Commentary on John 1 part 25/94

And let him prepare himself for the demonstration of sanctification and righteousness at the divine tribunal.

For he will not behold the Judge as untimely lenient, nor as yielding to words that incline Him to mercy—Him whom it was fitting to obey without delay when He was calling to salvation, at the time when both the season of gentleness was being granted, and when it was permitted to ask amnesty for faults already committed, and to seek the loving-kindness that comes from God who saves.

'Labour not for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures unto eternal life.'

Expanding some such teaching again more universally and in a more general way, Paul instructs us, saying: 'He that soweth to his own flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption;

but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap eternal life.' For he says that those sow to the flesh who, having as it were surrendered the whole reins to the pleasures of the flesh, run headlong wherever they wish, in no way distinguishing what is profitable to them from what is by nature harmful and injurious, and having in no way been accustomed to test at all what seems good to the Lawgiver, but being dragged down heedlessly only toward what is sweet and temporary, and preferring none of the things unseen.

But to sow to the Spirit, he maintains, is for us to be distinguished in those things in which the Holy Spirit would have us excel, spending the whole zeal of our own mind, and thus employing intense care for the cultivation of good things, so that unless some natural and unavoidable consideration pressed them to grant the flesh its necessary nourishment, they would never consent to descend to this.

I think, therefore, that it befits us to make no provision at all for the desires of the flesh, but rather to devote ourselves to the most necessary things, and to be zealous to press on toward all those things which bear us up to the eternal and divine life.

Truly so, and thus not to be devoid of understanding concerning the unreason that attends the last things.

But to devote oneself to good things, and to press exceedingly to be distinguished in virtues and to be subject to the laws of the Spirit, and to receive gladly and most eagerly the things from God that are able to furnish us for salvation—this I for my part would grant truly befits the one who recognizes his own nature, and who is not ignorant that he was made a rational living being after the image of his Creator.

Therefore, as the Saviour Himself somewhere says: 'Let us not be anxious what we shall eat, or what we shall drink, or what we shall put on,' but reckoning that the soul is greater than food, and the body than raiment, in order that we may rather ponder in a good way the more precious things that are within us.

For when the body fares well and is fattened with the luxuries suited to it, there is no benefit at all to the wretched soul;

but on the contrary, even much harm will arise.

For it will depart into the eternal fire, since it is necessary that those who have wrought none of the good things come within the judgment appointed for these; but when the body is bridled by fitting reasoning and yoked to the laws of the Spirit, it is altogether necessary that the two together be saved.

It is therefore among the most absurd things so to make provision for the temporary flesh, which is destined ere long to perish, as to think that we must forgo none at all of the things most dear to it;

but to take up in the rank of a secondary matter, or even to equate with nothing, the care for the soul—although I think it fitting that we should be so much the more eager to be inclined toward the cares for the soul, by as much as it is among things better than those according to the flesh;

for thus indeed, both by ranking above the things inferior that which is victorious by comparison, and by defining a just verdict concerning these things, we shall become holy and wise judges, and we shall not bestow upon certain others the uprightness that comes from good reasonings, but shall rather set it upon our own heads.

Let us therefore labour, as the Saviour says, not for the food which perishes;

for having passed into the belly and having for a very brief time played upon the mind toward a most paltry pleasure, it goes off to the privy, and is channeled out again from the belly.

But the spiritual food, establishing the heart, holds the man together unto eternal life, which Christ Himself also promises to supply to us, saying: 'which the Son of Man will give unto you'—weaving together with the God-befitting the human, and joining wholly to the dispensation with flesh the mystery in the world.

And He somehow hints at the mystical and more spiritual nourishment, through which, being sanctified in both body and soul, we live in Him.

And we shall behold Him saying this somewhat more nakedly in what follows.

Let the discourse therefore be kept for the time and place that are its due.

That the Only-Begotten is the express character of the hypostasis of God the Father, and there is no other character beside Him, either that exists or is conceived.

'which the Son of Man will give unto you;

for Him hath the Father sealed, even God.'

He was not ignorant again, as God, of the accusations that would perhaps arise from Jewish ignorance, and of the things over which it happened that they were often savagely enraged in their want of instruction.

And He knew that they would reason within themselves, looking only to the flesh and not perceiving the God the Word within it: 'Who then is this that leaps upon the God-befitting words? For who could supply to men the food that holds together unto the eternal life? For such a thing is utterly foreign to human nature, and would befit God alone, who is over all.'

The Saviour therefore makes His defence beforehand, and puts to shame, by the timely bringing-in of His words, the intemperance of tongue that was expected from them.

