUS-CHRIST, & qui soutenoient qu’il étoit un pur homme. Il montre qu’il étoit à la fois vrai Dieu, & vrai homme, réunissant les deux natures en une seule personne.
ET HABITAVIT IN NOBIS. Il a demeuré parmi nous. Ce n’est point un songe, ou une vision que je vous annonce. Le Verbe éternel, & consubstantiel au Pere, s’est revêtu de nôtre nature, nous l’avons vû, nous l’avons oüi, nous lui avons parlé, il a demeuré parmi nous. C’est ce que le même Evangéliste nous dit clairement dans la première Epître. Nous vous annonçons la vie éternelle qui étoit dans le Pere dès le commencement, ce que nous avons entendu, ce que nous avons vû de nos yeux, ce que nos mains ont touché du Verbe de vie, &c. D’autres l’entendent ainsi: Le Verbe s’est fait chair, & a habité dans nous; dans un corps matériel comme les nôtres, il s’est revêtu de nôtre nature. Il est devenu semblable à nous, mortel comme nous, mais toutefois sans péché, & sans concupiscence. Le Grec à la lettre: Il a rendu sa tente parmi nous, ou, il a demeuré parmi nous, comme dans une tente; comme un étranger, & pour un peu de tems. Dans l’écriture on donne quelquefois au corps le nom de tenVidimus gloriam ejus, gloriam quasi unigeniti a patre. Nous avons vu sa gloire, comme du Fils unique du Pere. Au milieu de ses humiliations, & malgré cet état obscur, où il s’étoit réduit par son Incarnation, nous l’avons vu environné de gloire; mais d’une gloire surnaturelle, & toute divine, & telle qu’il convenoit au Fils unique du Pere. Je ne parle pas des prodiges qui ont précédé, accompagné, & suivi sa naissance, parce que pour la plûpart ils ont été moins publics, & moins connus, & que nous autres Apôtres n’en avons pas été témoins; je parle des miracles qu’il a fait durant sa prédication, de celui de la Transfiguration glorieuse, de celui qui arriva à son Baptême, & enfin de celui de la Résurrection, & de son Ascension. Ceux sont point-là des faits obscurs, incertains, éloignez; ils sont publics, & éclattans; ils ont eu pour spectateurs plusieurs personnes dignes de foi; ils se sont passez au milieu de la Judée, & je puis me citer moi-même pour témoin des plus extraordinaires, & des plus incroyables. Tout cela confirme ce qu’il a avancé, que le Verbe incarné étoit Dieu.
GLORIAM QUASI UNIGENITI. Sa gloire comme du Fils unique du Pere. Les Prophètes ont fait des miracles. Moyse, Samuël, Salomon, & plusieurs autres ont été comblés de gloire devant Dieu, & devant les hommes: mais leur gloire n’étoit pas comme celle du Fils unique: leurs miracles n’étoient que pour prouver leur mission, & leur qualité de serviteurs du Très-haut, & d’hommes de Dieu. Ils n’ont jamais prétendu à une autre gloire. Mais JESUS-CHRIST s’est déclaré Fils unique du Pere, Dieu de Dieu, un avec le Pere, égal à lui: & pour preuve que ce n’étoit point une usurpation, ni une qualité qui ne lui convînt pas: Non rapinam arbitratus est esse se æqualem Deo; il a fait une infinité de prodiges, pour le prouver. Dieu qui a horreur du mensonge, de l’orgüeil, & de la présomption; qui est infiniment ja- COMMENTAIRE LITTERAL: loux de sa gloire, & qui est interesté à ne pas souffrir que la créature prenne le titre de Dieu, a favorisé JESUS-CHRIST dans le dessein qu’il a pris de se faire reconnoître en cette qualité; il l’a autorisé par ses miracles, & par une approbation éclatante. Il a fait entendre la voix du haut du Ciel, & a ordonné à ses Apôtres, & à tout le monde de l’écouter. Il a déclaré expressément qu’il étoit son Fils bien aimé: Hic est Filius meus dilectus; ipsum audite. JESUS-CHRIST est donc vraiment le Verbe du Pere, la lumière, la vie, la vérité, vrai Dieu, avant comme après son Incarnation. Cela est sans replique. Cette expression: Gloriam quasi Unigeniti: Sa gloire comme du Fils unique, ne doit pas s’entendre, comme si ce n’étoit pas réellement, & véritablement la gloire dûe au Fils unique; mais une gloire pareille à celle-là. La particule quasi, comme, ne marque pas là une simple ressemblance; mais la vérité, & la certitude, ainsi que le remarquent tous les interprètes. On a dans toutes les Langues de pareilles expressions. On dit par exemple, d’un Prince, qu’il parle en Roi; & d’un homme de bien, qu’il agit en homme juste; & d’un Prophète, qu’il vit comme un vrai Prophète. Tout cela ne diminue rien de la vérité de la chose; il l’augmente au contraire, & l’exagère en quelque forte, par la comparaison que l’on fait de la personne dont on parle, à une autre de même qualité. Quoiqu’il soit impossible qu’il y ait plus d’un Fils de Dieu, & que la gloire du Verbe incarné ne puisse être mise en parallèle avec la gloire d’aucun autre; toutefois on en parle par comparaison, pour en donner une plus grande idée.
PLENUM GRATIÆ ET VERITATIS. Etant plein de grace, & de vérité. On peut le rapporter à: Nous l’avons vu plein de grace; ou à ces mots: Le Verbe s’est fait Chair, plein de grace, &c. Cela ne change rien au sens. Le Fils de Dieu a été plein de grace; il a été agréable à Dieu, & nous a fait trouver graces à ses yeux. Il a été plein de verité; il l’a prêchée, il nous l’a enseigné. En lui les promesses du Pere font accomplies; en lui les prophéties sont vérifiées. Il est le témoin fidèle, le vrai Messie. Moyse, comme il dit ici au ỷ. 17. Nous a donné la Loi : mais JESUS-CHRIST nous adonné la grace & la verité. C’est en cela que la Loi nouvelle diffère de l’ancienne. La Loi ne rendoit pas l’homme agréable à Dieu ; par elle-même elle ne donnoit pas la grace ; elle ne conduisoit rien à sa perfection. C’étoit une Loi de rigueur, & de servitude. Elle formoit des esclaves, & non des enfans; elle n’étoit que provisionelle, & pour un tems. Mais JESUS-CHRIST nous donne la grace, & la miséricorde; il nous rend enfans de Dieu. La Loi promettoit le Médiateur ; c’étoit une Loi de figures, & d’ombres : JESUS-CHRIST nous est donné, & en lui nous avons la vérité, & la réalité ; nous voyons en lui l’exécution des promesses, la fin des figures, la perfection de la Loi. JESUS-CHRIST est la source d’où nous tirons & la grace, & la vérité : De plenitudine ejus omnes accepimus. Samuel a été rempli de vérité ; Marie a été salüée plein de grace ; on donne le même éloge à saint Etienne : mais il n’est dit d’aucun autre que du Fils de Dieu, qu’il est plein de grace, & de vérité ; que nous avons tous reçu de sa plénitude ; que c’est par lui qu’est faite la grace, & la vérité. Les autres Saints ont reçu les graces avec mesure ; ils les tiennent d’ailleurs : JESUS-CHRIST en est rempli ; il les a de lui-même ; il en est la source, & le distributeur. Dans l’ancien Testament, la miséricorde, & la vérité, qui sont équivalentes à la grace, & à la vérité, se rencontrent très-souvent pour marquer la bonté dont Dieu nous prévient, les faveurs qu’il nous fait, & la fidélité qu’il a à exécuter ses promesses. Faites avec moi misericorde, & vérité, signifie : Regardez moi de bon œil, accordez-moi vôtre protection, & exécutez envers moi la promesse que vous m’avez faite de me secourir : Ne retirez point de moi votre miséricorde, & votre vérité : Ne me traitez point dans votre colère, & ne révoquez point la parole que vous m’avez donnée de me protéger, lorsque j’aurois recours à vous. Ici la grace, & la vérité marquent la miséricorde dont Dieu a usé envers nous, en nous donnant son Fils.
1:15
ỷ. 15. JOANNES TESTIMONIUM PERHIBET DE IPSO. Jean rend témoignage de lui, en disant : Celui qui doit venir après moi, est avant moi ; parce qu’il est plus ancien que moi. Jean-Baptiste étant envoyé pour prêcher la pénitence, & pour préparer les voies au Messie, commença par lui rendre témoignage, en disant aux Juifs que le Royaume des Cieux étoit proche ; qu’au milieu d’eux étoit celui qu’ils attendoient depuis si long-tems ; que pour lui il n’étoit que la voix qui annonçoit sa venue ; que celui qui devoit paroître après lui ; étoit plus grand que lui : Pour lui, disoit-il, il est l’Epoux, & je ne suis que l’ami de l’Epoux ; il est le Maître, je ne suis que le serviteur ; il est fait avant moi, il est éternel, il est au-dessus de moi, & je ne suis pas digne de porter ses souliers. Voilà le témoignage que Jean rendoit à JESUS-CHRIST dans le désert du Jourdain ; c’est ce qu’il disoit de lui en sa présence, comme en son absence. Il en parla d’abord comme de celui qui devoit venir, & qui devoit se manifester auprès lui. Il ne le connoissoit pas de visage ; il ne l’avoit jamais vû : mais lorsqu’il l’apperçut, & que JESUS vint dans la foule pour se faire baptiser, alors Jean le reconnut, il éleva sa voix, & déclara au peuple : Voilà celui dont je vous ai parlé, qui est fait avant moi, & qui est infiniment au-def Ius de moi: Ante me factus est. Ces mots: Il est avant moi, peuvent marquer ou l’éternité du Verbe, qui étoit dans Dieu au commencement; ou sa supériorité, la Divinité, la Dignité de Verbe, & de Fils de Dieu, de Messie, & de Désiré de toutes les nations. Plusieurs Peres le prennent en ce dernier sens. Saint Ambroise: Prior me erat, aeternitatis est; ante me factus, honoris.
QUIA PRIOR ME ERAT. Parce qu’il étoit avant moi. Ceci s’explique d’une priorité de tems, ou d’une prééminence de dignité. Il subsistoit avant moi; il étoit dans le Pere de toute éternité, au lieu que je suis fait dans le tems. Ou, il étoit au-dessus de moi par sa dignité, par son excellence. Il étoit Dieu, & je ne suis que sa créature; il étoit mon Maître, & je ne suis que son serviteur; il est le Libérateur d’Israël, & je ne suis que la voix qui crie, & qui annonce sa venue.
1:16
ỷ. 16. DE PLENITUDINE EJUS OMNES ACCEPIMUS. Nous avons tous reçu de sa plénitude. Quelques Anciens attribüent ces paroles à Jean-Baptiste, c mme une continuation de ce qu’il dit dans le ỷ. précédent. Mais la plûpart l’expliquent comme étant de l’Evangéliste: après avoir parlé de la grace, & de la vérité dont le Verbe fait chair a été rempli, il ajoute que c’est de sa plénitude que nous avons reçu tout ce que nous avons de grace, de lumière, de connoissance; il nous en a communiqué autant qu’il a jugé à propos; il nous en a donné par mesure: mais il s’en est COMMENTAIRE LITTERAL: réservé la piénitude ; le Pere lui a donné tout en main : car c’est JESUS-CHRIST qui est le Chef du corps de l’église, comme dit saint Paul; il est le principe, & le premier-né d’entre les morts, afin qu’il soit le premier en tout, parce qu’il a plû au Pere, que toute plénitude résidât en lui, & de réconcilier toutes choses par lui, & en lui-même ; en lui réside la plenitude de la Divinité. C’est lui qui est Auteur & de nôtre foi, & de nôtre justification, de nôtre adoption, de nôtre gloire ; il nous a mérité tout cela par son sang ; c’est à nous aidez de la grace à coopérer à sa vocation, à suivre ses attraitz, à seconder ses desseins, à nous rendre dignes de ses promesses, à assurer nôtre élection par nos bonnes œuvres. Il invite tout le monde à venir à lui : la porte de la foi est ouverte à toutes les nations. De plenitudine ejus omnes accepimus. Saint Irénée croit que l’Evangéliste en cet endroit avoit en vûe de réfuter l’erreur de Cérinthe, & des Nicolaïtes, qui enseignoient, de même que les Valentinien s firent dans la fuite, que leur pleroma, ou plénitude, avoit produit toutes choses, & le CHRIST lui-même, avec le Saint Esprit. Pour ruiner ce systême ridicule, saint Jean remarque ici que JESUS-CHRIST est de toute éternité, subsistant dans le sein du Pere, Dieu comme lui ; qu’il s’est incarné dans le tems, & que c’est de son pleroma, de sa plenitude, que nous avons reçu tout ce que Dieu nous a donné de graces, & de lumières.
