Jn. 1:14. And the Word became flesh,
Having said that we who believe in Christ, if we desire, become children of God, the Evangelist adds also the cause of so great a blessing. "You wish," he says, "to know what brought us this adoption? That the Word became flesh." But when you hear that the Word became flesh, do not think that He abandoned His own Nature and was converted into flesh (for He would not even be God if He had been converted and changed), but that, remaining what He was, He became what He was not. But Apollinarius of Laodicea formed a heresy from this. He taught that our Lord and God did not assume the whole human nature, that is, a body with a rational soul, but only flesh without a rational and intelligent soul. For what need had God of a soul, when His body was governed by the Divinity, just as our body is governed by our soul? And he thought he saw the basis for this in the present saying: "and the Word became flesh." "The Evangelist did not say," he argues, "that the Word became man, but 'flesh'; therefore He assumed not a rational and intelligent soul, but irrational and senseless flesh." Evidently the wretch did not know that Scripture often names the whole by a part. For example, it wishes to mention the whole man, but names him by a part, by the word "soul." Every "soul" that shall not be circumcised shall be destroyed (Gen. 17:14). So then, instead of saying "every man," a part is named, namely "soul." Scripture also calls the whole man "flesh," as when, for example, it says: "and all flesh shall see the salvation of God" (Isa. 40:5). It should have said "every man," but the name "flesh" is used. So too the Evangelist, instead of saying "the Word became man," said "the Word became flesh," calling the man consisting of soul and body by one part. And since flesh is foreign to the Divine nature, perhaps the Evangelist mentioned flesh with the intention of showing the extraordinary condescension of God, so that we might marvel at His inexpressible love for mankind, by which He assumed for our salvation what is distinct and utterly foreign to His own nature, namely flesh. For the soul has a certain kinship with God, but the flesh has absolutely nothing in common.
Therefore I think that the Evangelist used here the name of flesh alone not because the soul had no part in the assumption (the incarnation), but in order to show more fully how wondrous and awesome the mystery is. For if the incarnate Word did not assume a human soul, then our souls are not yet healed, for what He did not assume, He did not sanctify. And how absurd! While it was the soul that first fell sick (for it was the soul that in paradise yielded to the words of the serpent and was deceived, and only afterwards, following the soul as its mistress and sovereign, did the hand also reach out), it is the flesh, the handmaid, that is assumed, sanctified, and healed, while the mistress is left without assumption and without healing. But let Apollinarius remain in his error. As for us, when we hear that the Word became flesh, we believe that He became a perfect Man, since it is the custom of Scripture to designate man by one part alone, either flesh or soul.
By this saying Nestorius is also overthrown. He said that it was not God the Word Himself who became the Man conceived from the most pure blood of the holy Virgin, but that the Virgin gave birth to a man, and this man, endowed with grace through every form of virtue, came to have the Word of God united with him and giving him authority over unclean spirits, and therefore he taught that there are two sons — one, the son of the Virgin, Jesus the man, and another, the Son of God, united with this man and inseparable from him, but by grace, relation, and love, because this man was virtuous. So deaf is he to the truth. For if he had wished, he himself would have heard what this blessed Evangelist says, namely: "The Word became flesh." Is this not an obvious reproof to him? For the Word Himself became Man. The Evangelist did not say "the Word, having found a man, united with him," but "He Himself became Man."
By this saying both Eutyches, and Valentinus, and Manes are overthrown. They said that the Word of God appeared as a phantom. Let them hear that the Word "became" flesh; it does not say "the Word seemed or appeared to be flesh," but "became" it in truth and in essence, and not as an apparition. For it is absurd and unreasonable to believe that the Son of God, who is in essence and in name the Truth (John 14:6), lied in His incarnation. And a deceptive apparition would, without a doubt, have led to this conclusion.
Jn. 1:14. and dwelt with us,
Since the Evangelist said above that the Word became flesh, lest anyone think that Christ ultimately became one Nature, he adds for this reason: "dwelt among us," in order to show two Natures: one ours, and the other of the Word. For just as the dwelling is of one nature and the one dwelling in it is of another nature, so also the Word, when it is said of Him that He dwelt in us, that is, in our nature, must be of a Nature other than ours. Let the Armenians be ashamed, who profess one Nature. Thus, by the words "the Word became flesh" we are taught that the Word Himself became Man and, being the Son of God, became also the son of a woman, who is truly called the Theotokos, as having given birth to God in the flesh. And by the words "dwelt among us" we are taught to believe that in the one Christ there are two Natures. For although He is one in Hypostasis, or in Person, yet in Natures He is twofold — God and Man, and the Divine nature and the human nature cannot be one, even though they are contemplated in the one Christ.
Jn. 1:14. Full of grace and truth; and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the Only-Begotten from the Father.
Having said that the Word became flesh, the evangelist adds: "we beheld His glory," that is, of Him who was in the flesh. For if the Israelites could not look upon the face of Moses, which shone from his conversation with God, then the apostles all the more could not have endured the pure (unveiled) Divinity of the Only-Begotten, had He appeared not in the flesh. And we beheld glory not such as Moses had, nor such as the cherubim and seraphim appeared with to the prophet, but such glory as was fitting for the Only-Begotten Son, such as belonged to Him by nature from God the Father. The particle "as" here signifies not comparison, but affirmation and undoubted definition. Seeing a king approaching with great glory, we say that he came as a king, instead of saying "truly in a kingly manner." Likewise here, the words "as of the Only-Begotten" we must understand thus: the glory which we beheld was the true glory of the true Son, full of grace and truth. "Full of grace" because His teaching was, so to speak, graced, as David also says: "grace was poured from Thy lips" (Ps. 45:2), and the evangelist notes that all "wondered at the gracious words proceeding out of His mouth" (Luke 4:22), and because He bestowed healings upon all who were in need of them. "Full of truth" because all that the prophets and Moses himself said or did were types, but what Christ said and did was all full of truth, for He Himself is grace and truth, and distributes them to others.
