Cornelius a Lapide

John I

Table of Contents

Synopsis of the Chapter

He describes the origin of the eternal Word, and His generation from God the Father, His omnipotence, omniscience, and finally, at verse 14, His Incarnation and the fullness of grace. Second, at verse 19, the testimony which John the Baptist gave to the inquiring Jews about Jesus; namely, that He is the Messiah and the Lamb who takes away the sin of the world. Third, at verse 37, he narrates that two disciples of John visited Christ, of whom one, Andrew, brought his brother Simon to Christ, to whom Christ said: "You shall be called Cephas," that is, Peter. Fourth, at verse 43, He calls Philip to follow Him; Philip brings Nathanael to Christ, who, revealing to him the secrets done under the fig tree, is recognized by him as the Messiah. Whence Christ promises him greater things, namely, that he will see angels descending from Heaven to Him and ascending.

Vulgate Text: John 1:1-51

1. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2. He was in the beginning with God. 3. All things were made through Him; and without Him was made nothing that was made. 4. In Him was life, and the life was the light of men; 5. and the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it. 6. There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. 7. He came as a witness, to bear witness to the light, that all might believe through him. 8. He was not the light, but came to bear witness to the light. 9. He was the true light, which enlightens every man coming into this world. 10. He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him. 11. He came unto His own, and His own did not receive Him. 12. But to as many as received Him, He gave the power to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: 13. who were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. 14. And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, the glory as of the Only-Begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth. 15. John bears witness of Him, and cries out saying: This was He of whom I said: He who comes after me has been made before me, because He was prior to me. 16. And of His fullness we have all received, and grace for grace. 17. For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. 18. No one has ever seen God: the Only-Begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him. 19. And this is the testimony of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to him, to ask him: Who are you? 20. And he confessed and did not deny; and he confessed: I am not the Christ. 21. And they asked him: What then? Are you Elijah? And he said: I am not. Are you the Prophet? And he answered: No. 22. They said therefore to him: Who are you, that we may give an answer to those who sent us? What do you say about yourself? 23. He said: "I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness: 'Make straight the way of the Lord,' as Isaiah the prophet said." 24. And those who had been sent were from the Pharisees. 25. And they asked him, and said to him: "Why then do you baptize, if you are not the Christ, nor Elijah, nor the Prophet?" 26. John answered them, saying: "I baptize in water; but in the midst of you there has stood One whom you do not know. 27. He it is who is to come after me, who has been made before me, whose sandal strap I am not worthy to untie." 28. These things took place in Bethany beyond the Jordan, where John was baptizing. 29. The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him, and said: "Behold the Lamb of God, behold Him who takes away the sin of the world. 30. This is He of whom I said: 'After me comes a man who has been made before me, because He was prior to me'; 31. and I did not know Him, but that He might be made manifest in Israel, for this reason I came baptizing in water." 32. And John bore witness, saying: "I saw the Spirit descending like a dove from heaven, and He remained upon Him. 33. And I did not know Him; but He who sent me to baptize in water said to me: 'Upon whom you shall see the Spirit descending and remaining upon Him, He it is who baptizes in the Holy Spirit.' 34. And I saw, and I have borne witness that this is the Son of God." 35. The next day John was standing again, and two of his disciples. 36. And looking upon Jesus as He walked, he said: "Behold the Lamb of God." 37. And the two disciples heard him speak, and they followed Jesus. 38. And Jesus turned, and seeing them following Him, said to them: "What do you seek?" They said to Him: "Rabbi" (which means, being interpreted, "Master"), "where do You dwell?" 39. He said to them: "Come, and see." They came and saw where He was staying, and they stayed with Him that day; it was about the tenth hour. 40. Now Andrew, the brother of Simon Peter, was one of the two who had heard from John and had followed Him. 41. He first found his own brother Simon, and said to him: "We have found the Messiah" (which is, being interpreted, Christ). 42. And he brought him to Jesus. And Jesus, looking upon him, said: "You are Simon, the son of Jonah; you shall be called Cephas" (which is interpreted, Peter). 43. On the following day He wished to go forth into Galilee, and He found Philip. And Jesus said to him: "Follow Me." 44. Now Philip was from Bethsaida, the city of Andrew and Peter. 45. Philip found Nathanael, and said to him: "Him of whom Moses wrote in the Law, and the Prophets, we have found — Jesus, the son of Joseph, from Nazareth." 46. And Nathanael said to him: "Can anything good come from Nazareth?" Philip said to him: "Come and see." 47. Jesus saw Nathanael coming toward Him, and said of him: "Behold, truly an Israelite in whom there is no guile." 48. Nathanael said to Him: "How do You know me?" Jesus answered and said to him: "Before Philip called you, when you were under the fig tree, I saw you." 49. Nathanael answered Him and said: "Rabbi, You are the Son of God, You are the King of Israel." 50. Jesus answered and said to him: "Because I said to you, 'I saw you under the fig tree,' you believe; you shall see greater things than these." 51. And He said to him: "Amen, amen, I say to you, you shall see heaven opened, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of Man."

Verse 1: In the Beginning Was the Word

So read the Syriac, Egyptian, Ethiopic, Persian, and Arabic; except that in the second and third place the Arabic adds the article, saying: "And that Word was with God, and God was that Word." Moreover, the Ethiopic has kal, that is, Word; and so do all the rest: wherefore Erasmus and the Innovators less correctly translate Verbum as sermo ("discourse"), about which more shortly.

John begins from the divinity of the Word: first, because right order and a full history of Christ demanded this — namely, that he should first narrate His divine and eternal generation, then His human and temporal one; second, because in the time of St. John, the heresies of Cerinthus and Ebion arose, denying the divinity of Christ, which still persist in our Transylvanian Arians, Polish Ebionites, and Syrian Nestorians. So say St. Chrysostom, Jerome, Epiphanius, Irenaeus, and from them Maldonatus.

Similarly Moses begins the genesis of the world, saying: "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." Moses therefore begins from the creation of the world, but John far more sublimely from the eternity of the Word. Moses assigns the beginning of time, in which God made all things; John assigns a beginning that was from eternity, when the Word existed, through whom all things were made by God in time. John therefore, presupposing this exordium of Moses and supplementing and anticipating the beginning of the creation of the world, gives the far more ancient beginning of the Word itself, when (so to speak) it began to exist. Wherefore Tertullian, in his book Against Hermogenes, truly asserts that the Gospel is the supplement of the Old Testament.

St. John alludes to Ecclesiasticus 24:5: "I (eternal Wisdom) came forth from the mouth of the Most High, the firstborn before all creation." And to Proverbs 8:22: "The Lord possessed (the Septuagint has ektise, that is, founded; St. Ambrose, Book III On the Faith, chapter 4, created) Me in the beginning of His ways, before He made anything from the beginning;" where the Septuagint translates: "The Lord founded Me as the beginning of His ways for His works: before the ages He established Me in the beginning, before He made the earth and established the depths;" Aquila: "The Lord possessed Me from the beginning of His works;" Symmachus: "The Lord possessed Me as the beginning of His ways, before His work;" Theodoret: "The Lord possessed Me before His work; from then, and from that time, before the ages I was prepared." See what was said there.

IN PRINCIPIO. — That is, first, in the eternal Father, say St. Cyril and Origen; for shortly after, in verse 14, John says the Word is in the bosom of the Father. Second, more simply, St. Augustine, Bede, and St. Hilary understand "in the beginning" as referring to the beginning of the world or of time, even of imaginary time — namely, that which you can imagine before the world — having flowed from eternity; as if to say: the Word was not made in the beginning of time, even of the most conceivable and most ancient, but already then existed, because He was not made but begotten from eternity.

Or from the beginning of all duration and eternity, from all eternity, long before the angels, men, and all created things, the Word existed. For St. John here takes "beginning" in its true sense, not an imaginary one, just as Moses does in Genesis 1:1, and Solomon in Proverbs 8:22. Whence all the Fathers prove from this passage the true divinity and eternity of Christ. St. John immediately opposes this exordium to Ebion, who claimed that Christ began only after the birth of the Virgin, and did not exist before that. So says Cyril. Hence Nonnus expounds the word "Beginning" in five ways through five epithets, one following from the other in order. "In the beginning," he says, means first, without time; second, coeval with the Father; third, equal in nature to the Father; fourth, incomprehensible; fifth, ineffable. The four follow from the first. Hear Nonnus:

Without time He was, incomprehensible, in an ineffable beginning the Word, / Of equal nature, coeval with the Father, a Son without a mother.

You will say: Eternity is an infinite duration, lacking beginning and end; why then is a beginning given to it here? I answer: The reason is the weakness of the human intellect, which cannot comprehend eternity, nor distinctly conceive it, except by comparison with time, and therefore conceives eternity as a duration that coexists with all time — present, future, and past — not only real but also imaginary, and indeed anticipates and precedes all time. The meaning therefore is, as if to say: In the beginning, that is, before all time, even what you can imagine, devise, and conceive in your mind, the Word existed. Imagine millions upon millions of years, as many as you can conceive in your mind; before all of them, and the infinite ones you can always add, the Word existed. For this reason St. John repeats the word "was" four times: "In the beginning, he says, was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God" — so that whatever time you may think of, you may know that in it the Word already existed; whatever age you may conceive, you may know that in it the Word existed; whatever century you may mentally anticipate, you may know that in it the Word already existed. Thus "beginning" is taken here relatively; for it expresses a relation to all times, inasmuch as it far precedes them. For just as the entire magnitude and immensity of God is in every place and space, indeed in every point thereof, and yet encompasses all spaces and places, even those which we can imagine above the heavens: so also the eternity of God, which is entirely in one "now," or in one point of temporal duration, encompasses and embraces all past, present, and future time, and far surpasses, precedes, and transcends all of it; and this is what we mean when St. John asserts that He existed in the beginning.

Again, our mind by this comparison of "beginning," or of eternity to any given time, ascends to the very antiquity and quasi-origin of eternity, considering it positively in itself, and calls it "beginning," that is, the start of all duration and eternity; but this start is in reality without a start, and a beginning lacking a beginning. Therefore, in order to conceive and express that a certain thing did not begin in time, but is eternal and has existed from eternity, we say it existed in the beginning of all duration and eternity, by which we signify nothing other than that it always existed, existed from eternity, existed from all eternity. In this sense therefore John says: "In the beginning was the Word." And the Psalmist, Psalm 109: "With You is sovereignty in the day of Your power." And so we commonly say God has existed from the beginning of eternity, that is, from all eternity. Therefore "beginning" here denotes not some start, but eternity itself as it has been from the beginning.

ERAT. — The word "was," says St. Basil on these words of St. John, leads us to "eternity." Not as though "was" signified that the Word preceded the beginning of which it is said "In the beginning He was," and consequently that the beginning of time and the world is to be understood here, but rather that in the beginning of duration or eternity (which the Word did not precede except in concept only — for just as any thing conceptually precedes its own duration and its own time or age, so also God precedes His own duration and eternity; for duration is the duration and measure of a thing that exists and endures), that is, already long ago from all eternity, the Word existed. Note here that it says "was" (erat), not "has been" (fuit), because "has been" signifies that a thing existed and has passed away: but "was" signifies that it still exists, or that it is perennial and eternal. So say St. Chrysostom, Cyril, and Theophylactus. The Holy Spirit therefore placed the word "was" in the mind and pen of John, against the Arians, whom He foresaw would arise, for their cry was: "There was a time when He was not" — that is, there was a time when the Son did not exist; which cry of theirs the Council of Nicaea condemns from these words of St. John, because "in the beginning," that is, always from eternity, "was the Word."

Again, "in the beginning was the Word," that is, from eternity the Word was begotten; for this generation is included in the word "Word," as I shall presently show.

Moreover, Elias of Crete, commenting on Oration 4 On Theology of St. Gregory Nazianzen, notes that the substantive verb "is" and "was" is proper to God; for it is derived from the fullness of being. Whence God in Hebrew is called Jehovah, or "He who is"; in Greek ho on (the One who is), about which I said much at Exodus 3:14.

VERBUM. — In Greek ho logos, that is, that Word — namely, the eternal and divine one — that is, the Son of God, as even the Arians themselves formerly acknowledged: for shortly afterward, in verse 14, John calls this "Word" the Only-begotten of the Father. And so throughout Scripture the Son is called the Word of the Father, although St. Basil thinks the Holy Spirit can also be called the Word; but St. Thomas rightly observes that this can only be said improperly.

You ask: Why is the Son of God called ho logos, that is, the Word?

I answer: The Greek word logos has many meanings, all of which suit this passage. First, logos can be rendered as reason, because just as reason or knowledge proceeds from the mind, so the Son proceeds from the Father. So say St. Chrysostom, Theophylactus, Euthymius, St. Basil, and Nazianzen in Oration 4 On Theology.

Second, logos can be rendered as definition, because the Word of the Father definitely expresses and explains the nature of the Father and all things. So Nazianzen, ibid. Whence Nicetas, commenting on Oration 42 of Nazianzen: "The relation, he says, that a definition has to the thing defined, the same the Son has to the Father. For He declares Him, just as a definition declares what is defined by it. Wherefore Christ said: 'Philip, he who sees Me sees also My Father' (John 14). For the Son is the compendious demonstration of the Father's nature. For every offspring is the tacit reason, or definition, of its parent."

Third, logos can be rendered as cause, because the Word is the cause of all things that were created and produced by the word of God. So St. Dionysius, On the Divine Names, chapter 7; St. Jerome, epistle to Paulinus.

Fourth, logos can be rendered as work, because the Word is the work of the Father, co-measured, coeval, and co-equal with Him.

Fifth, logos can be rendered as power, because the Word is the power, strength, and right hand of the Father.

Sixth, logos can be rendered as form, because the Word is the form, beauty, and splendor of the Father.

Seventh, and best of all, logos can be rendered as discourse, with Tertullian, St. Cyprian, St. Ambrose, and St. Jerome, or rather as word. Whence the Ethiopic also translates kal, that is, word; and so the Syriac, Arabic, Persian, and Egyptian. Word, I say, not of the mouth but of the mind, because just as we by thinking or understanding form for ourselves a concept of the thing thought or understood, which is called a word of the mind; so the eternal Father by understanding and comprehending His own essence and all things that are in it, and among them the spirative power of the Holy Spirit and the creative power of all possible things, formed and produced this eternal Word, co-equal and most like unto Himself; whence it comes about that this Word is God and the Son of God, begotten from the Father.

Note here: The Word of God is twofold. One is essential, which is the very intellection of the Father, which He communicates together with His essence, intellect, and will to the Son and to the Holy Spirit. The other is notional, which is the Word produced by the Father and subsisting as a person — namely, the Son, of whom John here speaks. So St. Thomas, I, dist. 27, Question II, article 2, and following him Capreolus and Ferraris. Understand this of the Word taken broadly; for the Word taken strictly and properly is only notional, as St. Augustine, Cyril, St. Thomas teach, and following them Suarez, Book IX On the Trinity, chapter 3.

I have said more about this Word in the First Epistle of St. John, chapter 1, verse 1, where I likewise showed in what respects this divine Word is similar to our human word, and in what respects it is dissimilar: likewise its dignity, excellence, and efficacy, by which it intimately enters our minds and assimilates them to itself, purifies, perfects, and sanctifies them. To these add St. Augustine, Sermon 38 On the Words of the Lord: "The Word of God, he says, is a certain form, not formed, but the form of all forms, surpassing all things, existing in all things. Some indeed ask how the Son could be born coeval with the Father. Would not the splendor be coeval if fire were eternal? And likewise the image that arises from a mirror or water? So that if something were always above water — for example, a branch — the image of it would also always exist." St. Basil, in his Homily on the Beginning of John: "This Word, he says, that was in the beginning, was neither human nor of the angels, but the Only-begotten Himself, who is called the Word because He was born without suffering, and being the image of the one who begot Him, He displays the one who begot Him entirely in Himself. Now our word has a certain likeness to the divine Word; for it declares the entire conception of the mind; and indeed our heart is like a fountain, and the spoken word like a rivulet flowing from it.

Hence also the Philosophers and Theologians of the Gentiles, such as Trismegistus, Orpheus, Plato, and other Greeks, Chaldeans, and Egyptians, called the Father nous, that is, mind; and the Son logos, as the offspring of the mind, as St. Augustine attests in Book VII of his Confessions, chapter 9; Theodoret, Book II of On the Cure of Greek Affections, and others. Whence that saying of Plato: "The Monad begot a monad, and reflected the ardor upon itself" — as if to say: the Father begot the Son, and through Him breathed forth the Holy Spirit, who is the reflected love of the Father and the Son. Although many hold that Plato, Trismegistus, and other Gentiles by logos did not understand the Son, but the idea that is in the mind of God, according to which He created all things, and reflected the ardor upon Himself, because He created the world on account of His love of Himself.

The Holy Spirit foresaw those who, envying the glory of the Only-begotten, would say: 'Before He was begotten, He did not exist,' and therefore He says: In the beginning was the Word." St. Chrysostom: "He did not say 'Word' simply, but with the article, separating Him from all others: for there is a certain hypostasis proceeding from the Father without suffering. And the phrase 'In the beginning was' signifies that He existed always and infinitely; for of heaven and earth it is not said that they 'were' in the beginning, but that in the beginning they 'were made.'"

ET VERBUM ERAT APUD DEUM. — St. John meets an objection. For someone might say: Where was the Word in the beginning, that is, from eternity, when as yet no place, nor anything, nor any created things existed in the nature of things? He answers that the Word needed no place, because He is spiritual and divine, but that He was with the Father, from whom He drew His origin — that is, as verse 18 says, He was in the bosom of the Father, or also in the paternal home, which is God Himself and His immensity; there, I say, He existed hidden and concealed from us.

The preposition "with" denotes, first, a diversity of person — namely, that the Son is a different person from the Father, not one and the same, as Sabellius and his followers the Sabellians held. "For how can what is numerically one be understood to be with itself?" says St. Cyril. So also St. Chrysostom, Theophylactus, and Severus and Leontius, in the Catena. "Before all things," says Tertullian in Book V Against Praxeas, "God was alone, being unto Himself both world and place and all things; yet alone, because there was nothing else extrinsic besides Him; but not even then truly alone, for He had with Him, as He had within Himself, His own reason, etc. — this the Greeks call logos." For solitude is opposed to the blessed life. God therefore, and God's blessedness, requires society and friendship — namely, a plurality of persons.

Second, "with" denotes the friendly and supreme conjunction of the Son with the Father, by which it comes about that He cannot be separated from the Father, but always inseparably adheres to Him. So Nonnus.

Third, "with" designates the equality of the Son with the Father; for to be with God, or next to God, is to sit at the right hand of God as God consubstantial and equal. Whence Christ, after the Ascension, is said to have returned to the right hand of the Father, Mark 16:19. So St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechesis 11.

Hence Nonnus also explains thus: From the Father He was undivided, sitting together on an eternal throne. That is: From the Father He was undivided, eternally sitting with Him upon the throne.

Note the word synthronos, which no single Latin word admits; for it signifies one who shares and is in concord with the same throne, chair, and authority.

He set it forth in the Creed which he, by command of the Blessed Virgin, delivered to St. Gregory Thaumaturgus, as St. Gregory of Nyssa relates in his Life. For this creed reads thus: "There is one God, Father of the living Word, of subsisting wisdom, and of eternal power and figure, perfect begetter of the perfect, Father of the only-begotten Son. One Lord, sole from the sole, God from God, figure and image of the Godhead, efficacious Word, wisdom comprehending the constitution of all things, and power effecting every creature. True Son of the true Father, escaping the sight of Him who escapes sight, incorruptible of the incorruptible, immortal of the immortal, and eternal of the eternal."