ET GRATIAM PRO GRATIA. Et grace pour grace. Avant la venue de JESUS-CHRIST dans le monde, tous les hommes avoient la lumière naturelle. Les Grecs avoient la Philosophie ; les Juifs avoient la Loi, & les Prophètes. Tout cela étoit une pure faveur de Dieu, Auteur de tous biens. Mais depuis que le Verbe s’est fait Chair, Dieu a fait une nouvelle distribution de ses graces ; il nous a donné les lumières de la foi, il a fait annoncer l’évangile du salut à tous les hommes, il a invité toutes les nations à la foi, & à la connoissance de la vérité. Ainsi il nous a donnée une grace pour une autre grace: Gratiam pro gratia. Mais la seconde est infiniment plus grande, plus excellente, & plus abondante que la première. Le verset suivant insinüe que l’Evangéliste veut principalement désigner la Loi par la première grace, & l’Evangile par la seconde. La Loi a été donnée par Moyse, dit-il; mais la grace & la vérité a été apportée par JESUS-CHRIST. Comparez Rom. I. 17. Ex fide in fidem. Les Juifs sont conduits de foi en foi; de la foi en Dieu, & à Moyse, en la foi Chrétienne annoncée par JESUS-CHRIST. D’autres l’entendent ainsi: Le Fils de Dieu nous a donné la grace de l’Evangile, pour une autre grace; c’est-à-dire; à condition que nous l’en aimions, & que nous lui en rendions nos actions de graces. Il demande au moins notre reconnoissance pour un si grand bienfait, & si gratuit. C’est tout ce qu’il peut attendre de nous. Grotius revient a peu près au même, lorsqu’il traduit: Nous avons tout reçu de sa plénitude, & par pure grace; il nous a comblez de ses biens par une bonté toute gratuite. Ligfoot: Il nous a donné cette grace, afin que nous la communiquions aux autres. Grace pour grace. Saint Augustin, saint Bernard, Béde le Vénérable croyent que l’Evangéliste veut marquer ici la grace justifiante: qui nous sauve par la foi & la charité; est la gloire qu’elle nous procure. La grace qui nous justifie, & la première; la gloire dont Dieu couronne sa grace, & ses dons, est la seconde: Gratiam pro gratia. Il nous donne la derniere, comme récompense de la première: Si enim fides gratia est, & vita æterna quasi merces est fidei, dit saint Augustin, vita æterna gratia est pro gratia. Maldonat, & quelques autres après lui: Il nous a donné ses graces d’une manière inégale; aux uns une grace, & aux autres une autre; aux uns plus, aux autres moins, selon la mesure qu’il a jugé à propos de garder dans leur distribution. D’autres: Il nous a donné grace sur grace; une très-grande abondance de graces; il nous a comblez de biens; il a répandu sur nous une effusion de toutes fortes de faveurs. On peut choisir parmi ces diverses explications. Celle qui l’entend de la grace de l’Evangile, opposée à celle de la Loi, nous paroît la plus naturelle, à cause de ce qui suit.
1:17
ỷ. 17. LEX PER MOYSEN DATA EST. La Loi a été donnée p.ar Moyse: mais la grace, & la vérité a été apportée par JESUS-CHRIST. Que les Juifs ne se vantent point de la Loi qui leur a été donnée. Depuis la venue de JESUS-CHRIST, la Loi cérémonielle ne fert plus à rien. La Loi de Moyse étoit rigueur, & figure; la Religion Chrétiennne est grace, & vérité. La Loi n’a été donnée que par un simple homme; la grace & la vérité est apportée par le Fils de Dieu. Moyse promettoit simplement, ce qui a été accompli par JESUS-CHRIST. Jusqu’ici l’Evangéliste n’a désigné le Sauveur que sous les noms de Verbe, de Lumière, de Dieu; ici il le marque par son propre nom de JESUS-CHRIST. Par lui nous recevons la grace, ou la miséricorde, quinous prévient; & la vérité, ou les effets de la fidélité de Dieu dans l’exécution de ses promesses. JESUS-CHRIST est le terme, & la fin des prophéties, & des figures de l’ancien Testament.
1:18
ỷ. 18. DEUM NEMO VIDIT UNQUAM. Nul n’a jamais vu Dieu. Les Juifs vantoient leur Loi; saint Jean vient de leur montrer qu’elle n’étoit ni grace, ni vérité; qu’elle n’étoit que rigueur, & figure. Ils se vantoient que Moyse avoit vu Dieu face à face, & ils citoient certains Textes, qui sembloient les favoriser; saint Jean soutient ici que nul homme n’a jamais vû Dieu, & par conséquent, que Moyse n’a point eu cet avantage; qu’il n’y a que le Verbe du Pere, que JESUS-CHRIST Fils de Dieu, qui en ait donné la connoissance aux hommes. Autre prérogative, qui réleve infiniment le Sauveur au-dessus du Législateur des Juifs. C’est donc en vain que les Juifs nous disent: A quoi fert l’Evangile de JESUS CHRIST? La Loi de Moyse ne suffisoit-elle pas? Nous savons que le Seigneur a parlé à Moyse; mais nous ne savons qui est JESUS. Nous savons que la Loi que Moyse nous a donnée, vient de Dieu; nous n’avons pas la même assurance de l’Evangile de JESUS-CHRIST. L’Evangéliste leur répond: JESUS-CHRIST est le Fils de Dieu, le Verbe du Pere, de la plénitude duquel tous les hommes, tous les Prophètes, tous les Saints ont reçu ce qui les a distinguez. Si Moyse a donné la Loi de sévérité, & de figure, JESUS-CHRIST a donné la Loi de grace, & de vérité. Si Moyse a parlé à Dieu, ce n’est que par la médiation du Verbe; Dieu ne s’est découvert à lui, que par son Fils: Car personne n’a jamais vû Dieu; c’est le Fils unique du Pere qui en a donné la connoissance à Moyse, & aux autres Prophètes. C’est le sentiment de la plûpart des anciens Peres, que les apparitions de l’ancien Testament se font faites par le Fils de Dieu.
UNIGENITUS FILIUS, QUI EST IN SINU PATRIS. Le Fils unique, qui est dans le sein du Pere. JESUS-CHRIST est nommé le Fils unique, le Fils bien-aimé, pour exclure toute idée d’adoption, & pour marquer l’amour, & la tendresse du Pere pour son Fils bien-aimé. Il est dans le sein du Pere, pour désigner la consubstantialité, son union parfaite. Ce Fils nous a donné la connoissance de son Pere; lui seul le connoit parfaitement, il étoit seul capable de nous le faire connoître. Auparavant Dieu nous parloit en différentes manières par la bouche des Prophètes; mais enfin ces derniers tems, il nous a parlé par son fils. Nul autre que le Fils ne pénétroit les mystéres, les desseins, les volontez du Pere; nul autre ne pouvoit nous les découvrir. La Loi, & les Prophétes n’ont fait que bégayer, comparez aux paroles de JESUS-CHRIST dans l’évangile.
1:19
ỷ. 19. ET HOC EST TESTIMONIUM JOANNIS. Voici le témoignage que Jean rendit à JESUS-CHRIST. Jean-Baptiste a déja rendu témoignage à JESUS-CHRIST, ci-devant ỷ. 15. Voici celui dont je vous disois: Celui qui doit venir après mois, est avant moi; parce qu’il est plus ancien que moi. C’est ce que saint Jean disoit de JESUS-CHRIST, lorsqu’il le vit venir au Baptême. Mais voici un autre témoignage qu’il lui rendit dans une autre occasion, & quelque tems après, lorsqu’e les Prêtres & les Lévites lui députérent quelques-uns de leur Corps, pour lui demander s’il n’étoit pas le Christ. Cette députation se fit peu de tems après le baptême de JESUS-CHRIST. Saint Jean avoit alors quitté le désert du Jourdain, près de Jéricho, où le Sauveur avoit été baptisé, & il s’étoit retiré à Béthanie, au-delà du Jourdain, lorsque les Députés arrivérent. Voyez les versets 25. & 28. Il étoit important de relever le témoignage que Jean-Baptiste avoit rendu au Sauveur; parce que ce saint Précurseur étoit dans une estime universelle parmi les Juifs, & que son témoignage ne pouvoit être suspect aux Prêtres, puisqu’il étoit de la race Sacerdotale. On croit que ce fut le grand Sanhédrin qui fit cette députation; parce qu’à lui appartenoit la connoissance de ce qui regarde les Prophétes, & leur mission. On remarque que quand Bar-cokeba parut, on lui fit une pareille députation pour lui demander ce qu’il étoit.
TU QUIS ES? Qui êtes-vous? Etes-vous le Christ? Etes-vous Prophéte? Etes-vous le Précurseur du Messie? La vie merveilleuse de saint Jean, les miracles qui avoient éclatté à sa naissance, la fonction de Prédicateur qu’il exerçoit; la venue du Royaume de Dieu qu’il annonçoit, la qualité de voix de celui qui crie dans le désert, qu’il prenoit; tout cela faisoit croire à plusieurs qu’il pourroit bien être le Messie, JESUS-CHRIST n’avoit pas encore paru; il n’avoit point encore de Disciples; il n’avoit fait aucun miracle. Les tems marquez pour la venue du Messie, étoient expirez; toute la nation étoit dans l’attente du Libérateur; Jean paroît avec un éclat, & une réputation extraordinaire; il étoit naturel qu’on le prît pour celui qu’on attendoit: Tu quis es? Etes-vous le Messie?
1:20
ỷ. 20. Et confessus est, et non negavit, &c. Il confessa, & il ne le nia point, & il confessa qu’il n’étoit point le Christ. Il rendit constamment témoignage à la vérité; il déclara hautement, confessus est, ou professus est, qu’il n’étoit pas le Christ. Il ne nia point ce qu’il étoit; il reconnoît qu’il n’étoit que le serviteur de celui dont on lui parloit. Il ne biaisa point dans sa confession; il répondit toujours sans hésiter, qu’il n’étoit pas le Messie. Tout cela marque l’humilité du Précurseur, & donne un très-grand poids à son témoignage. Sans se laisser ébloüir, ni par la qualité de ceux qui lui parloient, ni par l’autorité du Sanhédrin, qui envoyoit ces députez; sans se laisser flatter par le nom de CHRIST qu’on lui déferoît, il persista à dire qu’il n’étoit que la voix de celui qui crie dans le désert, Préparez la voie du Seigneur.
