Commentary on the Gospel of John 2 part 2/4

X. ‘Through whom’ never holds the first place, but always the second; as, for example, in the letter to the Romans: ‘Paul, a servant,’ he says, ‘of Christ Jesus, called an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God, which he promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy scriptures, concerning his Son, who was descended from the seed of David according to the flesh, and was declared Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by the resurrection from the dead — Jesus Christ our Lord, through whom we received grace and apostleship for the obedience of faith among all the nations, for the sake of his name.’

For God promised beforehand his own gospel through the prophets, the prophets serving as ministers and holding the place of ‘through whom’; and again, God gave grace and apostleship for the obedience of faith among all the nations to Paul and the rest, and gave it through Christ Jesus the Savior, who holds the ‘through whom.’

And in the letter to the Hebrews the same Paul says: ‘In the last of the days he spoke to us in a Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, through whom also he made the ages’ — teaching us that God has made the ages through the Son, the Only-Begotten holding the ‘through whom’ in the coming-to-be of the ages. Thus, therefore, also here: if all things came to be through the Word, they did not come to be by the Word, but by one greater and superior to the Word. Who else, then, could this be but the Father?

But it must be examined, since ‘All things came to be through him’ is true, whether the Holy Spirit also came to be through him. For I think that, for one who asserts that it is a created thing and who puts forward ‘All things came to be through him,’ it is necessary to accept that the Holy Spirit also came to be through the Word, the Word being older than it; but for one who is unwilling to hold that the Holy Spirit came to be through Christ, it follows that he must call it unbegotten — for one who judges the statements in this gospel to be true.

But there will be also a third position, beside these two — the one who accepts that the Holy Spirit came to be through the Word, and the one who supposes it to be unbegotten — namely, one who holds the doctrine that the Holy Spirit has no distinct substance of its own, other than the Father and the Son, but rather, so to speak, is something added on. If someone considers the Son to be other than the Father, on the ground that the Son is not the same as the Father, then a distinction of the Holy Spirit from the Son is admittedly indicated in the saying: ‘Whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit, it will not…’

… ‘shall have forgiveness neither in this age nor in the age to come.’ We, however, believing that there are three hypostases — the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit — and believing that nothing other than the Father is unbegotten, accept as more pious and true the view that, of all the things that came to be through the Word, the Holy Spirit is the most honored of all, and first in rank among all the things that were made by the Father through Christ.

And perhaps this is the reason why it too is not called ‘Son’ of God — since only the Only-Begotten is by nature Son from the beginning, whom the Holy Spirit appears to need, ministering to it in respect of its hypostasis, not only for its being, but also for its being wise and rational and just, and whatever else it must be understood to be, by participation in the aforementioned conceptions of Christ.

I think that the Holy Spirit provides, if I may so put it, the matter of the gifts that come from God to the saints — those who, through it, are called by the name of participation in it — this matter of the gifts being activated by God, ministered by Christ, and subsisting according to the Holy Spirit.

And what moves me to suppose that these things are so is Paul, writing somewhere thus about gifts: ‘There are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit; and there are varieties of ministries, and the same Lord; and there are varieties of workings, and it is the same God who works all things in all.’

But there is a difficulty because of ‘All things came to be through him’ and the resulting conclusion that the Spirit, being a created thing, came to be through the Word: how is it, then, that it seems, as it were, to be preferred above Christ in certain scriptures — in Isaiah, where Christ confesses that he was sent not by the Father alone, but also by the Holy Spirit (for he says: ‘And now the Lord has sent me, and his Spirit’) — while in the Gospel he promises forgiveness for the sin committed against himself, but declares concerning blasphemy against the Holy Spirit that there will be forgiveness for the one who has spoken evil against it neither in this age, nor even in the age to come.

And perhaps it is not at all because the Holy Spirit is more honorable than Christ that there is no forgiveness for the one who has sinned against it, but rather because all rational beings partake of Christ — to whom pardon is granted when they turn away from their sins — whereas for those who have been deemed worthy of the Holy Spirit, it is not reasonable that they should obtain any pardon, if, after such and so great a communion of breath toward the good, they still fall away and turn aside from the counsels of the Spirit dwelling within them.

But if, according to Isaiah, our Lord says that he was sent by the Father and by his Spirit, it is possible here too to give an account concerning the Spirit that sent Christ — not as though it differed by nature, but with respect to the economy that took place in the incarnation of the Son of God, in which the Savior was made lesser than it.