ET DEUS ERAT VERBUM. — In Greek, kai Theos en ho logos. Lest the Arians object: If the Word was with God, therefore He Himself was not God — John anticipates and forestalls this: "And the Word was God." For the Arians held that the internal and essential Word of God, that is, the intellection of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (as the Orthodox faith teaches), was placed in one God, that is, in one person of God, co-eternal with Him; but that God began to be Father in time, when He produced the notional Word distinct from Himself, as the first creature, and through it the rest. St. John refutes this by saying: "And the Word was God," that is, the Word already mentioned was God. For thus this proposition must be inverted. For John transposed the words for euphony; for he had said: "The Word was with God"; whence, repeating the name of God harmoniously, he adds: "And God was the Word," lest anyone think the Word was not God because he said it was with God — as if to say: The Word is so with God that He Himself is God. Or, lest the same God with whom the Word was, that is, God the Father, be thought to be the Word and the same person with Him; but rather that the Word has communication of the same divine nature with the Father alone. Hence he adds: "And the Word was God," as if to say: The Word was with God the Father, and with Him is the same God as to the same divine nature, but not as to the same person. By this dart the Arians are struck down; for John expressly says the Word, that is, the Son, is God.

The Arians object that the word Theos, that is, God, here does not have the article, as it had shortly before: "And the Word was with ton Theon," that is, God — therefore the Word truly is not God. I answer: I deny the inference; for the reason for this difference is that the word Theos, in the preceding member, when it says "with God," denotes a certain person, namely the Father, with whom the Word was. Here therefore it denotes not a person, but the essence common to both persons. For the Word is the same God with the Father as to the same essence and Godhead, but not as to the same person. The article, moreover, marks a certain person, not a nature common to both. Furthermore, the Greeks place the article before the subject, not the predicate, but here God is the predicate and the Word is the subject, as I said.

Verse 2: He Was in the Beginning with God

HOC ERAT IN PRINCIPIO APUD DEUM. — He repeats, confirms, and impresses this three-membered proposition in one member, as if in summary, St. John saying, as it were: This Word, which I said to be God, was in the beginning, that is, from eternity, with God; for since it is difficult to understand how the Word can be with God, and yet be the same God, John joins and impresses both, so as to signify both the unity of essence and the diversity of persons, and to teach that in the Godhead there is a Trinity of three hypostases, namely of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. For this is the most profound, most obscure, and most difficult to believe mystery of our faith, which surpasses the capacity of all men and angels. "As if hearing the Arians, says St. Cyril, He not only says: the Word was with God, but also that He was God: thus because He is with the Father, He says, He subsists by Himself; but because He is God and from God the Father, He is understood to be consubstantial with the Father and God by nature."

Maldonatus gives a second reason for this repetition, namely that from the third member — "And the Word was God" — as from a reason or cause, he might prove or confirm the two prior members, as if to say: Because the Word is God, it follows that He was in the beginning with the Father, that is, He is eternal and co-eternal with the Father, and equal to Him.

St. Hilary gives a third reason, in Book II On the Trinity, lest anyone, from his having said the Word is God, and the same is with God, should suspect there are two gods — one who is the Word, another with whom the Word is — just as the Manichaeans posited two principles of things, or two gods, one who is the creator of bodies and corporeal things, another who is the creator of angels and spiritual things. John therefore says that the Word is so with God the Father that He is the same God with the Father, because He is with the Father as the Word, conjoined with Him in the same Godhead, indeed one and the same, yet distinct from Him in hypostasis and person.

Note that John, by this three-membered statement, in the first member explains the Word's when, or eternity; in the second, the Word's where, and His distinction from the Father; in the third, the Word's essence and its identity of essence with the Father. For if you ask: When was the Word? He answers: He was in the beginning, that is, from eternity. If you ask: Where was the Word? He answers: He was with God the Father. If finally you ask: What is the Word and of what nature? He answers: This Word is God. Thus St. John composed this three-membered opening of his Gospel concerning the Word — and it amounts to saying that He is a sharer of the same throne, an assessor, a co-sitter on the same seat. I have said more about this member in my commentary on the First Epistle of St. John, 1:1.

Verse 3: All Things Were Made Through Him

This is what the Apostle says: "In Him (the Word, or Christ) all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers — all things were created through Him and in Him" (Col. 1:16). And, "through whom He also made the ages" (Heb. 1:2). And, "By the Word of the Lord the heavens were established, and by the breath of His mouth all their power" (Ps. 32:6).

God and the creature made, what is that through which it was made, but the Word, through which God said: Let it be, and it was made? According to that text: He spoke, and they were made.

Therefore from these words of St. John the Macedonians, denying that the Holy Spirit is God, wrongly inferred that He was made, that is, created through the Word, and consequently that He is a creature, not the Creator, because "all things" refers only to those things that were made, that is, created — not to uncreated things, such as the Holy Spirit, who is the same God and Creator of all things together with the Son and the Father. For otherwise, if you take "all things" in the most general sense, from it you would infer that even the Father was made, that is, created through the Word, which is most absurd, as St. Gregory Nazianzen learnedly teaches against the Macedonians in his Oration On the Holy Spirit. But St. John does not mention the Holy Spirit here, because he is describing only the generation and incarnation of the Word.

And so, after having said in verses 1 and 2 that the Word in Himself is God, is eternal, is with the Father — that is, consubstantial and equal to the Father — now, in verse 3, he declares how the same Word relates to creation and creatures, and asserts that all things were created through Him. Whence, step by step, in verses 9 and following, he descends to man, and teaches how the Word related to man, and asserts that He assumed the flesh and nature of man, in order to illuminate, redeem, save, and beatify him. For this entire narrative of his looks to and is directed toward this end.

Note: the preposition "through" (per), when it says "through Him," does not here signify an instrumental cause or a minister, as if the Word were an instrument or minister of God through which He created all things — as Origen maintained (who is therefore called by some the father of the Arians) and the Arians. Rather, it signifies the principal cause, just as in Gen. 4:1: "I have acquired a man through God"; Prov. 8:15: "Through Me kings reign"; Gal. 4:7: "But if a son, also an heir through God"; 1 Cor. 1:9: "God is faithful, through whom you were called." Behold, here and in other places the preposition "through" is attributed to God the Father, who is the first cause of all things. Therefore "through" here signifies that the Word together with the Father is the principal cause of the creation of all things, and consequently that the Word is omnipotent and is God. So say St. Chrysostom, Theophylactus, and Euthymius here, as well as St. Athanasius, Basil, and others writing against the Arians. Wherefore Paul, in Heb. 1:10, interprets Ps. 101:26 — "In the beginning, You, O Lord, founded the earth, and the heavens are the works of Your hands" — of the Word, or the Son: "He would never have asserted this, says Chrysostom, unless he regarded the Son as Creator, not as minister, and understood the dignities of the Father and Son to be equal."

You will say: Why then does St. John prefer to say that all things were made through the Word, rather than by the Word? I answer: First, to signify that the Word proceeds from the Father and is begotten: "Lest anyone should suspect that He was unbegotten," says St. Chrysostom.

Second, to signify that the Word is the idea of created things, according to which the Father together with the Son created all things. For an artisan makes all the works of his art through an idea, wisdom, concept, or mental word — and all these are appropriated to the divine Word, or the Son, who is begotten yet uncreated Wisdom; and consequently it is appropriated to Him that all things were made through Him. So says St. Cyril.

Third, He properly says all things were made through the Word, because the Word receives from the Father, together with the divine essence, the same omnipotence and numerically identical action by which He creates all things simultaneously with the Father. Therefore the Word is, as it were, a medium between God the Father and creatures, and so it is rightly said that the Father made all things through Him, as through the principal cause begotten by Himself.

ET SINE IPSO FACTUM EST NIHIL. — "Without exception are all things, says St. Hilary, in his book On the Trinity; nothing that is outside is left out." Furthermore, "without Him" indicates that the Word was a partner of the Father in the creation of things. Whence St. Hilary, addressing St. John: "Fisherman, he says, you have acknowledged the Author, when you professed Him a partner."

FACTUM EST NIHIL. — "Nothing," that is, evil — namely, corruptible things which continually tend toward the nothingness from which they came — so said the Manichaeans; for they held that corporeal and corruptible things are a creature. For John excludes this by adding "that was made," as if to say: When I say all things were made through the Word, I do not mean the Holy Spirit, but only those things that were made and created. Therefore "that was made" limits and determines the word "nothing," as if to say: Nothing that was made was made without the Word; no thing that was created was created without the Word, but all things were produced through the Word.

QUOD FACTUM EST. — There is a threefold punctuation here, and consequently a threefold reading and understanding, and a threefold meaning. The first is: "Without Him was made nothing that was made in Him," and then a period is placed, after which a new sentence follows: "Life was, and life was the light of men," etc. So punctuates and reads St. Hilary in Book II On the Trinity, St. Epiphanius in the Ancoratus, and some others.

But this reading is generally rejected by others. For it seems to contain an inept tautology, when it says "without Him" and immediately after "in Him."

The second reading is: "Without Him was made nothing" — then a period, after which a new sentence follows: "What was made in Him was life." So punctuates and reads St. Augustine, Tertullian in Against Hermogenes, St. Ambrose in Book III On the Faith, ch. 3, and generally the Latins; and among the Greeks, Clement of Alexandria in Book I of the Pedagogue, ch. 6, and St. Cyril here. St. Augustine explains it thus, as if to say: Every thing made and created through the Word, before it was made and created, was in the Word itself vitally and intellectually. For it existed in the eternal ideas and reasons which live in the Word. It was therefore life, that is, it lived in the mind and idea of the Word. St. Cyril explains it differently, as if to say: Every thing that was made was life in the Word — that is, it received life, that is, the vigor and preservation of its essence, and continually receives it from the Word, as long as it exists.

The third reading is the common one of the Syrians, Arabs, and Greeks — St. Chrysostom, Theophylactus, Nonnus, Euthymius, and Leontius in the Catena: "Without Him was made nothing that was made" — then a period; then a new sentence begins: "In Him was life." This reading is the fullest, and therefore the Bibles corrected at Rome follow it, as do very many other Latin editions. For the meaning is plain, as if to say: Nothing that was made was made without the Word, but all things that were made were made by the Word. He adds this against the Macedonians who argued: If all things were made, that is, created, through the Word, then the Holy Spirit too was made, that is, created, through the Word, and consequently the Holy Spirit "Nothing," that is, no thing that was made was made without the Word, but absolutely all things were made and created through Him. For this meaning is plain and genuine.

Verse 4: In Him Was Life

IN IPSO VITA ERAT, ET VITA ERAT LUX HOMINUM. — Life is the most excellent thing, just as death is the worst. Therefore St. John here assigns the fountain of life to the Word: "For in Him we live, and move, and have our being" (Acts 17). Hence the Greeks also call their God Zin, from zin, that is, to live, because He inspires life in all living things. The meaning therefore is, as if to say: Our true life of grace and glory was in the Word itself, as in its origin and fountain. Whence, in order to communicate this life and light to men, He descended to them and made Himself man; so that just as through the Word the macrocosm — that is, this great world — was once created, so also through that same Word the microcosm — that is, the small world, namely man — might be re-created and called back from the death of sin to the life of grace and justice. So St. John explains himself when he adds: "And the life was the light of men." And in his First Epistle, ch. 1, v. 2, speaking of the Word of life: "And the life was manifested, and we have seen, and do testify, and announce to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and appeared to us." And in ch. 5, last verse: "That we may know the true God, and be in His true Son. This is the true God and eternal life." See what I said there. For this reason St. John everywhere calls Christ "life." So say St. Chrysostom and Theophylactus here; Ammonius in the Catena; St. Ambrose in Book III On the Faith, chs. 3 and 5; Athanasius in Book III On the Assumption of Man, against Marcellinus.

Furthermore, the Fathers explain this life of the Word in various ways.

First, concerning formal life: "In Him was life" — that is, the very substance of the Word is life; the Word itself is subsistent life, says Oecumenius on 1 John 1. The Word itself is essentially life, for His very essence is to live and is life. For He lives the divine life, most perfect, immense, eternal, most blessed, which is the origin and fountain of all life — angelic, human, animal, and plant.

Second, in the Word there is ideal or exemplary life, because in the Word, as in an idea, the eternal reasons of all things live, as St. Augustine says. For the Word is the idea of all creatures, and the idea is the very essence and life of God. So says St. Augustine in Tract 1 on John: "The wisdom of God, he says, contains all things according to art: you see the earth, the sky, the sun, the moon — these things are in the art; but outwardly they are bodies; in the art they are life." And elsewhere: "For this reason (says John) what was made, in Him was life; all things that were made and do not have life, in the Word of God are life; in themselves they are not life." Thus therefore the Word is the life of all creatures, even inanimate ones, because all things live in the Word, inasmuch as He is entirely life.

Third, in the Word there is natural causal life, because the Word causes and produces all living things, and communicates His life to them — namely, to plants vegetative life, to animals animal life, to men rational life, to angels angelic life. Furthermore, in the Word as in an efficient cause there is life, that is, the vigor, duration, and preservation of all things, because these are accomplished through the Word; for the Word gives all things vigor, life, duration, and permanence. So say St. Chrysostom, Cyril, and Theophylactus. Whence Jansenius explains it thus, as if to say: The natural life of living things depends on the Word, as though John gradually descends from the life of living things to man and his life received from the Word.

Fourth, and more genuinely, you should understand "life" here as supernatural causal life, as if to say: In the Word, as in the fountain and primordial cause, was our supernatural life — namely, of grace and glory — and therefore, to obtain this life for us, He became incarnate and was made man, as I said at the beginning. For supernatural life is twofold: the first is begun through grace, by which a just man, through faith, hope, and charity, serves God and lives a supernatural life, supernaturally believing in God, hoping in Him, and loving Him above all things; the other supernatural life is consummated through glory, by which the Blessed enjoy, delight in, and are beatified by God for eternity. He alludes to that verse of Psalm 45: "With You is the fountain of life, and in Your light we shall see light" — that is, as Theodoret explains, "with You is the internal Word, the fountain of life, and in the light of the Holy Spirit we shall discern the light of Your Only-begotten." See St. Dionysius, ch. 6 of The Divine Names, where he teaches that God is the original life: first, of angelic life; second, of human; third, of animals; fourth, of plants; fifth, of the just; sixth, of the Blessed.

ET VITA ERAT LUX HOMINUM — by which men are illuminated spiritually through faith and grace. For He speaks of spiritual and supernatural light, not of corporeal and natural light, as is clear from what follows. The meaning is, as if to say: Our life, which I said shortly before was in the Word, was this illumination of the Word, by which He enlightened men in the knowledge of God and their salvation — outwardly, through holy words and examples; inwardly, through heavenly lights implanted in the mind, by which He has illuminated and continues to illuminate the mind. This is the reason why the Word was made flesh, and why John the Baptist was sent by God to be His witness, as I shall say shortly. But John anticipates here and inserts the mention of light because ungrateful men did not receive so great a gift of light, which he wished to impress upon them forthwith. So says Clement of Alexandria in his Exhortation to the Greeks: "The Word, he says, who was with God, appeared as a teacher; the Word through whom all things were fashioned — and He who, together with the One who formed them, also bestowed life as a craftsman, taught how to live well when He appeared as a teacher, so that afterward He might furnish eternal life as God."

Symbolically: For how God is light — first, formal; second, ideal; third, causal; fourth, supernatural — concerning all light whatsoever, see St. Dionysius, On the Divine Names, chs. 2, 4, and 7.

Verse 5: The Light Shines in the Darkness

ET LUX IN TENEBRIS LUCET, ET TENEBRAE EAM NON COMPREHENDERUNT. — As if to say: Light by its nature is accustomed to dispel darkness by illuminating it, and thus the Word — namely Christ — because He is light, did as much as was on His part. But the darkness, that is, men obstinate in their ignorance, unbelief, desires, and sins, closed the eyes of their mind and refused to admit this light.

Note: Christ, that is God, is the uncreated formal light; but as man, He is also a causal light, because He Himself is for men the cause of all wisdom, grace, and glory — not only giving them the natural light of reason, as Origen and Cyril explain, but even more, giving them the supernatural light of faith and wisdom. Whence by Malachi 4:2 He is called "the sun of justice." See what I said there.

Note: Here Christ as man is called "light," because He shone most brightly after assuming flesh; yet He was also light before that, from the beginning of the world. For just as the sun, before it rises above the horizon, sends forth some rays of dawn by which it illuminates the world, so also Christ. So says St. Augustine in Tract 1 on John. This is what the Father says to Christ: "I have given You as a light to the nations, that You may be My salvation to the ends of the earth" (Isaiah 49:6). And Christ: "I am the light of the world" (John 8). And Simeon says of Him: "A light for the revelation of the nations, and the glory of Your people Israel" (Luke 2:32).

Beautifully says St. Augustine in Homily 43 among the 50: "For this reason, he says, Christ came as illuminator, because the devil had been a blinder." So also St. Gregory of Nyssa in his Oration On the Nativity of Christ: "Purity, he says, dwells in our hearts, but filth does not touch purity, as the Evangelist says: that the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not embrace it." And St. Augustine in Epistle 120 to Honoratus: "The Son of God, he says, is not absent even from the minds of the impious, although they do not see Him, just as no light is seen when presented to the eyes of the blind." The same, in Book I On the Merits of Sinners, ch. 25: "Just as the sun is not comprehended by the blind, although it somehow clothes them with its rays, so the light of God is not comprehended by the darkness of foolishness." Now the light of the Word shines in the darkness of impious men through the light of reason, through the voices of created things, which all cry out that there is a Creator and that He must be venerated and loved; through the law of nature inscribed on the mind; through the new law; through the Scriptures, teachers, preachers, holy inspirations, etc. Whence the same Augustine in Tract 2 on John says: "Do not fall into sin, and this sun will not set on you; if you make a fall, it will make a setting for you." If you wish to see the light, be yourself a light; for if you love darkness and dark desires, they will darken you, indeed blind you.

Note: In Sacred Scripture, especially in St. John both here and in his epistle, faith and the grace of Christ are compared to light, while sins are compared to darkness, on account of many and fitting analogies. For light is the most celestial and noblest natural quality — the swiftest, most efficacious, impassible, and purest, which cannot be defiled by any filth even when mixed with it; bringing splendor, warmth, and joy; making all things visible; bringing life and vigor to all living things. Such also is God and the grace of God; the contrary is found in sins, whose symbol is therefore darkness. Add that grace leads to eternal light and glory, while sins lead to the deepest and greatest darkness. See what I said in 1 John 1:5-6, where from St. Dionysius, On the Divine Names, ch. 15, I listed thirty analogies of light or fire and grace, and eight analogies of darkness and sins. See also what I said about the shadow of death at Luke 1:79 and Isaiah 9:2.

Non comprehenderunt. — In Greek, ou katelaben, that is, they did not apprehend; as Vatablus translates, they did not receive. Whence our Translator, in verses 11 and 12, translates "did not receive." It can also be translated: they did not seize, they did not occupy, they did not anticipate. And then the emphasis is greater, as if to say: The darkness, that is, unfaithful and impious men who were ignorant of God and the way of salvation, upon seeing the light of the Word, should have seized it — indeed, occupied and anticipated it — so that through it they might know God and the way of their salvation. But so great was their blindness and depravity that they refused to embrace and receive the light that freely offered itself to them and surrounded them; rather, they closed their eyes to it and were unwilling to admit or receive it: "For their works were evil," as John says in ch. 3:19.

Verse 6: There Was a Man Sent From God

FUIT HOMO MISSUS A DEO, CUI NOMEN ERAT JOANNES — surnamed the Baptist, from the baptism of repentance which he instituted. "Sent" — namely, as Luke says in ch. 3:1: "In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, the word of the Lord came upon him in the desert, and he went into the whole region of the Jordan," etc. "When you understand, says Chrysostom, that he was sent from God, you should no longer think that anything human was spoken or announced by him, but that everything was divine. For he announces not anything of his own, but the secrets of the One who sent him. For this reason he is called an Angel, that is, a messenger; for it is the office of a messenger to know nothing of himself." So say St. Chrysostom and, following him, Theophylactus. He therefore says that John was sent from God, in order to add the weight of authority to him, and to show that his testimony, to show that it is not so much human as divine.

