Commentary on John 1 part 5/94

{Another.} If the Son, being Life by nature, is created and made—inasmuch as, according to their supposition, he does not have his being of the substance of God and the Father—then the nature of created things will admit of being and being called life;

and all things will be life according to the potential principle, even if they do not yet possess the actuality of the thing;

for that which is at all naturally capable of being something, would surely in every way be it, even if it has not yet come to be;

for it has in its nature the capacity.

Since then to be life is common to the creation, but the special and sole property of none, why does the Son vainly boast concerning himself, saying, 'I am the life'? For surely he ought rather to have said, 'I am with you the life.'

And this would have been in some way truer, if indeed he is really created and life;

but since he ascribes to himself alone, as his own proper good, the being life, he would then evidently be ranking himself not with created things, but with the divine substance of the Father, to which the being life belongs naturally.

{Another.} That which partakes of life is not life in the strict and proper sense, for something else evidently subsists in it;

if then the Son is participated in by created things as life, he would be other than the things that partake of him and stand in need of life;

therefore he is not created, nor does he seek to be given life by another;

God, then, he is after all, as life-giver;

and if this is so, he will also be confessed to be of the Father's substance, if indeed we worship one God and do not serve any other besides him who truly is.

{Another.} Examining accurately the nature of things that are, we see God and creation, and nothing else besides these.

For whatever falls outside of being God by nature, this is altogether created, and whatever escapes the principle of having been made, is altogether within the bounds of deity.

Since then we have examined such matters excellently, let those who thrust the Son outside the substance of God and the Father tell us how he could give life as Life, when the divine nature has this as its own property and yields it to none other.

But if, being created, he can also be life, then in every way the grace of this superiority will reach to all created things, and all will be life by nature;

what need then will they have of participation in the Son, or what advantage will they find from thence? For they too possess the being life by nature.

But the argument is not true; rather they of necessity partake of the Son, as standing in need of life.

The Only-Begotten alone, therefore, is Life by nature, and on this account will not be ranked among created things, but will ascend to the nature of him who begot him;

for the Father too is Life by nature.

{Another.} The Son, being Life by nature, is either other than the creation—evidently in respect of nature—or of the same nature with it.

If then he is of the same nature and consubstantial with it, how does he not speak falsely when he says, 'I am the bread of life which comes down from heaven and gives life to the world'? For the creation possesses of itself the being life, and life is not partaker of life, in order that it may appear as life.

But if he is not of the same nature, he will also escape the being created, drawing up with himself, away from the creation, its own proper good as well.

For the creation will not be life by nature, but rather in need of life and a partaker of it.

{Another.} If, being Life by nature, the Son

is of the same nature with the things that have been made, because he is not of the substance of God and the Father—according, at least, to their argument—for what reason then does the blessed psalmist say that the heavens shall perish and shall grow old like a garment;

yet as his own peculiar prerogative he assigned to him, crying, 'But you are the same, and your years shall not fail'? For either he too will perish and fail together with us as being of the same nature, and will no longer be conceived as life; or else the natural conjunction with him will draw us up also to being ever in the same state, to an unfailing number of years, and to being life.

But indeed he himself will remain ever the same, while we shall fail;

therefore he is not created as we are;

but since he is of the Life that is by nature, he too as Life will give life to the things that stand in need of life.

{Another.} If nothing is a partaker of itself, and the creation partakes of the Son as of life,

then the creation is not himself, nor indeed is the creation life, which is what the Son is.

{Another.} If to give life is one thing, and to be given life is another, as action and passion, and the Son gives life while the creation is given life,

then the Son and the creation are not the same, since neither is that which acts the same as that which is acted upon.

That the Son is Light by nature, and on this account is not created, but is of the substance of God and the Father, as true Light from true Light.

And the Life was the light of men.

AND by these words the blessed Evangelist shows us that the Son is God by nature, and essentially the heir of the good things of him who begot him.

For having taught beforehand that, being Life by nature, he himself was in all the things that came to be through him, holding them together and giving them life, and by ineffable power granting them to pass from non-being into being and preserving them once they have come to be, he passes on to another arrangement of thoughts, leading us as by the hand from every side to the apprehension of the truth—reflecting that this is indeed most fitting.

Therefore the Word was present in the things that came to be, as Life;

but since there is among them upon the earth a rational living being, receptive of mind and knowledge and a partaker of the wisdom that is from God—namely, man—the Spirit-bearer necessarily shows us clearly that the Word is also the supplier of the wisdom that is among men, in order that God and Father may be conceived, through the Son, to be all things in all—Life in those that need life,

and again both light and life, in those that need life and light.