For He says that the Son of Man will bestow upon them the food that nourishes unto eternal life, and He straightway maintained firmly that He Himself had been sealed by the Father;

or again, having put 'to have been sealed' in place of 'to have been anointed;'

for he who is anointed is sealed.

For it is as though He said: 'I shall not be unable to bestow upon you the food which endures and which bears you up unto both eternal life and delight.'

'For even if I am seen as one of you—that is, as a man with flesh—yet I have been anointed and sealed by God the Father unto an invariable likeness, the likeness that is toward Him.'

'For you shall see,' He says, 'in Me indeed Him, and Me again in Him naturally, even though I have been born for your sakes a man from a woman according to the ineffable word of the dispensation;

for I possess the power to do all things in God-befitting authority, and in no way shall I be left behind of the strength that is inherent in Him who begot Me;

and if God the Father gives you the spiritual food that preserves unto eternal life, clearly the Son also will bestow it, even though He has come to be in flesh, being an invariable image of Him—the resemblance being understood, plainly, in every respect whatsoever, not according to the characters of the flesh, nor indeed according to any of the things conceived at all in bodily form, but in God-befitting glory and in equal-weighted power, and in kingly authority.'

And it must again be observed that, having said that the Son of Man will supply the God-befitting things, and that He has been sealed unto the image of God the Father, He does not tolerate any division that severs from the sonship according to truth the temple that is from the Virgin, but again defines Himself as one, and wills to be so conceived;

for indeed Christ is truly one over us, wearing His own vesture as it were a royal purple robe—I mean the human body, or rather the temple composed of soul and body—even though Christ is one out of both.

'But, my good man,' the fighter against Christ will say again, 'grant to the truth its power to prevail; do not sophistically twist the argument, dragging it dishonourably to wherever you yourself might wish.'

'Behold, clearly, even through these things the Son is shown to us as not being from the essence of the Father, but rather as a copy of His essence.'

'But let it be some such thing,' he says, 'as we say:

the seal, that is, the signet, being pressed perhaps into wax or into other materials suitably disposed for the receiving, and having engraved only its own likeness, is brought back again from that upon which it was pressed, having suffered no loss from itself;

so the Father, having sent forth His whole self into the Son and having in a manner impressed Himself through a most exact likening, does not by any means have from Himself a part, as it were, of His essence, or one conceived as being from it, but only as an image and an exact likeness.'

Let the lover of learning then see again that even now the adversary leaps upon us like a serpent, and lifts up on high his head full of venom;

but He who crushes the heads of the dragon will crush this one also, and will again give us the power to escape their manifold perversities.

Let him therefore who has just now clattered against us with dreadful words tell us this:

the seal, that is, the signet, made perhaps of some material, whether of iron or of gold—does it not altogether stamp with a certain character the things in which it is made, or will there be and be conceived a signet apart from a character? But I think everyone at all, even of those on their side, would confess, even unwillingly, being drawn by what is fitting toward the truth itself, that it certainly seals with a character;

but apart from a character, at least according to reasoning in what is fitting, in no way.

When therefore, as the divine Scripture testifies to us, the Son is the express character of the hypostasis of God the Father—being clearly in it, and from it naturally—by what is He Himself stamped, or through what other thing does the Father seal His own character? For no one surely will say that the Father is not altogether in a God-befitting form, which is the Son, the form of Him who begot Him, whom if one should behold intelligibly, he shall clearly see the Father Himself.

For this very reason He says that He too exists in Him by nature, even though He is conceived as proceeding from Him according to His own distinct subsistence, just as the radiance exists, perhaps, in that which shines forth and from that which shines forth, and is in a certain sense something other according to the mode of conception, yet again is not other, insofar as it is contemplated in relation to it, because it is said to be from it, and again to exist in it.

For according to that which is by division and by complete severance, such things are also understood in respect of substance;

for since they are implanted, according to the identity of substance, in those from which they are, they are also believed to be from them, coming forth in a certain manner according to the manifestation which is, as it were, in the mind, toward something other and in a distinct way, yet not in a divided manner.

It is not therefore the bare or fleshless Word that is sealed by the Father, the Word who is from His substance; rather it is those things brought up, through Him, to a likeness — as far as is possible — to God, just as we understand in that passage where certain ones say, 'The light of Thy countenance, O Lord, has been signed upon us.' For it says that the Son is the countenance of God the Father, which again is the impress.

and the light which is from Him is the grace which, through the Spirit, reaches out over creation, by which we are refashioned toward God through faith, taking up unto ourselves, as by a kind of seal, conformity to the Son through Him who is the Image of the Father, so that there may be well preserved in us the fact that we have come to be after the likeness and image of the One who created us.