Verse 7: He Came as a Witness

HIC VENIT IN TESTIMONIUM (to testify, or to be a witness, to bear witness to the truth, namely that Jesus was the Messiah, the Savior of the world), UT TESTIMONIUM PERHIBERET DE LUMINE — that is, to testify that Jesus is the true light of the world, and that from Him we ought to expect and seek all the light of faith and the knowledge of salvation.

Note: although light (lux) is usually distinguished from brightness (lumen), as a cause from its effect — for the light of the sun produces brightness in the air — here, however, "light" and "brightness" are the same thing; for in Greek the same word phos, that is, light, is used for both, which our Interpreter, for the sake of variety, now translates as lux (light) and now as lumen (brightness). Furthermore, in the Greek the article is added: to phos, that is, that light — namely, the spiritual, extraordinary, immense, divine light, shining of itself, which is by itself and essentially light and the fountain of all light, and as it were a certain divine sun, in comparison with which John the Baptist was merely the moon, or the morning star; for just as the morning star (Lucifer) or evening star (Hesperus) goes before the sun, so John went before Christ, as the forerunner of the sun of justice. The meaning is, as if to say: Because the light of the Godhead was hidden in the humanity of Christ — lowly, base, and poor — as if in a dim and shadowy lantern, so that men might not see or recognize it, God therefore sent John to uncover this light, to show it and to testify that Jesus truly is God and the Son of God, and the teacher and redeemer of the world. For, as Paul says, God "dwells in unapproachable light, whom no man has seen, nor can see" (1 Tim. 6:16). Furthermore, the Son is "the brightness of His glory and the figure of His substance (of God the Father)" (Heb. 1:3). He is also "the brightness of eternal light, and the unspotted mirror of God's majesty and the image of His goodness" (Wisdom 7:26). See what I said there.

UT OMNES CREDERENT PER ILLUM. — As if to say: That all who would hear John might believe in Christ as in the light, and believing might be justified and saved. "Through him," namely John, who pointing to Christ with his finger said: "Behold the Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world." Whence Nonnus says: "Through him, that is, through the voice of one herald (John)."

Verse 8: He Was Not the Light

NON ERAT ILLE LUX, SED UT TESTIMONIUM PERHIBERET DE LUMINE. — The Jews and scribes, on account of John's preaching and heavenly life in the desert, thought that he was the light, that is, Christ. John the Evangelist strikes down this notion, as if to say: John the Baptist "was not the light," that is, the Messiah, teacher, and savior of the world; but merely his witness and pointer, who had received all his light of knowledge, prophecy, and grace from Christ. Whence he himself, in ch. 5:35, is called "a burning and shining lamp." "But he did not burn with his own fire, says Origen, nor shine with his own light. He was the morning star, but had not received his own light from himself; the grace of the One whom he preceded burned and shone in him. He was not the light, but a partaker of the light: it was not his own that shone in him and through him."

Verse 9: The True Light

ERAT (another besides John, namely Christ Himself) LUX VERA, QUAE ILLUMINAT OMNEM HOMINEM VENIENTEM IN HUNC MUNDUM. — You will ask why Christ is called "the true light," or, as the Greek more forcefully has it, to phos to alethinon, that is, that light, the true one? I answer: First, because the Word is the first, uncreated, natural, and essential light; while John the Baptist and the other Saints are light only by communication and participation of the Word, because all of them beg the light of faith and grace from Christ, as the moon and planets do from the sun. Therefore, if they are compared with Christ, since they are infinitely surpassed by His brightness, they do not deserve the name of light. Christ therefore alone is light, and He alone deserves the name of light — just as the name of God is Jehovah, or He who is, because He is the true, essential, eternal, and immense being, while all other things draw from Him a particle of their being. Therefore, in comparison with God, they have so imperfect and diminished a being that they seem rather not to be than to be; for they are, as it were, the shadow of the being that is immense in every direction, which is God, who is therefore alone the true being, or ho on, as I said at Exodus 3:14. Whence here in ch. 7:28, Christ says: "He is true (God the Father) who sent Me."

Second, Christ is the true light of the world, because His doctrine and faith is opposed to the false doctrines and errors of pagan philosophers, Saracens, heretics, atheists, etc. For "true light" is pure, unadulterated, sincere, clear, and genuine, which has nothing fictitious, nothing of obscurity, nothing of shadow, nothing of diminished light.

Third, because Christ far more truly and perfectly illuminates us than all corporeal light — so that the metaphor is drawn from it, in which spiritual light is said to alone deserve the name of light, while corporeal light is merely its shadow, as it were. In a similar manner and sense Christ says in ch. 15:1: "I am the true vine," and in ch. 6:55 He calls Himself the true bread. So elsewhere what is perfect, eminent, and excellent is often called true.

Fourth, Christ is the true light because He diffuses His light most broadly and fully in every direction; whence everywhere He is the true light. For, as John explains, he adds: "He enlightens every man coming into this world." For all the faithful and Saints, whenever and however many there have been from the beginning of the world, are, and will be, have drawn, draw, and will draw all their light of faith and grace from Christ. But John the Baptist was the light of Judea only, which is a corner of the earth, and that only in the time of Herod. It is similar with the other Saints. Finally, John and the others taught their hearers only outwardly, with resounding voice, but they could not by themselves and immediately illuminate the mind; but Christ does both. For the voice strikes only the ears, but Christ by His grace strikes and illuminates the mind; whence He alone is said to "enlighten."

For this reason Christ is everywhere called "truth" by John, as when Christ says in ch. 14: "I am the way, the truth, and the life." For in Christ was all truth, and that fourfold: namely, the truth of being, the truth of mind, the truth of speech, and the truth of deed.

Truth lies hidden in secret: thus the true Godhead lay hidden in the humanity of Christ. Yet it cannot always remain hidden. For, as Cicero says in his defense of Coelius: "O great power of truth, which easily defends itself against the talents, cunning, and cleverness of men, and against all the feigned snares of all!" Hence truth can be pressed down, but cannot be crushed — just as the sun lies hidden when covered by clouds, but soon by the force of its rays disperses the clouds and shines forth brightly, so also truth, so also Christ.

Wherefore truth in Greek is called aletheia, from alpha privative and lethe, that is, forgetfulness, because it wards off forgetfulness and because no forgetfulness, no error, no falsehood falls upon it. We draw this truth from Christ, "as from the Father of lights, with whom there is no change, nor shadow of alteration" (James 1:17).

Furthermore, there is a great affinity between the word (verbum) and the true (verum) or truth (veritas). Whence, although some, according to Augustine in his book On the Principles of Dialectic, ch. 6, derive verbum (word) from verberare (to strike), or from verberatus (a striking), so that a word is a blow, because by the tongue striking the air within the palate, a word is formed — yet better do Varro, and from him St. Augustine in Book XV On the Trinity, ch. 11, derive verbum from verum (true) and veritas (truth), because a word is the true image of a thought and of the thing thought and understood. "When therefore what is in knowledge is also in the word, says St. Augustine, then it is a true word and truth." But this is always so in this divine Word, whereas the human word often deceives and is deceived.

ILLUMINAT OMNEM HOMINEM — as much as is on His part; whence those who are not enlightened should attribute the fault to themselves, because they refuse to receive the light of faith and grace offered by Christ. Just as the sun illuminates all who are in a house, as much as is on its part, but if someone closes the window, he will prevent the sun from illuminating him — this will be his fault, not the sun's. For he alludes to the sun, which illuminates the whole world. So say St. Chrysostom, Cyril, Theophylactus, and Euthymius. And this is clear from the foregoing; for he says the same thing as what he said in verse 5: "The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it." He speaks of the supernatural light of grace, although St. Cyril explains it of the natural light of reason. For God has given every man the light of reason, so that through it he may know what is good, what is evil; what is to be embraced, what is to be shunned.

Furthermore, St. Augustine takes these words more strictly, for in order to teach against the Pelagians that grace is not given to all men — namely, congruous and efficacious grace, which would convert, justify, and beatify them — for this reason he interprets "every man" thus: first, second, he explains it thus, as if to say: Every man who is illuminated, is illuminated by Christ; "because no one is illuminated except by Him," says St. Augustine, Enchiridion 194, and book I, On the Merits of Sinners, chapter 25. So we commonly say: This teacher teaches all the boys of this city, namely those who wish to be taught; as if to say: There is no one who teaches in this city except this teacher; therefore whoever wishes to be taught must go to him. In a similar way St. Augustine explains that passage of 1 Timothy 2:4: "God wills all men to be saved." See what was said there.

Second, he means that He illuminates some from every kind of men — for example, some from the Indians, some from the Persians, some from the Africans, some from men, some from women, some from children, etc. — so that the distribution is not for each individual of the kinds, but for the kinds of individuals, as the logicians call it.

VENIENTEM IN HUNC MUNDUM — that is, being born in this world: it is a Hebraism; for the Hebrews are accustomed thus to describe a man, or the birth of a man. The Greek erchoménon can be translated as "coming," namely the light, as if to say: The light coming into this world, that is Christ being born in the world, as far as it is from Himself, illuminates every man. So says St. Augustine, book I, On the Merits of Sinners, chapter 25. For in a similar way it is said of Christ in chapter 3, verse 19: "The light came into the world." And chapter 12, verse 46: "I, a light, have come into the world." However, almost all interpreters, both Greek and Latin, translate it as "coming" in the accusative.

Verse 10: The World Knew Him Not

IN MUNDO ERAT, ET MUNDUS PER IPSUM FACTUS EST, ET MUNDUS EUM NON COGNOVIT. — "He was in the world," namely the Word, or the Son of God; for He, as God, from the beginning of the world was in it by essence, presence, and power, and by His sustaining and governing force and providence over the world, according to that saying of Paul, Acts 17:27: "He is not far from each one of us; for in Him we live, and move, and have our being." So say St. Chrysostom, St. Augustine, and the other Greek and Latin Fathers. Maldonatus takes it differently: The Word, he says, was in the world through the humanity He assumed, after He was made flesh by the incarnation. But he will treat of the incarnation in the following verse.

ET MUNDUS PER IPSUM FACTUS EST. — The word "and" is taken for "indeed" or more forcefully for "because," so that it is causal, as if to say: The Word was in the world because the world was created, preserved, and sustained through Him. For the Word is, as it were, the foundation, indeed the soul of the world, as even the pagan Plato held. Philo wisely says: "It is proper to the Creator to do good, to the creature to give thanks." But the creature itself often forgets its duty; God never does, and indeed is beneficent even to the ungrateful.

ET MUNDUS EUM NON COGNOVIT. — It is a Hellenism; for the translator follows Greek usage, because he translates "Him" (eum), namely the logos, that is the Word; for logos in Greek is of masculine gender, whereas in Latin one should have said "it" (illud), namely the Word. The same occurs in Hebrews 9:2 and elsewhere, as I noted there. John emphasizes the ingratitude of the world, which did not recognize its author, whom it always has present and by whom it was created and is preserved, namely the Word, or the Son of God.

Furthermore, he plays on the word "world." For first he takes "world" properly for the entire universe and all things that are in it, for all these things were made by the Word. When therefore he adds: "And the world knew Him not," by "world" he understands the inhabitants of the world, namely men devoted to the world and not discerning divine things; for these did not recognize their author, namely the Word, or the Son of God. So say St. Augustine, St. Chrysostom, Theophylactus, and Euthymius.

Note here that from the workmanship of the world, God can naturally be known as one in essence, but not as triune in persons, and consequently the Word, as Word, cannot be known from it. Therefore John blames the world, that is, worldly men, because they did not recognize the Word, not as Word, but as God the creator of the world, from the fabric of the world — as one knows the lion from its claw and Apelles from his painting. And thus we answer the argument of Maldonatus, who from these words contends that John is speaking here of the incarnation of the Word, as if to say: Worldly men did not recognize the incarnate Word, namely that Jesus was God and the Son of God; for the same men recognized from the fabric of the world the deity, or the one God, maker of the world. So says Maldonatus. But the answer is that they did not know the Word as Word, or the Person of the Son, as I have said: indeed, many from the fabric of the world did not recognize God its maker. I grant that some, such as the Patriarchs and Prophets, knew the Word, or the Son of God, and prophesied about Him. But these knew Him from a special revelation of God, not from the fabric of the world. Therefore John laments the blindness and ignorance of human weakness after the fall into sin, because with faith it lost the knowledge of its Creator and Savior, namely the Word, or the Son of God.

Verse 11: He Came Unto His Own

In propria venit, et sui eum non receperunt. — The Arabic version has: He came to His own people, and His own people did not receive Him. Whence by "His own" (propria) or "His own people" (proprios), St. Augustine, Cyril, Chrysostom, Theophylactus, and Euthymius understand the Jews; for they were the people belonging to God and dedicated to the worship of God and to the Church.

Better yet, the same Fathers take "His own" to mean the whole world and all the inhabitants of the world. For John says the same thing, and in his customary manner repeats and emphasizes it with other words, as what he said shortly before: "He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world knew Him not." Hear St. Cyril at the Council of Ephesus: "The Only-begotten came to His own, and especially to the Israelites, as soon as He took flesh and was made man."

Et sui. — Not all, but many: for some received Jesus as the Christ, such as the twelve apostles, the 72 disciples, and others up to 500 (1 Cor. 15:6); but these compared to the rest of the Jews, who did not receive Him, were few. This was indeed a great ingratitude and malice of the Jews, and truly no small mortification, contempt, and humiliation of Christ; but the counsel of God was admirable and His judgment inscrutable, so that through the rejection by the Jews, the Gospel would be transferred by the Apostles to the Gentiles spread throughout the whole world, as the Apostle teaches in Romans 11.

Verse 12: Power to Become Sons of God

QUOTQUOT AUTEM RECEPERUNT EUM, DEDIT EIS POTESTATEM FILIOS DEI FIERI, HIS QUI CREDUNT IN NOMINE EJUS — that is, in His name, that is, in Him; for the name of Christ signifies His person. The pronoun "who" refers not to "sons of God" but to "as many as." This is clear from the Greek hosoi, which being masculine, cannot refer to the neuter tekna, that is "children," but to hosoi, that is "as many as." The meaning is, as if to say: As many as received Christ, namely to all those who believe in His name and obey His faith and law, He gave the power to become sons of God. So St. John explains in his first epistle, chapter 5, verse 1: "Everyone," he says, "who believes that Jesus is the Christ, is born of God."

Potestatem. — In Greek exousian, that is dignity, power, faculty, freedom, and right; so that by this very fact, that they receive Christ through faith and the sacrament of faith, that is baptism, or at least through faith formed by charity, which includes the desire or wish for baptism, they are simultaneously in time but subsequently in nature justified, and become and are (for the Greek genesthai signifies both "to become" and "to be") adoptive sons of God through participation and grace, just as Christ Himself is the natural Son of God through His divine hypostasis.

Wherefore Clement of Alexandria, in his Exhortation to the Gentiles, says that Christ by His incarnation changed the earth into heaven, and made men into angels and even gods, and therefore He is the beautiful charioteer who drives the chariot, or two-horse team of the faithful — namely the Jews and the Gentiles — toward heaven and directs them to blessed immortality.

Therefore the word exousia signifies both the dignity of divine sonship and the freedom of our will to embrace it freely through faith. For He does not say: He made them sons of God, but: He gave the power, that is the free faculty, to become sons of God — if, that is, they freely choose to believe and obey. Calvin and Beza deny this; but St. Augustine affirms it in On the Spirit and the Letter, chapter 31: "for we call this power," he says, "where the faculty of doing is present to the will. Whence a person is said to have something in his power, because if he wills he does it, if he wills he does not do it." The same is affirmed by St. Chrysostom, Theophylactus, Euthymius, Bede, and others throughout.

Hear St. Chrysostom: "Just as fire, if it touches metallic earth, immediately turns it into gold, so much more does baptism make those whom it washes golden instead of muddy, since the Holy Spirit, like fire, enters our souls at that very hour, and consuming the earthly likeness, produces that new, bright, heavenly one, shining as from a furnace. And why did He not say: He made them become sons of God? To show that we need much diligence to keep pure and intact the image of adoption imprinted upon us through baptism. Furthermore, no one can take this power from us unless we first take it from ourselves." And shortly after: "At the same time He wished to declare that grace is not poured into us rashly or without our effort, but when we ourselves will it, when we seek it; for it is in our power to become sons of God. Indeed, unless we first show a ready spirit to receive it, neither does the divine gift come to us, nor does it work anything in us. Everywhere, therefore, He shows us a will that is not forced, not coerced, but entirely voluntary and free."

You will say: Faith, no less than the sonship of God, is a gift of God; therefore it is not placed in the will of man. I answer by denying the consequence: for God does not infuse faith, hope, charity, and His other virtues and gifts into men who are unwilling or unthinking, but into those who are thinking, willing, consenting, and freely cooperating. For this is what St. John says here — that God gave the power to become sons of God to those who freely received Christ through faith and obedience, excluding those who refused to receive Him. "The power is given that they may become sons of God who believe in Him, since this very thing is given — that they may believe in Him," says St. Augustine, book I, Against Two Epistles of the Pelagians, chapter 3. And this is given by God when God so illuminates and moves the mind of man by His grace that it freely consents and believes.

Filios Dei Fieri. — How this happens, and how great is the dignity, usefulness, and inheritance of this sonship, I showed at length at Hosea 1:10, on those words: "It shall be said to them: sons of the living God." Whence Cyril says: "Let us ascend to the supernatural dignity through Christ; not however as properly as He, but that through His likeness by grace we may be sons of God. For the nature of natural sonship is one thing, that of adoption is another."

Verse 13: Born of God

QUI NON EX SANGUINIBUS, NEQUE EX VOLUNTATE (the Arabic has: desire) CARNIS, NEQUE EX VOLUNTATE VIRI, SED EX DEO NATI SUNT. — St. John here sets up an antithesis between human generation and divine, in order to demonstrate the superiority of the latter over the former. Therefore, to show the lowliness of human generation by exaggeration, he asserts first that it happens "of blood" (the plural is a Hebraism), that is from blood — both the menstrual blood of the woman, from which when coagulated the fetus is formed, and the seminal fluid of the man; for the seed of man, because it is the residue of the blood-based nourishment, is called blood.

Second, he asserts that it happens and comes about "from the will," that is from concupiscence (for "will" is so taken in Isaiah 58:3, Ephesians 2:3, and elsewhere) "of the flesh" — which elsewhere is said to be from flesh and blood, in which consists the will, that is the concupiscence of man, under which by equal reasoning understand the woman as well. For he explains what the will of the flesh is through "the will of man," as if to say: The will, that is the appetite and concupiscence of the flesh, is the will, that is the concupiscence of man and woman in the act of generation; for the carnal appetite and concupiscence desires and seeks this.

On the contrary, the divine generation of the sons of God is not from blood, nor from the will and concupiscence of the flesh and of man, as is the case with the sons of men, but is "from God," that is from God's will, predestination, election, and love. Again "from God," that is from God's spirit and grace, through which the mind of man, previously carnal, is regenerated and justified, and so man becomes spiritual, just, holy, a friend, indeed a son of God. Finally "from God," because in this justification and regeneration of man, God not only gives him His grace, spirit, and charity and other virtues, but also Himself, so that the justified man truly and properly has dwelling in his mind the Spirit who is like Him, indeed the entire Holy Trinity, and therefore becomes divine, indeed a son and heir of God, and co-heir with Christ, as I showed at length at Hosea 1:10.