1:21
ỷ. 21. ELIAS ES TU? Etes-vous Elie? Et il répondit: Je ne le suis point. Les Juifs savoient qu’Elie avoit été transporté hors du monde, & qu’il devoit venir avant le grand jour du Seigneur, suivant la prophétie de Malachie, pour reconcilier les peres avec leurs enfans, & les enfans avec leurs peres. La vie que menoit saint Jean dans le désert, étoit fort approchante de celle qu’avoit menée Elie. Ses habits, son austérité, son zèle retracçoient admirablement les caractères du grand Elie. Saint Jean disoit hautement que le Royaume de Dieu étoit proche, ou qu’il étoit arrivé. Cela fit naître aux Prêtres le soupçon que saint Jean pourroit bien être Elie revenu dans le monde; ou du moins que l’ame d’Elie étoit passée dans son corps: Car les Pharisiens, du nombre desquels étoient ces Députez, croyoient que les ames des gens de bien entroient quelquefois dans d’autres corps. Ils tenoient en particulier que l’ame de Phinées, celle d’Elie, celle de David avoient successivement animé différens personnages. Saint Jean répond qu’il n’est point Elie; & toutefois JESUS-CHRIST dans une autre occasion, déclare que ce saint Homme étoit Elie: Car les Apôtres lui ayant dit qu’il falloit qu’Elie vint avant la manifestation du Royaume de Dieu, il leur répondit: Je vous assure qu’Elie est déjà venu, & ils ne l’ont point connu; mais ils l’ont traité comme ils ont voulu. Saint Jean étoit donc Elie en esprit, en zéle, en mérite; il en faisoit les fonctions; il représentoit sa personne: mais ce n’étoit point lui réellement. La venue d’Elie en personne est réservée pour le second avénement du Fils de Dieu, lorsqu’il paroîtra de nouveau à la fin du monde, pour juger les vivans & les morts.
PROPHETA ES TU? Etes-vous Prophète? Et il répondit: Non. Ou plûtôt: Etes-vous le Prophète que nous attendons; ce grand Prophete, ce Prophete par excellence promis par Moyse? Il répond: Je ne le suis pas: Je ne suis pas le Messie, & je ne suis pas non plus un simple Prophete, comme les autres qui ont annoncé la venue du Messie; je suis plus que Prophète, puisque je le montre, je l’annonce, je le désigne qui vit, & qui converse parmi vous.
1:22
ỷ. 22. QUID ERGO UT RESPONSUM DEMUS? Qui êtes-vous donc, afin que nous rendions réponse à ceux qui nous ont envoyez? Ils veulent tirer de lui une réponse positive. Si vous n’êtes ni le Messie, ni Elie, ni un Prophète, dites-nous donc en quelle qualité vous venez faire ce que vous faites; prêcher, enseigner, baptiser, dire publiquement que le Royaume des Cieux est venu? Quel est vôtre caractère? Quelle est vôtre mission? Car si vous n’avez ni mission, ni caractère, vous êtes un imposteur; & si vous avez l’un ou l’autre, dites-nous qui vous a envoyé, & en quelle qualité vous êtes venu?
1:23
ỷ. 23. EGO VOX CLAMANTIS IN DESERTO. Je suis la voix de celui qui crie dans le désert: Rendez droite la voix du Seigneur. Saint Jean ne pouvoit parler de lui-même avec plus de modestie. Je suis cette voix dont parle le Prophète Isaïe, laquelle se fait entendre dans le désert, & qui crie: Préparez la voix au Seigneur, qui ramène son peuple de la captivité de Babylone. Ce retour de la captivité étoit, comme on l’a souvent remarqué, l’image de la rédemption du genre humain. Le Seigneur à la tête de son peuple, figuroit JESUS-CHRIST, Chef & Auteur de l’Eglise Chrétienne délivrée de l’esclavage du péché, & du Démon. Saint Jean étoit chargé de préparer les voies au Messie, & de disposer les cœurs, & les esprits à le recevoir. Il les y dispose par le témoignage avantageux qu’il leur rend, par la pénitence qu’il prêche, par le baptême qu’il donne.
1:24
ỷ. 24. ERANT EX PHARISÆIS. Ils étoient du nombre des Pharisiens. Ils étoient de la race des Prêtres, & des Lévites; mais ils étoient de la secte des Pharisiens, qui étoit la plus puissante & la plus considérable d’entre celles qui partageoient les Juifs de ce tems-là. Il y en avoit un grand nombre dans le Sanhédrin.
1:25
ỷ. 25. QUARE ERGO BAPTIZAS, SI TU NON ES CHRISTUS? &c. Pourquoi donc baptisez-vous, si vous n’êtes ni le Christ, ni Elie, ni Prophète? C’étoit apparemment une tradition des Pharisiens, qu’il n’y avoit que le Christ, ou Elie, ou un Prophète, qui eût droit de baptiser solennellement, pour disposer les peuples à la pénitence. Les Prophètes avoient prédit un rénouvellement général, une purification universelle au tems du Messie. Le baptême de saint Jean n’étoit ni ordonné par la Loi, ni par la tradition. Les Prêtres en concluoient que ce devoit donc être le baptême préparatoire à la venue du Messie.
1:26
ỷ. 26. EGO BAPTIZO IN AQUA. MEDIUS AUTEM VESTRUM STETIT. Pour moi, je baptise dans l’eau. Mais il y en a un au milieu de vous, que vous ne connoissez point. C’est celui-là que vous devriez chercher. C’est lui qui est le grand Prophète, & le Messie. Je baptise dans l’eau, pour disposer le peuple à recevoir la rémission de ses pechez: Mais pour lui, il baptise par le Saint Esprit, & par le feu. C’est lui dont je dois moi-même rechercher le baptême: Ego à te debeo baptizari. Saint Jean ne dit pas tout cela dans cette occasion aux Députés du Sanhédrin: mais il l’avoit dit auparavant devant tout le peuple. JESUS-CHRIST n’étoit pas alors présent : mais le Précurseur l’avoit assez désigné une autre fois ; & il lui rendit témoignage encore le lendemain. Il ne tenoit qu’à ces Députez de s’informer qui étoit donc celui dont il vouloit parler. S’ils avoient autant insisté pour le connoître, que la chose le méritoit, il ne le leur auroit pas caché. Ils avoient peut-être dès-lors conçu de la jalousie contre Jean-Baptiste ; & ils vinrent autant pour lui tendre des piéges, que pour satisfaire leur curiosité. Ils ne paroissent pas avoir eu une fort grande envie de connoître sincèrement le Messie.
1:27
ỷ. 27. POST ME VENTURUS EST. Il doit venir après moi. &c. Voyez ci-devant le ỷ. 15. Jean-Baptiste répète le témoignage qu’il avoit rendu à JESUS-CHRIST. Il reconnoit la supériorité, la Divinité de ce divin Libérateur.
1:28
ỷ. 28. HÆC IN BETHANIA FACTA SUNT. Ceci se passa à Béthanie, au-delà du Jourdain, où Jean baptisoit. Les Exemplaires Grecs varient sur cet endroit. Les uns lisent Bethania, & les autres Bethabara ; & les Interprètes sont partagez sur la leçon qui doit être préférée. Il semble que la plûpart des Manuscrits lisent Bethania. Origénes avouë que de son tems c’étoit la leçon la plus commune, & qu’elle étoit presque dans tous les exemplaires. On la voit dans quantité de bonnes Impressions Grecques du nouveau Testament. Le Syriaque, l’Arabe, le Persan, le Copte, Héracléon, Euthyme, lisent Bethania. Toutefois Origénes, saint Chrysostome, Théophylacte, Suidas, qui ont remarqué cette variété de Leçons, se sont déterminez pour Bethabara. Et Origènes dit expressément qu’étant allé exprès sur les lieux pour savoir plus exactement la Géographie des endroits fréquentez par notre Sauveur, par ses Apôtres, & par les Prophètes; il y avoit appris que Béthanie étoit une bourgade à quinze stades de Jérusalem, où le Sauveur alloit souvent chez Lazare, & ses sœurs Marthe, & Marie; que ce lieu est éloigné du Jourdain de plus de cent quatre vingt stades; qu’il n’y en a aucun de même nom sur ce fleuve; mais qu’on y montre les ruines d’une bourgade nommée Bethara, où l’on tient que Jean baptisoit. Voilà ce que dit Origènes sur cela. Mais s’il n’y a pas de faute dans son Texte, où on lit Béthara, je crains qu’il n’ait pris pour Béthabara, un autre lieu nommé Béthara, ou Bétharan, connu dans les Nombres xxxii. 36. & Josué xiii. 27. où l’on bâtit dans la fuite la ville de Livias. Bétharan étoit à deux, ou trois lieux du Jourdain; & étoit fort différente de Béthabara, selon Eusèbe, & saint Jérôme. Ces Peres ne font aucune mention de Béthanie au delà du Jourdain. Mais ils y mettent Béthabara, comme le lieu où saint Jean baptisoit, & où plusieurs fideles encore de leur tems, avoient la dévotion de recevoir le Sacrement de Baptême. Ce lieu devoit être à trois ou quatre lieux, au nord de Bétharan, sur le Jourdain. Ceux qui soutiennent la Leçon de la Vulgate, & qui lisent ici Béthania, avoüent qu’on ne connoit aucune ville du nom de Béthanie au-delà du Jourdain. Mais combien d’autres lieux sont inconnus dans l’ancienne, comme dans la nouvelle Géographie? De plus le nom de Bethanie peut venir de l’Hebreu, ou du Syriaque Beth-aniab, qui signifie la maison du bateau, apparemment parce qu’il y avoit là un baque, ou une nasselle, sur laquelle on passoit le Jourdain. Le mot Hébreu Bethabara, signifie aussi la maison du passage. Enfin on peut prendre Béthania, comme s’il y avoit Béthanaea, ou Bathanaa, la Barbanée, qui est l’ancien pays de Basan, qui se met quelquefois pour une grande partie du pays de delà le Jourdain. (.) Mais il faut convenir que la Leçon de Béthabara, qui se lit dans la plûpart de nos Editions, paroît la meilleure. Grotius croit que c’est là où les Israélites passèrent le Jourdain, & que de là il est venu le nom de Maison de passage. Ligfoot met Béthabara près de Scythopolis, où l’on passoit aussi le Jourdain.
1:29
ỷ. 29. ALTERA DIE. Le lendemain Jean vit Jesus qui venoit à lui. Le lendemain du jour du retour des Députés de Jérusalem, Jesus revint du désert, où il avoit passé quarante jours, & quarante nuits dans le jeune, & il se rendit près de Jean-Baptiste, pour choisir quelques Disciples, & pour se mettre en état de commencer sa mission. Ecce Agnus Dei. Voici l’Agneau de Dieu; voici celui qui ôte les péchés du monde. Voilà une manière de parler bien extraordinaire. Vous êtes l’Agneau de Dieu; c’est vous qui ôtez les péchés du monde. Jean vouloit marquer par là la mort de Jesus-Christ, & l’expiation qu’il devoit faire des péchés du monde. Les Prophètes avoient désigné le Messie sous le nom d’un Agneau plein de douceur, qui se laisse tondre, & égorger sans se plaindre. Nous étions tous comme des brebis errantes; Dieu a mis sur lui l’iniquité de nous tous. Il a été offert en sacrifice, parce qu’il l’a voulu, & il n’a point ouvert la bouche. Il sera conduit à la mort comme une brebis, & il demeurera dans le silence comme un agneau devant celui qui lui ôte sa toison. Les Auteurs du nouveau Testament donnent souvent à JESUS-CHRIST ce nom d’Agneau, qui a livré sa vie pour le salut des hommes. Le nom d’Agneau, est aussi quelquefois un nom de carelle, pour marquer un fils. Cette dénomination étoit non seulement une allusion aux passages des Prophètes, où le Sauveur est désigné sous le nom d’Agneau, c’étoit encore une mémoire de ce qui se passoit dans le Temple, où l’on immoloit tous les jours soir & matin, au nom de toute la nation, un agneau, sur la tête duquel des hommes destinez à cela imposoient leurs mains, pour reconnoître le souverain domaine du Seigneur, & pour transporter sur la tête de ces victimes, le péché de tout le peuple. Saint Jean vouloit donc marquer que JESUS-CHRIST étoit le véritable Agneau qui devoit être sacrifié au nom de tout le peuple. Il y en a qui croient que ceci fut dit le matin, & au tems que l’on offroit dans le Temple l’agneau du sacrifice perpétuel; & que l’autre témoignage parallèle à celui-ci, fut prononcé le même jour sur le soir, à la dixième heure du jour, lorsqu’on étoit prêt d’immoler le sacrifice perpétuel du soir.
