Commentary on John 1 part 19/94

Behold again in these words a clear demonstration of the equality.

For he who is equally active concerning the raising again of the dead, how could he be in any respect the lesser? Or how could he any longer be of another nature and alien with respect to the Father, when he shines forth with the very same properties? And it is proper to the divine essence to be able to give life, which belongs alike to the Father and to the Son.

But again the Father does not give life peculiarly to some, by himself, and the Son peculiarly to certain others, separately;

for having the Father in himself by nature, he works all things, and the Father works all things through the Son.

But since the Father has the power to give life in his own nature, just as does the Son himself, so as being peculiarly present to each, he apportions the power to give life to the dead.

That none of the dignities or advantages befitting God is in the Son as by participation or as adventitious.

He has given all judgment to the Son.

He introduces another matter, befitting God and extraordinary, persuading through many arguments that he is God by nature and truly.

For to whom else could it befit to judge the world, if not to God alone who is over all, whom indeed the divine Scriptures also call to this, saying now 'Arise, O God, judge the earth,' and again in turn 'For God is judge; this one he humbles and this one he exalts.' And he says that the judgment has been given to himself by the Father, not as though he lay outside the authority set over this, but as man, in an economic manner, teaching that all things more fittingly rest upon the divine nature, within which he himself also has entered; in that respect in which he is Word and God, he has from his own resources the authority over all things;

but in that respect in which he has become man, to whom it was said somewhere, 'For what have you that you did not receive?' he fittingly confesses that he has received it.

But in reply to these things one perhaps of the adversaries will say: 'Behold, the Son plainly says that he has received the judgment from the Father.'

And he receives it, that is, as one who does not have it.

How then would the one who gives with authority not be greater and more excellent by nature than the one who needs to receive? What, then, shall we say in reply to this? The argument set forth by us before has, I think, been fashioned not inelegantly, introducing a contemplation most fitting to the occasion—namely that of the incarnation—and most suited to the economy in the flesh, when he took upon himself the form of a servant, when he humbled himself, coming to be in a likeness to ours;

but since it seems good to you to bear down heavily upon the simpler doctrines, and rather to make the inquiry more overcurious, come then, going once more against your problems, let us first say this: not at all, my good sir, nor of necessity, does the one said to give something bestow it upon the recipient as though he had it not; but neither is the giver always greater than the one who receives.

For the Divine is full of glory, even if it receive nothing from us;

and that which one who has it from his own resources receives in the rank of honor could never be thought inferior to those who bring their glory to him as a gift.

It is therefore often possible to see the one who has received something as not being inferior to the one who gave it; and the Father is not on that account of a greater nature than his own Offspring, seeing that he has given him all judgment.

Then, besides this, that other point too must be carefully considered:

to judge, that is, to pass sentence, are rather operations and activities among the things conceived as pertaining to substances, than in truth substances themselves;

for we do something when we pass judgment, all the while remaining distinctly that which we are.

But if we shall grant that to judge, that is, to pass sentence, is a substance, how is it not then necessary — even against our will — to admit that certain of existing beings cannot exist at all unless they appear as judges, and that their substance must wholly come to an end together with the completion of the judging? Yet to think thus is among the most absurd of notions.

Judging, therefore, is some operation, and nothing else.

What then has the Father given to the Son? No advantage, as of a nature superior to his own, in entrusting all judgment to him, but rather an operation to be exercised against those who are judged.

How then will he be greater or of a greater nature in this respect, having added something which was not already in the Son, who says: 'All things that the Father has are mine'? How then the giving is to be understood, hear now.

Just as God and Father, having the power to create, creates all things through the Son, as through his own power and might;

so also, having the power to judge, he will exercise this too through the Son, as through his own righteousness.

It is as if one were to say that fire also, by the operation which is natural to itself, yields the burning of something, this being the manner proper to that thing;

... of earth, they teaching us how he could still be conceived as the Lord of glory, who even in the last times is crowned with the honours belonging to this.

That the Son, being God and from God according to nature, and the exact Image of him who begot him, has equal honour and glory with him.

That all may honour the Son, even as they honour the Father:

he who honours not the Son honours not the Father who sent him.

The cause and reason for the things enumerated above is now seen to be this: that the Son must be honoured in equality and likeness with the Father.

But taking up a little, and going back to the recollection of what precedes, you will accurately survey the force of the discourse.