St. Augustine here, in Tractate 2, explains the phrase "from the will of the flesh" differently. "He used flesh," he says, "for woman, because when she was made from the rib, Adam said: This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh. And the Apostle says: He who loves his wife loves himself; for no one has ever hated his own flesh. Therefore flesh is used for wife, just as sometimes spirit is used for husband. Why? Because he rules, she is ruled; he ought to command, she to serve: for where the flesh commands and the spirit serves, the house is disordered."

Verse 14: And the Word Was Made Flesh

ET VERBUM CARO FACTUM EST, ET HABITAVIT IN NOBIS. — So the Syriac, Persian, Egyptian, and Ethiopic versions have it literally; but the Arabic says: And the Word was made body. "Flesh" here therefore is the human body, and thence man. Hence Apollinaris the heresiarch denied that the Word assumed a human soul and mind; for in its place he asserted there was the mind of the divine Word, and His very divinity. So reports St. Augustine, heresy 55. But this is heresy; for the faith teaches that the Word assumed, as He assumed true human flesh, so also a true rational soul, and consequently has two natures, complete and unmixed — namely the divine and the human — and consequently has two wills and a twofold mind, divine and human; so that these two natures, with their powers, subsist in the one person of the Word, in which person this union was made — not in the nature — as the Council of Ephesus defined against Nestorius, and the Council of Chalcedon against Eutyches.

From this unity of person there follows first, as the theologians teach, the communication of idioms of both natures, so that in Christ whatever belongs to the humanity and to man, the same is said and predicated of the divinity and of God, and vice versa. For example, we truly say that this man (Jesus) is God, is omnipotent, is the creator, existed from eternity, and conversely that God, or the Son of God, truly suffered, was crucified, and died — because, namely, one and the same divine person is in Christ, God and man, who underwent all these things, though according to two different natures; for actions and passions belong to supposita, or persons, in whatever nature they subsist. Hear St. Augustine, in Dialogue 65, Questions to Orosius, question 4: "The Word was made flesh — not changed into flesh, so that He did not cease to be what He was, but began to be what He was not. For He assumed flesh; He did not convert Himself into flesh. By this flesh we understand the whole man in part, that is, the flesh and the rational soul. And just as the first man had died in both flesh and soul, so it was necessary that through the mediator of God and men, the man Jesus Christ, he be given life in both flesh and soul."

It follows secondly that "the Word was made flesh" — not in the way that water becomes wine, when it is changed and converted into wine; or as food becomes our flesh, when it is converted into it; nor again in the way that gold becomes a statue, namely by an accidental form of a statue being added to the material of gold — but in a similar way to how the soul and flesh joined together become one man. So says St. Athanasius in the Creed: "One," he says, "not by confusion of substance, but by unity of person. For just as the rational soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ." But man is one essentially; Christ, however, is one personally. Or in the way that a man, when a garment is added, becomes clothed. Namely, a new substance was added to the Word, like a garment, but a substantial one, not an accidental one; for the Son of God clothed Himself with the substance of flesh and nature, and joined it to Himself substantially in the same hypostasis of the Word and united it most intimately.

"Flesh" here, therefore, as everywhere in Scripture, by a synecdoche familiar to the Hebrews, signifies the whole man; as if to say: "The Word was made flesh," that is, the Son of God was made man. In a similar way St. John could have said: "The Word of God was made soul," that is, an animated and living man; but he preferred to say "flesh" rather than "soul," in order to show how much God's goodness, out of love for us, emptied Himself for us — namely, that God was made the most lowly and base flesh, so that we, from flesh most corrupted through concupiscence and sin, might become as gods and sons of God, and indeed blood-relatives of God Himself. So say St. Cyril, St. Chrysostom, and others.

"Uniting flesh animated by a rational soul to Himself according to substance," says St. Cyril, epistle 8 to Nestorius, "the Word ineffably became man."

Symbolically the Gloss says: The Word was made flesh, as if changed into milk for the sake of little ones, so that it might become their food, especially in the Eucharist.

Now let us bring each word back to the anvil and examine them more deeply.

ET. — This little word connects this sentence to the preceding ones, partly historically, partly causally. Historically, as if to say: That eternal Word, whose divine generation I have narrated, and which I said was with God, indeed was God Himself, through whom all things were made and created, and who therefore was and is the life of all things — this Word, I say, at the time appointed by God was made flesh, when in the Blessed Virgin He assumed our flesh, and nine months later was born of her, and received the name Jesus. So that the word "and" may be taken for "therefore," "for this reason," "for this cause"; as if to say: The Word was made flesh, that is, the Son of God was made man, for this reason — that He might atone for the sons of men born from blood and flesh in sin, and make them sons of God, as was said above. Whence St. Augustine says: "Lest we should marvel and shudder at so great a grace, and it should seem incredible to us that men are born of God, He said this as if providing assurance" — as if to say: Why do you marvel that men are born of God? Consider that God Himself was born of men. And St. Chrysostom says: "The most beloved Son of God became a son of man, that He might make the sons of men sons of God."

VERBUM. — In Greek ho logos, that is, that Word — namely the eternal and divine Word about which discourse has been held thus far. The Word, I say, remaining the Word, remaining in His divinity, hypostasis, majesty, and divine glory, was made flesh, that is man — that is, He assumed and clothed Himself with human nature. Whence St. Athanasius, in his epistle to Epictetus, gives the similar text of Galatians 3: "Christ was made a curse for us: For just as Christ is called a curse, not because He Himself became a curse, but because He took upon Himself for us the curse (that is, the cross which was held by the Jews to be accursed and execrable); so not because He Himself was converted into flesh, but because He took flesh upon Himself for us, He is said to have been made flesh."

The same comparison with the curse is used to explain the phrase "the Word was made flesh" by St. Gregory Nazianzen, epistle to Cledonius; St. Ambrose; St. Flavian, Patriarch of Antioch (whose words are: "The Word was made flesh, not because it was changed into flesh, nor because God ceased to exist, but because by God's counsel and disposition He assumed flesh"); St. Ignatius, St. Irenaeus, St. Hippolytus, St. Basil, St. Chrysostom, St. Gregory of Nyssa, Amphilochius, and others, whose words Theodoret cites in the dialogue entitled The Immutable, where he refutes those Eutychians who said the Word was changed and transformed into flesh by the incarnation.

Others, however, who said that the flesh was changed into the Word, and that the Word absorbed or consumed the flesh, as the sea swallows a stream flowing into it, he refutes in Dialogue 2, entitled The Unconfused. Finally, a third group, who said that the divinity in Christ suffered and was crucified, he refutes in Dialogue 3, entitled The Impassible.

Finally, hear St. Cyril at the Council of Ephesus: "By the name 'flesh' the whole man must be understood, as when it says: All flesh shall see the salvation of God. And: I did not consult with flesh and blood, Galatians 1. And in the same way 'soul' is sometimes taken, as: In seventy-five souls the fathers went down to Egypt, Acts 7. For they did not mean that naked souls without flesh went down to Egypt. Therefore, whenever we hear that the Word was made flesh, let us understand a man made of soul and body." The same author elsewhere repeats this and adds: "Not by translation, or conversion, or change, with a transformation made into the nature of flesh, nor having a mixing, or blending, or consubstantiation," etc. The same is found in the fifteenth Council of Toledo, which was celebrated in the era 726, which was the year of Christ 688. For the years of Christ follow the Spanish era by 38 years.

CARO — that is, man. He opposes flesh to the Word, as the lowest to the highest, the wretched to the blessed, the most vile, most weak, and most foul to the glorious. For what is more wretched, more base, more weak, more foul than human flesh? — which is far weaker, more wretched, more foul than the flesh of an ass, an ox, a horse, and other animals; and yet the Word of God deigned to lower Himself to such flesh, out of love for us. This is His philanthropy and ecstasy of love, which the Apostle celebrates in the epistle to Titus, chapter 3, verse 4.

Hear St. Bernard, sermon 3 on the Nativity: "The Word was made flesh — weak flesh, infant flesh, tender flesh, powerless flesh; unable to endure any labor or toil." And shortly after: "While He was in the beginning with God, He dwelt in unapproachable light, and there was no one who could grasp Him. For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been His counselor? The carnal man does not perceive the things that are of the Spirit of God; but now let even the carnal man grasp it, because the Word was made flesh. If he knows how to hear nothing beyond flesh, behold, the Word was made flesh; let him hear it even in the flesh. O man, in the flesh that wisdom once hidden is displayed to you; behold, it is now drawn from hidden places and thrusts itself upon the very senses of your flesh. Carnally (as I may say) it is preached to you: Flee pleasure, because death is stationed at the entrance of delight."

The Word, therefore, was made flesh, that is man, when He assumed a man — a man, I say, existing but not subsisting. For He assumed the existing nature of man, but not the person of man; nor did the person of the Word become the person of a man, because this is impossible. The Word, therefore, assuming the essence and existence of man, did not assume his subsistence, but the essence and existence of man — at that very instant of time when it was formed and made by the Holy Spirit, preventing it from subsisting by itself as a person, He joined it to Himself in the unity of His divine person and caused it to subsist in that same person. Therefore the humanity of Christ does not subsist in itself, but in the person of the Word.

FACTUM EST. — Not that the Word was changed into flesh, as Apollinaris wished, according to St. Augustine, heresy 55; nor conversely, that the flesh was changed into the Word, because, as St. Chrysostom says, "transmutation is far from that immortal nature" — for how would flesh become God, that is, how would a creature become the creator? Nor thirdly, that from flesh and the Word, as from two parts, a third nature was formed, just as man is formed and composed from flesh and soul, as Eutyches wished, whose error was condemned at the Council of Chalcedon. Nor fourthly, that the Word was made flesh, that is a subsisting man, as though He assumed not only the nature but also the person, as Nestorius wished — as though "having found a man endowed with virtues, the Word joined Himself to him," says Theophylactus, just as the Holy Spirit joins Himself to the Prophets, the angel Raphael to Tobias, and a demon to sorcerers and magicians. Rather, He united flesh, that is the nature of man, to His hypostasis and caused it to subsist in the same person, the man Jesus, in which God the Word, or God the Son, subsisted.

Furthermore, the Word was made flesh not merely through imagination or appearance and phantasms, as the Manicheans wished, but in reality and in truth — "was made flesh," that is man. Made, I say, not by Himself alone, but by the entire Holy Trinity; for the entire Holy Trinity was the efficient cause of the incarnation of the Word, but in such a way that it was hypostatically terminated not to the Father and the Holy Spirit, but to the Word alone, or the Son, and the Son alone became man. "For the Trinity itself made the Word alone flesh," says St. Fulgentius, book On the Faith, to Peter, chapter 11.

The Word, therefore, clothed in flesh, was like the sun clothed in a cloud, or like fire uniting and igniting iron to itself, or like a glowing coal, says St. Cyril. Whence its type and symbol is the carbuncle, as I said at Revelation 21:20. Again, it was like a pearl in a shell, like lightning in a cloud, like gold in a furnace, like an angel in a body. Furthermore, St. Augustine, book 15, On the Trinity, chapter 11, says: "Just as our word becomes a voice without being changed into a voice, so the Word of God was made flesh without being changed into flesh." And the acts of the Council of Ephesus say: "Just as when speech puts on letters and elements, it becomes visible and tangible; so the Word of God is found to be tangible."

I said more about the incarnation of the Word in the first epistle of St. John, chapter 1, on the words: "And our hands have handled," where I examined the four circumstances of so great a mystery — namely, who, what, why, and for whom — the Word was made flesh. And among other things I showed that it was done for this purpose and for our benefit: that the Word, who before as God was our Father, through the humanity He assumed might become, as it were, our mother, and so He would be called and truly be a matropater, that is, a father-mother. And I added from Damascenus that God assumed man in order that through him He might unite the whole world to Himself and, as it were, deify it; for man is a microcosm, or the sum and compendium of the whole world.

ET HABITAVIT IN NOBIS. — In Greek eskenosen en hemin, that is, He pitched His tent or tabernacle among us, that is, among us, for a short time, as a guest and pilgrim in a foreign land; for He Himself was a citizen, inhabitant, and lord of heaven and paradise, according to that saying of Jeremiah 14:8: "Why should You be like a sojourner in the land, and like a traveler turning aside to stay?" See what was said there. Christ, therefore, by His own example wished to teach Christians that the earth is, as it were, an inn, but the homeland is heaven, toward which, despising earthly things, they ought to strive with all their mind and effort. For this reason He was made man, and dwelt among men on earth as a pilgrim, speaking familiarly with them, associating with them, and teaching them to leave earthly things and aspire to heavenly ones, according to that saying of Baruch 3:38: "After this He was seen on earth, and conversed with men."

St. Chrysostom and Cyril take it slightly differently: "Among us," they say, means in our nature, namely in the humanity which He assumed in order to redeem us.

St. Chrysostom gives the reason: "God the Word," he says, "built for Himself a holy temple, and through it introduced into our life the manner of living brought down from heaven." Theodoret cites and commends these words of St. Chrysostom in the Dialogue The Immutable. The cause, therefore, was this: that He might bring the heavenly way of living from heaven and teach it to men.

ET VIDIMUS GLORIAM EJUS. — In Greek etheasametha, that is, we beheld, as if in a theater a wondrous and new spectacle — namely, that the Word, veiled in flesh, displayed in it the glory of His divinity through miracles, through heroic virtues, through divine wisdom and teaching, etc. So the Apostle says, 1 Corinthians 4:9: "We have been made a spectacle (in Greek, a theater) to the world, to angels and to men."

Hear St. Augustine: "By this birth He made an eye-salve, with which the eyes of our heart might be cleansed. No one could see His glory unless he was healed by the lowliness of the flesh. The flesh had blinded you, the flesh heals you; so the physician came, that from the flesh He might extinguish the vices of the flesh."

GLORIAM QUASI UNIGENITI A PATRE. — The Arabic version has: as of the only one who is from the Father. The meaning is, as if to say: We saw the glory of Christ, such and so great as befitted the Only-begotten, or which showed Him to be the only-begotten Son of God — to whom, as St. Basil says, God the Father gave all glory, all substance, just as parents are accustomed to leave all their inheritance to their only-begotten sons. St. John saw this glory of Christ together with his companions: in the transfiguration on Mount Tabor, in His glorious resurrection, in His ascension into heaven, in the sending of the Holy Spirit, in His heavenly and divine teaching, life, and miracles. Therefore the word "as" denotes not similarity, but truth.

So says St. Chrysostom: "The word 'as,'" he says, "in this place does not indicate similarity or parable, but the most certain confirmation and definition; as if to say: We saw a glory such as it was fitting and believable for the only-begotten and most beloved of all, the Son of God the King, to have." And Theophylactus says: "We beheld a glory not such as Moses had, nor with such glory as the Cherubim and Seraphim appeared to the Prophets; but such glory as befitted the only-begotten of the Father, which naturally belongs to Him. For the word 'as' here is not a word of similarity, but of undoubted confirmation and determination." And Euthymius says: "A glory not such as belongs to the blessed Saints or to the angels, but the glory truly of the Only-begotten; for here the word hos (as) means the same as 'truly.'"

Furthermore, the glory of Christ's divinity shone through and gleamed through the assumed flesh, as through a veil, says Euthymius, who also adds: "And what was that grace of the Word? Certainly the varied miracles never seen before, the resplendent and supernatural transformation, and at the time of the passion the preternatural darkening of the sun, the fearful rending of the veil, the terrible earthquake, the splitting of rocks, the opening of tombs, the raising of the dead, and what is the chief of all — more wonderful than can be said or conceived — the resurrection of the Lord, and after this whatever glorious things the Apostles subsequently witnessed."

"Of the Father" refers to "only-begotten"; for the Only-begotten proceeded from the Father alone. He adds this "because, as St. Bernard says, sermon 2 On Pentecost, everything paternal is what Christ brought us from the heart of the Father, so that the fearful human race may suspect nothing in the Son of God that is not sweet and paternal." More sublimely and more literally, St. Cyril says: "That supernatural nature is firm and immutable, and always remains the same, always equally abounding in its own dignities. Therefore, although the Word was made flesh, it was not overcome by the weakness of the flesh, nor did it fall from its ancient majesty and omnipotence, because it was made man. For we saw, he says, the glory of Christ from God, more sublime than the glory of creatures, so that anyone of sound mind would confess that it could belong to no other than the only-begotten Son of God."

PLENUM GRATIAE ET VERITATIS. — Erasmus and Cajetan join these words to what follows and refer them to John the Baptist, about whom the text next speaks, not to Christ, about whom the discourse had preceded. Thus they translate and connect: "Full of grace and truth, John testifies of Him," namely Jesus, that He is the Christ, because, they say, in Greek it is pleres, that is "full" in the masculine nominative. But this punctuation, translation, and exposition is against all the Fathers, against the perpetual consensus of the Church, and against the punctuation of the Greek, Latin, Syriac, Arabic codices, etc., which consistently place a period after "of truth." Moreover, it contradicts what follows; for John, explaining how Christ is full of grace and truth, adds saying: "Of His fullness we have all received." Nor does it matter that in the Greek text it reads pleres, that is "full," because in many codices plere is found in the accusative, that is "full"; in others to plere is placed in the margin. But if we wish to read pleres, that is "full" in the nominative, then the preceding words must be read parenthetically, in this manner: "and we saw His glory, the glory as of the only-begotten of the Father" — as the Louvain Bible of Hentenius reads — and so the same sense is preserved; for pleres refers to logos, as if to say: The Word made flesh was full of grace and truth.

He alludes to the human word, whose highest praise is to be gracious and true, or truthful. For so the divine Word, not only in Himself as the Word of God the Father (for who would doubt this?), but also as made flesh, or as man, was heaped by God with all the gifts of grace — both sanctifying and freely given — in Himself as in the fountain and head, not by participation, but by Himself and, as it were, by His own native power; and in speech and deed, in all His words and actions, He displayed an extraordinary grace, according to that text: "All marveled at the words of grace that proceeded from His mouth" (Luke 4:22). He was also full of truth, because He exposed all errors and the shadows of the Old Law, and presented the very truth once promised by the Prophets. Furthermore, in Him "are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge" (Colossians 2:3).

Verse 15: John Bears Witness — He Who Comes After Me Has Been Made Before Me

15. JOHN BEARS WITNESS (that is, bore witness) OF HIM, AND CRIES OUT SAYING: THIS WAS HE OF WHOM I SAID: HE WHO COMES AFTER ME WAS MADE BEFORE ME, BECAUSE HE WAS PRIOR TO ME. — He proves those things which I said about the incarnate Word; and that He was full of grace and truth, from the irrefragable testimony of St. John the Baptist; for the Jews regarded him as a Prophet and a divine man, as if to say: Not only did we see Jesus Christ full of grace and truth, but also John, sent by God, publicly testified and affirmed the same about Him.

Hear St. Cyril, at the Council of Ephesus: "John says of Christ, whom he was preaching: He who comes after me, that is, came into the light after me, is prior to me, that is, surpasses me in dignity and glory; but also in His very manner of subsistence, as God He preceded me. How then was the same John both prior and posterior in time? Because the Word was God, and was made flesh: He was therefore prior as the Word, but posterior as man."

AND CRIES OUT. — In Greek ekrage, that is, he cried out; for he himself was "the voice of one crying in the wilderness," Isaiah XL, 23, as if to say: "Whom not he alone heard, but his cry was spread far and wide among all, says Cyril, because not in secret, nor in a low and stammering voice, but more resoundingly than a trumpet;" and, as Chrysostom says, "confidently and freely, casting aside all fear, he preached the coming of God."

THIS WAS HE OF WHOM (de quo) I SAID, — verses 27 and 30, as if to say: John, before he had seen and known Christ, said of Him that He was to come to save mankind; and having seen Him, he repeated and confirmed the same: therefore such a faithful and constant witness must be believed. So Theophylact: "For lest he should seem, he says, to be flattering the person of Jesus by testifying more honorable things about Him, therefore he says: Of whom I was saying, that is, even before I saw Him."