QUI TOLLIT PECCATUM MUNDI. Qui ôte le péché du monde. On peut traduire le Grec par : Qui prend sur lui le péché du monde. Il s’est chargé de satisfaire à son Pere, non seulement pour les péchez des Juifs, mais pour ceux de tout le monde. Le péché, paroît plus expressif que les péchez. Il marque mieux la différence qu’il y a entre le sacrifice de JESUS-CHRIST, & celui des hosties qui s’immoloient dans le Temple.
1:31
ỷ. 31. ET EGO NESCEIBAM EUM. Pour moi, je ne le connoissois point. Saint Jean-Baptiste n’avoit jamais vû JESUSCHRIST, & ne le connoissoit point de visage, lorsqu’il commença à prêcher, & à baptiser, & qu’il fit son éloge devant tout le peuple. Son témoignage avoit d’autant plus de poids, qu’il étoit entièrement désintéressé, n’étant fondé ni sur la chair & le sang, ni sur l’amitié, ou l’inclination, ni même sur une connoissance d’expérience qu’il auroit acquise des qualitez, & du mérite personnel de JESUS-CHRIST. La haute idée qu’il en avoit, venoit du Ciel; il l’avoit reçûe par révélation. JESUS-CHRIST auroit pû lui dire comme à saint Pierre: Caro, & sanguis non revelavit tibi; sed Pater meus qui in Cælis est.
1:32
ỷ. 32. VIDI SPIRITUM SANCTUM. J’ai vû le Saint Esprit descendre sur lui comme une colombe. C’est ce qui me l’a fait connoître, comme il le dit ci-après, ỷ. 33. Celui qui m’a envoyé baptizer, m’a dit: Celui sur qui vous verrez descendre, & monter le Saint Esprit, est celui qui baptize par le Saint Esprit. En effet lorsque JESUS-CHRIST fut baptisé, le Ciel s’ouvrit, & l’on vit le Saint Esprit descendre sur lui en forme de colombe. Mais comment peut-il dire qu’avant cela il ne connoissoit pas JESUS-CHRIST, & qu’il ne le reconnoit qu’à cette marque; puisqu’aussi-tôt que le Sauveur parut devant lui la premiere fois, pour recevoir le baptême, saint Jean lui dit: C’est moi qui ai besoin d’être baptizé par vous; & vous venez recevoir le baptême de moi? Ce ne fut qu’après que JESUS eut été baptisé, que le Ciel s’ouvrit, & que la colombe parut. Il le connoissoit donc avant ce miracle. On peut répondre que celui qui envoya Jean pour baptizer, lui ouvrit les yeux de l’esprit, dans le moment que le Sauveur se présenta devant lui; & que pour plus grande affûrance, il lui fit voir encore les signes dont on a parlé. Une preuve qui vient après, n’en détruit pas une autre précédente. La lumière intérieure dont il avoit été rempli, n’excluoit pas l’assurance extérieure qu’il tira alors des miracles qui se firent à ses yeux.
VIDI SPIRITUM DESCENDENTEM QUASI COLUMBAM, …ET MANSIT SUPER EUM. J’ai vû le Saint Esprit descendre du Ciel comme un colombe, & demeurer sur lui. Quelques-uns ont douté que le Saint Esprit ait paru en forme de colombe ; ils veulent qu’il soit descendu simplement avec la même impétuosité qu’une colombe : Mais ce sentiment est contraire au Texte des Evangélistes. Saint Jean ajoute que le Saint Esprit demeura sur JESUS-CHRIST ; qu’il s’y arrêta d’une manière sensible un assez long tems. Il y demeura toujours, quant aux effets, dans toute sa plénitude. Ce n’est pas à dire qu’il en ait jamais été séparé, ni qu’alors il y fût survenu, comme si auparavant il en eût été absent. Le Saint Esprit est une même essence avec le Pere, & le Fils. Ce sont trois Personnes inséparables, indivisibles, consubstantielles. Mais il falloit donner au peuple une preuve sensible de la présence du Saint Esprit dans la personne du Sauveur ; & le saint Evangéliste ne pouvoit pas employer d’autres termes pour exprimer cela.
1:34
ỷ. 34. TESTIMONIUM PERHIBUI, QUIA HIC EST FILIUS DEI. J’ai rendu témoignage qu’il est le Fils de Dieu. Il rendit ce témoignage au moment du baptême du Sauveur, quoique les Evangélistes saint Matthieu, saint Marc, & saint Luc ne le marquent pas expressément. D’autres le prennent comme s’il y avoit : Je l’ai vû, & je rends témoignage aujourd’hui que JESUS-CHRIST est le Fils de Dieu.
1:35
ỷ. 35. ALTERA DIE ITERUM STABAT JOANNES. Le lendemain Jean étoit encore là avec deux de ses disciples. Deux jours après le départ des Députés du Sanhédrin, dont il a parlé ci-devant. Capelle veut qu’il se soit passé plusieurs jours entre le premier témoignage que Jean rendit à JESUS-CHRIST, ỷ. 29. & celui-ci. Mais d’autres soutiennent que ceci arriva le même jour : D’où vient que l’Evangéliste dit : Altera die iterum : Le lendemain encore ; comme pour marquer que c’étoit le même jour ; mais à une autre heure. Nous avons déjà remarqué que selon quelques-uns, le premier témoignage lui fut rendu le matin, & le second, le soir. Il étoit important de répéter plus d’une fois que JESUS-CHRIST étoit l’Agneau de Dieu ; puisque sa mort, & sa passion devoient être un si grand sujet de scandale aux Juifs, & aux Gentils. Rien n’étoit plus marqué dans les Ecritures que cette mort, & rien n’étoit moins entendu.
1:37
ỷ. 37. DUO DISCIPULI SECUTI SUNT JESUM. Ces deux Disciples de Jean l’ayant entendu parler ainsi, suivirent JESUS. Ils le suivirent, non pour demeurer toujours attaché à lui ; mais pour le voir, pour l’entretenir, pour le connoître. Le premier de ces deux Disciples étoit saint André, comme il est marqué au ỷ. 41. On ne connoît pas le second. Quelques-uns veulent que ce soit saint Barthélemy ; d’autres, que ce soit saint Jean l’Evangéliste lui-même. Saint Epiphane croit que c’étoit Jacques fils de Zébédée.
1:38
ỷ. 38. RABBI, UBI HABITAS, Maître, où demeurez vous ? Il n’y eut que ces deux Disciples de Jean qui suivirent JESUS-CHRIST. Les autres n’ouvrirent point leur cœur à la lumière du Ciel, ou plûtôt le Pere céleste ne leur fit point entendre sa voix puissante & efficace, qui les invitoit à le suivre. Ils répondirent mal à l’intention de Jean-Baptiste, qui ne leur avoit ainsi parlé, que pour les engager à suivre le Sauveur. JESUS leur dit: Que cherchez-vous? pour les attirer à lui, & pour leur donner la hardiesse de lui parler, & d’entrer en conversation. Ils lui demandent où il demeure, afin qu’ils pûssent l’entretenir plus à loisir. Ceci se passa à Béthabara; & JESUS-CHRIST y logea apparemment chez quelque bourgeois; car il n’y avoit point de demeure propre, ni de discipless, & il n’étoit point connu. Il ne le contente pas de leur indiquer sa demeure; il aide leur bonne volonté; il les invite à venir avec lui, il leur dit: Venez & voyez.
1:39
ỷ. 39. MANSERUNT APUD ILLUM DIE ILLO. Ils demeurèrent chez lui ce jour là; le reste du jour; car il étoit la dixiéme heure, c’est-à-dire, environ quatre heures après midi; nous supposons que ceci arriva au mois de Mars, vers l’équinoxe.
1:41
ỷ. 41. ANDREAS INVENIT FRATREM SUUM SIMONEM, André ayant trouvé son frere Simon, lui dit: Nous avons trouvé le Messie. André étant sorti sur le soir de la compagnie de JESUS-CHRIST, alla promptement chercher son frere Simon, qui attendoit la rédemption d’Israël, & qui étoit peut-être aussi disciple de Jean-Baptiste. Le Texte Grec infinuë que les deux Disciples qui avoient eu le bonheur de converser avec JESUS-CHRIST, se mirent aussi-tôt à chercher Pierre; mais qu’André le trouva le premier. Il lui déclara d’abord qu’ils avoient trouvé le Messie; c’est-à-dire que JESUS, à qui Jean-Baptiste avoit rendu témoignage, & qu’il leur avoit indiqué comme le Messie, l’étoit véritablement, & qu’ils avoient trouvé dans ses discours, tel que leur Maître le leur avoit dit: Invenimus Messiam.
1:42
ỷ. 42. ADDUXIT EUM AD JESUM. André l’amena à JESUS. Il l’amena le soir même; car l’envie que Pierre avoit de voir celui que son frere lui avoit annoncé, ne lui permit pas de différer. JESUS ayant jetté les yeux sur Pierre, avant qu’on lui eût parlé, l’appella par son nom, & lui dit: Vous vous appelez Simon fils de Jona: mais ci-après on vous appellera Cepha, c’est-à-dire, Pierre. Par-là il donna tout d’un coup à ses nouveaux Disciples, des preuves de sa Divinité, & de la parfaite connoissance qu’il avoit de toutes choses. Après cela, il ne leur fut pas mal-aisé de se confirmer dans la créance que JESUS-CHRIST étoit le Messie. Il dit de plus à Simon, que ci-après il seroit appelé Pierre, ou Rocher. Il prédit la fermeté de sa foi, sa constance, sa force à confesser le nom du Seigneur. Ce changement de nom est un acte d’autorité de la part de JESUS-CHRIST, qui marque qu’il prend Pierre à son service, qu’il le met au rang de ses Disciples, comme un Maître qui achette un serviteur, & qui lui impose le nom qu’il juge à propos. Ceph, ou Cepha, est un terme Caldéen, qui signifie une pierre, ou une roche. Bar-Jona, c’est-à-dire, fils de Jona, ou fils de la Colombe; ou selon d’autres, Bar-Joanna, fils de Jean, ou fils de celui qui est agréable à Dieu. Plusieurs Exemplaires Grecs, & Latins suivent cette dernière manière de lire ; & on lit ci-après, trois fois de suite : Simon Joannis diligis me plus his : Simon fils de Jean, &c. Ce qui prouve que le nom du pere de saint Pierre étoit Jean, ou Joanna en Syriaque.
1:43
ỷ. 43. IN CRASTINUM VOLUIT EXIRE IN GALILÆAM. Le lendemain JESUS voulant aller en Galilée. Le lendemain du jour qu’il avoit parlé à André, & à Pierre ; il vouloit s’en retourner en Galilée, où il n’avoit pas été depuis environ trois mois qu’il en étoit fortì, pour venir recevoir le baptême de Jean. Après s’être manifesté dans la Judée, autant que les Loix de la Providence le demandoient, il vou-lut retourner en Galilée : pour commencer par-là sa mission.
INVENIT PHILIPPUM. Ayant donc trouvé Philippe, il lui dit de le suivre. Ce fut le quatrième Disciple que JESUS fit à Béthabara ; sçavoir, André, & son Compagnon, dont l’Evangéliste ne dit pas le nom, Pierre & Philippe. Il n’avoit pas commandé expressément aux trois premiers de le suivre : mais ils ne laifferent pas de le faire, JESUS leur ayant assez déclaré son intention. Ils allèrent avec lui en Galilée, & se trouvèrent ensemble aux nôces de Cana. Il est fort probable que Philippe avoit auparavant entendu parler de Jesus à Pierre, & à André ses compatriotes, & avoit été témoin de ce que Jean-Baptiste avoit dit sur son sujet, puisqu’aussi-tôt qu’il l’appelle, il quitte tout, & le suit sans hésiter.