But since it is by common confession that the Son is the countenance of God the Father, He would surely also in every way be the very impress in which God seals.

'But indeed,' says the opponent, 'that God seals the saints through the Spirit, we believe; only, none of your arguments is found to bear at all upon the question before us.'

Wherefore, taking it up again, we will say: The seal, conceived as being of iron perhaps, or even of gold, engraves its own likeness upon the materials on which it may be impressed, casting off nothing from itself, but stamping the receiving materials solely by the operation that comes from the pressing.

In this way, if you please, some would understand the Son to have been sealed by the Father, having nothing of His substance, but enjoying only an exact likeness, and existing as something other than He, just as an image in relation to its archetype.

O boundless madness and reckless mind!

How easily you have forgotten the things but now rehearsed!

For we said that the Son is the impress of the Father, but that what is sealed in Him is that which is foreign to Him, and not He Himself — lest He be conceived as the impress of His own self.

But you, having wrongly spurned the argument concerning these matters, do not blush to invest Him with only the likeness which is according to operation.

According to you, then, the Son will be God only in impresses, and by no means by nature, but only in respect of having been well formed and fashioned toward a resemblance to the One who begot Him;

and perhaps not even of One who begot at all;

for by these arguments it is high time for you to abolish even the generation — nay rather, this is by every necessity forced upon you, even if you are unwilling.

Now concerning the necessity of believing that the Son has been begotten from the Father, much discourse has already been expended by us, or will be expended at its proper time;

but it will be more fitting somehow to proceed to the matter in hand, setting this before those who are wont to prate rashly, as a question for inquiry: Will they not in every way call that which is given both removable, and will they not confess that what is wholly acquired can also be cast away? For is it not the case that at times everything whatsoever comes to be spat out, which has not by nature been rooted in certain beings? Nay, it is plain, even if none of those men should concur.

The Son then will be, according at least to the argument concerning things possible, at some time bare of the likeness;

for, as you say, only according to operation was the likeness from the Father signed upon Him, since He does not have anything secure from natural endowments, but is conceived and exists as one altogether other than the One who begot Him, and wholly cut off from His substance.

For, doing exceedingly well indeed, and foreseeing matters with most wise calculations, you have secured the Father, saying that He bestows nothing of Himself upon the Son,

except to deem Him worthy of likeness alone, in order that no passibility may be conceived concerning Him.

For this is that unspeakable folly of yours.

For you were ignorant, as is likely, that God the Father, doing all things impassibly, will also beget impassibly, and is mightier than fire;

for the argument brings us down even to this use.

He does not beget the fiery kindling from Himself in passion and in a severance conceived after the manner of a body.

reckoning this to be no unholy thing, but rather a virtue: namely, that if they say the Son has been ranked with the Father in the kinship of likeness alone, He will lie in no security of good things, but will be altogether imperiled even as to being God by nature, and will be liable, as far as is possible, even to a turning aside toward the worse.

You see then already, and very clearly indeed, from such considerations, that it is not secure for intelligible beings, unto an unshaken standing, to rest in likeness alone toward God; nay, neither does it suffice for an unaltered abiding in whatever good things they may possess, that they have been well sealed toward the nature of the One who made them.

For these too fall down and are borne downward, oftentimes shifting over to a baser disposition than they were at the beginning.

It is possible then, according to the argument which we hold in this way, that the Son — ascending unto likeness to the Father according to sameness of operation alone, and not established upon a natural foundation, but having security only in the inclinations arising from His own volitions — should undergo also a change; or, even if He should not suffer it, He will find the not-suffering to be the fruit of a laudable choice, and not rather, as God, the steadfastness of a natural security.

What then, O most excellent men? Has the Son become for us no longer God in truth? And if, according to you, He shall be found to be in this state, why do we worship Him? And why is He glorified together with God the Father? And why is He borne aloft, as God, by the highest powers? Were the holy Seraphim then, along with us, also ignorant that one who glorifies as God the One who is not God by nature falls far short of what is fitting? And does he go astray, as is likely, who names as Lord of Sabaoth the One honored with equal honors?