And on this account he says, 'And the Life was the light of men,' that is, the God Word who gives life to all things, the Life that is in all that are, both illumines the rational living being and lavishes understanding upon those that are receptive of understanding;

in order that what is said concerning the creation may be preserved and hold good: 'For what have you that you did not receive?' For the created and made nature is rich in nothing of itself, but whatever it may appear to have, this is in every way from God, who bestows both existence and the manner in which each thing ought to be.

And well again is the word 'was' set upon the Life, in order that everywhere it may signify that the Word exists eternally, and may cut short the babblings of the senseless, who bring in the Son to us from non-existence—which appears to war against the whole of divine Scripture.

Concerning, then, the co-eternity of the Word with the Father, having already treated of it sufficiently, both in the present book and in that entitled 'Thesaurus,' we shall think it right to keep silence.

as we go on to encounter what follows, God once more opening for us both a door and a mouth for our words.

What, then, will the enemy of Christ say to us again, now that he has learned that the light of men is the Life, that is, the ever-living God the Word? With what reasonings will he sling us about, when we come forward and say: If the Son is not God by nature, and the fruit of the substance of the One who begot Him, if He has not shone forth for us as true light out of true light, but Himself also subsisted from without, according to your ignorance—

then He is of the same nature as the things that have been made, and He will in no way escape being originate. How then, O you who are full of all folly, does He Himself give light, while the things made by Him are illumined? For is not the illumining one distinct from the illumined? Nay, it is plain and clear to everyone.

For if we were to grant that they are the same, both as to the quality of substance and as to the manner of their being, what more is there in the one who has power to illumine, and again what less in the one who stands in need of light? For whatever befalls the one will come upon both, alternately upon each; and that which is in need of light will itself be light, while the light, being illumined, will show no difference from it.

But much confusion of the notions is seen in these things, and a necessary argument separates for us each of the things named, and sets in its own proper nature that which in these things supplies, as distinct from that which is supplied.

The Son, therefore, is not of the same nature as the things that have been made, but will rest within the substance of the Father, being true light out of true light.

It is no hard matter to recast, with respect to the foregoing, the argument which we constructed concerning the Son's being Life by nature—showing Him to be other than the things in which He is—and to make clear the knowledge contained in this chapter.

But so as not to leave the labor concerning these things to others, or seem to be overcome by sloth, I myself will again attempt, as far as I am able, to recast the form of the syllogisms used in the foregoing.

For as in those passages, being Life by nature, He is shown to be other than the things in which He was, so also in this case, being said to be, and being in truth, the light of men, He will be found to be other than the things which need light and partake of Him.

And from what follows we shall know it more exactly.

Demonstrations by syllogisms, that the Son who gives light is by nature other than the creation which is illumined.

If the Word was in the things spoken of as light by nature, mingling Himself by participation with the things that are, then He is other than the things in which He is believed to be.

And He who is other in nature than that which the creation participating in Him and illumined is—how would He not, consequently, be God who is over all? Another argument. If the God-fighter says that the Son, being light by nature, is among the originate things as originate, illumining the things that stand in need of light—

then, first, He will be conceived as existing in Himself; next, in addition to this, He will also be a partaker of Himself; and being light, if indeed He is among the originate things, He will be supposed to be one and the same as arising out of them.

But surely he who is instructed in heart in wisdom, as it is written, sees in every way how great an absurdity such a way of thinking involves.

Therefore, if the Word who illumines the originate things is in them by way of participation, He will not Himself be among the things that participate and are illumined, but plainly other than those things.

And if this be so, then He is not originate, but as light by nature, and God, among the things that stand in need of light.

Another argument. If the Son is not of the substance of God the Father, but they have caused Him to subsist from without, then He is originate and made.

How then is He among the things that have come to be, illumining them? And what pre-eminence shall we thereafter find in the divine nature? Or how does the most wise psalmist say, as of something worthy of all admiration concerning Him who is God by nature: 'In Thy light shall we see light'? For if the Son, being originate, illumines all things, the creation will illumine itself, having no need at all for this of God its Maker.

Nothing, then, is there more in God than in the creation; yet He works, being God, no less than He is able.

The Son, therefore, is not originate, but rather God, and on this account light by nature, even as the Father.

And if He were also brought into subsistence, nothing further would hinder, by the same proportion, all originate things from being called light of God the Father.

For if the nature of the things that have been made admits of this at all, it will be common in potentiality to all, and not the peculiar property of the Son alone.