He said, then, that God was his own Father, making himself equal with God; then again he showed himself equal in power and of like craftsmanship, saying: 'For whatever things he does, these also the Son does likewise'; and that he is by nature life and life-giving, even as also is the one who begot him, he made plain, adding: 'For as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the Son gives life to whom he will.' And that he would also be the judge of all, with the Father consenting and assenting in all things, he set forth, saying: 'For neither does the Father judge anyone, but has given all judgment to the Son.' What then is the cause of these things? What was it that persuaded the Only-begotten to proceed by such words? 'That all,' he says, 'may honour the Son, even as they honour the Father.'

For if he is all that the Father also is, as regards a dignity befitting God, how would it not be fitting that he be crowned with honours equal to those of that One, seeing that he lacks nothing towards identity of substance? What then do they again say against this — those who pervert all right things, as the prophet Isaiah says? 'If,' one says, 'because it is said, "That all may honour the Son even as they honour the Father," you suppose that the Son must be exalted with honours equal in measure to the Father, you are ignorant, walking far indeed from the truth.'

For the word 'even as' does not by all means introduce equality of things, in whatever cases it may appear to be placed, but often characterizes a certain likeness; for instance, he says, the Saviour somewhere counsels, saying: 'Be merciful, even as your Father who is in heaven is merciful.' Shall we then be merciful in such a way as the Father, because of the 'even as'? And again Christ says to his own Father concerning the disciples: 'You loved them, even as you loved me.' Yet we shall not grant that the disciples are loved in the same way as the Son again, because of the 'even as.'

Why then do you invent sophistries and force the expression into blasphemy, though it imposes no necessity upon those who hear it that the Son must be honoured in equal measure with him who begot him? What then is our reply to these things? The foes of God bark bitter words at us; but 'Away with the dogs,' as Paul says, 'away with the evil workers, away from the right faith with the concision.' For we are sons of truth and children of light;

for this reason we glorify the Only-begotten together with God the Father, not according to any difference, but in equality of honour and glory, as God from God, and light from light, and life from life.

And to pry curiously into that which is to be accepted by faith is, for the most part, not safe;

yet nevertheless the force of the 'even as' must be examined, lest those on the opposite side think highly of themselves.

Therefore, in the case of things unlike in nature, when the 'even as' is applied, it does not by all means introduce for us an unvarying equality, but rather a likeness and a resemblance, as you yourselves have already conceded in advance;

but in the case of things resembling one another in all respects, if it should appear to be placed, it also signifies the equality in all things and the likeness, and whatever else of equal force with these may be found.

Bright is the sun in heaven, and bright likewise is silver from the earth;

but the nature of the things mentioned is diverse.

Let one, say, of the rich upon earth be conceived as saying to the household servants: 'Let the silver shine, even as the sun also';

but the 'even as' would be brought to bear upon it towards a certain likeness and resemblance, even if it be applied to it.

But if Peter and John, say, of the holy disciples, were brought forward into the midst — who, both by the principle of their nature and by their piety towards God, fall not short of an exact likeness to one another — let the 'even as' be applied, someone speaking of them, as in a supposed case: 'Let John be honoured by all, even as Peter also';

will the 'even as' then again be too weak to require that equal honour be brought to bear upon them both? But I do not think anyone would say such a thing;

for one will observe nothing hindering it.

According to this analogy of the thought, when the 'even as' is applied to the Son and the Father, for what reason shall we grow numb about crowning both with honours equal in measure? For having foreseen as God the things that were to be, and having surveyed beforehand the envious contradiction of your ignorance, he did not straightway bring in the 'even as' bare, nor bereft of the support befitting it, but having first fortified it with the fitting assurances, and having demonstrated beforehand that he is God according to nature;

for he made God his own Father.

Then what will appear henceforth to resist, and what is there to hinder him, in whom the properties peculiar and distinctive of the one who begot him substantially reside, from ascending to the equal measure of honour? For in honouring him we shall already be found honouring the very nature of God the Father, shining forth beautifully in the Son;

for on this account he says next: 'He who honours not the Son honours not the Father who sent him.'

For the charge and the force of the blasphemy of dishonour done to the Son will ascend not upon any other rather, but more truly upon the Father himself, inasmuch as he sent forth the Son as from a fountain of his own nature — even though the Son is seen throughout all the holy Scripture as co-existing eternally with him.

'But indeed,' says the adversary, 'let the charge of the dishonour done to the Son ascend to whomever you will — nay rather, let it come to God the Father himself.'