HE WHO IS TO COME AFTER ME (that is, to preach, says St. Chrysostom) WAS MADE BEFORE ME. — That is, He was preferred to me, placed before me in honor, because He was destined by God, and in His baptism was declared the Redeemer of the world, Matthew III. So St. Chrysostom, Theophylact, Euthymius. Whence Bede: What he says: before me, he says, does not pertain to the order of time, but to the distance of dignity." And St. Augustine: "He was not made before I was made (for John was six months older than Christ, and began to preach before Christ), but He was placed before me, that is, He was made before me."

BECAUSE HE WAS PRIOR TO ME. — Because, namely, Jesus existed from eternity, since He is true God and the Son of God. So St. Augustine, Chrysostom, Theophylact, Euthymius. Again prior, that is, prior in nature, worthier in majesty, more excellent in divinity. John does not say: Christ surpassed me by advancing in virtue and grace, says Chrysostom, but "He was prior to me, that is, He was always superior to me, always more glorious," says Cyril, inasmuch as He was true God.

Verse 16: Of His Fullness We Have All Received

16. AND OF HIS FULLNESS WE HAVE ALL RECEIVED, AND GRACE FOR GRACE. — He continues and explains what he said in verse 14, that the incarnate Word was "full of grace and truth;" because from this fullness of His grace and truth, all of us Apostles and Christians, indeed all the faithful before Christ, have received; for Enoch, Noah, Moses, Abraham and the other Prophets and Patriarchs were sanctified and saved through the foreseen merits of Christ. Origen and Theophylact hold that these are still the words of John the Baptist, about Christ. Better, St. Chrysostom, Cyril, Euthymius and others hold them to be the words of John the Evangelist, confirming the preceding words of the Baptist.

OF HIS FULLNESS, — that is, of Him who is most full; for Christ, as the Head of the Church, pours out into all the faithful, as into His members, not His full and entire grace, but a portion of it at His will. "The saints, says Bede, do not receive the fullness of His spirit, but of His fullness, as much as He Himself grants. For from the fullness of the Son, says Cyril, as from an ever-flowing fountain of graces, the gift springs forth into each soul that is worthy." This is what the Apostle says: "He has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ," that is, through Christ, Ephesians I. "For He Himself is the fountain and root of all good things, says Chrysostom, He is the life, He is the light, He is the truth, not containing the riches of good things in Himself alone, but pouring them out upon all, and having poured them out, He remains full; nor is He diminished by supplying others, but He bestows His riches ever more abundantly; and while He imparts these good things to all, He remains in the same perfection."

AND GRACE FOR GRACE. — In Greek, kai charin anti tes charitos; where we must examine the word anti, that is, "for." First, some explain "grace for grace" as if to say: Grace upon grace, that is, we have received all grace from Christ, which the Hebrews express as chen al chen. But the Greek anti is not taken for epi, that is, "upon": whence Ribera refutes this exposition here; but Joannes Alba follows and defends it, in Electorum sacrae Scripturae chapter XIII, and adds that "grace for grace" means copious, abundant and overflowing grace. Thus in the Prophets "wound upon wound" means a very great wound; and "destruction upon destruction" means utter destruction; and "skin for skin," Job I, that is, skin upon skin, meaning a man will give his entire flock and all his herds for his soul and life. Thus far he. Suarez agrees, III part, Question XIX, art. 4, disputation XII, section 2.

"Grace for grace," he says, that is, a second grace for a first grace, that is, we have all received a growing and greater grace, not only men, but also the angels; for Suarez holds that even they received grace from Christ.

Second, Maldonatus explains "grace for grace" as meaning one person received one grace, another received a different grace in its place, as if to say: We have all indeed received grace from Christ, but this one received that grace, another received a different one, and each one's grace is different and distinct from others'. But this too is rather obscure, and does not adequately correspond to the Greek anti, which signifies substitution and succession, not distribution.

Third, St. Augustine, as if to say: We have received in hope the grace of eternal life, that is, beatific glory, in place of the grace of this life, and in reality we shall receive it from Christ after death; for grace is the seed of glory, and conversely glory is the consummation of grace.

Fourth, others say, as if to say: We have received from Christ the Evangelical law in place of the old law; for each is a grace, because freely given by God. So St. Cyril, Chrysostom, Leontius, Theophylact, Euthymius, Jansenius, Ribera. But against this stands the fact that John immediately in verse 17 opposes the law to grace, just as he opposes Moses to Christ.

Fifth, others say, as if to say: "Grace for grace," that is, in the grace of Christ we have all obtained grace, and through Him have been made pleasing to God. Whence Paul everywhere says that we are justified and sanctified in Christ. So Zacharias Chrysopolitanus and Toletus. This sense is apt, but not precise; for the Greek anti, that is, "for," is not taken for "in."

Sixth, therefore genuinely and precisely, the Greek anti signifies two things, namely first and properly, vicarious succession, corresponding to the Hebrew tachat, meaning the same as "in place of," "instead of," "for"; as if to say: In place of the grace of Christ, we, as His successors and children, have received a vicarious and similar grace. For just as the grace of Christ made Him pleasing to God, holy, a friend and natural Son of God; so the same grace makes us pleasing to God, holy, friends and adoptive children of God. So St. Chrysostom, Cyril, Theophylact and others. Second, anti is often, though improperly, taken for "on account of," as if to say: On account of grace, or through the grace of Christ as the fountain and origin, we have received grace; for it explains what preceded: "and of his fullness we have all received," by what follows: "and grace for grace." For grace flows and derives from God, through Christ as the head, to us as members, as the Apostle teaches, Ephesians I. For God willed to establish Christ as the common fountain of grace, from which all grace would flow to the faithful, so that we might owe to Christ all grace and salvation received, and render Him perpetual and immense thanks. For on account of Christ, most pleasing and most beloved to Him, as mediator, God reconciled us to Himself and endowed us with His grace and friendship, according to Matthew III, 17, and chapter XVII, 5: "This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased;" so that no one can please Me except through Him. So Vatablus, Franciscus Lucas and others. Hence it is clear that we receive from Christ the same grace which He has in Himself; the same, I say, in species, but not in number (although some have thought so), for this is unfitting and impossible according to the ordinary law.

Third, the word anti could denote a certain equality; for thus one is called antitheos, that is, equal to God — one who makes himself equal to God and makes himself God, as Lucifer did, and as Antichrist will do: antidosis is an equal recompense and compensation of merits; antitheta are things equally composed and opposed to one another; antitypos is one corresponding from the opposite side, a match and of the same form; antitechnos is a rival who contends with an equal in skill: antipodes are those who stand with equal steps on the opposite side. Thus the sense would be, as if to say: Through Christ we have received a grace quasi-equal to the grace of Christ, because through it we have been elevated and made of the divine order, namely children of God and sharers in the divine nature, II Peter I, 4. Thus the Apostles were quasi-equal and close companions of Christ: whence He Himself calls them brothers, just as the Pope calls Cardinals brothers, and thus in a certain way makes them equal to himself. Therefore the faithful, especially a Priest, a Religious, an Apostle, should think that he ought to live after the pattern of Christ, so as to lead the heavenly life of Christ; so that whoever sees or hears him may think that he has seen and heard Christ in the living image of himself.

Under "grace" here understand truth as well. For he said that Christ was full of grace and truth, and that from the fullness of both we have all received; for through Christ we have received truth, that is, the knowledge of God, faith, prudence, wisdom, understanding of salvation and of divine things; likewise the remission of sins, reconciliation with God, justice, adoption as children of God, charity, humility, meekness, and the other virtues and gifts: all of which are here understood under the name of grace.

Verse 17: Grace and Truth Came Through Jesus Christ

17. BECAUSE THE LAW WAS GIVEN THROUGH MOSES, BUT GRACE AND TRUTH CAME THROUGH JESUS. — He gives the reason why through Christ we received grace for grace; because, namely, Moses, who was the greatest Prophet and lawgiver among the Jews, could only give the law, which taught and commanded the precepts of God, but was unable to confer the grace to fulfill them. Therefore Christ was needed, who would provide the grace to fulfill the law. Whence the Arabic version translates: grace and truth were necessary through Jesus Christ. He therefore opposes and prefers Christ to Moses, and grace and truth to the law.

First, that Moses in the law directly taught only what God wished to be done by the Jews, namely the precepts of the Decalogue, with the promise of temporal goods, namely abundance of grain, wine and oil, if they observed them; but the way of salvation, of penance, of the remission of sins, of justification and sanctity, by which one arrives at eternal life, he did not teach, much less confer. But Christ both taught that way, and actually conferred it through the grace and truth which He brought from heaven. This is what Zacharias sang, Luke I: "To give knowledge of salvation to His people in the remission of their sins." So St. Chrysostom: "Through Christ, he says, grace was made, because with power He forgave sins, regenerated, etc.; truth, because He fulfilled the figures."

Second, in the law there were three kinds of precepts — moral or of the Decalogue, judicial, and ceremonial: to the first two he opposes grace, without which they could not be fulfilled, and therefore made the person transgressing them guilty of present and eternal death; but grace makes it so that the faithful, fulfilling them from love of God, merits eternal life; and to the third, namely the ceremonial precepts, he opposes truth, because the ceremonial laws were types and shadows of Christ and His sacraments, which shadows Christ fulfilled, and thus brought the truth. Whence St. Augustine here: "How, he says, was truth displayed? Because what was promised was accomplished." The same author, book XVII Against Faustus, chapter VI: "The very law, he says, when it was fulfilled (by Christ), became grace and truth: grace pertains to the fullness of charity, truth to the fulfillment of the prophecies;" so also St. Athanasius, sermon 2 Against the Arians.

Third, because Moses gave an obscure and limited knowledge of God and of the Most Holy Trinity, but Christ gave a clear and excellent knowledge. Whence Bede, embracing all these points: "Christ, he says, having been made man, explained what is to be held about the truth of the Trinity, how one is to hasten to its contemplation, by what actions one is to arrive there:" He will also explain when He leads the elect to the clarity of His vision.

John therefore says this in order to lead the Jews from Moses, to whom they clung too much, over to Christ, that is, from the law to the Gospel and its grace.

Symbolically and anagogically: St. Augustine, book XIII On the Trinity, chapter XIX, by "grace" understands the Word itself incarnate in time, and by "truth" the eternal vision of God, to which He Himself leads us. Hear his own words: "For among things that arose in time, that supreme grace is that a man was joined to God in unity of person, but in eternal things, the supreme truth is rightly attributed to the Word of God. And since He Himself is the same Only-begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth, this was accomplished so that He Himself might be present in things done temporally for us, by whom through the same faith we are cleansed, so that we may steadfastly contemplate Him in eternal things."

Verse 18: No One Has Ever Seen God

18. NO ONE HAS EVER SEEN GOD: THE ONLY-BEGOTTEN SON, WHO IS IN THE BOSOM OF THE FATHER, HE HAS DECLARED HIM. — He gives the reason why not Moses, nor anyone else, but Christ alone has taught us the perfect truth about God and divine things: because He alone has seen God, as if to say: These things which I have said up to now about God, about the Word, and about His divinity, creation, life and light, etc., are so sublime that, since no mortal has seen God except the Son of God, and consequently not even Moses; hence no one, not even Moses, but the Son of God incarnate alone could perfectly declare these things. This is clear from what precedes.

So the Fathers everywhere, who from this passage teach that Moses did not see the essence of God, but only a certain luminous body, assumed by an angel, representing the glory of God in some way to the eyes of Moses, as I have shown at length at Exodus XXXIII, 19 and following. St. Augustine teaches the same here, although he holds the contrary, epistle 112, chapter XIII, where he asserts that Moses saw the essence of God. Hear Bede: "No one still clothed in corruptible and mortal flesh can gaze upon the uncircumscribed light of the divinity. Whence the Apostle says more clearly: Whom no man has seen, nor can see." And St. Gregory, in the Catena: As long as, he says, one lives here mortally, God can be seen through certain images, but through the very appearance of His nature He cannot be seen.

Tropologically: St. Gregory, book XVIII of the Morals, last and penultimate chapters, teaches that no one can see God and divine things unless he first dies to this world and its pleasures. For explaining that passage of Job XXVIII: "It is hidden from the eyes of the living;" he adds the reason: "Because, he says, whoever sees wisdom, which is God, dies utterly to this life, lest he be any longer held by love of it. For no one sees it who still lives carnally, because no one can embrace God and the world at the same time. For whoever sees God, by that very fact dies, inasmuch as he is separated in his whole mind from the pleasures of this life, either by the intention of his heart, or by the effect of his works. Whence it is also said to the same Moses: For no man shall see Me and live; as if it were said openly: No one ever sees God spiritually, and lives carnally in the world."

THE ONLY-BEGOTTEN, WHO IS IN THE BOSOM OF THE FATHER. — The Syriac has "in the lap"; St. Cyril, "in the womb" (for the Greek kolpos also signifies this), in Greek eis kolpon, that is, at the bosom, namely at the breast and heart of the Father. It is a catachresis; for by "bosom" is signified the supreme conjunction of the Son with the Father, the communication and knowledge of secrets, as if to say: The Son who is most intimate with the Father, most closely joined and homoousios, that is, consubstantial, and consequently conscious and partaking of all the wisdom, counsels and secrets of God the Father, and therefore knows them most perfectly and intimately; He alone, I say, could fully and completely declare these same things, and in fact did declare them. So St. Chrysostom, Cyril, Augustine, Theophylact, Euthymius and others. Whence St. Ambrose, sermon 18, explains this bosom as being the innermost secret of nature. St. Athanasius notes, book III On the One Substance of the Trinity, that the Only-begotten is said to be in the bosom of the Father, lest through the fact that He was made flesh, He be thought to be divided from the Father, when in truth He remains, and is also with the Father, just as He was in the beginning and always.

Hear St. Chrysostom, who holds that by "bosom" is signified that the Son not only sees, but also comprehends the Father: "Many of us, he says, know God, yet we do not know His very substance as it is, except the Only-begotten alone, who has a certain knowledge and vision and comprehension, such as it is fitting for the Son to have of the Father. For as the Father knows Me, He says, so I know the Father (John X, 15). Wherefore observe with what abundance the Evangelist speaks. For when he had said: No one has ever seen God, he did not continue with: The Son who has seen, has narrated; but he placed something more than seeing, saying: Who is in the bosom of the Father. For he who merely sees does not have certain knowledge of the thing seen; but he who remains in the bosom, all things are clear and certain to him. Lest therefore, hearing: No one knows the Father except the Son (Matthew XI, 27), you should say that, although He has a greater knowledge of the Father than others, He nevertheless does not know Him as He is, therefore the Evangelist says He is in the bosom of the Father: by which one word he shows great knowledge of the substance, closeness, a knowledge equal to the Father's, and power."

He alludes to that saying of David about Christ, Psalm CIX, 4: "From the womb before the daystar I begot You," that is, from My fruitful intellect, as a Word I spoke, and as a Son I begot You. Whence St. Jerome there: "From the womb, he says, that is, from My substance, from My nature, from My innermost being, from the depths of My divinity. Everything that is in the Godhead, He gave to the Son whom He begot." And St. Augustine, on Psalm CIX: "What is the bosom, he says, is itself the womb, and bosom and womb are placed for that which is secret. What does 'from the womb' mean? From the secret, from the hidden, from Myself, from My substance, that is, from the womb." So also Theodoret: "From the womb, he says, that is, from My substance; for as men beget from the womb, and those who are begotten have the same nature as their parents; so You were begotten from Me, and You display the substance of the One who begot You in Yourself."

Furthermore, Jerome himself translates this verse of Psalm CIX thus: "As from the womb the dew of Your youth shall arise for You;" Aquila, "from the womb of the one rising at dawn, the dew of Your childhood for You;" the fifth edition, "from the womb above the dawn, the dew of Your youth for You," that is, from My divinity I begot You as God, according to that saying of the Creed: "God from God." So St. Hilary, Ambrose, Augustine, Athanasius and others against the Arians. Dew is the same to the Hebrews as flower to the Latins. Dew, says Rabbi Solomon, designates the sweetness, cheerfulness, gentleness, and purity of the heavenly generation, just as dew is born from the heavenly dawn.

HE HIMSELF HAS DECLARED. — In Greek exegesato, that is, He made known, clearly set forth, lucidly explained to His disciples, and through them propagated it throughout the whole world, says St. Chrysostom; for exegeisthai means to explain and lucidly set forth hidden and concealed things, as Christ set forth to us the secrets of the Father concerning the Holy Trinity, the Word, the calling of men, grace, beatitude, the resurrection, heavenly glory, the punishments of hell, etc. "The word exegeisthai, says St. Chrysostom, demonstrates a more express and certain doctrine." And shortly after: "Declaration in this place signifies the evidence of doctrine; wherefore He is also called the Word and the Angel of great counsel." And after some intervening words: "What more have we learned from the Son, who is in the bosom of the Father? We have received from Him a far more express and clear doctrine; namely, that God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and in truth, that it is impossible to see God, that no one knows Him except the Son, that the Father is the Father of the most beloved Only-begotten, and many other things."

Verse 19: The Testimony of John — Priests and Levites Sent from Jerusalem

19. AND THIS IS THE TESTIMONY OF JOHN, WHEN THE JEWS SENT PRIESTS AND LEVITES FROM JERUSALEM TO HIM, TO ASK HIM: WHO ARE YOU? — John the Baptist bore witness to Jesus many times, that He was the Messiah, or Christ, both before and after His baptism. John the Evangelist therefore, having omitted the testimony which John the Baptist gave to Jesus before His baptism, since it was narrated by the other three Evangelists, here recounts the testimony of the same about Jesus after he had baptized Him, because that was public, juridical and most celebrated, having been juridically demanded and received by the chief priests and magistrates through envoys sent to John.

The cause of this embassy and question was that the chief priests saw John leading an angelic life in the desert, preaching with such great spirit, baptizing and moving men to repentance, which none of the other Prophets had done. The chief priests therefore thought it their duty to inquire of him who he was; especially because from the transfer of the scepter from Judah to Herod, and from the completion of the 70 weeks of Daniel, they knew that the time of the coming of the Messiah was now at hand. Wherefore they suspected John of being the Messiah. Hence they asked him: "Who are You?"

St. Chrysostom here gives another reason, namely that they asked him this out of hatred and envy of Jesus; for in order to show that Jesus was not the Messiah, they tried to transfer the title of Messiah to John. For they bore it ill that John preferred Jesus to himself and made Him the Messiah. The same St. Chrysostom, homily 11 on Matthew, holds that they asked this out of envy of John, namely because they grieved that John was becoming so illustrious through the sanctity of his life, his preaching and his baptism, and was preferred to them, and was drawing the people from the Scribes and priests to himself. But even if some people's envy was mixed in here, nevertheless the true and proper cause is what I said: for God's plan was to exalt John in such a way as to compel the chief priests to ask him whether he himself was the Messiah, so that when asked he might juridically respond what was the case, namely that he was not the Messiah, but that Jesus was the Messiah, so that convicted by this testimony of John, they would be compelled to receive Jesus as the Messiah, and if they did not receive Him, they would be without excuse.

WHO ARE YOU? — It seems that the chief priests and their envoys, either implicitly or explicitly, asked John whether he himself was the Christ, and said: Who are you, are you the Christ? For in the next verse John, responding to their question, says: I am not the Christ. The Evangelist, however, reports only the first question here, as being the principal one and pertaining to his purpose; namely, that the Baptist in answering it might testify that he was the voice of one crying in the desert, to prepare the way of the Messiah and to point Him out, and that Jesus was the Messiah whom they were seeking. So Jansenius, Maldonatus, Cajetan and others.

Moreover, the chief priests knew that John was the son of Zechariah the priest, and therefore a priest himself; when therefore they ask: "Who are you?" they ask who he is by function, by dignity, by office, as if to say: What function do you hold? What office have you received from God? For what purpose did God send you to preach and baptize? For God was accustomed to entrust greater offices to priests.