For to the Son alone will it belong both to be called and to be the light of God the Father.

He is not, therefore, originate, but light, as God from God, illumining through Himself the things that stand in need of light.

Another argument. If the Son, being light by nature, is not of the substance of the Father, but subsisted from without, according to the untutored argument of the God-fighters—

then He is of the same nature as the things that have been made, and their brother, seeing that He has fallen away from the divine substance.

How then is it that He Himself both is called and is light,

while concerning the holy Baptist it is said, 'He was not that light'? And yet the blessed Baptist is light in potentiality, and not he alone, if indeed it were at all possible for the Son, being originate, to be able to be light by nature.

For that which lies once for all in the nature would surely become common to everyone who has partaken of it, at least according to the principle of consistency.

But indeed John is not light, whereas the Son is light.

As other in nature, therefore, and not of the same nature as the things that have come to be.

Another argument from the same source. If the Son, being light by nature, is originate and made, seeing that He does not have His being of the substance of God the Father, according to the surmise of certain persons, then the nature of the originate things will admit both to be and to be called light.

And it will be in every way light according to the principle of potentiality.

For that which is by nature capable of being anything at all would surely in every way be so, even if it has not yet come to be.

Since, then, being light is common to the nature of the originate things, but the peculiar and sole property of none, why does the Son vainly boast concerning Himself, saying, 'I am the light'?

For surely He ought rather to have said, 'I am the light together with you.'

But since He ascribes it to Himself alone as a peculiar good, taking to Himself none of the others, it would thereafter be plain that He ranks Himself not with the originate things, but with the divine substance of the Father, to which the being of light also belongs naturally.

Another argument. That which partakes of light is not properly and of itself the light, for being something other, it appears in another.

If, then, the Son is participable by the originate things as light, He would be other than the things that participate in Him and stand in need of light.

Therefore He is not originate, nor seeking, like the originate things, to be illumined by another.

But God, consequently, and able to illumine.

And if this be so, He will also be conceived as having sprung by nature from the substance of the Father, if indeed we worship one God, and render service to no other besides Him who truly is.

Another argument. Examining accurately the nature of the things that are, we behold God and creation, and besides these nothing else.

For whatever falls away from being God by nature, this is altogether originate; and whatever escapes the principle of having been made, this is also altogether within the bounds of the Godhead.

Since, then, we have examined such matters in the best manner, let those who thrust the Son out of the substance of God the Father tell us how He could give light as light, seeing that the divine nature has this as its own peculiar property and yields it to no other.

But if the Son, being originate, is also able to be light, the grace of this advantage will surely reach to all the originate things, and all things will be light by nature.

What need, then, have they any longer of participation in the Son? Or what advantage will they find therefrom, seeing that they too have by nature the being of light, just as, of course, the Son also has in themselves? But the creation stands in need of the one who illumines, not having this of its own.

The Son, therefore, is God by nature, and on this account light, as being able to illumine the things that stand in need of light.

Another argument. The Son, being light by nature, is either other than the creation—plainly according to the principle of the manner of being—or of the same nature as it.

If, then, He is of the same kind and of the same substance, He came to us in vain, as it seems, saying, 'I am come a light into the world'; for the creation has of its own the being of light, itself also.

But light must be without participation in another light, in order to be conceived as light.

But if He is not of the same nature, and the creation stands in need of light, having heard, 'For what hast thou that thou didst not receive?', then necessarily the Son will now escape being originate, drawing away with Himself from the creation its peculiar good.

For the creation will not be light by nature, but rather stands in need of light and is a partaker of it.

It is a partaker; and the creation partakes of the Son as of light.

He, therefore, is not creation, but neither is the creation the light, which is the Son.

Another argument. If to illumine is one thing, and to be illumined is another—as activity and passivity—and if the Son illumines while the creation is illumined,

then the Son and the creation are not the same, since neither is that which acts the same as that which is acted upon.

'And the light shineth in the darkness, and the darkness comprehended it not.'

Of necessity the most wise Evangelist hastens to enlarge upon the contemplation set forth in the foregoing, and to do so through the words here proposed.

For he did not think it would suffice his hearers, toward being able to think unerringly concerning God the Word—that He Himself is truly the light of men—merely to say, 'And the life was the light of men'; for it was indeed likely that some would be shown to be listening to what was said without due examination.

