Chapter One
Jn. 1:1. In the beginning was the Word,
What I said in the preface, I will now repeat, namely: whereas the other evangelists narrate at length the earthly birth of the Lord, His upbringing and growth, John passes over these events, since enough has been said about them by his fellow disciples, and speaks instead of the Divinity of Him who became man for our sake. However, upon careful examination you will see that just as they did not pass over in silence the Divinity of the Only-begotten, but mentioned it, though not extensively, so too John, having fixed his gaze upon the Word on high, did not entirely neglect the economy of the incarnation. For one Spirit guided the souls of all.
John speaks to us about the Son, and mentions the Father as well.
He points to the eternity of the Only-Begotten when he says, "In the beginning was the Word," that is, was from the beginning. For that which exists from the beginning assuredly has no time when it did not exist. "How," someone will say, "is it evident that the expression 'in the beginning was' means the same as 'from the beginning'?" How? Both from the common understanding and especially from this very evangelist himself. For in one of his epistles he says, "that which was from the beginning, which we... have seen" (1 John 1:1). Do you see how the beloved one explains himself? So the questioner will say; but I understand this "in the beginning" in the same way as in Moses: "In the beginning God created" (Gen. 1:1). Just as the expression "in the beginning" there does not give the idea that heaven is eternal, so here too I will not understand the words "in the beginning" as though the Only-Begotten is eternal. So the heretic will say. To this insane insistence we shall say nothing other than this: O wise man of malice! Why did you pass over what follows in silence? But we shall say it even against your will. There Moses says that in the beginning God "created" heaven and earth, but here it says that in the beginning the Word "was." What then do "created" and "was" have in common? If here too it were written "in the beginning God created the Son," I would have kept silent; but now, since it says here "in the beginning was," I conclude from this that the Word exists from eternity and did not subsequently receive being, as you idly prattle. Why did John not say "in the beginning was the Son," but rather "the Word"? Listen. It was on account of the weakness of the hearers, so that we, hearing of the Son from the very start, might not conceive of a passionate and fleshly birth. He called Him "the Word" so that you would know that just as a word is born from the mind without passion, so also He is born from the Father without passion. Furthermore, he called Him "the Word" because He declared to us the properties of the Father, just as every word reveals the disposition of the mind; and also in order to show that He is co-eternal with the Father. For just as one cannot say that the mind is ever without a word, so the Father and God was never without the Son. John used this expression because there are many other words of God as well — for example, prophecies, commandments — as it is also said of the angels: "mighty in strength, who fulfill His word" (Ps. 102:20), that is, His commands. But the Word in the proper sense is a personal being.
Jn. 1:1. And the Word was with God,
Here the Evangelist shows even more clearly that the Son is co-eternal with the Father. Lest you think that the Father once existed without the Son, he says that the Word was with God, that is, with God in the bosom of the Father. For the preposition "with" you should understand as meaning "together with," as it is also used in another place: are not His brothers and His sisters "among us," that is, "living with us"? (Mark 6:3). So here too, understand "with God" as meaning: He was with God, together with God, in His bosom. For it is impossible that God should ever have been without the Word, or wisdom, or power. Therefore we believe that the Son, since He is the Word, wisdom, and power of the Father (1 Cor. 1:24), was always with God, that is, He existed contemporaneously and together with the Father. "But how," you will say, "is the Son not after the Father?" How? Learn from a material example. Does not the radiance of the sun come from the sun itself? Indeed it does. Is it then also later than the sun, so that one could supposedly imagine a time when the sun existed without radiance? One cannot. For how would it even be the sun if it had no radiance? If we think this way about the sun, then all the more should we think this way about the Father and the Son. One must believe that the Son, being the radiance of the Father, as Paul says (Heb. 1:3), always shines together with the Father, and not after Him.
Note also that by this expression Sabellius the Libyan is also refuted. He taught that the Father, Son, and Spirit are one person, and that this single person at one time appeared as the Father, at another time as the Son, and at yet another time as the Spirit. So babbled the son of the father of lies, filled with the spirit of the evil one. But by these words, "and the Word was with God," he is clearly exposed. The Evangelist here says in the most evident manner that the Word is one and God, that is, the Father, is another. For if the Word was together with God, then obviously two persons are introduced, although both share one nature. And that there is one nature, listen.
Jn. 1:1. And the Word was God.