Tropologically, let each person frequently ask himself: Who are you? going through each of the categories. First, of substance: You, as to substance, who are you? Let him hear his conscience answering him: The name of God my Creator is: "I am who I am," or "He who is," Exodus III. Therefore my name, who am a creature, is: I am who am not, because of myself I am nothing, but from my nothingness I was brought forth by God and made a man: wherefore the soul and body which I have are not mine, but God's, who created them from His own fullness of being, and gave them to me, or rather lent them to me, that I might use them for His will, love and worship: wherefore it is fitting that I expend and exhaust them in His service. Thus John answers: "I am not the Christ." And St. Francis: Who are You, Lord? And who am I? You are the abyss of wisdom, patience, virtue and every good; I am the abyss of ignorance, weakness, sins and every evil and misery. You are the abyss of being; I am the abyss of nothingness. Hence Christ, appearing to St. Catherine of Siena, said: "You will be blessed if you know who I am, and who you are: I am He who is, you are she who is not."

Second, of quantity. Who, that is, how great are you? If you consider continuous quantity, I am four cubits; for every man has as much in height as he has in breadth if he extends his arms; and arms extended have the measurement of four cubits for each person, as is clear if one folds them and joins them by folding. If you consider discrete quantity, that is, number, I among so many millions of men am one, small and insignificant: therefore it is fitting that I acknowledge my smallness, and humble and lower myself supremely beneath God and the angels; for if Christ was despised and the lowest of men, Isaiah LIII, 3, how small am I?

Third, of quality. Who, that is, what kind of person are you? In body I am weak, wretched, and miserable. In soul I am rational, like the angels; but in sensory appetite and concupiscence I am like donkeys and beasts; therefore let me follow reason, that I may be made like the angels, not concupiscence, which would make me like beasts.

Fourth, of relation. Who, that is, whose son are you? I am the son of Adam, the first sinner, and therefore a sinner: I was born in sins, I live in sins, I will die in sins, unless the grace of Christ snatches me from them, sanctifies and saves me: therefore I will humbly and constantly implore that grace.

Ask Solomon, the wisest, wealthiest and happiest king: Who are you? He will answer you, Wisdom VII, 1: "I too am indeed a mortal man, like all others, and of the race of that earthly one who was first formed, and in my mother's womb I was fashioned into flesh, in the space of ten months I was congealed in blood, from the seed of man and the pleasure of sleep coming together. And when I was born, I breathed the common air, and fell upon the same earth, and my first cry was like that of all others, weeping; I was nurtured in swaddling clothes and with great cares. For no king had any other beginning of birth. There is therefore one entrance into life, and a like departure."

Fifth, of action. Who are you? What do you do, what do you practice? I practice the craft of a smith, a tailor, a baker; I act as a magistrate, a pastor, an advocate, etc. See that you do these things as the divine law requires, namely that you live soberly, rightly and piously in this world, awaiting the blessed hope and the coming of the glory of the great God; that through temporal goods you may so pass that you do not lose, but acquire, eternal goods. Act, study, labor, live for eternity. This do; for this is the whole of man. Hence St. Bernard frequently said to himself: "Bernard, tell me, why are you here?" and by this spur he roused himself to the pursuit of every virtue.

Sixth, of passion. Who are you? What do you suffer? In my body I suffer hunger, thirst, cold, fatigue, heat, illnesses and continual tribulations, so much so that there is scarcely a moment of the hour without this or that, indeed many things at once, occurring for me to suffer. In my soul I suffer far greater and more bitter things: namely, pains, anguish, scruples, sorrows, anger, indignation, darkness, fears, etc., so that I seem to be the target at which all afflictions hurl their weapons, and pierce me with their arrows. Be therefore a diamond of patience, that you may endure all things patiently and nobly, and thus attain the eternal crown of patience in heaven.

Seventh, of place. Who are you? Where are you? I am on earth, situated between heaven and hell, so that if I live holily, I may be transferred to heaven; if impiously, I may be cast into hell, into its fires. Live therefore carefully, cautiously and holily, lest hell, rather than heaven, receive you shortly after death.

Eighth, of time. Who are you? When were you born? How long have you lived? When will you die? I was born yesterday, I live today, I will die tomorrow. "For we are but of yesterday, and we know not, because our days upon the earth are as a shadow," Job VIII, 9. By being born we die; for as soon as we are born, we tend, indeed we run with swift pace toward death. "For a thousand years in Your sight are as yesterday, which has passed," Psalm LXXXIX, 4. Therefore despise all temporal things, which fly past like a bird; love and pursue heavenly things, which endure with God and the angels for all ages, and thus you will be eternally happy forever, and will abide eternally in perpetual joys. "For that we may be blessed and eternal forever, says St. Gregory, book XVIII of the Morals, at the end, let us imitate the Eternal. And a great eternity for us is the imitation of eternity."

Ninth and tenth, of position and habit. Who are you? What position do you have, what habit? Now I stand, now I sit, now I lie down. I wear the habit and garment of a Christian, a Priest, a Bishop, a Religious. See that you live worthily according to your habit and state; for the habit does not make the Christian, or the monk, but purity of life, humility, charity, holiness.

Verse 20: He Confessed — I Am Not the Christ

20. AND HE CONFESSED (the truth), AND DID NOT DENY (did not retract, did not recant); AND HE CONFESSED: THAT (namely) I AM NOT THE CHRIST. — That is, he publicly, plainly and fully confessed that he was not the Christ. For the Hebrews, when they wish to assert and strongly confirm something, repeat the same thing affirmatively and triple it negatively. Hence it is clear that the envoys asked John whether he himself was the Christ; for he answered this: "I am not the Christ." So Nonnus: "The assembled priests, he says, asked with rapid speech: Who are you? Are you the Christ?" Note here the remarkable humility of St. John, who constantly refused the name of Christ offered to him, because he loved the truth and Jesus, to whom the title of Christ was due. "This is the duty of a faithful servant, says Chrysostom, not only not to seek the glory of his master, but even from the multitude to ward off the tribute [of praise]." This was equally his remarkable prudence, by which he preferred "to stand solidly in himself, rather than be carried away vainly above himself by human opinion," says St. Gregory. Worldly men are accustomed to boast and say: I am noble, rich, wise, a magistrate, a Canon, a Bishop. But John teaches us to say: "I am not," because if I am anything, I am so from God.

Verse 21: Are You Elijah? Are You the Prophet?

21. And they asked him: What then? Are you Elijah? AND HE SAID: I am not. — When John denied that he was the Christ, the envoys ask whether he is Elijah; for Elijah was taken up by God, to be the precursor of Christ, whom they expected at this time, according to that saying of Malachi IV, 3: "Behold, I send to you Elijah the prophet, before the great and terrible day of the Lord comes;" namely before the day of judgment, when Christ will return to be the judge of all; but the Scribes did not understand this; for they thought there would be only one coming of Christ, namely the glorious one, which Elijah would precede; as the Jews still think even now, who therefore believe that Christ has not yet come, but expect Him to come with Elijah; although from the same Malachi, chapter xiii, verse 1, they should have known that there would be another precursor of the first coming of Christ in the flesh, namely John the Baptist: "Behold, I, says the Lord, send my angel, and he will prepare the way before my face."

ARE YOU THE PROPHET? AND HE ANSWERED: NO. — In Greek ho prophetes, that is, that prophet par excellence. As if to say: Are you that new and great Prophet, surpassing all others, whom we think will come together with the Messiah, to be His herald? So St. Chrysostom, Cyril, Theophylactus, Euthymius, but they err; for Christ did not need a prophet, as Moses, because he was tongue-tied, needed Aaron, Exodus vii, 1 and 2; but Christ Himself was His own prophet, herald, priest, lawgiver, ruler. Furthermore, John was not a prophet in this sense, because he did not predict future events, but pointed out Christ present and demonstrated Him with his finger: he was therefore himself more than a prophet, as Christ says, Matthew XI.

Verse 22: What Do You Say of Yourself?

22. THEY THEREFORE SAID TO HIM: WHO ARE YOU? THAT WE MAY GIVE AN ANSWER TO THOSE WHO SENT US. WHAT DO YOU SAY OF YOURSELF? — Whom do you say you are?

Verse 23: I Am the Voice of One Crying in the Wilderness

23. HE SAID: I AM THE VOICE OF ONE CRYING IN THE WILDERNESS: MAKE STRAIGHT THE WAY OF THE LORD, AS ISAIAH THE PROPHET SAID, — chapter xl, 3, where I explained this passage. Hear the Fathers interpreting it: "I am a servant, he says, and I prepare the ways for the Lord, your hearts," says Theophylactus. "I come, he says, about to declare that He who is expected is now at the gates, so that you may be prepared to go wherever He commands," says Cyril. Finally St. Augustine: "Does it not seem to you to be the role of a herald to say: Go out, make way?"

Verse 24: Those Who Were Sent Were of the Pharisees

24. And those who had been sent were from the Pharisees. — John adds this to suggest the reason why they examined John the Baptist about baptism, as if to say: These envoys sent to John were Pharisees, and therefore versed in Scripture as well as cunning, crafty, and captious. They knew therefore that the Messiah would indeed baptize for the remission of sins, because Ezekiel predicted this, chapter xxxvi, 25, and Zechariah, xiii, 1; but concerning other Prophets and Saints, that they would baptize, they had not read in Scripture; they therefore ask John by what authority he assumes baptism for himself, especially since he denied being not only the Christ, but even a Prophet. These Pharisees therefore seem to have examined John about Baptism not by order of the chief priests, but on their own initiative, as though somewhat offended by him and envious of his glory, as if he were attributing too much to himself through baptism.

Verse 25: Why Then Do You Baptize?

25. AND THEY ASKED HIM, AND SAID TO HIM: WHY THEN DO YOU BAPTIZE, IF YOU ARE NOT THE CHRIST, NOR ELIJAH, NOR THE PROPHET? — These Pharisees, out of arrogance, says St. Cyril, insult John, as if to say: Neither Elijah, nor Elisha, nor the other Prophets dared to arrogate to themselves the office of baptizing: with what impudence then, with what audacity, do you who are not a Prophet, usurp it and arrogate it to yourself? So also St. Augustine. St. Cyril gives the reason, saying: "For the Pharisees had always been accustomed out of insolence to despise those present, and to honor the one to come with feigned respect, and so that they themselves might be great among the Jews, and accumulate vast riches for themselves, they suffered no one besides themselves to be honored."

Verse 26: I Baptize in Water — One Stands in Your Midst Whom You Do Not Know

26. JOHN ANSWERED THEM, SAYING: I BAPTIZE IN WATER: BUT THERE HAS STOOD IN YOUR MIDST ONE WHOM YOU DO NOT KNOW. — As if to say: God sent me to baptize with water, so that I might stir you to repentance and tears, by which I might dispose you for the baptism of Christ; for He Himself will baptize you with the Holy Spirit, for the remission of sins, as the other three Evangelists express it; and therefore John here passes over and omits this very point.

There has stood in your midst. — As if to say: Christ dwells in your midst, and yet "you" do "not know" Him, that is, you do not recognize Him as the Messiah, but you think Jesus is a mere man, and consider Him poor, lowly, and abject. "See the meekness and truthfulness of the saint," says Theophylactus: "meekness indeed, in that he says nothing harsh to them, although they were insolent; and truthfulness, because he was a most free witness of Christ's glory, and did not conceal the Lord's glory in order to procure distinction for himself."

Verse 27: He Who Comes After Me — Whose Sandal Strap I Am Not Worthy to Untie

27. IT IS HE, WHO IS TO COME AFTER ME (to preach and to baptize), who was made before me, that is, who has been preferred and set above me, as I said at verse 15, as if to say: Christ will come after me, baptizing you, so that by His baptism He may perfect mine, and wash and justify the penitent, as if to say, says Cyril: "By way of preparation I wash with water those polluted by sins, for the beginning of repentance, and in this way I prepare you from these lesser things for higher ones. But the bestower of greater things and of the highest perfection is to come after me," as if to say: My baptism is merely a disposition and preparation for the baptism of Christ, says St. Chrysostom; mine is watery and corporeal, but Christ's is fiery and spiritual.

WHOSE SANDAL STRAP I AM NOT WORTHY TO UNTIE. — As if to say: "I do not deserve to be numbered even among the lowest servants of Christ, on account of the greatness of the divinity recognized in Him," says Euthymius; "For to untie sandals is the office of the lowliest servant," says St. Chrysostom. See what was said at Matthew III, 11.

Verse 28: These Things Were Done in Bethany Beyond the Jordan

28. THESE THINGS WERE DONE IN BETHANY BEYOND THE JORDAN, WHERE JOHN WAS BAPTIZING. — "Bethany." So read the Roman, Syriac, Arabic, and many Greek Bibles, including the Vatican, Bede, Alcuin, the Gloss, and Lyra. But Origen, St. Chrysostom, Theophylactus, Euthymius, St. Epiphanius, and St. Jerome, in his Hebrew Places, read Bethabara instead of Bethany, where Gideon defeated the Midianites. But I answer with Toletus that Bethany and Bethabara are one and the same place, or at least one was near the other, or situated on the opposite bank of the Jordan. This was the place where the Hebrews coming from Egypt first crossed the Jordan under Joshua's leadership, to enter the land of Canaan promised to them by God. For Bethabara in Hebrew means the same as "house of crossing"; Bethany means the same as "house of the boat"; house, that is, place. For at this place boats were kept ready, by which travelers would cross the Jordan. Bethany therefore is here derived from Beth, that is house, and vak oni per k, that is boat. This Bethany was therefore different from the Bethany of Martha and Lazarus. For the latter in Hebrew is written with ain, Beth oni, and signifies the house of humility.

Therefore John chose this place for baptism, both because of the abundance of water, and because it was near the desert, in which he himself was living; also because of the memory of the ancient crossing of Israel made in this very place, and because there was a great concourse of people there on account of the crossing. "Whence even to this day," says St. Jerome in his Hebrew Places, "very many of the brethren, that is, from the number of believers, wishing to be reborn there, are baptized in the life-giving stream," in memory of Christ, who was baptized there by John. This place on the Jordan is four leagues or hours distant from the Dead Sea, or the Lake Asphaltites.

Note: Christ was baptized by John on the sixth day of January; then on the 55th day from the baptism, says St. Epiphanius, Heresy 51, namely on the first day of March, John bore this testimony to Jesus in His absence, that He was the Messiah, or the Christ. On the following day, namely on the 2nd of March, Jesus presented Himself to John, and then John again bore testimony to Him, saying: "Behold the Lamb of God." Whence there follows:

Verse 29: Behold the Lamb of God Who Takes Away the Sin of the World

29. THE NEXT DAY JOHN SAW JESUS COMING TO HIM, AND HE SAID: BEHOLD THE LAMB OF GOD, BEHOLD HIM WHO TAKES AWAY THE SIN OF THE WORLD. — Note: Jesus, having been baptized by John, went into the desert, and there fasted for 40 days, and was soon after tempted by the devil, as Matthew III narrates; from the mountain where the devil, having tempted Him but been defeated, had left Him, He descended and returned to John, so that He might visit and hear the one by whom He had been baptized a few days before; but especially so that John might repeat and confirm to Him when present the testimony that he had given on His behalf when absent before the envoys of the Jews, and might testify before all the Jews that He was the Christ, and point Him out with his finger, so that there would be no room for evasion.

BEHOLD THE LAMB OF GOD. — Nonnus paraphrases it: "and having raised his finger, he pointed out to the people as a witness the one approaching." That word: Behold, is used, says Chrysostom, because many were already seeking Him, and therefore he shows Him present, saying: Behold, this is He, about whom discourse has already been held. In a very brief time, says Cyril, the Baptist became at once both Prophet and Apostle; for the One whose coming he was preaching, this One he now shows as present."

LAMB. — In Greek ho amnos, namely that singular lamb divinely predicted and prefigured by Moses and Isaiah, says St. Chrysostom and Theophylactus. He alludes to Isaiah LIII, 7: "He was offered because He Himself willed it, and He did not open His mouth: as a sheep He shall be led to the slaughter, and as a lamb before his shearer He shall be silent, and shall not open His mouth." And to Jeremiah xi, 19: "And I was like a lamb that is carried to the victim." See what was said there, where I also added that the name Jesus in Greek, Iesous, by anagram with the letters transposed, is the same as hou e ois, that is, you are a sheep. Christ, baptized by John, and by his follower John the Evangelist, is frequently called "lamb" in the Apocalypse: first, because He was prefigured by the paschal lamb, and by the perpetual sacrifice in which a lamb was immolated to God in the temple every morning and evening, and by other lambs that were sacrificed according to the law for sin, yet could not abolish sin, and so they represented Christ, who was to abolish it by His blood. So Origen, St. Cyril, Euthymius.

Second, because Christ was called a lamb by Isaiah and Jeremiah, to be offered for the redemption of the world. So St. Chrysostom, Cyril, Theophylactus, Euthymius.

Third, He is called a lamb because of His supreme and lamb-like innocence, meekness, patience, and obedience unto death, which He endured silently in the manner of a lamb. So St. Augustine. Whence St. Peter, Epistle I, chapter ii, 22: "Who, he says, committed no sin, nor was deceit found in His mouth: who, when He was cursed, He did not curse in return; when He suffered, He did not threaten." Hence also St. John in the Apocalypse delights in the word lamb, and takes sweet delight in Christ as a lamb, and from Him drinks in lamb-like simplicity, purity, and meekness, so as to teach us to do the same by word and example.

Now Christ is called the Lamb of God, that is, not of sheep, but the Son of God, because by God, that is, by the command and will of God, He was immolated for the redemption of mankind: just as it is called the sacrifice of Abraham, which Abraham offered, says Theophylactus, Euthymius, and Maldonatus. Or because He was offered and immolated to God Himself. Or "of God," that is, divine, because of the divinity that was in Him. Or, as Clement of Alexandria, Book I of the Pedagogue, chapter v, and from him Toletus, on chapter 1 of John, because for our sake He became the child and infant of the Father; for we call children lambs. The words of Clement are: "Since Scripture calls children and infants lambs, it called God who is the Word, who for our sake became man, who wished to be made like us in all things, the Lamb of God, the Son of God, the infant of the Father," as if to say: Christ is the Lamb of God, that is, the Son of God; for lamb denotes a son.

Furthermore, Christ, with regard to fortitude, victory, kingdom, and triumph, is the lion of the tribe of Judah; with regard to gentleness and purity, He is a lamb, and through the latter He became a lion; for He was Himself a lamb in His passion, a lion in His resurrection.

WHO TAKES AWAY THE SIN, — both as regards the stain which sin imprints on the soul after the act; and as regards the guilt of punishment and hell, to which it makes the sinner liable and guilty: "He takes away," I say, by taking upon Himself its expiation and punishment, and thus by His death on the cross satisfying for sin according to justice and equity. John says this lest anyone think that Christ came to His baptism in order to wash away His own sins by it, as the others did, since He had no sin, and was most innocent and most holy, and therefore had been made by God a victim for the sins of the whole world, so that He might expiate all sins and sanctify all who believe in Him and repent. "He who did not take upon Himself sin from our mass," says St. Augustine, "He it is who takes away our sin."

The sin. — So the Greek, Roman, and Syriac texts read, although some read with the Arabic, sins in the plural; but the meaning comes to the same thing. By "sin" he means the first and universal sin of Adam, namely original sin, which he transmitted to all his descendants through generation, and from which all other actual sins, both venial and mortal, arise. Christ therefore takes away "sin," that is, the whole mass and wellspring of sins. So Theophylactus, Bede, St. Thomas, the Gloss, Jansenius, and others, according to that saying of Isaiah LIII, 6: "The Lord laid upon Him the iniquity of us all, etc., and He Himself shall bear their iniquities." And that: "He is the propitiation for our sins, not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world," 1 John II, 2. "One slain for all," says Cyril, "so that He might gain the whole human race for God the Father." For there is in Christ an unfailing power of expiating sins, through all ages, for all men who are willing to receive His faith, baptism, and repentance.