'For he will be indignant, and that very reasonably; yet not by all means as though his own nature had been outraged in the Son, according to the argument just now cleverly devised by us, but inasmuch as he is his image and character, being formed most excellently towards his divine and ineffable nature, he is angered with good reason, and will refer the wrong wholly to himself.'

'For it would indeed have been among the most absurd of things that the one who wantonly insulted the divine characters should not by all means pay the penalty for the sin against the archetype.'

'Just as, no doubt, he who has wantonly insulted the images of earthly kings is punished as one who has already committed an offence against the ruler himself;'

'and something of this kind, defined by God, we shall find even in our own case: "For he who sheds the blood of a man," he says, "in return for his blood shall it be shed, because in the image of God I made man." You see then,' he says, 'already through this, and very clearly, that when the image is wronged, and not by all means his divine nature, God the Father thinks he ought to be indignant? Therefore let what was spoken by Christ be understood and represented after this manner: "He who honours not the Son honours not the Father either."'

Shall the Only-begotten then lie outside the substance of the Father together with us? How then is he still God according to nature, if he has altogether slipped away from the bounds of the Godhead, lying in some peculiar and different nature, other than that in which the Father is? And we do wrong, in all likelihood, in raising up the constitution of the holy Trinity to a single principle of Godhead.

For it would have been necessary, then, that we worship the Father as God, but again assign some peculiar glory of its own to the Son and to the Spirit, as though dividing them into different natures, and marking off for each its own principle of how it exists;

but the divine Scriptures set before us one God, ranking the Son and the Spirit together with the Father, inasmuch as, through the substantial and unvarying identity, the constitution of the holy Trinity is referred to a single principle of Godhead.

... the Only-begotten is alien to the nature; nay, he could not at all be conceived as being a Son in truth, unless he shone forth from the substance of him who begot him;

for such, and no other in all respects, is the definition and manner of true sonship.

And if there is no Son, then the being of God as Father will also be wholly done away with together.

How then will Paul speak truly, saying concerning him: 'From whom every fatherhood in heaven and on earth is named'? For if he has not begotten the Son from himself in a manner befitting God, how, with the principle of fatherhood passing through him by imitation, does it reach to those who are in heaven and on the earth? But God is Father in truth;

the Only-begotten therefore is a Son according to nature, and is by all means within the bounds of the Godhead;

for God shall be begotten from God, just as man, say, from man, and the nature of God the Father, which transcends all things, will not prove false, having brought forth a fruit not befitting itself.

But since impiously and senselessly they say that it is not the nature of God the Father that is outraged in the Son, when he does not enjoy the befitting glory from certain persons, but rather that God is angered as though his own image were dishonoured in him — doing so reasonably indeed and well;

we must ask them, in what manner they will have the Son to be, and to be called, an image of the Father.

Or rather, anticipating the argument that comes from them, let us first distinguish the kinds of image, according to what the occasion allows;

for thus the discovery of the things sought would become clear and far more distinct.

Therefore one, and the first, is the image of the identity according to nature in unvarying properties, as Abel from Adam, or Isaac from Abraham. And a second again is that according to the resemblance of the character only, and the exact reproduction of the form, such as the painting of a king upon wood, or made after some other manner, as best and most artfully towards him.

And yet another image is taken with respect to habits and manners and conduct and will towards certain good or evil things, so that the one who does good is said, say, to resemble Paul, and the one who is not such, to resemble Cain.

For to be seen among the same evil or good things works out the likeness for each, and fittingly attaches it.

And there is somehow yet another kind of image, namely that in dignity and honour and glory and pre-eminence, as if someone should, say, succeed to the office of another, and do all things with authority that would belong and befit that other.

And an image otherwise, or according to some other quality of a thing or quantity, shape and proportion;

for now one must speak summarily.

But I think they will grow numb about saying this.

For no one, not even if he should appear to be raving exceedingly, will suppose that the Divine is quantified, or circumscribed by shape, and measured by character, or that the incorporeal in any way undergoes the things of bodies.

Do they then say that he is formed with respect to habits and manners and will, and are they not ashamed to attach to him this image? For how is he still conceived as God according to nature, who has his likeness to him in willing alone, but is something else in himself, existing peculiarly? For they will by all means confess that he subsists.

... teaching us to aim at things impossible, when the Only-begotten himself says: 'Be merciful, even as your Father who is in heaven is merciful'? For this would be to say, without any hesitation, that we must by all means take up the image of the Father in identity of wills.

And Paul too became an imitator of Christ — of that image of the Father which, as they say in their folly, consists in wills alone.