Do you see that the Word is also God! This means that the Father and the Son have one nature, just as they have one divinity. Therefore, let both Arius and Sabellius be put to shame. Let Arius, who calls the Son of God a creation and a creature, be confounded by the fact that the Word was in the beginning and was God. And let Sabellius, who does not accept a trinity of persons but only a singularity, be confounded by the fact that the Word was with God. For here the great John clearly proclaims that the Word is one person and the Father is another person, though not one thing and another thing. For "one and another" is said of persons, while "one thing and another thing" is said of natures. For example, to set forth the thought more clearly, Peter and Paul are one and another, for they are two persons; but not one thing and another thing, for they have one nature—humanity. In the same way one must teach concerning the Father and the Son: on the one hand, They are one and another, for They are two persons; but on the other hand, They are not one thing and another thing, for They have one nature—divinity.
Jn. 1:2. He was in the beginning with God.
This God the Word was never separated from God the Father. Since John said that the Word was also God, lest anyone be troubled by such a satanic thought: if the Word is also God, did It not at some point rise up against the Father, as the gods of the pagans in their fables, and if It separated from Him, did It not become an adversary to God? — he says that although the Word is indeed God, nevertheless It is again with God the Father, abides together with Him, and was never separated from Him.
No less fitting is it to say this also to those who hold to the teaching of Arius: hear, you deaf ones, who call the Son of God a work and a creation of His; understand what name the Evangelist applied to the Son of God: he called Him the Word. But you call Him a work and a creation. He is not a work and not a creation, but the Word. "Word" is of two kinds. One is the internal word, which we have even when we are not speaking, that is, the capacity of speech, for even he who sleeps and does not speak still has the word placed within him and has not lost the capacity. So one word is internal, and the other is the uttered word, which we also pronounce with our lips, putting into action the capacity of speech, the capacity of the mental and inwardly lying word. Although, therefore, "word" is of two kinds, neither of them applies to the Son of God, for the Word of God is neither uttered nor internal. Those words are natural and ours, but the Word of the Father, being above nature, is not subject to earthly subtleties of reasoning. Therefore the cunning syllogism of Porphyry, the pagan, falls apart of itself. He, attempting to overthrow the Gospel, employed such a division: if the Son of God is a word, then He is either an uttered or an internal word; but He is neither one nor the other; therefore He is not the Word. Thus, the Evangelist resolved this syllogism in advance, having said that "internal" and "uttered" are spoken of us and of natural things, but of supernatural things nothing of the sort is spoken. However, this too must be said: the pagan's objection would have had a basis if this name "Word" were fully worthy of God and were used of Him in a proper and essential sense. But to this day no one has yet found any name fully worthy of God; nor is this very name "Word" used of Him in a proper and essential sense, but it only shows that the Son was born from the Father without passion, just as a word proceeds from the mind, and that He became the messenger of the Father's will. Why then do you, wretched one, cling to a name and, hearing of Father, Son, and Spirit, descend to material relations and imagine in your mind fleshly fathers and sons, and a wind of the air — perhaps the south wind or the north wind, or some other — producing a storm? But if you wish to learn what kind of word the Word of God is, then listen to what follows next.
Jn. 1:3. All things came into being through Him,
"Do not consider," he says, "the Word as something that dissolves into the air and vanishes, but honor Him as the Creator of all things both intelligible and sensible." But the Arians again insistently say: "Just as we say that a door is made by a saw, even though it is merely a tool and another—the craftsman—was moving the tool, so also through the Son all things received their being, not as though He Himself is the Creator, but as a tool, just as the saw is there, while the Creator is God the Father, and He uses the Son as a tool. Therefore the Son is a creature, created for the purpose that through Him all things might receive their being, just as a saw is fashioned for the purpose of performing carpentry work with it." So prattles the wicked assembly of Arius.
What then shall we say to them simply and directly? If the Father, as you say, created the Son for the purpose of having Him as an instrument for the accomplishment of creation, then the Son will be lower in honor than creation. For just as in the case when a saw serves as an instrument, that which is fashioned by it is more honorable than it, since the saw was made for the products and not they for the saw, so too creation will be more honorable than the Only-Begotten, for it was for creation's sake, as they say, that the Father created Him, as though God would not have brought forth the Only-Begotten from Himself had He not intended to create all things. What is more insane than these words?