They saw this glory where? One may think, along with some, that the apostles saw this glory of His on Mount Tabor, but it is also correct to understand that they saw it not on this one mountain alone, but in everything that He did and said.
Jn. 1:15. John bears witness concerning Him and cries out, saying: This was He of whom I said, "He who comes after me has come to be before me, for He was before me."
The Evangelist frequently refers to the testimony of John not because he makes the credibility of the Master depend on the servant, but since the people had a high opinion of John, he cites John as a witness concerning Christ, as one whom they regarded as great and therefore more worthy of trust than all others. The word "crying out" indicates the great boldness of John, for he proclaimed Christ not in a corner, but with great boldness.
What then did he say? "This was He of whom I said." John bore witness concerning Christ before he saw Him. God so willed this, of course, so that when he testified about Christ in a very favorable manner, he would not appear to be showing partiality toward Him. This is why he says "of whom I said," that is, before he saw Him.
"He who comes after me" means, of course, the one who comes after in time of birth; for the Forerunner was six months older than Christ by birth in the flesh.
"He came before me," that is, He became more honored and more glorious than me. Why? Because He also existed before me, in His Divinity. But the Arians insanely explained this saying. Wishing to prove that the Son of God was not begotten of the Father, but came into being as one of the creatures, they say: "Behold, John testifies of Him — He came before me, that is, He came into existence before me, and was created by God as one of the creatures." But from what follows they are convicted of a poor understanding of this saying. For what sense is expressed in the words: "This One (that is, Christ) came before me (that is, was created before me), because He existed before me"? It is utterly insane to say that God created Him before because He existed before me. On the contrary, it would have been better to say, "This One existed before me, because He came into being or was created before me." Thus do the Arians reason. But we, in the Orthodox manner, understand it thus: "He who comes after me," by birth from the Virgin in the flesh, "came before me," became more glorious than me and more honored through the miracles that were performed over Him, through His Birth, through His upbringing, through His wisdom. And this is rightly so, "because He existed before me," by His pre-eternal birth from the Father, even though in His appearance in the flesh He came after me.
Jn. 1:16. And of His fullness we have all received, and grace upon grace,
And these are the words of the Forerunner, speaking about Christ, that all of us, the prophets, have received from His fullness. For He possesses grace not such as spiritual people have, but, being the source of all goodness, all wisdom, and prophecy, He abundantly pours it out upon all who are worthy, and despite such outpouring remains full, and is never exhausted. And we received "grace," namely, of the New Testament, in place of the grace of the giving of the Law. Since that Covenant grew old and decrepit, in place of it we received the New. Why then, some will say, did he call the Old Testament grace? Because the Jews too were adopted and accepted by grace. For it is said: "I chose you not for your great number, but for the sake of your fathers." Both those of the Old Testament were accepted by grace, and we, evidently, are saved by grace.
Jn. 1:17. For the law was given through Moses; but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.
He explains to us in what manner we received the greatest grace in place of the lesser grace. He says that the law was given through Moses, that is, God used a man as mediator, namely Moses, but the New Testament was given through Jesus Christ. It is called both "grace," because God granted us not only the forgiveness of sins but also sonship; and it is called "truth," because He clearly proclaimed what the Old Testament figures saw or spoke of in types. This New Testament, called both grace and truth, had as its mediator not a mere man but the Son of God. Note also that concerning the Old Law he said "was given" through Moses, for he was a subordinate and servant, but concerning the New he did not say "was given" but "came to be," in order to show that it came from our Lord Jesus Christ as from a Master and not from a slave, and reached its fulfillment in grace and truth. The Law "was given" by God through the mediation of Moses; grace "came to be," and was not given, through Jesus Christ. "Came to be" is a sign of sovereignty; "was given" is a sign of servitude.
Jn. 1:18. God no one has ever seen; the Only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him.
Having said that grace and truth came through Jesus Christ, and wishing to confirm this, the evangelist says: "I have said nothing incredible. For Moses, like no one else, neither saw God nor could communicate to us a clear and vivid concept of Him, but, being a servant, served only for the writing of the law. But Christ, being the Only-begotten Son and dwelling in the bosom of the Father, not only sees Him, but also clearly speaks of Him to all people. Thus, since He is the Son and sees the Father, as being in His bosom, He rightly gave us grace and truth."
But perhaps someone will say, "here we learn that no one has seen God"; how then does the prophet say, "I saw the Lord" (Isa. 6:1)? The prophet saw, but not the very essence, rather a certain likeness and a certain mental representation, insofar as he was able to see. Moreover, one saw in one form, another in another. And from this it is evident that they did not see the Truth itself, for they would not have beheld It, which is essentially simple and formless, in different forms. Even the angels do not see the essence of God, although it is said of them that they see the face of God (Matt. 18:10). This indicates only that they always hold God before their mind. Thus, the Son alone sees the Father and reveals Him to all people.
Hearing of the bosom of the Father, do not imagine anything corporeal in God. The Evangelist used such a designation with the purpose of showing the intimacy, inseparability, and co-eternity of the Son with the Father.
Jn. 1:19. And this is the testimony of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him: Who are you?
Jn. 1:20. He declared, and did not deny, and declared, "I am not the Christ."