1:44
ỷ. 44. ERAT PHILIPPUS A BETHZAIDA. Philippe étoit de Bethzaïde, ville de Galilee au-delà du Jourdain, prés l’emboucherie de ce fleuve dans la mer de Tibériade. Pierre, & André étoient de la même ville. Ces trois Disciples s’étoient apparemment attachés à Jean-Baptiste ; du moins ils étoient avec lui à Béthabara, lorsque JESUS-CHRIST les appella à sa suite. Ils s’établirent dans la suite à Capharnaüm, lorsque JESUS-CHRIST y eut fixé sa demeure, & après qu’ils se furent attachés pour toujours à sa suite. Pierre y avoit sa maison, & sa belle-mere.
1:45
ỷ. 55. INVENT PHILIPPUS NATHANAEL. Philippe ayant trouvé Nathanaël. Il le trouva après que JESUS-CHRIST lui eut dit de le suivre, & le même jour qu’ils devoient partir pour la Galilée. Philippe lui dit : Nous avons trouvé ce ui dont parlent Moyse, & les Prophètes. C’est JESUS de Nazareth. Ces Disciples s’emprent de faire connoître à tous leurs amis, celui qu’ils attendoient depuis si long-tems. Philippe dit qu’il a trouvé celui dont il est parlé dans Moyse & dans les Prophètes ; c’est-à-dire, le Messie promis dans la Loi, & dans les Prophètes. Ces paroles de Philippe insinuent que Nathanaël étoit un homme versé dans l’étude des Ecritures, & qui en étudioit le sens, & en attendoit les promesses. Quelques-uns ont cru que Nathanaël étoit le même que fait Barthelemy, parce que les Evangélistes le joignent ordinairement à fait Philippe. Nous avons examiné cette opinion sur S. Matt. x. 2.
JESUS FILIUM JOSEPH A NAZARETH. JESUS de Nazareth, fils de Joseph. Philippe parle selon l’opinion du peuple. il n’avoit pas encore eu le loisir de savoir la véritable origine de JESUS, ni le mystère de sa naissance. Il le considéroit comme un simple homme ; & c’étoit l’idée de la plûpart des Juifs d’alors. Il ne savoit pas que JESUS étoit Fils de Dieu, qu’il étoit né d’une Vierge, que Joseph n’étoit que son pere nourricier, que le lieu de sa naissance étoit Bethléem. Ces véritez n’étoient pas encore connuës. Il falloit disposer les peuples à croire la Divinité de JESUS, & la virginité de Marie; par un grand nombre de miracles.
1:46
ỷ. 46. A NAZARETH POTEST ALIQUID BONI ESSE ? Peut-il venir quelque chose de bon de Nazareth? Nathanaël ne se souvenoit point que les Prophètes eussent promis que le Messie sortiroit de Nazareth. On croyoit qu’il naïtroit à Bethléem, qu’il paroîtroit à Jérusalem, qu’il se manifesteroit dans la Judée. Les Prophéties étoient expreffées pour tout cela. Les Docteurs de la Loi croyoient voir dans les Ecritures qu’un Prophète ne pouvoit venir de la Galilée: Scrutare Scripturas, quia Propheta à Galilea non surgit. Ce n’est qu’après la mort du Sauveur, que l’on a vû le parfait accord des Prophéties entre elles, & leur parfait accomplissement dans la personne de JESUS-CHRIST. Ceux qui ne les regardoient que par parties, y trouvoient des efpeces de contrariétéz. Philippe répond à Nathanaël: Venez, & voyez. Affûrez-vous par vous-même de la vérité de ce que je dis.
1:47
ỷ. 47. VIDIT JESUS NATHANAEL. JESUS voyant Nathanaël. La voie des preuves qui dépendent de la discussion des Textes de l’Ecriture, étoit trop longue; il n’étoit pas aisé de montrer si promptement l’exécution des Prophéties dans la personne de JESUS-CHRIST; qui ne faisoit que de commencer à se manifester: Jesus prend une route plus abrégée, pour convaincre Nathanaël; il lui fait voir qu’il connoît le fond des cœurs, & qu’il pénètre les choses les plus cachées. Il n’en fallut pas davantage pour persuader Nathanaël; il répondit à JESUS, ỷ. 49. Maître, vous êtes le Fils de Dieu; vous êtes le Roi d’Israël.
ECCE VERE ISRAELITA. Voici un vrai Israélite, sans déguisement, & sans artifice. Cet éloge que JESUS-CHRIST fait de Nathanaël, montre qu’il savoit le fond de son ame, & qu’il connoissoit son caractère, avant qu’il eût vû sa personne: Voici un vrai Israélite, un vrai fils de Jacob, à qui l’Ecriture donne cet éloge: Jacob étoit un homme simple, droit, sincère, sans déguisement, & sans artifice. Nathanaël avoit fait voir un trait de sa sincérité, & de sa bonne simplicité, lorsqu’il avoit dit tout d’un coup à Philippe: Peut-il venir quelque chose de bon de Nazareth; d’un lieu si vil, si obscur, si peu connu?
1:48
ỷ. 48. UNDEME NOSTI? D’où me connoissez-vous? JESUS avoit parlé assez haut pour se faire entendre de Nathanaël. Celui-ci étonné que sans lui avoir jamais parlé, il le connût si bien, lui demande: Es d’où me connoissez-vous? JESUS lui répondit: Je vous ai vû lorsque vous étiez sous le figuier. J’étois présent en esprit, lorsque Philippe vous a trouvé sous vôtre figuier, & que vous ayant annoncé qu’il avoit trouvé le Messie, vous lui avez répondu: Est-il possible qu’il vienne quelque chose de bon de Nazareth? C’est de-là que je vous connois. Autrement: Je vous ai vû lorsque vous croyiez être seul, & sans témoin sous le figuier,&que vous y priiez le Seigneur qu’il vous manifestât celui qu’il devoit envoyer. On présume avec raison que Nathanaël faisoit sous lon figuier quelque bonne action, qu’il croyoit être très-fécrete: mais on ignore qu’elle étoit cette action.
1:49
ỷ. 49. TU ES FILIUS DEI. Vous êtes le Fils de Dieu ; vous êtes le Roi d’Israël. Voilà une confession de foi bien parfaite, pour la première fois que Nathanaël voit le Sauveur. Il falloit que Dieu eut mis dans son cœur d’excellentes dispositions, & que la lumière de la grace qui l’éclaira fut bien vive, & bien abondante, pour lui faire dire du premier coup ce que saint Pierre ne dit qu’après un si long tems : Vous êtes le Fils de Dieu ; vous êtes le Messie, le Roi d’Israël. Saint Chrysostome, Théophylacte, Euthyme doutent que Nathanaël ait crû JESUS-CHRIST vraiment Fils de Dieu, éternel, & de même substance que le Pere. Ils veulent qu’il ne l’ait crû que Fils adoptif. La Divinité du Messien n’étoit pas encore bien développée. Toutefois saint Augustin, saint Cyrille, Ammonius croyent que la confession fut parfaite, & qu’il reconnoit dès-lors la Divinité de JESUS-CHRIST.
1:50
ỷ. 50. MAJUS HIS VIDEBIS. Vous verrez de bien plus grandes choses. Il semble par-là l’appeller à l’Apostolat. Si vous admirez que je vous découvre ce que vous croyez de plus secret, vous verrez dans la fuite de bien plus grandes choses. Suivez moi seulement. Ceci n’est qu’un prélude de ce que je vous ferai voir.
1:51
ỷ. 51. VIDEBITIS COELUM APERTUM, &c. Vous verrez le Ciel ouvert, & les Anges monter, & descendre sur le Fils de l’homme. Vous verrez comme fit autrefois Jacob, les Cieux ouverts, & les Anges qui montent, & qui descendent, pour rendre compte au Seigneur de tout ce qui se passe sur la terre. Vous verrez le Fils de l’homme servi par les Anges mêmes, qui monteront, & descendront de la terre au Ciel, & du Ciel en terre, pour exécuter ses volontez. Cela s’exécuta à la lettre dans l’Agonie, dans la Résurrection, dans l’Ascension du Sauveur, où des Anges apparurent pour annoncer la grandeur, & pour la faire connoître aux hommes. On l’avoit déjà vu auparavant à l’Annonciation, & à la Naissance de JESUS-CHRIST, & après qu’il eut jeûné dans le désert, lorsqu’e les Anges vinrent le présenter pour lui servir à manger. Les miracles passés, comme les futurs, servoient de fondement à la créance des Apôtres. Plusieurs entendent ceci du second avénement de JESUS-CHRIST. Comparez Matt. XIII. 39. 41. XVI. 27. XXIV. 31. XXV. 31. &c.
1:1
… (1:8) and in the conclusion (21:6 and 22:13) that God's salvific counsel will be fulfilled to the end, when the Almighty (1:8) will vanquish his antagonists in the "judgment" of Jesus Savior and Sovereign, beginning (Ps. 101 [102]:26 and Heb. 1:10; 12:2; Jn. 1:1) and end (Rom. 10:4). "A-Ω" expresses the divine transcendence, in its attributes of infinity, eternity, universal causality (both efficient and final), including within it the economy …
… The doctrine of both issues into a transcendent eschatology, is hinged on the basic ideas of (eternal) life, light, the Lamb and the Shepherd, the Word of God (only Jn. 1:1-14 and 1 Jn. 1:1 and Rev. 19:13), divine judgment, two opposing kingdoms (God and Satan, heaven and world). …
… It was also customary to place the volume of the Gospels at the bedside of the sick, or to recite near them Jn. 1:1-14; this prologue was also recited on important occasions of life, or in grave dangers: for example, it is related that Christopher Columbus recited it when, while sailing, he was caught …
The essential elements of the Book of Hours are: 1) The calendar, often enriched by the copyist's fancy; 2) the fragments of the four Gospels (Jn. 1, 1-14; Lk. 1, 26-38; Mt. 2, 1-12; Mk. 16, 14-20); 3) the prayers to the Virgin Obsecro te and O Intemerata, found in almost
… It is a matter of the poetic personification of a divine attribute or of the essential divine wisdom; which nevertheless orients the spirit toward the idea of an autonomous person (cf. Prov. 8; Wis. 7). After the coming of Christ, the eternal Word (Jn. 1:1-14; cf. 1 Cor. 1:24 f.; Col. 1:15 ff.), it was easy to recognize him in the characteristics of the eternal Wisdom described by Ben Sira, in the full sense (pleon). …
… ancient law (ibid. 5:21 ff.), saying that he alone knows the Father and that only the Father knows him, his Son (ibid. 11:27). In St. John and in St. Paul the divinity of Jesus Christ is more than evident: Jesus is the Word, who is God from all eternity (Jn. 1:1 ff.); he is the Only-begotten of the Father (ibid. 1:18), existing before Abraham (ibid. 8:58), indeed before the world was made (ibid. 17:5). The Father has sent the Son to save the world …
… In him was life (Jn. 1:4). He preexists: in the beginning (before the creatures existed) was the Word and the Word was with God, and the Word was God (ibid. 1:1). This life unfolds with the Father. …
… In the New Testament it occurs both in the meanings of secular Greek and in the Christian ones of "word of God," "divine commandment," "biblical saying," "Revelation," "evangelical preaching," and in St. John with the meaning of "divine Word" 6 times (Jn. 1:1 [three times]; 1:14; 1 Jn. 1:1; Rev. 19:13; 1 Jn. 5:7 is not to be considered: v. COMMA GIOVANNEO).
… It lacks only John 14, 25-16, 7 to Mark 15, 13-38. The script is uncial, inclined to the right, and that of the first quire (John 1, 1-5, 11) appears older. …
1:2
… "The earth emerged from the waters subsists through water by virtue of the Word of God" (II Pt. 3:5); it runs parallel with Io. 1:2 which speaks of the creating L.
