Commentary on John 1 part 6/94

And so the leaders of the Jewish ranks, brought into such a suspicion by the advantages of virtue that belonged to him, send certain men to him, ordering them to inquire whether he himself is the Christ.

The blessed Evangelist, therefore, not being ignorant of the things noised abroad among many concerning him, necessarily inserts the words 'That man was not the Light,' in order both to root out the error concerning this, and again to heap up a certain credibility upon the one sent by God for a witness.

For how would he not be exceedingly surpassing, and how in every way not worthy of admiration, this man so clothed with great virtue and so distinguished in righteousness that he imitated Christ himself, so that on account of the extraordinary beauty of his piety he came henceforth to be suspected of being the Light itself? 'That man,' therefore, he says, 'was not the Light, but was sent for the witness concerning the Light.'

And by saying 'the Light' with the addition of the article, he plainly shows It to be one;

for it is truly so.

For that the blessed Baptist too might justly be called light, or indeed each of the other saints, we will not deny, on account of what was said concerning them by our Saviour, 'You are the light of the world.' And it was said again concerning the holy Baptist, 'I have prepared a lamp for My Christ,' and 'He was the lamp that burns and shines;'

'but you were willing for an hour to rejoice in his light.' Yet even if the saints are light and the Baptist is a lamp, we shall not be ignorant of the grace bestowed upon them and of the supply that comes from the Light.

For neither is the light proper to the lamp, nor indeed is the illumination proper to the saints; but by the shining of the truth they were shown to be radiant and transparent, and they are luminaries in the world, holding forth the word of life. And what is the life, whose word they held forth and were thus called light, but assuredly the Only-begotten Himself, who says, 'I am the life'? Therefore there is truly one Light in the true sense, giving light, not being given light;

but by participation in the One, whatever is called light will be so conceived according to an imitation as toward Him.

That the Son of God alone is true Light, but the creation is no longer so, being a partaker of light, as it is created.

The inspired Evangelist again works out usefully what has been said, and clearly distinguishes the Light that is in the true sense — that is, the Only-begotten — from those things that are not so, that is, from the things that have been created;

he distinctly separates that which is by nature from those which are by grace, the participated from those that are in participation, from those that are in supply that which supplies itself to those in need.

And if the Son is true Light, then nothing besides Him is light in the true sense, nor does anything have the being and being called light of itself, from within;

created things is what is meant; and just as they are out of things that were not, so from not being light they will ascend to being light, having received the ray of the true Light, and being made resplendent by participation in the divine nature, and toward the imitation of that nature they will both be called and be light.

And the Word of God is Light essentially, not possessing this by a participation according to grace, nor having the dignity as an accident in Himself, nor even as something adventitious, like a grace, but as the fruit of an unadulterated nature — an unchangeable and unalterable good, passing from the Father into the Heir of His essence.

But the creation will not thus bear being light;

as not having it, it receives; as darkness, it is given light; it has the grace as acquired, from the love for mankind of Him who gives the dignity.

Therefore the One is true Light, but the other is no longer so.

Since, therefore, so great a difference lies between them, and so long a stretch of reasoning walls off the Son of God from the creation as regards identity of nature, how could anyone not most reasonably suppose that those men are raving—or rather have quite departed from every sound mind—who say that He is a made thing and rank the Maker of all among the things that have been made? They do not see, as it seems to me, into how great an impiety their audacity casts them, for they understand neither what they are saying nor concerning whom they make their assertions. That, for those accustomed to examine more precisely the truth in the matters before us, the Only-begotten—that is, the true Light—will nowhere be shown to be a made or created thing, nor in any respect at all of one nature with the creation, anyone may readily perceive from every side, and not least through the following considerations that have been set down, gathered together for the sake of the contemplation now before us.

Considerations, that is, syllogisms, by which one may learn that the Son alone is the true Light, whereas the creation is not, and that therefore neither is it of one nature with Him.

If the Son, being the radiance of the glory of God the Father, is on that account the true Light, He will not be of one nature with the creation—lest the creation too be conceived as the radiance of the glory of God the Father, possessing by nature and in power the very thing which the Son is.

Another. If the whole creation can be true Light, for what reason is this ascribed to the Son alone? For surely, by the very argument of equality, being true Light ought also to be predicated of the things that have been made.

But it will fit none of the created things; rather, it is predicated of the essence of the Son alone.