"Why then," they say, "did the evangelist not say 'this Word created all things,' but used the preposition 'through'?" So that you would not think that the Son is unbegotten, without beginning, and opposed to God — for this reason he said that the Father created all things by the Word. For imagine that some king, having a son and intending to build a city, entrusted its construction to his son. Just as one who says that the city was built by the king's son does not reduce the king's son to a slave, but shows that this son also has a father and is not alone, so too here the evangelist, having said that all things were created by the Son, showed that the Father, so to speak, employed Him as a mediator in creation — not as one who is lesser, but on the contrary, as one equal in power and able to carry out so great a commission. I will also tell you this: if the preposition "through" troubles you, and you wish to find some passage in Scripture saying that the Word Himself created all things, then listen to David: "In the beginning You, [O Lord], laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of Your hands" (Ps. 102:26). Do you see? He did not say "through You the heavens were made and the earth was founded," but "You founded," and "the heavens are the work of Your hands." And that David says this about the Only-Begotten and not about the Father, you can learn both from the apostle, who uses these words in the Epistle to the Hebrews (Heb. 1:8–10), and from the psalm itself. For having said that the Lord looked down upon the earth — to hear the groaning, to set free those put to death, and to proclaim the name of the Lord in Zion — to whom else does David point but to the Son of God? For He looked down upon the earth — whether we understand by it the ground on which we walk, or our nature that has become earthly, or our flesh, according to the saying "you are dust" (Gen. 3:19), which He took upon Himself. He also set us free — us who were bound by the chains of our own sins, the children of the slain Adam and Eve — and proclaimed the name of the Lord in Zion. For standing in the temple, He taught about His Father, as He Himself says: "I have revealed Your name to the people" (John 17:6). To whom do these actions belong — to the Father or to the Son? All to the Son, for He in His teaching proclaimed the name of the Father. Having said this, the blessed David adds also: "In the beginning You, [O Lord], laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of Your hands." Is it not evident that he presents the Son as the Creator, and not as an instrument?
If again the preposition "through" in your opinion introduces some diminishment, then what will you say when Paul uses it of the Father? For "God is faithful," he says, "by whom ye were called unto the fellowship of His Son" (1 Cor. 1:9). Does he here make the Father an instrument? And again, Paul an apostle "by the will of God" (1 Cor. 1:1). But this is sufficient, and we must return again to the place from which we began.
All things came into being through Him. Moses, speaking of the visible creation, explained nothing to us about the intelligible creatures. But the Evangelist, having embraced everything in a single word, says: "all things were made by Him" — both the visible and the intelligible.
Jn. 1:3. And without Him nothing began to be, that began to be.
Since the evangelist said that the Word created all things, lest anyone think that It also created the Holy Spirit, he adds: "all things were made by Him." What "all things"? — created things. It is as if he said that whatever exists in created nature, all of it received its being from the Word. But the Spirit does not belong to created nature; therefore He did not receive His being from Him either. Thus, without the power of the Word nothing received being that received being, that is, whatever was in created nature.
Jn. 1:4. In Him was life, and the life was the light of men.
The Pneumatomachians read the present passage thus: "and without Him nothing began to be"; then, placing a punctuation mark there, they read as if from a new beginning: "that which began to be, in Him was life," and interpret this passage according to their own thinking, saying that here the Evangelist is speaking about the Spirit, that is, that the Holy Spirit was the life. So say the Macedonians, striving to prove that the Holy Spirit is created and to number Him among creatures. But we do not read it so; rather, placing a punctuation mark after the words "that which began to be," we read from a new beginning: "In Him was life." Having spoken about creation, that all things received being through the Word, the Evangelist speaks further about providence as well, that the Word not only created, but also preserves the life of what was created. For in Him was life.
I know that one of the saints read this passage as follows: "and without Him nothing began to be, that began to be in Him." Then, placing a punctuation mark there, he began further: "was life." I think that this reading also contains no error, but holds the same correct thought. For this saint also rightly understood that without the Word nothing received being that received being in Him, since everything that received being and was created was created by the Word Himself, and consequently was not without Him. Then he began again: "was life, and the life was the light of men." The Evangelist calls the Lord "life" both because He sustains the life of all things and because He grants spiritual life to all rational beings, and "light," not so much sensible as intellectual, illuminating the very soul. He did not say that He is the light of Jews alone, but of all "men." For all of us men, inasmuch as we have received mind and reason from the Word who created us, are therefore called enlightened by Him. For the reason given to us, by which we are also called rational, is a light guiding us in what we ought and ought not to do.
Jn. 1:5. And the light shineth in the darkness,