1:3
… This is why creation is made through the Word (Jn. 1, 3). Indeed the value of creation is the manifesting of God to beings who are other than he; they then recognize him, and in this consists his external glory. …
… In the prologue of the fourth Gospel one reads, said of the Word: "All things were made through him and without him nothing was made of what was made" (Jn. 1, 3). Now, when all things are made, there is creation. …
… the precious and magnificent promised goods, so that, through these, you may become partakers of the divine nature... θείας κοινωνοί φύσεως." The term κοινωνός (κοινωνός) used by St. Peter also in the First Letter (5:1), is likewise found in St. John (Jn. 1:3) and in St. Paul (1 Cor. 1:9; Phil. 3:10); with the meaning of communion, divine participation, which is linked to the idea of adoptive filiation (v. ADOPTION, SUPERNATURAL) by virtue …
… In itself an Incarnation of the Father and of the Holy Spirit is not repugnant, but it was more fitting that the Word should become incarnate: 1) because the Incarnation is a restoration of creation; now creation implies order, especially to the Word, «per quem omnia facta sunt» (Io. 1, 3), and therefore it was fitting that it be restored by the Word Himself; 2) because man as a rational creature reaches his perfection in the wisdom that derives from the Word; 3) because …
… Theophilus of Antioch, using Stoic terminology, speaks (Ad Autolycum, II, 10 and 22) of λόγος ἐνδιάθετος, the word of the divine mind, God's interior expression to himself, which becomes λόγος προφορικός, that is, the manifested word, first in creation: "Omnia per ipsum facta sunt" (John 1:3), and then in the Incarnation: "Et Verbum caro factum est" (ibid. 1:14). Medieval treatises on logic, in the questions concerning the value of terms, their meaning, their "suppositio," …
1:4
… In him was life (Jn. 1:4). He preexists: in the beginning (before the creatures existed) was the Word and the Word was with God, and the Word was God (ibid. 1:1). This life unfolds with the Father. …
John, Apostle, Evangelist, Saint
… 8:44); ἐκ θεοῦ εἶναι (I Jn. 3:4, 1 = Jn. 7:17; 8:47); ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου εἶναι (I Jn. 4:5 = Jn. 3:23); ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου λαλεῖν (I Jn. 4:5 = Jn. 3:31); τῆς γῆς, ἐν τῇ σκοτίᾳ, ἐν τῷ σκότει περιπατεῖν (I Jn. 2:11 = Jn. 8:12; 12:35). Likewise "life" (α) is Christ (Jn. 1:4; [6:48]; 11:25; 14:6 = I Jn. 1:1 f.; 5:11, 20); the "light" φῶς is God and Christ (Jn. 1:4, 5, 7; 3:19 = I Jn. 1:5, 7; 2:8).
… the Son of God made man became by absolute necessity "the Firstborn of all creation" (Col. 1, 15), "the recapitulation of things heavenly and earthly" (Eph. 1, 10), "the Mediator between God and men" (1 Tim. 2, 5). The eternal Word, "in whom was life" (John 1, 4), assumed our nature into the unity of his divine Person and filled it with that Grace, a participation in the divine life, which he willed afterwards to pour out into all the descendants …
… which hates and persecutes them (Jn. 15:18-25); despite the infinite love of God who has sent his Only-begotten to it, the world remains a son of Satan (Jn. 3:16-18; 8:44, 48) who is darkness and death, while God is light and life (Is. 9:2; Lk. 1:79; Jn. 1:4-10; Eph. 5:8, 14).
1:5
… influence; he has in it "strongholds and heights rising up against the knowledge of God" (II Cor. 10:4-5); the entire world lies in the evil one (ἐν τῷ πονηρῷ κεῖται; I Jn. 5:19); because he is the irreducible enemy of light his sin is irremissible (Jn. 1:5, 9-11; 15:22-24; 17:9; Mt. 12:32). It is more than an empire; it is almost a mystical body, as, echoing St. Augustine, St. Gregory the Great affirms (Hom. 16 in Ev.; cf. Moral., IV, 14); …
… with N and 16 with B). John 1-5, 11 agrees with the Old Latin versions as does Mark 1, 1-5, 30. Therefore A mixed with D and B predominates in Mt.-Lk. 8, 13-end; B mixed with D and A in Lk. 1, 8-12 and John 5, 12-end; D in Mark 1, 5-30 and John 1, 5-11; the Caesarean text in Mark 5, 31-end. P. 45 (Chester-Beatty) approaches W for Mark and Luke. …
1:6
b) Principal aspects of the public life. - a) The formation of the Apostles. - The revelation that J. makes of himself and of the Father needs testimonies: St. John describes the work of the Baptist from this point of view: Jn. 1:6-8. 15. 19. 32-34. Presented as the Lamb of God, as the one who baptizes in the Holy Spirit, J. seeks others who, after having been with him from the beginning, may bear witness to him (Jn. 16:27; Acts …
1:7
… speech, intoned amid the wonder of the neighbors the Benedictus (v.), in which he extols the mission of the Precursor, intended to prepare the ways of God and to teach the people the way of salvation in the remission of sins (Lk. 1:8-78). According to Jn. 1:7-8 J. B. was to "bear witness to the light, so that all might believe through him." Lk. 1:80 describes the physical, intellectual and moral development of the child: "he grew and became …
1:8
… the earthly Paradise, and comes forth from it with the power of a lion, preaching the necessity of purification and of good works in order to go to meet the Messiah who founds the Kingdom of God. G. B. is not the light, but the prism that reflects it (Jn. 1:8); he is not the Messiah, but the one who echoes his voice (Jn. 1:20-23); he is not the bridegroom, but the paranymph who presents the bride to him (Jn. 3:29); he does not have Baptism …
1:9
creation is revealed in its enchantment, so, enlightened by the « Sun that enlightens all men who come into this world » (Io. 1, 9), man can look into the depths of his own being and purify it, dispelling all darkness and all shadows.
… Jesus' conception of his messianic kingdom is universalistic: he commanded the Apostles to preach the Gospel to all nations (Mt. 28:18); he is the light that enlightens every man (Jn. 1:9); he died for all (I Jn. 2:1-2, cf. 4:10; I Tim. 2:6; Heb. 2:9; II Cor. 5:14-15; Rom. 5:15-19).
1:10
… The entire "world" (in a pejorative sense: Io. 1:10; 7:7; 15:18; 16:20; 17:9-16; I Io. 2:16; 5:19; Mt. 18:7; Gal. 6:14) is subject to S. because of the extreme sharpening of the ontological-ethical dilemma (God or nothingness, life …
1:12
… «vie» dans l'évangile de s. Jean, in Biblica, 1 [1920], pp. 37-58; 211-39). Jesus has the mission of bringing it to all men, and for this he came into the world (Io. 10:10). And in reality, all those who accept him and his doctrine are given life by him (Io. 1:12-13) and made "partakers of the divine nature" (II Pt. 1:4).
… communion, divine participation, which is linked to the idea of adoptive filiation (v. ADOPTION, SUPERNATURAL) by virtue of a regeneration of man reborn from God; an idea not unknown to St. Peter (1 Pt. 1:3 and 23), frequent in the other two Apostles (Jn. 1:12-13; 1 Jn. 3:1; Rom. 8:14-15; Gal. 4:4 ff.; Eph. 1:5 ff.). …
… tecum"; they are demanded by the intimate relationship that the Annunciation (v.) has with the Protoevangelium (Gen. 3). With them in fact Mary is proclaimed the "new Eve," true "mother of the living" whom the Evangelist will call "children of God" (Jn. 1:12; 1 Jn. 3:1), the only one among women who did not merit and did not transmit the condemnation, but the blessing, because through her God has loosed the ancient curse and has blessed …
… This life of Grace is a participation in the divine nature: "We are made partakers of the divine nature" (1 Pt. 1:4); "He has given us the power to become children of God" (Jn. 1:12). Divine sonship, fellowship in the divine nature, are gifts that surpass every human concept or desire and every capacity of a created cause. …
Religions, Comparative Study of
in his happiness (Jn. 1, 12-13; I Jn. 3, 1; Rom. 8, 15-17; II Pt. 1, 4), but also the supreme fittingness or moral necessity of an intervention of this kind, "so that the notions (religious ones) that are …
… The sanctification of man by way of faith or of Grace is called by St. John rebirth, regeneration in God (Io. 1, 12-13; 3, 5), communication and vital immanence in Christ (Io. 6, 57; 15, 1 ff.). …
1:13
… Through sanctifying Grace, the root of infused c., we are «born of God» (John 1:13), we resemble God as children resemble their father. …
… Only by understanding justification in this sense does one comprehend why it is called in Sacred Scripture "rebirth" (Jn. 3:5; 3:8, 47) from water and the Holy Spirit; "rebirth from God" (ibid., 1:13; 2:29); "regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit" whereby we become a "new creature" (II Cor. 5:12; Gal. 6:15); "a new man renewed in the inner self of the spirit in justice and …
… regenerated, not from corruptible seed, but incorruptible, through the word of God which lives and abides." The word (L.) of God that regenerates, of which St. Peter speaks, concerns preaching, and perhaps the formula of Baptism; nonetheless the encounter with Io. 1:13 regarding supernatural birth is symptomatic. …
… The "flesh" is human nature abandoned to itself, therefore fragile, because deprived of God, and death-bearing, because vitiated by sin which nests in it its seed, concupiscence (Io. 1:13); it is connected to sin by origin and by tendency (Rom. 6:12-18, 13). The opposite of the flesh, or animated matter (σάρξ) enclosing the ψυχή, was the invisible dynamism of man called …
1:14
… power of the Most High will overshadow you"; cf. Gen. 1, 2), gives her assent, declaring herself "the handmaid (ἀνδός) of the Lord." And in that instant, according to the unanimous sentiment of theologians, "the Word became flesh and dwelt among us" (Jn. 1, 14), thus fulfilling the oracle of Is. 7, 14 concerning the virginal conception and birth of the Emmanuel (v.).
The fact of the c. of i. is already found openly in Sacred Scripture, as, for example, in the following passages: "And the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us" (Jn. 1:14); "the Son of God is made of the seed of David according to the flesh" (Rom. 1:3); "Of whom (the Jews) is Christ according to the flesh, who is over all things, God blessed for ever" …
But besides this substantial holiness (quoad esse), in Christ as Man there is an accidental holiness proceeding from the sanctifying grace which in him was most full, according to the evangelical testimony (Jn. 1:14): « plenum Gratiae et veritatis ». The reasons are evident: the more the rational creature is rich in grace, the closer it is to God; but no closeness is more intimate than the hypostatic …
INCARNATION (Σάρκωσις). - A term with a Semitic flavor, derived from the Johannine expression (John 1:14: καὶ ὁ Λόγος σάρξ ἐγένετο), in which the word σάρξ (caro) simply means human nature, according to biblical usage (cf. Gen. 6:12; Isa. 40:5; Rom. 3:20), which continues in tradition …
2. Genealogy. - In order to be with man in the most concrete form possible, "God who saves" took in J. a stable dwelling among men: the Word was made flesh and dwelt (as in a tent) among men (Jn. 1:14). The "flesh" is humanity with its frailty. …
… ἐνδιάθετος, the word of the divine mind, God's interior expression to himself, which becomes λόγος προφορικός, that is, the manifested word, first in creation: "Omnia per ipsum facta sunt" (John 1:3), and then in the Incarnation: "Et Verbum caro factum est" (ibid. 1:14). Medieval treatises on logic, in the questions concerning the value of terms, their meaning, their "suppositio," their relation to the other parts of discourse and to concepts and …
… spoken word (λόγος προφορικός, verbum oris) is the means by which he manifests his own thought, so, analogously, in the Godhead the incarnate divine Logos is the revealer of the divine mysteries, communicating the light of truth and the life of Grace (John 1:14-18).
Religions, Comparative Study of
The foretold Messiah has come: "The Word was made flesh" (Jn. 1:14), he established worship "in spirit and in truth" (Jn. 4:23). His is therefore a perfect religion, at least as regards its essential elements; moreover an immutable religion, because …
… For he is qualified as the Son of God properly so called (Rom. 8:32), only-begotten (Mt. 3:17; 17:5), unique (Io. 1:14, 18; 3:16), firstborn (Col. 1:15), true (I Io. 5:20); appellations that absolutely exclude any sonship other than the natural one.