Properly and truly, then, it will be predicated of Him, but no longer of the things that have been made.

How, then, is He still of one nature with the creation, and not rather among those things that are above the creation, as being above it together with the Father? Another. If that which is not truly light is not the same as that which is light in truth—

for the very designation of each carries something different from the other—

and the Son has been named true Light, and this He is by nature—

then the creation will not be true Light.

Neither, therefore, are things so differing from one another of one nature.

Another. If the Only-begotten is not alone the true Light, but the creation also possesses being true Light, for what reason does He enlighten every man that comes into the world? For if the created essence possessed this of itself, it would still have been superfluous to be enlightened through the Son.

But in fact He enlightens, and we all are partakers of Him.

The Son and the creation, therefore, are not the same as regards quality of essence—

just as neither is that which is partaken the same as that which partakes.

Another. If being true Light belongs by nature to the Son alone, but the creation also possesses it, then the Psalmist, as I think, will appear to speak to certain persons in vain when he says: 'Draw near to Him and be enlightened'; for that which is wholly light in truth could not come to be so by participation in some other light, nor will it be made bright by illumination from another, but rather will be furnished with perfect purity from its own nature.

But we see that man, being of a created nature, stands in need of light.

By nature, then, we are alien to the true Light, which is the Son.

Another, from the same. If the human mind is called a lamp, according to what is sung in the Psalms, 'For You will light my lamp, O Lord,' how shall we be light in truth? For to a lamp its light is brought in from without and is a given thing.

And if the Only-begotten alone enlightens the darkness that is in us, how is He not rather Himself light in truth, while we are so no longer? And if this is true, how could He any longer be of one nature with the creation, seeing that He is set so far above it? Another. If being true Light can belong to the creation, just as of course it belongs also to the Son, then plainly man too will be true light, being a part of the creation.

To whom, then, did God the Father through the holy prophets make His promise when He said, 'And unto you that fear My name shall the Sun of righteousness arise'? For what need at all would that which is light in truth have of a sun to shed its rays? Yet in fact God the Father promised to give Him to those who stood in need, and having received Him we have been enlightened.

The Only-begotten, then, is other than we and the creation, as regards natural identity, being true Light and by nature able to enlighten the things that need light.

Another. If the Son alone is not the true Light, but the creation possesses it too, then plainly it will be in us also.

What reasoning, then, persuaded the saints to cry aloud to God, 'Send forth Your light and Your truth'? And why, tell me, did they so often utter such words, thinking thereby to profit us? For if they knew that man stands in need of light and lacks the addition that comes from another, how could anyone speak truly in saying that he himself is also true light? But if he did not need the enlightening Word, why did they call in vain upon One who could profit nothing? Yet it cannot be said that the mind of the saints fell short of the truth; and God the Father Himself again sends the Son as to those who need light.

The Only-begotten, therefore, is other by nature as regards the creation, inasmuch as He enlightens the things that need light.

Another. If we see the creation to be in need of light, and the Only-begotten enlightens it, then the creation does not bring itself to the light.

Neither, therefore, is it true Light as the Son is.

Another. If that which is light by nature and in truth is not darkened, and the Only-begotten is true Light, and the creation is likewise true light, for what reason does Scripture set down concerning the Son, 'The darkness comprehended it not,' while concerning us Paul says, 'In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of the unbelieving'? And again the Saviour Himself, 'While ye have the light, walk in the light, that the darkness overtake you not'? For it is surely plain to all that, unless it were possible for some of us to be overtaken by the darkness, the Saviour would not have said any such thing.

How, then, are the Only-begotten and the creation still the same in nature—the unchangeable and that which is changed, the One who suffers nothing from those that wrong Him and that which is darkened and can lose its illumination, this illumination being present to it plainly by way of addition and not rooted in it by nature? Another. If the Only-begotten is not alone the true Light, but the creation possesses it too, as being of one nature with Him, in what manner do we cry aloud, as to God the Father, 'In Your light shall we see light'? For if we are true light, how shall we be enlightened in another? But if we say such things as needing light brought in from without, then plainly we shall be found not to be light in truth.

Neither, therefore, are we of one nature with the Word, who by nature is so far above us.

Another, by way of exposition. Our Lord Jesus Christ is found in the Gospels saying, 'And this is the judgment, that the light is come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the light—

for their works were evil.'