And so they might even take upon themselves to be ambassadors, or to try to teach others, that the Word of God is indeed truly light, but not the supplier of light to all, rather that He infuses the light of understanding into those whom He Himself wills, testing the one who ought to receive it and who is worthy of so radiant a gift;

while the nature of the other rational creatures either gathers up the power of being able to think from its own seeds, as it were, or God the Father implants in it mind and understanding, on the ground that the Son is not strong enough to do this.

Therefore, in order that it might plainly appear that God the Word Himself, who was in God and the Father, is both Life and Light—not being so to some in part and no longer to others, but according to a certain unspeakable manner of participation, as wisdom and understanding—

which is that which in rational beings is called light—

mingling Himself with all the things that are, that the rational may be endowed with reason, and that the things receptive of prudence may have prudence—things which could never otherwise have been so—of necessity he says: 'And the light shineth in the darkness, and the darkness comprehended it not.'

For with great exactness he all but cries aloud something of this sort to his hearers: I said, O you people—teaching indeed most surely the truth—that the light of men is the Life, not that anyone should suppose, especially amid the present words, that the illumination which comes from Him is bestowed as a prize won from some other manner of life upon those who might appear just and good;

but that you might learn again, that just as the Word is life in all the things that have come to be—plainly giving life to the things receptive of life—

so also He is light in them, in the things receptive of understanding and prudence, showing them to be that which they are;

for God the Father is all things in all through the Son in the Spirit.

And by 'darkness' he names the nature that stands in need of being illumined—that is, in general, the originate nature.

But that which does not possess light of itself — how would it not be the opposite? Or how would it not be called darkness? For it is a persuasive, or rather now a most necessary and compelling demonstration, that the creation is darkness while the Word of God is light, namely that the light shines in the darkness.

For if the nature of created things receives the Word of God by participation, as light or as from light,

then this nature clearly receives Him as darkness receives light, and the Son shines within it as light shines in darkness, even though the darkness in no way knows the light;

for this, I think, is what is signified by the words, 'The darkness did not comprehend it.'

For the Word of God shines upon all who are capable of receiving His illumination, and He gives light in general to all things whose nature is receptive of being enlightened;

yet He is not known by the darkness.

For the rational nature that dwells upon earth — that is, man — once served the creature rather than the Creator;

the beginning, the root of understanding.

Nevertheless, out of God's love for mankind it does possess the light, and it draws to itself, as though implanted together with it, the power of understanding, which runs alongside created things at their very entrances into being.

And here again it must be observed that no reasoning will permit us to think the Son of God to be created, or to suppose Him to be made; rather He is wholly exalted above all that pertains to us, transcending the nature of created things, and altogether other than what they are, standing far apart in the quality of His essence — just as, assuredly, light is not the same as darkness, but is even its opposite, separated by incomparable differences into a natural estrangement.

Having now sufficiently treated the discourse concerning this matter in what was previously examined, we shall add the remainder of what follows.

'There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. He came for a witness, that he might bear witness concerning the Light.'

Having set forth many things beforehand concerning the Word of God, and having most precisely explained the ways in which He would be shown to be by nature the Son of God and Father, the Evangelist now labours to procure among his hearers faith in what has been said;

and since, according to what was spoken by God through Moses, 'By the mouth of two and three witnesses shall every word be established,' he prudently brings alongside himself the blessed Baptist, and introduces him as a witness truly most worthy of account.

For he did not think it right — however greatly venerable he himself might be — to demand of those who would read his account concerning our Saviour a faith that goes beyond the Law, and to believe him alone as he expounded things surpassing mind and understanding, matters that transcend our condition.

The blessed Evangelist himself, then, bears witness that the Word was in the beginning, and the Word was God, and was in the beginning with God, and that all things came into being through Him, and that He was in the things that came to be, as life, and that the life was the light of men — that through all these things he might demonstrate the Son to be God by nature.

And the inspired Baptist also bears witness to Him along with him, crying out, 'Prepare the way of the Lord, make straight the paths of our God.' For assuredly one will say that He is true God in whom the dignity of lordship inheres by nature, and which is not seen to belong to another in the proper and true sense — since 'to us there is one God the Father, and one Lord Jesus Christ,' according to the word of Paul;

and even if by grace many are called gods and lords, both in heaven and on earth, yet the Son is, together with the Father, one true God.

Therefore the pair of the holy witnesses is most worthy of account, and henceforth a faith in no way to be accused is owed to what is said — a faith which has received its fullness from the Law, and is confirmed by the eminence of the persons.

Now for the blessed Evangelist to say anything about himself, and to lay hold of his own praises, would truly have been burdensome and moreover ill-bred;

for he would justly have heard, 'You bear witness concerning yourself; your witness is not true.' For this reason he leaves it to those who know him to reflect upon his own affairs, and turns to him of the same name — doing this too exceedingly well — and says that he was sent from God.