1:15
… whether he was the Messiah, Elijah or the Prophet (John 1:19-28). G. B. denied it, proclaiming that he was only "the voice crying in the wilderness foretold by Isaiah" (40:3) and bearing witness to the superiority of Jesus' mission, as he had done before (John 1:15-18) and as he would do later (John 1:29-37). Indeed, he considers it so sublime that he does not deem himself worthy to "untie his sandals." His Baptism is as much superior to his own …
1:16
… ff.; 21:33-46; 22:2-10 etc.); it is identified with the Church, with Peter at its head (Matt. 16:13-20; John 21:15 ff.; 1 Cor. 12; Rom. 12:3-8 etc.); it includes good and bad (Matt. 13:24-30, 36-43, 47-50; 25:1-13, etc.); it is the economy of Grace (John 1:16 f.; Rom. 3:21-31, etc.), with a new moral legislation (Matt. 5-6); it requires a spiritual rebirth (John 3:3-8; Rom. 6, etc.; cf. Médebielle, coll. 517-25; Bonsirven, pp. 213-306). It …
… "filled with the Holy Spirit" (v. 41), completed it by giving its profound reason in the blessed fruit of her womb, in whom precisely, according to the messianic promises to the Patriarchs, "all nations" would be "blessed" (Gen. 22:18; 26:4; 28:14, and Jn. 1:16 and Gal. 3:8-16). Theologically those words are essential: without them the angelic message would remain incomplete, neglecting the true reason for the "Dominus tecum"; they are demanded …
1:17
… The compound name Ἰησοῦς Χριστός occurs only 4 times in the Gospels (Mt. 1:1; Mc. 1:1; Io. 1:17; 17:3), is rare elsewhere (Act. 3:6; 4:10; 9:34; Apoc. 1:1, 2, 3), while it is very frequent in the epistles of Paul and Peter.
1:18
… and is a truth defined against the Beguines (Council of Vienne, Denz-U, 475), Baius (ibid., 1002-1007) and Frohschammer (Pius IX, ep. Gravissimas, of 1862 to the Archbishop of Munich), founded on many explicit texts of Scripture (Mt. 11, 27; Jn. 6, 46; 1, 18; I Cor. 2, 9; I Tim. 6, 16).
From the terminological point of view, a synonym of hermeneutics is the word "exegesis" (ἐξήγησις, from the verb ἐξηγεῖσθαι "to lead out, explain, set forth"; cf. Jn. 1:18). However, common usage distinguishes the two terms: hermeneutics denotes the theory of biblical i., exegesis the practice, that is, the application of hermeneutical rules. …
… The renewal consisted in entering into a new relationship with God revealed by his Son, Jesus Christ (Jn. 1, 18): this would include redemption from sin through the Death and Resurrection of Jesus, the second birth (Jn. 3, 3) of man through Grace, and a consequent manner of living and acting …
… The Mikaelites, disciples of Za-Mikā'āl, a contemporary of Zare'a Ja'qob (first half of the 15th century), started from a false interpretation of «Deum nemo vidit unquam» (Jn 1:18) to maintain that God has no
… the Father and that only the Father knows him, his Son (ibid. 11:27). In St. John and in St. Paul the divinity of Jesus Christ is more than evident: Jesus is the Word, who is God from all eternity (Jn. 1:1 ff.); he is the Only-begotten of the Father (ibid. 1:18), existing before Abraham (ibid. 8:58), indeed before the world was made (ibid. 17:5). The Father has sent the Son to save the world (ibid. 3:16; Gal. 4:4); Jesus is God's own Son …
… begets an interior logos (λόγος ἐνδιάθετος, verbum mentis), a concept that is, as it were, its image, so God the Father, knowing himself perfectly, and in himself all things, intellectually begets, ab aeterno, his interior Logos, the Only-Begotten God (John 1:18), who is its most perfect image (cf. II Cor. 4:4; Col. 1:15). In man thought is a transient accident; in God, by contrast, it is a Person, subsisting eternally in the one divine nature, …
… Certain biblical statements clearly contain the concept of a truth hidden in God, naturally unknowable to anyone who is not God, and communicated to men by Jesus Christ and by the Holy Spirit (cf. Mt. 11:25-27; Jn. 1:18; 1 Cor. 2:7-16). Starting from these statements, Christian thought soon distinguished two orders of truth: those that men can know by their own intelligence, and those inaccessible …
… teaching concerning God to the disciples of Christ that John, although he knew well all the revelations contained in the Old Testament, wrote: "No one has ever seen God; the only-begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father, he himself has spoken" (Jn. 1:18). The same clear awareness of a divine revelation, concerning especially God's designs for humanity, is found in St. Paul (cf. 1 Thess. 2:13; 1 Cor. 2:10-16; Gal. 1:12-13; Eph. 3:1-9). …
1:19
… Simeon too "was awaiting the consolation of Israel" (ibid. 25). John the Baptist on the banks of the Jordan announced the imminent establishment of the Kingdom of Yahweh, and many believed that the Baptist himself was the promised Messiah (ibid. 3:15-17; Jn. 1:19-28).
… A popular movement forms at once around him, the religious authority takes an interest in him and does not hinder him. He refuses what does not belong to him, but firmly affirms what he is: "the voice of the Precursor" (Jn. 1:19-27). At the center of his activity is the conferring of baptism on Jesus on the banks of the Jordan. …
Levites (Heb. Lēwī, pl. Lēwījīm; Gr. Lēwījī, pl. -ai)
… Iud., 12, 3, 3) and new ones (e.g., the use of the linen garment like the priests: ibid., 20, 9, 6-7), and occupied in various employments (judges: ibid., 4, 8, 14, etc.), they remain in later epochs down to the New Testament (Lk. 10:32; Io. 1:19; Act. 4:36), with various complications in the Talmudic juridical and ceremonial order.
1:20
… The central theme of apostolic preaching is that Jesus is the Ch., from Peter (Act. 2:36) and Paul (Act. 9:22; 17:3; 18:5, 28) to John (Io. 20:31; I Io. 2:22; 5:1; II Io. 7, 9). The polemic on this point burns against the Jews, who awaited the Ch. (Io. 1:20, 25, 41; 3:28; Lc. 3:15), suspected that it was Jesus (Io. 4:29; 7:26 ff. 31, 41; 10:24; 12:34) and questioned him in the Sanhedrin (Mt. 26:63; Mc. 14:61; Lc. 22:67), then …
… between 26-27, perhaps in the first days of Jan., Jesus comes to be baptized: between the Baptism of Jesus and the 1st Passover of Jn. 2:13 some months pass; Jesus spends forty days in the desert where he is tempted, returns to the banks of the Jordan (Jn. 1:20), receives the testimony of John, gathers the first disciples (ibid. 1:35-51), returns to Galilee and attends the wedding at Cana (ibid. 2:11), remains not many days at Capernaum and …
… lion, preaching the necessity of purification and of good works in order to go to meet the Messiah who founds the Kingdom of God. G. B. is not the light, but the prism that reflects it (Jn. 1:8); he is not the Messiah, but the one who echoes his voice (Jn. 1:20-23); he is not the bridegroom, but the paranymph who presents the bride to him (Jn. 3:29); he does not have Baptism in the Spirit (Mt. 3:11), but baptizes the one who gives life in the …
1:21
… There is no record of other prophets (cf. I Mach. 14:41) until John the Baptist (Mt. 11:9 ff.; Le. 7:26 ff.), precursor of the prophet par excellence, Jesus (Act. 3:20 ff. = Deut. 18:15-19; Io. 1:21, 45; 6:14; 7:40; Act. 7:37; Hebr. 1:1 ff.; A. Clamer, Ste Bible, II, Paris 1940, p. 634 ff.).
1:23
… 23; Pliny, Ep. 4, 22, 4). Other authors prefer to see in the rest upon Abraham's bosom the paternal protection and tenderness of the patriarch of believers (Rom. 4, 16 ff.) who receives into eternal happiness his children, intimately united to him (cf. John 1, 23; Luke 13, 28; and the apocryphal IV Macc. 13, 17 where, however, "the bosom" is a probably Christian interpolation).
1:28
BETHABARA. - Name that Origen (PG 14, 270) substituted for "Bethany" in Jn. 1:28, since he had not traced any locality of this name on the eastern bank of the Jordan, from which river the well-known Bethany is 180 stadia distant. …
… According to Jn. 1, 28 (the only text that mentions it), this B. was situated beyond the Jordan. …
… being imprisoned; situated near Salim (ἐγγύς τοῦ Σαλίᾳ), it abounded in water, and for this reason the people went there to be baptized (Jn 3:23). It was on this side of the Jordan (ibid. 26, where there is an allusion to Bethany πέραν τοῦ Ἰορδάνου of Jn 1:28); it must have been some distance from the Jordan, otherwise the mention of the "many waters" would make no sense. …
The beginnings of the preaching of Jesus and of G. B. are reported with the same terms (Matt. 3:2; 4:17). G. B. begins in the Gôr; then he crosses the Jordan and goes to Bethany (v.), where he receives the embassy of the Sanhedrists (John 1:28). While Jesus preaches in Judea (John 3:22) surrounded by disciples, G. B. moves to Aenon (v.) near Salim, rich in water (John 3:23), where a discussion takes place between the disciples …
Jordan (Heb. Yardēn; Arabic al-Urdunn)
In the lower part, opposite Jericho, the J. is associated with the memory of the miraculous crossing of the Israelites (Josh. 3:1), with the prophets Elijah and Elisha (II Kings 2), with the ministry of St. John the Baptist (John 1:28) and with the Baptism of Jesus. …
… enumeration together with Galilee and Judea, whose peoples flocked to hear the preaching of Jesus (Mt. 4, 15, 25; Mk. 3, 78). The region, also called "Judea beyond the Jordan" (Mt. 19, 1), was visited by Jesus, and twice as far as Bethany of Transjordan (Jn. 1, 28; 3, 26; 10, 40).
1:29
AGNUS DEI. - Liturgical formula introduced into the Mass by Pope Sergius I, following an ancient Greek usage, with direct allusion to the expression of John the Baptist (Jn. 1:29). It was to be sung with the response: Miserere nobis, repeated several times during the solemn fraction of the consecrated bread. …
… Prophet (John 1:19-28). G. B. denied it, proclaiming that he was only "the voice crying in the wilderness foretold by Isaiah" (40:3) and bearing witness to the superiority of Jesus' mission, as he had done before (John 1:15-18) and as he would do later (John 1:29-37). Indeed, he considers it so sublime that he does not deem himself worthy to "untie his sandals." His Baptism is as much superior to his own as spirit and fire are superior to water. …
… Jesus heals "the whole man" (Is. 7:23); he heals the soul before the body (Lk. 5:20; 7:48; Jn. 5:14); his blood cleanses the leprosy of sin (I Jn. 1:7, 9); he is the lamb that takes away the sin of the world (Jn. 1:29), so that nothing condemnable remains in those who have been incorporated into him through the grace of justification and raised to new life (Rom. 6:3-11; 7:24). Mere non-imputation …
… 12; P. Jouon, L'agneau de Dieu, in Nouvelle Revue Théol., 67 (1940), pp. 318-21; P. Samain, L'agneau de Dieu qui ôte les péchés du monde, in Rev. Doc. Yosmai, 1 (1946), pp. 165-70. E. E. May, Ecce Agnus Dei! A philological and exegetical approach to John 1, 29, 36, Washington 1947.
… Against this same background the Eucharist is considered as the new Passover, which, in the Blood of the one Lamb that takes away the sin of the world (Io. 1:29), causes the innumerable sacrifices of the Law to cease.