'For everyone that doeth evil hateth the light, and cometh not to the light.' But if the true Light is the Only-begotten, and the creation likewise can be true light—

yet the things chosen by will do not have the same standing—as one might say, for instance—

no one will possess being a rational man by his own deliberate choice—

for he has this from nature—

yet nevertheless he will have it according to his own will to be evil or good, and will likewise love, of his own authority, righteousness or its opposite.

If, then, the creation is light by nature—

for this is what 'true' signifies—

how does it not come to the light? Or how does it love the darkness, seeing that it plainly does not possess by nature being true light, but rather makes its inclination toward the better or the worse a matter of deliberate choice? Either, then, let those on the opposite side dare to say that the excellences which surpass the creation are not present in the Son by nature—that they may be convicted of more nakedly blaspheming and may hear from all, 'The Lord shall destroy all the deceitful lips, the tongue that speaketh proud things'—or, if they clearly confess that these good things are present in Him essentially, let them not join to Him in unity according to nature the creation, which does not so possess them, as has just now been demonstrated by us.

Another. If the Word of God is not alone the true Light, but the creation also possesses being true light, just as He does, for what reason does He say, 'I am the light of the world'? Or how shall we tolerate His stripping our nature of its fairest prerogative, if it is at all possible for us too to be true light, since the created essence would possess it? But if the Only-begotten speaks truly when He says, 'I am the light of the world,' then plainly the creation will be light by a relation toward Him, and not otherwise.

And if this is so, it is not of one nature with Him.

Another. If the Son is not alone light in truth, but this belongs also to the created things—

what then shall we say, when the most wise Peter writes to us, 'But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for His own possession, that ye may proclaim the excellences of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light'? For what darkness at all is in us, or in what darkness have we come to be, if we ourselves are light in truth? And in what manner have we been called back to the light, we who were not in darkness? Yet neither does the herald of the truth lie, who boldly said, 'Since ye seek a proof of Christ speaking in me'; and we have been called to His marvelous light, as therefore from darkness, and not otherwise.

And if this is true, then the creation is not light in truth; rather, the Son alone is properly and truly Light, while the created things are so by participation in Him, and on that account are not of one nature with Him.

Other arguments, with the citation of texts, bringing those who encounter them, from simpler considerations, to the confession that the Son of God alone is the true Light, whereas the nature of created things is enlightened by the supply that comes from Him, not possessing being light essentially, as He does.

The Psalmist says, 'The light of Your countenance has been marked upon us, O Lord.' And what, then, is the countenance of God the Father, whose light has been marked upon us? Assuredly the Only-begotten Son of God, the unvarying Image, and on this account saying, 'He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father'; and He was marked upon us, having shown us conformed to Himself, and having engraved the illumination through His own Spirit as a divine image upon those who believe in Him, that they too might now be styled, after His likeness, gods and sons of God.

But if the true Light were one of the created things, how was it marked upon us? For 'the light shineth in the darkness,' according to the unerring word of the Spirit-bearer.

For how could light be made manifest within light? Another. The Psalmist says, 'Light is sprung up for the righteous.'

If it springs up for one who possesses it and does not need it, it is superfluous.

But if it rises for him as for one who does not possess the light, then the Only-begotten alone is Light, while the creation is a partaker of light, and on that account of a different nature.

...the guidance, which alone indeed preserved Israel and delivered him from the covetousness of the Egyptians.

If, then, the Only-begotten is not alone the true Light, but the created things too possess the equal dignity, why were those of whom the account speaks not preserved by their own light, but appear to be provided, as it were, with a light belonging to another and not their own necessary possession? But it is plain that the Only-begotten shone upon them as upon those who needed light.

He alone, therefore, is the true Light, whereas the creation borrows the grace from Him.

And if this is so, how could it any longer be also of one nature with Him? Another. The Psalmist says, 'Blessed is the people that knoweth the joyful shout;'

'O Lord, in the light of Your countenance shall they walk.' Why do they not rather walk in their own light? And why, tell me, if they gather illumination from another, do they scarcely accomplish their own salvation, if indeed they too are truly light, just as, of course, is also the countenance of God the Father, that is, the Son? But it is, I think, evident to everyone from this too, that the Word supplies the illumination to the creation as to one that needs it, while the creation, receiving what it does not possess, is saved.

How, then, are the Only-begotten and the things that have come to be through Him still the same in essence? Another. The Psalmist says, 'He hath sent forth in the darkness light to the upright.'