For shall we not say that even the highest powers — principalities and thrones and authorities and dominions — earnestly strive to be seen conformed, as far as is possible, to God? For if that small living creature out of the earth, in comparison with that creation — I mean man — has been honored with such beauty, what reason is there not to think in every way that those far better than the things in us set themselves far above? How then do they name Him Lord of Sabaoth, and stand around Him in the rank of bodyguards, as though ministering to the King of all? And for what cause does He also sit in session with the Father Himself, and this at His right hand — the slave with the Master, the thing made with the One who made it? For is it not the case that to created beings there would rather befit the ascribing of the impassibility and unalterableness which comes from vigilance and watchfulness, rather than to the God who is by substance and possesses naturally the inability to suffer? But it is plain, even if those men do not say so.

Who then will any longer bear with these babblers, or how shall they not with good reason hear the words, 'Woe to those who are drunk, but not with wine'? But perhaps they will be ashamed of the absurdities that arise from such syllogisms, and will proceed to that other position, saying that the Son has been signed by the Father unto a most exact likeness, yet is nonetheless in an unchangeable nature, even if He is not from the Father.

Then tell me, how shall that which is not from God by nature bear His proper attribute, and how shall that which has not come forth from the divine substance according to the true mode of generation be found not to be, in a substantial way, without a share in the excellences of the divine substance? For it is, I think, clear and confessed by everyone that the properties of the Godhead are altogether inaccessible to the created creation, and that the things belonging by nature to the Godhead could never come to be, in an equal and undeviating manner, in any other of the things that are.

for example, immutability is by nature in God, but in us by no means so; rather a certain security shapes us toward it through attentiveness and sobriety, not permitting us to be readily transferred to things which are not fitting.

I say immutability, but the rest also will have their place;

and what follows from this? The whole is thrown into confusion for us.

For is it not the case that the things above will give way below, while the things below will ascend to the place above? For what any longer is there to hinder the most high God from being brought down to our position, and us again from being gods, and thus even as the Father is, with no difference any longer lying between and being seen, if those excellences belonging to God alone shall also make room in us and exist naturally? And since God the Father in all likelihood holds together in Himself alone the things through which we shall be after His pattern, we have remained men, and the angels too along with us remain that very thing which they are, not ascending to that which is above all.

Whereas, if God, as being above envy in being seen, were to add His own attribute unto the power of all, by adding it to their authority, there would surely be many gods by nature, able to fashion earth and heaven and all the rest of creation;

for the Divine lies in its own proper nature, and that which is made partakes of it through spiritual kinship, but will by no means ascend to the dignity that belongs to that nature without deviation.

But our arguments being thus arranged, we shall find immutability existing substantially in the Son;

He is therefore God by nature, and consequently necessarily from the Father, lest anything of the things that are not from Him by nature should appear to cross over unto equal dignity in Godhead.

But since they put forward to us, as an unconquerable argument, saying that the Son is other than the Father, just as an image in relation to its archetype, and by such sophistry they think to sever Him from the substance of the One who begot Him;

they shall again be caught reasoning senselessly in no small measure, having practiced asserting stubbornly about nothing at all, as though the point were one capable in truth of accomplishing well the very thing which is in their mind.

For why at all do they strain themselves in vain upon this, or on what basis, from the mere otherness according to individual existence, do they sever the Son from the Father? For surely His existing in His own distinct subsistence does not declare Him also foreign to the substance of the One who begot Him.

For He is confessedly from the Father, as from His substance, and again He is in the Father, because He exists in Him by nature;

and you will hear Him saying, at one time, 'I came forth from the Father and am come'; and at another again, 'I am in the Father and the Father in Me.' For He will not withdraw into an individuality wholly and in every manner separated, because the Holy Trinity is conceived in one Godhead; but being in the Father according to reason — that is, according to an inseparable relation such as is in consubstantiality — He will also be conceived from Him according to an ineffable procession that is manifestative, that is, such as is in radiance.

Therefore He is in the Father and from the Father, both inseparably and yet distinctly: as impress existing within, but conceived as an image in relation to its archetype in His own distinct existence.

And we will make our discourse concerning this not simply, but from an example drawn from the Law we will confirm it, on every side raising up against the heterodox the force that comes from the truth.

The Law then commanded those of Israel to bring, each one, as a ransom for his own head, the half of the didrachm. And in one stater the didrachm was contained.

But in this also again Christ Himself was foreshadowed for us — He who, on behalf of all, as from all, offered Himself as a ransom to God the Father, and is conceived as in one drachma, yet not separated from the other, because the two drachmas lie, as we have already said before, in the one coin.

Thus also would the Son be conceived in relation to the Father, and the Father again in relation to the Son: both in one nature, yet each severally in his own part, as existing in his own distinct subsistence, yet not wholly cut off, nor the one apart from the other.