Verse 30: This Is He of Whom I Said — After Me Comes a Man

30. This is He of whom I said (verses 15 and 27): After me COMES A MAN, WHO WAS MADE (set) BEFORE ME: BECAUSE HE WAS PRIOR TO ME, — inasmuch as He is the eternal and true God. "The Baptist," says Cyril, "freely and spontaneously yields to the glory of Christ, and does this not more out of charity than out of truth, and indeed out of necessity."

Verse 31: I Did Not Know Him — That He Might Be Made Manifest in Israel

31. AND I DID NOT KNOW HIM, BUT THAT HE MIGHT BE MADE MANIFEST IN ISRAEL, THEREFORE I CAME BAPTIZING IN WATER. — As if to say: Do not think, O Scribes and Jews, that I assert Jesus to be the Messiah because of familiarity, kinship, or favor, as if I were or had been His familiar friend; for I assure you that I "did not know Him," because I never saw Him before, nor spoke with Him before the baptism; but when I saw Him, I recognized Him by God's inspiration and prompting, as I said at Matthew III, 14. "What wonder," says St. Chrysostom, "if he did not know Christ, since he had been living in the desert, away from his father's house, from boyhood?"

BUT THAT HE MIGHT BE MADE MANIFEST IN ISRAEL, — to the Jews, to whom the Messiah was promised through the Prophets, "so that all might be brought to faith in Him," says Theophylactus. Whence Nonnus paraphrases: "but so that He Himself, having an unknown face, might be manifested to all the children of Israel (of the patriarch Jacob), who were without a leader, I came as a precursor of the unproclaimed way, baptizing the untaught, ignorant, wandering people."

Verse 32: I Saw the Spirit Descending Like a Dove and Remaining Upon Him

32. AND JOHN BORE TESTIMONY, SAYING: I SAW THE SPIRIT DESCENDING LIKE A DOVE FROM HEAVEN, AND HE REMAINED UPON HIM, — namely at Christ's baptism. See what was said at Matthew III, 16. Nonnus renders it: "he gave testimony, that he had seen the Spirit of God descending from the ethereal heights, borne with a prudent flutter and vibration of wings, in the express likeness of a dove, until He came upon Him, and there remained."

Verse 33: He Who Sent Me Said — He Upon Whom You See the Spirit Descending Baptizes in the Holy Spirit

33. AND I DID NOT KNOW HIM: BUT HE WHO SENT ME TO BAPTIZE IN WATER, HE SAID TO ME: HE UPON WHOM YOU SHALL SEE THE SPIRIT DESCENDING, AND REMAINING UPON HIM, HE IT IS WHO BAPTIZES IN THE HOLY SPIRIT. — "In water;" Nonnus: "to baptize with washings not fiery and lacking the spirit." Again and again the Baptist repeats that he knew Jesus to be the Christ not from sight and conversation, but from God's revelation, so that no one would dare to contradict his testimony. So St. Cyril.

Note the word remaining. For from this it is clear that it was proper to Christ to have all the graces of the Holy Spirit, and prophecy by way of habit; but in others only those gifts remain which are necessary for the holiness of life, according to that saying of John iii: "He shall abide with you." So St. Jerome, in Jeremiah chapter xxviii, and Ezekiel xxxv; St. Gregory, Homily 1 on Ezekiel, and others. See Suarez, Treatise on Faith, disputation 8, section 6, number 6.

Verse 34: I Have Borne Witness That This Is the Son of God

34. AND I SAW (the Holy Spirit descending upon Jesus when He was being baptized by me, and remaining), AND I BORE TESTIMONY, THAT THIS IS THE SON OF GOD. — In Greek ho huios, that is, that Son, namely the natural, divine Son, consubstantial with the Father, and therefore heir of all the Father's honors, says Cyril, to whom we are conformed through adoption, invited to such dignity by His grace."

Verse 35: The Next Day John Stood Again with Two of His Disciples

35. THE NEXT DAY (the day after) JOHN WAS STANDING AGAIN, AND TWO OF HIS DISCIPLES. — The Evangelist says that John the Baptist, on three consecutive days, bore testimony to Jesus three times, that He was the Christ, in order to firmly establish and solidify it. For the first he gave an authentic and juridical testimony when asked by the envoys of the Jews, on the first day of March, verse 19; the second he gave on the following day when Jesus was coming and already present, on the 2nd of March, verse 29; the third he gives here on the 3rd of March, before his own disciples, so as to lead them over to Jesus. See the Chronotaxis, numbers 10 and 11.

Verse 36: Behold the Lamb of God — He Points Christ Out to His Disciples

36. AND LOOKING UPON JESUS WALKING, HE SAYS: Behold the Lamb of God. — As if to say: Behold Christ, like an immaculate lamb, destined as a victim, to be immolated to God on the cross for the sins of the whole world. For just as the paschal lamb was roasted stretched out on a spit, so Christ stretched out on the cross was roasted, both by the pain of the nails and even more by love for the elect. The Baptist says this, as if saying to his disciples: Why do you follow me? Follow Him, who is the Lamb of God, the price of the world, says the Interlinear Gloss. So also St. Augustine, Chrysostom, and others. Whence note the prudence and modesty of John, who does not compel or urge his disciples to follow Christ, but merely points Him out to them, so that they, having recognized so great a good, might more ardently follow Him of their own accord and more steadfastly hold on to Him; just as one who tells merchants the value of a gem that is being sold cheaply, causes them to eagerly pursue and purchase it. Whence Chrysostom: "With no exhortation at all (for that would have been suspicious), but by hearing alone they followed."

Verse 37: The Two Disciples Heard Him and Followed Jesus

37. AND THE TWO DISCIPLES HEARD HIM SPEAKING, AND THEY FOLLOWED JESUS. — Chrysostom objects: "And yet there were also other disciples of John. But they not only did not follow, but were jealous of" the honor of John their master, and preferred him to Christ, as is clear from chapter III, 26. And Euthymius: "Among many hearers," he says, "these alone are said to have heard, namely with the ears of the soul, since the others had certainly heard with the ears of the body."

Two. — Of whom one was Andrew, as is clear from verse 40; the other is unknown. Now St. Chrysostom says: Why is the name of the other not given? Because it is the one who writes (John), or because that person was not notable. The former is more likely, says Francisco Lucas: and it supports this that John and James were partners in fishing with Peter and Andrew, Matthew IV, where shortly after Andrew and Peter, Christ calls to Himself John and James. Likewise, John delights in calling Christ the Lamb in the Apocalypse, as one who had heard and imbibed this name from his master John the Baptist. Finally, so great a purity, virginity, and holiness of St. John the Evangelist seems to have flowed from the purity and holiness of John the Baptist. St. Epiphanius adds, Heresy 51, who asserts that the other of these two was John, or his brother James, that is, one or the other of the sons of Zebedee. Theophylactus, Euthymius, and St. Cyril, in the Catena, also think it was John. But Alcuin in the Catena of St. Thomas says: The other was Philip. But Philip was called by Christ, verse 43, in Galilee.

They followed Jesus. — So that they might know Him more fully, says Euthymius, and might form a friendship with Him, and, if they found Him suitable, might plainly follow Him, to become His perpetual disciples; for that they had not yet devoted themselves entirely to Christ here, but only wished to test Him, is clear from what follows.

Allegorically Bede says: Following Jesus, they left John; following the Gospel, they lost the Law: yet they so followed the Gospel that they made use of the testimony from the Law.

Verse 38: Rabbi, Where Do You Dwell?

38. But Jesus, turning around and seeing them FOLLOWING HIM, SAYS TO THEM: WHAT DO YOU SEEK? THEY SAID TO HIM: RABBI (WHICH MEANS, INTERPRETED, MASTER), WHERE DO YOU DWELL? — "What do you seek?" This is the voice not of one who does not know, but of one who invites, and who relieves their bashfulness. Hear Cyril: "He asks what they were seeking, not because He did not know, since He knew all things as God, but so that the question might become the beginning of conversation." So St. Chrysostom: "He who searches human hearts," he says, "asks, not to learn (for He knows): but that by asking He might win them to Himself, might make them familiar and bolder, and might show that He deigns to converse with them. For it was likely that they were timid and fearful, since they knew themselves to be unlearned, and had received only the testimony of their master about Him."

RABBI. — The Syriac has Rabboni, that is, our master; the Arabic, Rabban, that is, master. With this word the disciples honor Christ, and win His favor for themselves, and indicate that they wish to become His disciples. So Bede: "The very question," he says, "is a sign of faith; for when they say: Rabbi, which is understood as master, and follow Him, they certainly follow and address a master." "They called Him Master," says Cyril, "from whom they desired to learn." And Chrysostom: "Not only from the fact that they followed, but also from their question, their desire is shown. For although they had not yet seen or heard anything great from Him, they call Him master, number themselves among His disciples, and show why they follow: namely, so that they might gather something useful."

WHICH MEANS, INTERPRETED, MASTER. — These words are not those of the disciples, but of John, interpreting their Hebrew word, Rabbi, for the Greeks and Latins, who do not know Hebrew.

WHERE DO YOU DWELL? — In Greek pou meneis, that is, where do you stay, where do you lodge? For Christ had a lodging on earth, not a proper dwelling and house, according to that saying of Matthew viii, 20: "Foxes have dens, and the birds of the sky have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay His head." The disciples ask this so that they might converse privately with Christ at home and be instructed by Him about divine matters and those things that pertain to a more perfect life, and they indicate that they wish to become His close associates and members of His household. So St. Chrysostom, Theophylactus, Euthymius.

Verse 39: Come and See — They Stayed With Him That Day

39. HE SAID TO THEM: COME, AND SEE. THEY CAME, AND SAW WHERE HE WAS STAYING, AND THEY STAYED WITH HIM THAT DAY: NOW IT WAS ABOUT THE TENTH HOUR, — from sunrise, that is, the fourth hour after noon, and the second before sunset, which among the Italians is the twenty-second hour. For it was the third day of March, as I said at verses 28 and 35, when the equinox is not far off, at which days and nights are equal, and the day is twelve hours long, and the night likewise. John adds this to show both the zeal of Christ, who, with night approaching, did not wish to put them off to the following day, but immediately transacted with them the business of salvation; and equally the ardor of the disciples toward Christ, who, not concerned about lodging for the night, preferred to spend the night listening to Christ rather than lying down at home in bed. So Euthymius. For that they remained with Christ, not for only the two remaining hours of daylight, as some think, but for a whole natural day, which includes the night, and therefore through the entire night, is clear from the fact that in the two remaining hours of daylight they could neither sufficiently converse with their Christ, nor fully know Christ, nor return to John before nightfall. "For it is not fitting," says Cyril, "that we should quickly become sated and depart from divine teaching."

Furthermore, what great things they heard from Christ, what affections of piety they drank in, what fires of charity breathed from Christ they felt, only those know who have experienced it. Whence St. Augustine exclaims: "What a blessed day they spent, what a blessed night! Who is there to tell us what they heard from the Lord?" Certainly one may estimate it from the effect. For Andrew was so kindled with love of Christ that he immediately strove to gain his brother Peter for Christ and to kindle him with the same love, as is clear from the following verse.

Verse 40: Andrew, the Brother of Simon Peter, Was One of the Two

40. NOW ANDREW, THE BROTHER OF SIMON PETER, WAS ONE OF THE TWO WHO HAD HEARD FROM JOHN (saying of Jesus, Behold the Lamb of God) AND HAD FOLLOWED HIM — namely Jesus. John introduces this to show by what means Peter, who was the prince of the Apostles and the head of the whole Church, was brought to Christ; namely that Andrew, joyful at having found and heard Christ, brought to Him his brother Peter, whom he loved dearly, so that he might make him a sharer of so great a good. Therefore the sign and effect of divine calling is this zeal, by which one strives and burns to make others, especially one's closest friends, partakers of the same blessing and to lead them to God. For just as fire begets fire, so zeal begets zeal. Furthermore, it seems that Peter, as well as Andrew, was a disciple of John the Baptist, or at least an eager listener: which of them was older is unknown. To Andrew therefore belongs the honor and praise of Peter's conversion.

Verse 41: We Have Found the Messiah

41. He found (the one he was eagerly seeking; the Syriac has: he saw, on the day after that day on which he had stayed and spent the night with Christ, verse 39) FIRST (before other friends and acquaintances) HIS BROTHER SIMON, AND HE SAYS TO HIM: WE HAVE FOUND THE MESSIAH (WHICH IS INTERPRETED, THE CHRIST). — As if to say: The Hebrew name Messiah, if you interpret it in Greek, is the same as Christus, that is, in Latin, the Anointed One, namely anointed not with a corporeal anointing, but with spiritual grace, both of the hypostatic union and of supreme habitual grace, by which He was created and, as it were, consecrated by God: first, as priest; second, as teacher; and third, as prophet; fourth, as king; fifth, as lawgiver; sixth, as redeemer of the world. In Greek ton Messian, that is, that Christ, that Anointed One, whom, namely, as the supreme, unique, and singular Prophet, promised by the Prophets, as the restorer of Israel, all most eagerly await. So Euthymius.

WE HAVE FOUND (namely, I together with my companion) THE MESSIAH, — whom you and I most eagerly await, seek out, and search for. It seems therefore that Andrew, as well as Peter, was burning with desire to see Christ, partly from the oracles of the Prophets, and partly from John's testimony about Christ already born; for, as Bede says: "No one finds unless he seeks; this one who says he has found, shows that he sought for a long time." And St. Chrysostom: "This word, we have found, he says, is that of a soul most greatly desiring His presence, and expecting His coming from heaven: who, exulting at His coming, longs to make others partakers of the Gospel. This is the duty of a brotherly soul, of kindred love, of sincere affection, that in spiritual matters we should apply the most diligent care and mutually help one another." Euthymius, following Chrysostom as usual: "The language," he says, "is that of one greatly rejoicing: We have found the one we were seeking, the one we hoped would come, the one whom the Scriptures proclaimed." Andrew therefore, together with his companion, overflowing with joy at having found the Christ as if at the greatest happiness, in order to share the same with his brother Peter, exclaims: "We have found the Messiah." Wherefore, "they no longer returned to John," says St. Chrysostom, "but were so attached to Christ that they took up the ministry of John, and themselves preached Christ."

From this we learn morally that God through His grace comes to meet the soul that desires Him, and fills it the more, the more it desires and thirsts for Him; indeed, God usually first sends into the soul this very desire for Himself, so that through it He may prepare the soul for Himself and His gifts, and make it capable of them. For just as the larger a vessel is, the more wine or oil it can hold; so the greater the desire for God and virtue in the soul, the more capable it is of receiving Him, according to that saying of Lamentations III, 25: "Good (beneficent, generous) is the Lord to those who hope in Him, to the soul that seeks Him."

Verse 42: You Are Simon — You Shall Be Called Cephas

42. AND HE BROUGHT HIM TO JESUS. — "It is credible," says St. Chrysostom, "that Andrew had prepared many arguments suited to persuasion, and the other disciple was also present, who helped in this: but Andrew, since it was not his role, and he was not adequate to narrate so great a light, brought his brother to the very source he had found." Now Peter's soul at these words, like fire in the presence of straw, blazed up with desire to see and hear Christ. Whence St. Chrysostom continues: "Consider," he says, "the obedient and well-disposed soul of Peter from the beginning: he ran immediately without delay. He brought him, it says, to Jesus; but let no one condemn his excessive readiness to believe; for it does not say that he was immediately persuaded, but only that he was brought to Jesus, so that he might learn everything from Him."

BUT JESUS, LOOKING UPON HIM (as a subject fit for proclaiming and illustrating His glory, and therefore destining him as His successor and vicar, namely as the Pontiff of the Church), SAID: You are Simon, the Son of Jona: YOU SHALL BE CALLED CEPHAS, WHICH IS INTERPRETED PETER. — The father of Simon Peter was therefore called Johanan, or John, and by crasis, Jona; just as Jehoscua is contracted into Josue and Jesus. So Nonnus and others. Christ says this in order to reveal hidden things to Peter, and to show Himself aware of them, and therefore a knower of hearts, and God. For, as Cyril says, "before He had asked anything about him, He calls both him and his father by name, and by this He teaches the disciple that He is the One who knows all things even before they happen."

YOU SHALL BE CALLED CEPHAS. — Christ promises Simon the name Cephas, that is, Peter, as if to say: I, O Simon, will give you another name; I will call you Cephas, that is, Rock, or Peter, because I will make you the rock of the Church, so that upon you and your faith, as well as your governance, as upon a most solid rocky foundation, the most firm structure of My Church may rest. Christ fulfilled this promise, Matthew xvi, 18, saying: "You are Peter, and upon this rock (that is, upon you, whom I call Cephas, that is, rock) I will build My Church." See what was said there. So St. Cyril.

Verse 43: Jesus Goes to Galilee and Calls Philip — Follow Me

43. In crastinum voluit (Jesus) exire in GALILAEAM, — On the next day Jesus wished to go forth into Galilee, so that from there He might call lowly and unlearned fishermen, whom He would make His Apostles and preachers of the Gospel, lest the Christian faith be thought to be the work of men, not of God. For the Apostles were Galileans; and the Galileans were poor and ignoble compared with the Judeans, who were descended from Judah, which was the royal tribe. So St. Chrysostom, Euthymius, and others.

ON THE NEXT DAY, — namely on the day after that day on which He had received Andrew and his companion as guests, which was the 3rd of March, as I said at verse 35. Therefore on the next day, that is, on the 4th of March, Jesus went into Galilee, and called Philip; for John here carefully records each day of Christ's actions, and narrates what was done by Him on each day.

AND HE FOUND PHILIP. — Not by chance or accident, but going by deliberate plan to the place where He knew Philip to be: there He found the one He was eagerly seeking, because He destined him to be an Apostle.

AND JESUS SAYS TO HIM: FOLLOW ME. — This is the first exterior calling by Christ; for Peter and Andrew were first called interiorly through an internal inspiration, not exteriorly through an external voice of Christ, but having heard the voice of John the Baptist, their master, saying of Christ: "Behold the Lamb of God," they approached Jesus of their own accord and spontaneously, not called by Him, intending to explore His teaching and life, but not as certain and stable future disciples of His. So Toletus. To Philip therefore belongs this honor and this praise, that he was the first of all to be called exteriorly by Christ saying: "Follow me," and, with the Holy Spirit interiorly impelling his mind, obedient to this calling, he immediately followed Christ, because he was a student of the Mosaic law and concerned about the coming of Christ, says Theophylactus, and as St. Chrysostom says, "most diligent in searching out the truth."

Whence St. Augustine, Book II On the Harmony of the Gospels, chapter xvii: "Philip," he says, "was already following, whom He had thus called by saying to him: Follow me." Theophylactus gives the reason, the attractive power of Christ's voice: "For it seems," he says, "that first the Lord's voice touched his soul with a certain stimulus of charity. For the Savior's voice was not spoken in a simple manner, but immediately made worthy souls burn inwardly with love for Him, just as Cleophas also said: Was not our heart burning within us, when He spoke to us on the road?"

Furthermore, Clement of Alexandria, Book III of the Stromata, chapter ii, firmly asserts that Philip was the one who, asking Christ and saying: "Lord, permit me first to go and bury my father," received this response from Christ: "Follow me, and let the dead bury their own dead," as I discussed at Matthew VIII, 22.

Verse 44: Philip Was from Bethsaida, the City of Andrew and Peter

44. NOW PHILIP WAS FROM BETHSAIDA, THE CITY (homeland) OF ANDREW AND PETER. — John adds this, says Theophylactus, to suggest that Andrew and Peter had previously informed Philip, as their fellow citizen and neighbor, that they had found the Messiah, and that He was Jesus of Nazareth. Therefore when Philip was soon after called by Christ, and heard from Him: "Follow me," he immediately followed Him, because he was already prepared in soul and eager for Christ. Francisco Lucas asserts the same to be probable. For Christ was accustomed to send ahead disciples who would prepare the way for Him and make listeners ready for His coming.