For how at all was the upright man in darkness, if he too were the true Light, provided the nature of created things possesses this, just as does the Only-begotten? But if the light is sent to the upright as to those who do not possess it, we shall need no many words.

For the very nature of the matter will cry aloud that the deficient could not be the same in essence as the perfect, nor that which needs the same as that which supplies out of abundance.

Another. 'Be enlightened, be enlightened, O Jerusalem, for your light is come, and the glory of the Lord is risen upon you.' If the nature of created things possesses light of itself, and this is properly that which we say the Only-begotten to be, at least as regards being true Light, how would Jerusalem have needed Him who enlightens her? But since she receives being enlightened as in the manner of a grace, then the Son alone is the true Light, He who enlightens her and gives what she does not possess.

And if this is so, how is He not in every way also other by nature as regards her? Another. 'Behold, I have given You for a covenant of a race, for a light of the nations.' For how at all did the rational creation upon the earth need light, if being the true Light belongs to it by nature? For God the Father gives His own Son as to her who does not already possess it.

And she, having thus received Him, will proclaim by the very fact both the poverty of her own nature and the rich dignity of the enlightening Word.

Another. 'And now, O house of Jacob, come, let us walk in the light of the Lord.' Why do these rather not walk in their own light, but the Only-begotten bears the torch for them, imparting to them the good that belongs to His own essence? But not trusting in their own, they borrow that which is another's.

As those, therefore, who do not possess it, they have resolved to do this.

Another. The Saviour says, 'I am the light of the world; he that followeth Me shall not walk in the darkness, but shall have the light of life.' Let the creation too dare to utter such a saying, if it too is light in truth.

But if it shudders at the word and flees from the deed, then it confesses the true Light to be another—that is, the Son.

Another. The Lord says, 'While ye have the light, believe in the light, that ye may become sons of light.'

For were those who are light by nature really going to lose the light by not believing, if indeed it is at all possible for the created essence to be the true Light?

And how could this ever come to pass? For in the case of things that belong to certain beings essentially, privations do not come about wholly through negligence; but rather in the case of those things whose acquisition the will effects, and of such things as are by nature able both to accrue and to fall away without the destruction of the subject.

For instance, man is rational by nature, but a shipwright by will, or again weak in body by accident.

Therefore the things that belong to certain beings essentially possess a firmly rooted stability.

If, then, the nature of created things is at all able to be the true light, how do those who are unwilling to believe lose the light, or how do those who believe become sons of light? For if they too are by nature the light, then they will be styled sons of their own selves.

And what reward is there for those who believe? For rather they would be sons of themselves even without having accepted the faith.

Reasoning out the truth from such considerations, we shall say that the true light is the Only-Begotten alone, but that creation is destitute of light and therefore of a different nature.

{Another argument.} Jesus therefore said to them: 'Yet a little while is the light among you; walk while you have the light, that darkness overtake you not.' And you will skilfully apply to the matters before us the argument already set forth above.

For that which is by nature light could never be overtaken by darkness.

{Another argument.} John says: 'He that says he is in the light, and hates his brother, is in the darkness even until now.' The light in us, then, is a matter of choice, and it is by will rather than by essence that it inheres in created beings, if indeed he that hates his brother is in the darkness.

But the Only-Begotten is light by essence;

for his dignity is not the fruit of choice.

Therefore he who is so exalted is not of the same nature as created beings.

{Another, kindred to this.} 'He that loves his brother abides in the light.' Love procures for created beings what they do not possess—namely, the light;

he, then, is other than the things in which he comes to be through love.

That the soul of man does not pre-exist the body, nor, as some hold, is embodiment the result of earlier sins.

'Which lightens every man that comes into the world.'

For he does not think it enough merely to declare that the Only-Begotten is the true light, but he at once adds to what has been said the proof of it, all but crying aloud with strained and vehement voice: I affirm that the true light is that which lightens every man that comes into the world.

'And I heard the voice of a man between the banks of Ulai, and he called and said: Gabriel, make that man understand the vision.' It is therefore possible for angels to enlighten; and not for them alone, but now a man too borrows enlightenment from one who is himself of human kind.

as was said by our Saviour to the holy apostles: 'You are the light of the world.' Such objections, likely enough, someone might raise; but from us he will hear in reply: We behold the things of creation as existing in composition, my friend, and nothing in it is simple;

therefore he who is able to make others wise, if indeed he be a created being, is not wisdom in itself, but a minister of the wisdom that resides in him;

for it is by wisdom that the wise man is wise.