But indeed they will withdraw from these wretched notions too, according to what is likely, and, as though devising something greater and better, they will assuredly say this: 'The Only-begotten is an image of God the Father, in so far as in identity of wills, in so far as regards the dignity and glory and power befitting God, in so far as regards the operation in creating and working wonders, in so far as regards reigning and ruling over all, in so far as regards judging and being worshipped by angels and men and, in short, by all creation.'

'Through all these things showing us the Father in himself' — he does not say 'from the hypostasis,' but 'he is the express character of his hypostasis.' Therefore, as we said just now, according to your most senseless argument the Son is none of the things mentioned according to nature, but will lie all at once outside them all — neither true God, nor Son, nor king, nor Lord, nor creator, nor powerful, nor even good by nature in his own wills;

but he is seen only in bare and mere boastings befitting God.

And what the laying-on of colours is to paintings upon panels—which beautifies them merely with the varied appearances of the things seen, yet carries nothing that is true—

this too is what, according to them, the beauty of the Father's and God's dignities becomes in the Son: it is bedecked with bare and mere names alone, and is smeared on from without, as it were after the fashion of certain pigments;

and the divine nature is rather sketched out in him only in shadowy outline, and appears as in a bare figure.

How then will you not manifestly be seen to be at war with all the holy Scriptures, so that you might justly hear: 'Stiff-necked and uncircumcised in hearts and ears, you always resist the Holy Spirit; as your fathers did, so do you also.' For when do the Scriptures ever fail to name the Son true God, or when do they set him outside the substance of the One who begot him? Who is he that has dared to say that he is by nature neither Creator, nor King, nor Almighty, nor to be worshipped? For the inspired psalmist, speaking as it were to the Only-begotten himself, says: 'Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever.' And Thomas again, likewise that most sensible disciple, calls him at once both God and Lord.

And he is called Almighty and Creator through every holy utterance, and that as one not possessing his dignity in an adventitious way, as you hold, but as being by nature that very thing which he is said to be; and for this reason he is worshipped both by the holy angels and by us, even though the divine Scripture says that we must worship no other save the Lord God alone.

If then they have believed that the God-befitting dignity is present in him as something acquired and given, and yet think they ought to worship such a one, let them know that they are serving the creature alongside the Creator, painting for themselves a recent and novel god rather than truly recognizing the God who exists by nature.

But if, while saying that the Son lies outside the substance of God the Father, they nevertheless confess him to be Son and true God and King and Lord and Creator, and to possess substantially in himself the properties peculiar and distinctive to the Father,

then let them look to where the outcome of the views they hold will once more end in peril for them.

For nothing at all in the divine nature will be found to be worthy of belief, since the nature of created things too would then be able truly to possess this very thing which is conceived to belong to it also.

For it has been demonstrated, even according to the utterly feeble argument of our opponents, that the Only-begotten, though not belonging to the divine nature (on their view), nevertheless truly possesses in himself the distinctive properties of that nature.

Therefore, swimming away from the absurdity of such doctrines as from a merchant-ship foundering in the open sea, let us hasten to the truth as to a safe and waveless harbour, and let us confess the Son to be the image of God the Father—not plastered over with adventitious dignities, nor merely resplendent with God-befitting names, but substantially conformed with exactness to the likeness of the One who begot him, and existing without variation by nature as that very thing which the One who begot him is also conceived to be: that is, true God from God in truth, Almighty, Creator, glorified, good, to be worshipped, and whatever else is joined with what has been said as befitting God.

For then, showing him to resemble God the Father in all things, we shall also present him as speaking truly when he says that, if anyone will not honour the Son, neither does he honour the Father who sent him;

for it is concerning this that our inquiry is engaged, and the examination of the matters just now investigated has been set in motion.

'Amen, amen, I say to you, that he who hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life;

and does not come into judgment, but has passed over from death into life.'

Having already sufficiently shown through what preceded that the wretched Jews sin not against the Son alone—daring to censure whatever he says when teaching, or whatever he works among them—but that they also transgress in their ignorance against the Father himself, and having, so far as concerned the working of what has been said, cloaked their temerity with fear and persuaded them to live more temperately in the hope of things to come, he next draws them, as with a net, toward ready obedience.

And once again, not without art did he compose his discourse upon these matters.

For since he knows that the Jews are still sick and still stumbling concerning him, he again refers faith to the person of God the Father—not as setting himself outside, but as being honoured also in the Father by reason of the identity of substance.