The drachmas, having a measure in quantity equal to one another and in no way diminished on any side — thus you will understand that the substance of the Son in no respect differs in relation to God the Father, or again His in relation to the Son; and you will thenceforth receive as sound the whole account concerning all the things spoken about Him.

'They said therefore unto Him, What shall we do, that we may work the works of God? Jesus answered and said unto them.'

The inquiry does not proceed from a good intention, nor yet, as someone might perhaps suppose, does the question come forth from them out of a love of learning; rather the utterance arose from very great arrogance.

For as though deeming it worthy still to learn nothing in addition to what they knew, they all but say something of this sort: 'Enough for us, good sir, are the things given through Moses;

we know, no less than was needful, the things upon which the one skilled in the divine works ought to concentrate his effort.'

But what new thing will you yourself bring in addition to the things ordained at that time? And what strange thing will you teach, which has not been foresignified to us through the divine oracles? Therefore the question arises from senselessness rather than truly from a purpose that loves learning.

You have something of this kind also in the blessed Matthew;

for a certain young man, flowing over with an abundance of possessions not easily to be come by, was hinting somehow at his need thenceforth to enter into servitude under God.

And when he came to Jesus, he earnestly inquired what he ought to do, in order that he might be found an heir also of eternal life.

But to him the Lord says, 'You surely know the commandments in some way: You shall not kill, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not swear falsely, and whatever things are joined together with these.'

But as though needing none of these any longer, or not accepting an exposition of the lessons that fell far short of the state already within him, he says, 'All these things I have kept from my youth;

what do I still lack?' Now that very thing which that man said, having yoked haughtiness to ignorance — 'What do I still lack?' — this these men too, out of exceeding great arrogance together with a conceit of wisdom, say: 'What shall we do, that we may work the work of God?' A good thing therefore is the moderate mind, and it is the work of a noble soul to entrust to those who teach the accurate knowledge of what is profitable, and thus to give way to lessons, feasting upon whatever things they may think they hold well, inasmuch as those men have the greater portion in knowledge.

For how at all shall they be received even in the rank of a teacher, unless they have in every way seized what excels in understanding, or such as the mind of those being instructed may hold, when even to that measure of theirs the advancement toward the greater will barely at last bring them down — according at least to that which was said by the Saviour, 'A disciple is not above his teacher,' and, 'It is enough for the disciple that he become as his teacher'? 'This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom that One sent.'

Most strikingly again the Lord, even if still secretly and in a veiled manner, leaps upon the senselessness of the questioners;

for someone will suppose, as far as concerns the mere simplicity of the words, that Jesus enjoins upon them nothing other than that it behooves them to believe in Him.

But one who examines the sense of the things said will behold the reference going toward something else.

For, doing exceedingly well indeed, He framed the discourse upon these matters fittingly to the senselessness of the questioners.

For they, as though having sufficiently learned through the Law to work what is pleasing to God, impiously set aside the teaching of our Saviour, saying, 'What shall we do, that we may work the work of God?' But it was needful to show that they were still far removed from the service most dear to God, and had known nothing at all of the things truly good — they who, sitting attentively before the letter of the Law, have a mind full simply of types and figures.

For this reason He speaks with much emphasis, contrasting the fruit that comes from faith with the services enjoined by the Law: 'This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent.'

This, He says, is not what you supposed, when you looked only at the types; but know once more, even if you are unwilling to learn it, that the Lawgiver was never pleased with the ox-sacrifices offered among you, and that you ought not to slay sheep to a God who both wills and demands this of you.

should he be enwreathed with smoke — what profit, He says, is the he-goat, and the hard-to-obtain offerings of cinnamon? 'God will not eat the flesh of bulls, nor will He drink the blood of goats.'

'He knows all the birds of the heaven, and the beauty of the field is with Him.'

He has hated and cast away your feasts, and He will by no means smell a sweet savour in your solemn assemblies, as He Himself somewhere says.

But neither did He speak to your fathers concerning whole burnt offerings and sacrifices. Therefore this is not the work of God, but rather that other thing — that you should believe in Him whom He has sent.

For indeed the salvation that comes through faith is truly better than the legal worship offered as in a type, and the grace that justifies is better than the commandment that condemns.

Faith in Christ, then, is a work for the God-loving soul, and it is far more worthy of account to press on rather toward the words that discourse wisely concerning Him, than to sit attending upon the shadows contained in the type.

And you will marvel again at this also, in addition to these things:

For Christ, having it as His custom to make no reply to any who questioned Him in a testing spirit, in this present case answers by way of dispensation,

even though again He knew that they would in no way be benefited;