And he who teaches the understanding is not understanding in itself, but a servant of the understanding that dwells within him;

for it is in understanding that these too are understanding.

And again, he who knows how to enlighten others would not properly be conceived as the light itself, but as a borrower of the light within him, transmitting it to others by teaching, and sharing with the rest that good which he has received.

For along with being called into existence, each of the things that are has also from God the principle of its manner of being; and we shall be disposed to hold that nothing inheres in them essentially which is not a gift of the Creator's bounty and does not have as its root the grace of him who fashioned it.

Since, then, created things exist in composition, no light will be in them properly and simply, that is, without composition; but this too they will bear by participation along with the rest, having received it from God.

But the true light is that which enlightens, not that which is enlightened by another; and this is the Only-Begotten, conceived in his simple and uncompounded nature—for the Godhead departs from all duplicity.

But the opponent may perhaps say to us again: If the saints were not light by nature, for what reason did the Saviour not call them partakers of light, but named them light? And how is creation of another nature in relation to him, if, just as he is named light, so too are the rational beings? For 'You are the light of the world,' the disciples heard.

What then, most excellent sir? we shall say to him again;

We are called sons of God and gods in the divine Scriptures, according to that word: 'I said, You are gods, and all of you sons of the Most High.' Shall we then, abandoning what we are by nature, ascend to the divine and ineffable essence, and, casting out the Word of God from his true sonship, sit enthroned with the Father in his place, and make the grace of him who honours us into an occasion of impiety? God forbid!

Rather, the Son will remain unalterably in that which he is;

but we are adopted into sonship, and are gods by grace, not ignorant of what we are;

and in this way too we believe the saints to be light.

But I think we ought also to consider and observe this.

For the rational creatures, being enlightened, do enlighten, by the imparting of contemplations that are poured from one mind into another understanding; and such enlightenment would rightly be called teaching, or rather revelation.

But the Word of God enlightens every man that comes into the world, not by way of teaching, as angels perhaps, or even men, do, but rather as God, creatively implanting in each of the beings called into existence a seed of wisdom, that is, of the knowledge of God, and rooting in them understanding; and thus he renders the living creature rational, showing it to be a partaker of his own nature, and infusing into the mind, as it were, certain light-bearing exhalations of his ineffable splendour, in the manner and by the principle which he himself knows.

For it behoves us, I think, to say in these matters nothing superfluous.

For this very reason our forefather Adam too is seen to have gained wisdom not in the course of time, as we do, but from the very first moments of his coming into being he appears perfect in understanding, preserving in himself unsullied and pure the enlightenment given by God to his nature, and holding the dignity of his nature unadulterated.

grace, and crowning it with various honours, so that each of those thus honoured comes reasonably into the midst, and, lifting up prayers of thanksgiving, may thereafter sing forth with a mighty voice: 'Bless the Lord, O my soul, and forget not all his recompenses; who is gracious to all your iniquities, who heals all your diseases;'

'who redeems your life from corruption, who crowns you with mercy and compassions, who satisfies your desire with good things.' For the Lord truly works mercies, showing the things that are small and, by the standard of their own nature, contemptible, to be great and worthy of wonder through his goodness towards them; even as, without doubt, he was pleased ungrudgingly, as God, to adorn us also with his own good things, and for this cause calls us gods and light—and indeed, what good thing does he not call us?

Then what does he say next to this? That 'he was in the world' also.

This too the theologian usefully adds, bringing in for us through it a most necessary contemplation;

for since he had said, 'It was the true light which lightens every man that comes into the world,' and it was not very evident to the hearers whether the light lightens the man coming into the world, or whether the true light itself, as though passing from some other place into the world, effects the enlightenment of all men—

the Spirit-bearer necessarily discloses to us the truth, and interprets the force of his own words, saying at once concerning the light that 'it was in the world;'

so that henceforth you may understand the phrase 'coming into the world' as said of the man, and may rather understand it as predicated of the nature that is enlightened, as being called from non-being into being;

for there is, as it were, a certain 'place' contemplated in thought for created beings, namely their once not being, from which, as they proceed in a manner towards being, they now take up another 'place,' that which lies in existence.