Furthermore, Bethsaida was situated by the Sea of Galilee, near Chorazin and Capernaum, in which Peter and Andrew had a house, which Christ entered and freed Peter's mother-in-law, who was lying in bed with a severe fever, and taking her by the hand raised her up restored to health, Matt. 8. This therefore was the homeland of three Apostles, Peter, Andrew, and Philip, called Bethsaida, in Hebrew meaning roughly "house of hunting" or "of fishing," because fishermen lived there who hunted and caught fish in the nearby sea, such as Peter and Andrew were.

Verse 45: Philip Finds Nathanael — We Have Found Him of Whom Moses Wrote

45. PHILIP FOUND NATHANAEL, AND SAID TO HIM: HIM OF WHOM MOSES WROTE IN THE LAW, AND THE PROPHETS, WE HAVE FOUND — JESUS, THE SON OF JOSEPH, FROM NAZARETH. — "He found him not by chance," says Cyril, "but after much searching; for he knew him to be a man most studious and most diligent in the Scriptures." He found him, it seems, in Cana of Galilee (for Nathanael was originally from there, as is clear from John 21:2), namely when Philip, having been called with Jesus to the wedding, went to the same place, as we shall hear in chapter 2, verse 1.

NATHANAEL, — his friend and familiar companion. You will ask who this Nathanael was.

First, Claudius Espencaeus, writing on the Second Epistle to Timothy, chapter 4, digression 25, says that some think Nathanael was Urcissinus, or Ursinus, the first Bishop of Bourges.

Second, the Greeks, in the Menologion, assert that Nathanael was the same person as Simon the Canaanite, the Apostle; for thus they say on April 22: "Of the holy Apostle Nathanael, who was Simon the Zealot, from Cana of Galilee, where Christ, invited to the wedding, turned water into wine." They say the same on May 10. This opinion is supported by the fact that Nathanael was originally from this Cana, John 21:2.

Third, more probably Rupert and Jansenius here, and Abulensis, on Matthew chapter 10, verse 3, at the words "Philip and Bartholomew," hold that Nathanael was the Apostle Bartholomew. They prove this by six conjectures: First, because the Evangelists always join Philip with Bartholomew, just as here John joins the same with Nathanael; second, because we nowhere read of Bartholomew's calling by Christ, unless it be this very calling of Nathanael; third, because the other three Evangelists, who mention Bartholomew, do not mention Nathanael, and conversely John, who mentions Nathanael, does not mention Bartholomew, as if these two were one and the same; fourth, because John, chapter 21, verse 2, associates Nathanael with Peter, Thomas, James, and John the Apostles in the fishing and the vision of Jesus: therefore he too seems to have been an Apostle, and it does not appear who else he could have been but Bartholomew; fifth, because Bartholomew does not seem to be a proper name, but to signify "son of Tolmai": therefore his proper name seems to have been Nathanael; for thus Barjona, that is "son of Jonah," was the name given to Peter, who by his proper name was called Simon, and then by Christ was called Cephas, that is Peter; sixth, because of Nathanael Christ says: "Behold truly an Israelite, in whom there is no guile," and then Christ promises him the vision of angels ascending and descending upon Himself. Therefore it seems that Christ intimately loved him and chose him as His familiar companion and Apostle.

Nevertheless, St. Augustine denies this very point here, tractate 17, and following him Toletus, Ribera, Maldonatus, and Baronius, moved by this reasoning: that Nathanael seems to have been a doctor of the law, for he discusses from the law with Philip; but Christ chose not lawyers but uneducated and unlettered fishermen for the apostolate. However, one may respond that Nathanael was a student of the law, not a doctor, just as Philip was when he discussed the coming of the Messiah from the law with him, and as were Peter and Andrew. For all of these seem to have been disciples or hearers of John the Baptist, and to have been sent by him to Christ. Thus Saul, or Paul, was a student of the law, but not a lawyer or doctor. But if Nathanael was not an Apostle, he was certainly a disciple. Hence L. Dexter, in the Chronicle, at the year of Christ 101, number 3: "Nathanael," he says, "one of the seventy disciples of the Lord, rests in the city (of Spain) Treuga, near Leon, commonly called Leon." Peter of Natalibus says the same in his Catalogue of Saints, from Vincent, who also adds of him: "After completing the office of preaching, he happily rests in the Lord, on the day before the Kalends of December."

Moreover, Nathanael in Hebrew means the same as "gift of God"; or "God has given," or "give, O God," says Pagninus, that is, Adeodatus ("given by God"). Hence the prince of the tribe of Issachar in the time of Moses is called Nathanael, Numbers 1:3, and perhaps from that ancestor our Nathanael here descended and borrowed his name. Hence St. Augustine called his son, who was endowed with a divine intellect, Adeodatum, as he himself acknowledges in the book On the Happy Life, after the beginning.

JESUS. — The Syriac has: who is Jesus, the son of Joseph from Nazareth. For Nazareth was near Cana of Galilee, distant only three hours from it, so that Nathanael, originally from Cana, could easily know Jesus, the son of Joseph (as was commonly supposed), who came from Nazareth. Calvin here accuses Philip of stupidity and ignorance, saying: "He foolishly calls Jesus the son of Joseph, ignorantly makes Him a Nazarene, and cannot utter four words about Christ without mixing in two gross errors." But it is Calvin who is foolish and ignorant, while Philip is wise and knowing, for he describes Jesus to Nathanael according to the common opinion and designation, so that Nathanael might be able to recognize Him, otherwise he would have found Him completely unknown. So says St. Chrysostom. For Christ was truly a Nazarene by homeland, because He was conceived there, even though on account of the census He had been born in Bethlehem.

Verse 46: Can Anything Good Come from Nazareth? Come and See

46. AND NATHANAEL SAID TO HIM: CAN ANYTHING GOOD COME FROM NAZARETH? PHILIP SAID TO HIM: COME AND SEE. — That is to say: Nazareth is an obscure and ignoble place in Galilee, held in contempt among the Jews. Hence the Pharisees below, chapter 7, verse 57, say that "no prophet arises from Galilee"; how then, O Philip, do you suppose Christ was born from Nazareth? Especially since Christ, to be born from Judah and David, is predicted to come in Bethlehem by Micah, chapter 5, verse 2. So says St. Chrysostom, who also adds: "He shows therefore both knowledge of Scripture and simplicity of character, and finally a vehement desire for the coming of Christ, since he does not despise Philip's words. For he knew that Philip could have been mistaken in naming the homeland," and he was partly wrong; for Christ, although He had been conceived in Nazareth, was nevertheless born in Bethlehem, which Philip did not know at this time. So also Theophylactus and Euthymius. Moreover, Joannes Alba, in the Electa, takes "can" (potest) as meaning "is accustomed" (solet), and brings forth an example of this usage; that is to say: Does any good prophet usually come from Nazareth? That is: By no means. How then do you, O Philip, say that Christ has come forth from Nazareth?

COME AND SEE. — The Syriac has: Come, and you will see; that is to say: I do not wish to argue with you about Nazareth, but come, see and hear Jesus, and you will experience what I have experienced, so that you may be seized with love for Him and believe that He is the Christ. Hear St. Chrysostom: "Philip does not explain how He is the Christ and how the prophets foretold Him, but leads him to Jesus, knowing that he would not depart if he tasted His words and doctrine. If you only see Him, he says, if you exchange words with Him, you will very easily agree with me." "Moreover, we must believe," says Cyril, "that there was a certain ineffable grace in the speech and words of Christ, by which the souls of His hearers were attracted with great delight. For it is written that all marveled at the words of grace that came forth from His mouth."

Moreover, Nathanael, vehemently desiring to see Christ, consented to Philip, came with him to Jesus, and recognized Him to be the Christ: therefore he gave himself over to His teaching and following.

Verse 47: Behold Truly an Israelite in Whom There Is No Guile

47. JESUS SAW NATHANAEL COMING TO HIM, AND SAID OF HIM: BEHOLD TRULY AN ISRAELITE, IN WHOM THERE IS NO GUILE; — who, namely, imitates the candor, simplicity, and holiness of Israel, that is, of the patriarch Jacob, from whom he himself was descended. Hence the Syriac translates: Behold truly a son of Israel; for Jacob was a simple man dwelling in tents, Genesis 25:27. Jesus shows that He knows and sees the candor and state of Nathanael's soul, so that from this Nathanael may recognize that Jesus is not a mere man, but also God, the inspector of hearts. St. Chrysostom thinks that Christ was alluding to what Nathanael had said to Philip about Him: "Can anything good come from Nazareth?" — that is to say: I am not offended by this remark of yours against Me, because I know that you said it with a candid mind and one eager for inquiring after truth; for I know that in your soul there is no guile, no gall of malice.

Verse 48: Before Philip Called You, When You Were Under the Fig Tree, I Saw You

48. NATHANAEL SAID TO HIM: HOW DO YOU KNOW ME? — You who have never seen me, nor dealt with me. "Observe," says Chrysostom, "the man's steadfastness: he did not swell up at the praises, nor did he rush to meet them, but he continues to investigate, so that he may learn something certain from this."

JESUS ANSWERED AND SAID TO HIM: BEFORE PHILIP CALLED YOU, WHEN YOU WERE UNDER THE FIG TREE, I SAW YOU. — That is to say: When you were alone under the fig tree, and supposed yourself to be seen by no one, I nevertheless saw you, and knew what you did there secretly and in private. Then I also saw and heard you conversing with Philip, when he called you to Me, and you objected to him: "Can anything good come from Nazareth?" — from which you may conclude that I am greater than a man, namely the Messiah, the Son of God. So say St. Cyril and Euthymius; and St. Augustine, Sermon 40 On the Words of the Lord.

Mystically, St. Gregory, book 18 of the Morals, chapter 20: "When you were under the fig tree," that is, under the shadow of the law, "I saw you," in order to transfer you to the vine of My Gospel.

Tropologically: from this learn to behold and revere God and Christ as present everywhere — when you are alone in your room, indeed when you secretly think or desire something in your heart, Christ sees and looks into you and your thoughts and desires. Take care therefore that you think, desire, or do nothing by which you may offend the eyes of His majesty. For thus He saw Nathanael here and his actions under the fig tree. Hence Nonnus translates: "I saw you under the shady fig tree, resting and taking the midday repose under the high-branched boughs, seeing with eyes and mind one not present." Thus God saw Adam eating the forbidden fig under the fig tree, Genesis 3.

Verse 49: Rabbi, You Are the Son of God, You Are the King of Israel

49. NATHANAEL ANSWERED HIM AND SAID: RABBI, YOU ARE THE SON OF GOD, YOU ARE THE KING OF ISRAEL. — "The Son of God" — natural and consubstantial, and therefore God; for this is what the bare words convey. So say St. Cyril, Augustine, Ammonius, the Gloss, Dionysius, and Maldonatus, although St. Chrysostom, Euthymius, Theophylactus, Lyranus, Cajetan, Toletus, and Parradius hold that Nathanael did not know that Christ was God, but only believed Him to be an adoptive Son of God, through the extraordinary grace by which he saw Him excel above all other Prophets and Saints. For even Prophets can reveal the secrets of hearts by the prompting of God, as Elisha revealed the secret avarice of Gehazi and the secret ambushes of the kings of Israel, 2 Kings 5:26, and 6:9 ff.

I would believe that Philip, from the testimony of John the Baptist about Jesus in verse 34, believed Jesus to be the Son of God, but in a confused way, without sufficiently distinguishing whether He was a natural or an adoptive Son, and that he declared and persuaded the same to Nathanael. For although John the Baptist, when he said that Christ was the Son of God, understood a natural Son, through the hypostatic union of the humanity with the Word, yet Philip and Nathanael did not yet understand this union, until they were gradually and more clearly taught about this matter.

KING OF ISRAEL. — That is, the Messiah, the son of the kings David and Solomon, and therefore the successor and heir of the kingdom of Israel, that is, of the twelve tribes. For David, or rather God through David, had foretold this of Him, Psalm 2:6-7, saying in the person of Christ: "But I have been established as king by Him upon Zion, His holy mountain, proclaiming His decree. The Lord said to Me: You are My Son, today I have begotten You." From this it is clear that David foretold that the Messiah would be the natural Son of God, but few understood this prediction clearly and fully before John the Baptist and Christ Himself explained it. The Ecumenical Council of Constantinople, in the constitution of Pope Vigilius pertaining to the fifth collation, pronounces anathema on those who maintain that the words of Nathanael — "You are the Son of God, You are the King of Israel" — were said by him to Christ as a member of God's household, so that He Himself would not be God, but would be called God on account of the familiarity He has with God.

Verse 50: You Believe Because I Said I Saw You — You Shall See Greater Things

50. JESUS ANSWERED AND SAID TO HIM: BECAUSE I SAID TO YOU, I SAW YOU UNDER THE FIG TREE, YOU BELIEVE: YOU SHALL SEE GREATER THINGS THAN THESE — namely, greater oracles and miracles of Mine, greater mysteries of My teaching, life, passion, resurrection, and ascension, from which you will know that I am king and Lord not only of Israel, but of the whole world, and indeed of the heavens and of all the angels. "He says two things," says Chrysostom, "one He indicates as already past, the other He confirms from this as future; for he who had already seen His power, more easily believes what he hears about the future."

Verse 51: You Will See Heaven Opened, Angels Ascending and Descending

51. AND HE SAID TO HIM: AMEN, AMEN, I SAY TO YOU, YOU SHALL SEE HEAVEN OPENED, AND THE ANGELS OF GOD ASCENDING AND DESCENDING UPON THE SON OF MAN. — "Heaven opened" — not that heaven is truly to be split and opened, but that heaven will give entry and exit to the angels entering and going out, just as a door usually gives us passage when it is opened; therefore it will seem to you that heaven is being opened and is open. This is a catachresis. In a similar way, at the baptism of Christ, heaven was seen to open to Christ, Matthew 3:16, and Ezekiel 1:1, when he saw in heaven the Cherubic chariot of the glory of God; and to St. Stephen, when being stoned by the Jews, he saw Jesus standing at the right hand of God, Acts 7:55. See what I have noted on those passages. By this vision it is signified that heaven, closed to men for four thousand years on account of sins, was to be opened by Christ.

AND THE ANGELS OF GOD ASCENDING AND DESCENDING (the Arabic has "to ascend and descend") UPON THE SON OF MAN. — The Syriac has: to the Son of Man, so that they may serve Him as their king. For this is what the Greek word epi signifies, which corresponds to the Hebrew al. Hence Vatablus translates: under the Son of Man — that is to say: Under my authority and power, at my command, at my bidding, as I shall will or order, the angels shall ascend and descend. So also Franciscus Lucas.

Note first, from the fact that Christ called Nathanael an Israelite in whom there is no guile, it is clear that He was alluding to the vision of angels ascending and descending on a ladder stretched from earth to heaven, which was granted to Israel, that is, to the patriarch Jacob, at Bethel, Genesis 28:12. So says St. Augustine, book 12 Against Faustus, chapter 26; for Israel, or Jacob, was both the father and the type of Christ. For Christ is the true Israel, that is, "ruling with God," and He is the Patriarch of Christians and the founder of Bethel, that is, of the house of God — namely, the Church both heavenly and earthly, both triumphant and militant.

Note second, that Christ by this phrase and vision of angels ascending to Him signifies that He is the prince not only of Israel and of men, but also of the heavens and of the angels, and consequently that He is the true God and the Son of God; for the angels ascend and descend to Him as His ministers, to attend upon Him and obey Him as their master and king, and to carry out all His commands, both in heaven and on earth. So say St. Cyril and Chrysostom.

You will ask when this descent and ascent of angels to Christ occurred:

First, St. Chrysostom and Theophylactus hold that it occurred when an angel appeared to Christ as He was suffering agony and sweating blood in the garden, strengthening Him, Luke 22:44. Likewise when angels appeared to the women at the resurrection, announcing that He had risen, Matthew 28.

Second, St. Cyril holds that it happened at the baptism of Christ; for then by the ministry of angels the dove was formed that flew down upon Christ, which was the sign of the Holy Spirit; likewise the voice of the Father in the air: "This is My beloved Son," Matthew chapter 3, verse 16. But this conversation of Christ with Nathanael took place after the baptism of Christ.

Third, Euthymius thinks that it happened at the ascension of Christ; for then absolutely all the angels surrounded Him as He ascended, like servants attending their prince, and like soldiers their king.

Fourth, Toletus holds that this happens continually in the Church, which is governed by Christ through the angels.

Fifth, Maldonatus considers that it will happen on the day of judgment; for then all the angels will attend Him, both good and bad: the good, so that they may lead into heaven the pious whom He has adjudged to heaven; the bad, so that they may snatch away to hell the impious whom He has condemned.

Sixth, Franciscus Lucas takes this as referring to Christ's miracles and heavenly gifts, in which the angels served Christ during this life or after it. Jesus therefore means, he says, that at the bidding of the Son of Man, heaven would from that time be seen opened by the faithful, with angels running back and forth; because shortly, at the command of the Son of Man, and with the angels obeying His command, the gifts of God were to be brought to earth in great abundance for all to see: the healing of the sick, the cleansing of lepers, the enlightening of the blind, the raising up of the lame, the expulsion of demons, the raising of the dead, the justification of the wicked, the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, the distribution of various gifts, the conversion of the world, etc. Since all these are manifestly gifts of God, heaven could not fail to be seen as opened, and the holy angels, through whom heavenly things are ministered, as serving the Son of Man at His bidding, by those who saw the Son of Man making many people partakers of these gifts. Christ therefore speaks of all manner of miracles and heavenly gifts which He was about to perform immediately from the calling of Nathanael, throughout the whole time of His mortal life, and indeed even after His ascension into heaven, to be continually accomplished in the governance of His Church, until the last judgment and the consummation of the age. All of this is true and fitting.

However, because Christ specifically promises this vision of angels to Nathanael and Philip, for the purpose of increasing and strengthening their incipient faith in Him; and since neither at the baptism, passion, resurrection, nor ascension of Christ, nor on any other occasion, did angels properly appear ascending and descending to Christ — therefore more plainly, simply, precisely, and genuinely we shall say that this was a particular and public vision of angels, properly made to the living Christ just as the words express, in the same way as the same vision was granted to Jacob, who was a type of Christ, Genesis chapter 28, verse 12. Therefore that vision of Jacob prefigured the similar vision of angels that was to come to Christ (which is the subject here), and a similar one had already occurred before at the nativity of Christ, when the angels descending to Him sang: "Glory to God in the highest," Luke 2:13. Moreover, where and when this vision of the angels occurred, the Evangelists do not relate, just as they pass over many other deeds of Christ in silence. So says Jansenius.

Moreover, this vision occurred for this purpose. First, so that through it, it might be shown that Christ reconciled men with angels and earth with heaven, and restored the mutual communication and familiarity between both, which originally existed in paradise.

Second, so that He might teach that Christians are strangers and sojourners on earth, and ought to associate with the angels and imitate their angelic life, as fellow citizens of the Saints and members of the household of God, Ephesians 2:19.

Third, so that He might assign the angels to us as guardians, who would protect us against demons and all assaults of evils, and impel us toward heroic virtues, and finally after death lead us into heaven. For the angels ascend into heaven to carry our vows, prayers, and sighs to God; they descend to bring us the gifts of grace from God.

Fourth, so that the majesty of Christ and the obedience and reverence of the angels toward Him might be declared. For He, says Chrysostom, has been established "above every principality, and power, and virtue, and dominion, and every name that is named not only in this age, but also in the one to come," Ephesians 1:21.

See what I discussed at length about Jacob's ladder and the angels ascending and descending on it, Genesis chapter 28, verse 12.