… Since the Apostles must continue the same mission of Christ, the «forgiving of sins» must be interpreted in the sense in which he forgives sin (Jn. 1:29; Mt. 1:21; 9:3; Lk. 7:47-49). This power, called by Westcott the «magna charta» of the Church of Christ, is conferred not on all the faithful indiscriminately, but on the Apostles …
… active charity (Eph. 4:15). Furthermore the concept of Redemption returns in St. John, who reaffirms the Pauline motif of death and blood as expiatory and propitiatory sacrifice: "Behold the Lamb of God, behold him who takes away the sin of the world" (Jn. 1:29); and in Rev. 5:8: "You are worthy, O Lord, to take the book and to open its seals, because you were slain and have redeemed us for God with your blood"; I Jn. 2:2: "And he is …
… legalism, the righteousness of whitened sepulchres, but the interior renewal of man who, like a tree, bears good or bad fruit according to his interior state (cf. Mt. 12:33-35; 7:16-20; Lk. 6:43-46). The Lamb who takes away the sins of the world (Jn. 1:29) certainly cannot be content to cover man's sins, but brings a true interior purification and works an interior sanctification.
1:30
… messianic, of Sacred Scripture (Ps. 2:7; Is. 61; cf. also Is. 42:1); and the Precursor himself had declared: "After me comes one who is greater than I... and it was precisely to baptize in water that I came, so that he might be manifested in Israel" (Jn. 1:30). 2) A new proclamation of the natural sonship of the Incarnate Word. …
sia. The Baptist gives messianic and soteriological value to the formula (cf. Jn. 1:30-34), which alludes to the twofold lamb sacrificed daily in the Temple, and especially to the paschal lamb whose immolation was to take place shortly thereafter (Jn. 2:13), and to the …
The eternal pre-existence of the Logos, affirmed in the prologue (John 1:1), is attested for Jesus Christ in the Fourth Gospel both by John the Baptist (ibid. 1:30) and by Jesus himself
1:31
… baptism of the precursor has the wholly particular purpose of messianic preparation: "After me will come one who is greater than I, and I did not know him; but precisely for this I have come to baptize in water, so that he might be manifested in Israel" (Jn. 1:31; cf. also Acts 19:4). It is therefore a transitory rite, announcing a new order, entirely in function of the Jewish messianic expectation, so alive in those times that false Messiahs …
1:32
BAPTISM OF JESUS. - The scene narrated by the Synoptics (Mt. 3:13-17; Mk. 1:9-13; Lk. 3:21-22) and alluded to by John (Jn. 1:32-34) can easily be reconstructed as follows: at about the age of thirty (Lk. 3:23), Jesus sets out from Nazareth, presents himself at the Jordan amid the crowd that had gathered at the …
… The depiction of the Holy Spirit in the second of the Vatican Rooms (1509) under the form of a dove draws its origins from the iconography of the Baptism of Christ, because the Gospel (Jn. 1:32) specifies the participation of the Holy Spirit in that scene under the form of a dove descended from Heaven and hovering over the head of Jesus. …
1:33
… voice proclaims: "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." In the dove the Baptist perceives the sensible, "bodily" (Lk. 3:22) sign of the descent of the Holy Spirit and understands that the one whom he has just baptized is the Son of God (Jn. 1:33-34).
… To the Jews, in fact, who asked him: "Why do you baptize, if you are not the Christ nor a prophet?" he answers: "He who sent me to baptize in water," etc. (Jn. 1:33), and Jesus publicly confirms this divine origin (Mk. 11:30). 2. The baptism of the precursor has the wholly particular purpose of messianic preparation: "After me will come one …
… Hence he tries to decline; according to John 1:33-34, on the other hand, G. B. did not know him; indeed, he recognized him from the sign of the descent of the Holy Spirit. …
1:34
… die eternally» (Jn 11:26; 5:24; 6 passim); in the eyes of Christ the sin par excellence is the voluntary rejection of faith (Jn 16:9) and men therefore become righteous and remain sinners according as they believe or do not believe (Jn 3:18; 8:24; cf. 1:34; 3:31).
1:35
… When the latter pointed out Jesus as the "Lamb of God," A. followed Jesus to his dwelling and remained there a day; having believed in his messiahship, he brought Peter to him (John 1:35-42). The Byzantine liturgy calls A. πρωτόκλητος, "first called."
… Andrew, from the very first day, can say to his brother Simon: "We have found the Messiah." J. confirms the opinion of the first disciples by saying: "... you will see heaven opened and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of Man" (Jn. 1:35-51). A few days later, on the shores of the Lake of Tiberias, he calls Peter and his brother Andrew, who were fishing, and says to them in categorical form: "Come after me, and I will …
John, Apostle, Evangelist, Saint
It is debated whether G., on two other occasions, introduces himself into the Gospel narrative: a) at the first calling of the Apostles, an anonymous companion of Andrew leaves the Baptist to follow Jesus (Jn. 1:35, 40); b) in the story of the Passion, "another disciple known to the high priest" accompanies Peter, who introduces him into the courtyard.
Primacy of Saint Peter and of the Roman Pontiff
… 19:27; 26:33; Mk. 8:29; 10:28; 11:21; 14:29; Lk. 8:45; 9:20; 9:33; 12:41; 18:28; 22:31; Jn. 6:68; 13:6-10, 36). Peter's particular position cannot be attributed to his seniority (there is no reason to believe him the oldest), nor to priority of vocation (Jn. 1:35-42; Mk. 1:16-20 and parallel passages, definitive call Mk. 3:13-15; Mt. 10:1; Lk. 6:13 with the list of the Apostles), nor to his ambition, since if the Apostles had occasion to complain …
1:36
The Evangelist John handed down to us the evocative title of the Savior, which he learned "from the beginning" at the moment of his vocation (Jn. 1:36; cf. 1 Jn. 1:1; 2:24), and made it the scenic pivot of the Apocalypse, where the living symbol of the Lamb (= Jesus) occurs 28 times (always τὸ ἀρνίον). …
1:37
(ibid. 8:58). His personal distinction from the Father (ibid. 1:1) is proclaimed in the passages of the Fourth Gospel that present Jesus as God's own Son. This, indeed, is the explicit purpose of the Gospel (ibid. 20:28; cf. 1:37; 3:17, 35, 36; 5:19-26; 6:40; 8:35, 36; 14:13; 17:1). The identity of nature (ibid. 1:1), or consubstantiality, between the Logos and the Father is clearly attested by Jesus himself …
1:41
… The New Testament, in which χριστός occurs at least 560 times, preaches and demonstrates the message: Jesus is the Ch. or Messiah (Io. 1:41 and 4:25 interprets ὁ Μεσσίας = Χριστός). …
John, Apostle, Evangelist, Saint
… The moderns see G. here for three reasons: the vividness of the narrative, the variant of Jn. 1:41 "Andrew finds first (πρῶτος, not πρῶτον) his brother," from which it is concluded that the new disciple also found his brother, that is, that G. led James; James in the catalogues …
1:42
… The oldest codex (B) has in the two passages [ὁ υἱὸς] Ἰωάννου, and so too the Sinaitic codex in John 1:42; but the great majority of Greek codices always have Ἰωνᾶ. …
… (Simon, the more common form, a Hellenized abbreviation of the preceding), Κηφᾶς (Latin Cephas, a transcription of the Aramaic Kēphá', which means "rock"), Πέτρος (Latin Petrus, a translation of the preceding Aramaic nickname, given to Simon by Jesus [Jn. 1:42]). His father was called John ('Ιωάν[ν]ης: Jn. 1:42; 21:15-17) or Jonah. …
III. NAMES OF THE POPE. - After the Prince of the Apostles, whose name Christ changed from Simon to Peter (John 1:42), the first of his successors to have changed his name is John II, who was previously called Mercurius. …
Primacy of Saint Peter and of the Roman Pontiff
… singly (Lk. 24:34; I Cor. 15:5) and before ascending to heaven he foretold to him alone the manner of his death (Jn. 21:18). More important, in an Eastern and Hebrew setting, was the gesture performed at their first meeting: the changing of his name (Jn. 1:42). In the only cases that Hebrew history knew, those of Abraham (Gen. 17:5) and of Jacob (Gen. 32:29), it had signified the conferral of a solemn mission. …
1:43
John, Apostle, Evangelist, Saint
… (πρῶτος, not πρῶτον) his brother," from which it is concluded that the new disciple also found his brother, that is, that G. led James; James in the catalogues of the Apostles always appears before Philip, which supposes that he was called before Philip (Jn. 1:43).
… the Gospels, only John gives biographical information about him. Called by Jesus, he informed his friend Nathanael or Bartholomew (?) thus: "We have found Him of whom Moses in the Law and the prophets wrote: it is Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph" (Jn. 1:43-45). He spoke according to the common opinion, still ignorant of the mystery. …
1:44
… He practiced the trade of fisherman at Capernaum (John 1:44; Mark 1:29). We do not know whether he was married. …
Bethsaida (Aramaic: "House of the Fisherman")
BETHSAIDA (Aramaic: "House of the Fisherman"). - A locality in Galilee, the homeland of Philip, Andrew and Peter (Jn. 1:44; 12:21). In Mk. 8:23, 26, B. is presented as a village; elsewhere in the Gospels it is called a "city." In its vicinity occurred the first multiplication of the loaves (Lk. 9:10). …
1:45
Bartholomew (Gr. Bartholomáios, Bartholomaeus), Apostle, Saint
Although patristic tradition is silent on the matter, B. is very probably to be identified with Nathanael (v.), of whom only the Fourth Gospel speaks, placing him among the Apostles (John 1:45-51: calling after Andrew, Simon, Philip; 21:2: listed after Peter and Thomas, before the "sons of Zebedee"). …
… secret thoughts "while he was under the fig tree," whereupon N. proclaimed him the Messiah ("the Son of God, the King of Israel," a profession of faith insufficient according to Chrysostom: PG 59, 127-29), and the Master promised greater revelations (Jn. 1:45-51). N. was from Cana (Jn. 21:2; 2:1 Cana is named immediately after the call of N.).
… To prescriptions of the Pentateuch as of Moses the contemporaries of Christ likewise appeal: the Pharisees (Matt. 19:7; John 8:5; Acts 6:14), the Sadducees (Matt. 22:24), the disciples (John 1:45). The conviction passes to the Apostles (Acts 3:22; Rom. 10:5, 19; 1 Cor. 9:9 etc.) and to the first believers (Acts 7:37; 28:23).
1:46
… of Fl. Josephus, each village counted more than 15,000 inhabitants (Vita, XIII, 14, 32). The Galileans had a special dialect or pronunciation (Matt. 14:70; Luke 22:59) and because of their very liberal spirit were little esteemed by conservative Jews (John 1:46; 7:52). G. owes its entire history to the Gospel. …
Since Nazareth was a despised locality (Jn. 1:46), some think that St. Matthew alludes generically to the prophecies that present the Messiah as one despised (Is. 53; Ps. 21 etc.). …
… The city in the time of Our Lord was of no importance (Jn. 1:46), but it acquired importance afterward because of the events of Jesus' life (Mt. 4:13; Lk. 1:26; 2:4, 39, 51; 4:16) and because of the title "prophet of N." given to him (Mt. 21:11; …
1:47
… This fundamental simplicity Jesus praised in Nathanael, while he welcomed him among his disciples (John 1:47). Whoever does not nourish an absolute horror of every fraud and lie, however small, cannot enter into the evangelical spirit.
1:49
… From the Nativity (Mt. 2:4) to the confession of Peter (Mt. 16:16, 20; Mc. 8:29; Io. 6:69) and of Nathanael (with the synonym "King of Israel": Io. 1:49), of Martha (Io. 11:27), of the demons (Lc. 4:41), to the revelations of the Risen One (Lc. 24:26, 46; Act. 26:23), the proclamation resounds. …
1:51
… (Haer., 23: PG 41, 307) identified N. with the companion of Cleopas (Lk. 24:13-35); from the 16th century onward isolated conjectures identify him with Matthew or Matthias (whose name = N.), John the Evangelist, Simon the Cananaean ("of Cana"), Stephen (Jn. 1:51 = Acts 7:56).
Douay-Rheims (Challoner) · Vulgata Clementina · original Douay-Rheims (Rheims 1582), transcription by EEBO-TCP (CC0) · La Sacra Bibbia, tradotta dalla Volgata da Antonio Martini (1769-1781) (LaParola (laparola.net), Martini OSIS text, Public domain (LaParola's electronic edition marks it 'Dominio pubblico')). Public domain.