For it was necessary to show that the holy Baptist did not come to the witness on behalf of our Saviour as a deserter, nor by self-appointed zeal, but as one yielding to what had been ordained from above and ministering to the divine will of the Father.

For this reason he says, 'There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.'

And it must be attentively noted how he made the account concerning each one both secure and fitting, and suited to the nature of the things signified.

For in the case of the Word of God, the phrase 'He was' is consistently introduced everywhere, signifying His eternity, and that He is older than every beginning that is in time, and doing away with any notion of His having been made;

for how could that which always is be conceived as created also? But in the case of the blessed Baptist, he fittingly says, 'There was a man sent from God,' as of a man having a created nature.

And by adding also the word 'man,' he overturns a most ill-considered supposition held by some.

For already there was a report circulated among many, spreading abroad that the holy Baptist was not truly a man by nature, but one of the holy angels who are in the heavens, who had made use of a human body and had been sent from God to preach.

And a pretext for this supposition of theirs has again been devised by them, namely that it was said by God, 'Behold, I send My messenger before Your face, who shall prepare Your way before You.' But those who hold such an opinion fall away from the truth, not understanding that the name 'angel' is significant rather of a ministry than of an essence — just as, assuredly, in the account concerning the blessed Job, angel runs upon angel one after another, announcing the manifold sufferings and ministering to those irremediable calamities.

And most usefully he strongly affirmed that the messenger was sent 'from God,' thereby showing his witness to be most trustworthy.

For one sent from God to preach would not utter aside anything else in his teaching that was not altogether according to the will of Him who laid the mission upon him.

Therefore the witness, being taught of God, is true;

for this, I think, is what is signified by 'sent from God';

since Paul also, our most wise teacher, saying that he was sent through Jesus Christ, strongly affirmed that he had learned the power of the mystery from no other, but through a revelation of Him who sent him, intimating the revelation as conjoined with us, as it were, and inseparably, in saying that he was sent through Jesus Christ.

Therefore in being sent from God, it altogether follows that one is taught of God.

And that not to lie is a thing greatly sought after by the ministers of truth, is beyond dispute.

'And the man's name,' he says, 'was John.'

The one sent had to be made known also by the signification of his name, which, I think, contributes much credibility to the account;

for this is Gabriel who stands before God, as he himself says;

when he brought Zacharias the good news of his birth from Elizabeth, besides the other things he is found saying, he added this also, that 'John shall be his name.'

And it is surely plain and confessed by all that he was thus named by the angel according to the divine will and command.

Then how would he henceforth not be recognized as better than all praise and at the same time more worthy of account, this man crowned by God with so great an honour? Wherefore indeed the mention of his name is usefully and necessarily included.

For as far as concerns the aim of the one proclaiming beforehand, and the manner of the mission from above, no one would have been found without a share in the teaching, nor would anyone have remained disobedient;

but since the disposition among the hearers is different, and each one has authority over his own choice, some fell away from what was profitable, not accepting the faith.

Therefore to them it must plainly be said, according to what is set down in the prophet, 'Let him who hears, hear, and let him who is disobedient, be disobedient.' 'This man came for a witness, that he might bear witness concerning the Light.'

The word 'This man' is pregnant with an intimation of virtue and of the eminence of the person;

for 'sent from God,' he says, is he who fittingly astounded all Judea both by the gravity of his life and by his surpassing feats of ascetic discipline, he who was proclaimed beforehand through the voice of the holy prophets;

'this man came for a witness, that he might bear witness concerning the Light';

and by 'the Light' in this place he designates the Word of God, and shows Him to be one, and to be Light itself in the proper sense, alongside whom by nature there is nothing else possessing the operation of being able to give light and having no need of light.

Therefore the Word of God is alien and, so to speak, of another nature in relation to the creation, if indeed He Himself is truly and really Light in the proper sense, while the creation is a partaker of light.

But He who is now unranked with the things that have been made, and who is on this account conceived as of another nature — how could He be created? Rather, how would He not henceforth be within the bounds of Godhead, and full of the excellence of natural endowment belonging to the One who begot Him? 'That man was not the Light, but that he might bear witness concerning the Light.'

The Baptist, having preferred sojourns in the wilderness to dwellings in the cities, and having displayed a strange steadfastness in asceticism, and having attained to the very summit of righteousness among men, was most justly marvelled at, and was indeed supposed by some to be the Christ himself.