And he strongly affirms that those who believe will not only be partakers of eternal life, but will also escape the peril arising from judgment, being manifestly justified—holding out fear tempered with hope.

For in this way it was possible somehow to render the discourse more effective and more demonstrative to the hearers.

'Amen, amen, I say to you, that an hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear shall live.'

Having said that those who believe would pass over from death to life, he presents himself as the worker of the promise and the accomplisher of the whole matter; hinting at once to the Jews this: that the power exercised upon the paralytic is indeed truly marvellous, yet the Son will nonetheless be shown to be the Maker of things more worthy of account, driving out from human bodies not disease alone, nor merely the infirmities that come from sickness, but already overturning death itself and the corruption that has assailed us.

For this was what had been said a little before: 'The Father loves the Son, and shows him all things that he himself does; and greater works than these will he show him, that you may marvel.' For that which is greater in respect of being marvelled at appears in the raising of the dead.

And at the same time, once again establishing that which was likely in no small measure to strike the hearers with awe;

for that he will both raise the dead and bring the creature to judgment he plainly proclaims, so that, by expecting one day to stand before him and to render an account for each thing, they might be found somehow more sluggish in their daring to persecute him, and might now more readily receive the word of his teaching and instruction.

To these ends, then, the aim of the chapter is seen to be directed and to converge;

but it remains necessary for us to clear up the matter with regard to the wording.

The common interpretation, then, as it seems, holds that there will one day come a time in which the dead shall hear the voice of the One who raises them up,

having received the teaching of the Saviour.

And this manner of contemplation does indeed preserve the form of plausibility, yet not altogether that of exactness;

wherefore, chewing over once more the force of the words, we shall fit to them a more fitting sense, and shall thus divide the reading:

'Amen, amen, I say to you, that an hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God';

an hour, that is to say, when those also who have heard shall live.

By the words at the beginning, then, he signifies the time of our resurrection, in which he teaches, through the voice of the Judge, that those who have fallen asleep shall rise to give account for their life in the world—so that, as I have already said, having devised for them the fear arising thence as a kind of bridle, he may very rightly and skilfully persuade them to live well;

but by the words that follow, he shows that the time for their needing to believe in him is present; and he says, moreover, that the reward of ready obedience will be eternal life—all but declaring something like this: 'You will all come to judgment, O men, at the time of the resurrection, to be sure; but if it seems bitter to you to be punished, and to render to the aggrieved Judge accounts without end, do not let the season of ready obedience pass you by, but seizing it while it is still present, hasten to mount up to eternal life.'

'For as the Father has life in himself, so also he has given to the Son to have life in himself;

and he has given him authority to execute judgment, because he is the Son of Man.'

Consider for me, then, once again the economy in these words too, that you may marvel at the form of the discourse, and may not, falling into the stumbling-blocks that arise from ignorance, yourself call down destruction upon yourself.

Being man, so far as concerns the nature of his body, the Only-begotten—and while still seen upon the earth as one of us with flesh, and introducing to the Jews in manifold ways the things that pertain to salvation—invested himself with the splendour of two God-befitting things.

For that he will both raise the dead and set them, to be judged, before his own tribunal, he firmly and plainly affirmed;

but it was also exceedingly likely that the hearers would be vexed at this, already bringing accusations and reasonably suspecting him of aiming at persecution, because he called God his own Father, making himself equal to God. Therefore, having blended the word suited to his humanity with authority and God-befitting splendour, he steals away the heaviness of their wrath, speaking somewhat more mildly and in a lowlier fashion than was fitting: 'For as the Father has life in himself, so also has he given to the Son to have life in himself.'

'Do not marvel at this,' he says, 'if, being now such a one as you are and seen a man, I promise to raise the dead and threaten to bring them to judgment;

the Father has given me the power to make alive, the Father has given me to judge with authority.'

And since through these words he had tended the easily-slipping hearing of the Jews, he takes swift thought also for the benefit of what follows; and, at once explaining the reason for his allowing himself to say this, he holds forth his humanity, which of itself has nothing, saying: 'Because he is the Son of Man.'

For that the Only-begotten is by nature Life, and not a partaker of life derived from another, and that he thus gives life even as the Father does, I think it superfluous to say for the present, since no little discourse has been spent by us upon this at the beginning of the book, when the text lay before us: 'That which was made in him was life.'

'...that an hour is coming in which all who are in the tombs shall hear his voice, and shall come forth—those who have done good things to a resurrection of life, but those who have practised evil things to a resurrection of judgment.'