But if someone stumbles at this, at saying that the Savior, having become man, was made lesser than the Holy Spirit, he must be led to what is said in the letter to the Hebrews, where Paul declares that Jesus, on account of the suffering of death, became lesser than the angels; for he says: ‘But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death.’

Or perhaps this too may be said: that creation needed to be set free from the bondage of corruption, and likewise the race of men needed a blessed and divine power to become man — a power that would set right also the things upon the earth; and this task somehow fell, as it were, upon the Holy Spirit, who, being unable to undertake it, puts forward the Savior in its stead, as the one alone able to bear so great a contest; and as the Father, as leader, sends the Son, the Holy Spirit sends him forth and escorts him along, having promised to come down at the appointed time upon the Son of God and to cooperate in the salvation of mankind.

And this it did when, in bodily form, it flew down upon him like a dove after the washing, and, having alighted, did not pass away — something it has perhaps done for the sake of men who were not able to bear his glory without interruption. Wherefore John indicates, concerning the knowing of who Christ actually is, not only the descent of the Spirit upon Jesus, but, in addition to the descent, its remaining upon him.

For it is written that John said: ‘He who sent me to baptize said to me, “He upon whom you see the Spirit descending and remaining upon him, this is he who baptizes with the Holy Spirit and fire.”’ For it does not say, ‘He upon whom you see the Spirit descending’ alone — since it may perhaps have descended upon others as well — but ‘descending and remaining upon him.’

These matters have been examined at some length for those wishing to see more clearly how, if all things came to be through him, the Spirit too came to be through the Word, being one among all things and understood as inferior to the one through whom it came to be — even though certain expressions seem to draw us in the opposite direction.

XII. But if someone accepts the Gospel according to the Hebrews, where the Savior himself says: ‘Just now my mother, the Holy Spirit, took me by one of my hairs and carried me away to the great mountain Tabor,’ he will raise the difficulty of how the Spirit, which came to be through the Word, can be the mother of Christ.

But this too is not difficult to explain: for if the one who does the will of the Father who is in the heavens is his brother and sister and mother, and the name ‘brother of Christ’ extends not only to the race of men but also to beings more divine than these, then there will be nothing absurd — rather, more fittingly than for any who is called mother of Christ — in the Holy Spirit’s being his mother, on account of its doing the will of the Father who is in the heavens.

Further, concerning ‘All things came to be through him,’ this too must be inquired into: in concept, the Word is different from Life, and ‘what came to be in the Word was life, and life was the light of men.’ Is it, then, the case that, just as all things came to be through him, so also Life — which is the light of men — came to be through him, and the Savior’s other conceptions as well? Or must ‘All things came to be through him’ be understood with an exception of the things that are in him? This latter seems to me to be preferable.

For even if it were granted, on the ground that Life became the light of men, [that Life too came to be through the Word], what must be said about the Wisdom that is conceived prior to the Word? For surely that which is prior to the Word did not come to be through the Word. So then, apart from the things conceived as belonging to Christ himself, all things came to be through the Word of God, the Father having made them ‘in wisdom’; for he says: ‘You have made all things in wisdom,’ not ‘through wisdom you have made them.’

Let us see, then, why ‘And without him not one thing came to be’ is added. To some it might seem superfluous that ‘Without him not one thing came to be’ is added to ‘All things came to be through him.’ For if everything whatsoever has come to be through the Word, then nothing has come to be apart from the Word. Yet it does not, in fact, follow from ‘nothing has come to be apart from the Word’ that ‘all things have come to be through the Word’; for it is possible, with nothing having come to be apart from the Word, not only for all things to have come to be through the Word, but also for some things to have come to be by the Word.

One must therefore know how ‘All things’ is to be understood, and how ‘Nothing.’ For it is possible, from not having clarified both expressions, to take it that, if all things came to be through the Word, and evil and every outpouring of sin and wicked things are among ‘all things,’ then these too came to be through the Word. But this is false; for it is not absurd to hold that all created things came to be through the Word — and it is even necessary to understand that good deeds and all right actions were rightly performed by the blessed through the Word — but no longer so concerning sins and falls.

Some, therefore, have taken it that, since evil has no independent substance (for it neither existed from the beginning nor will exist for ever), these things are ‘Nothing’; and just as certain of the Greeks say that there are genera and species of ‘not-somethings,’ such as ‘animal’ and ‘man,’ so they supposed that everything which has received its apparent constitution neither from God nor through the Word is ‘Nothing.’

And let us endeavor, if possible, to demonstrate these things most forcefully from the scriptures. As far, then, as concerns the meanings of ‘Nothing’ and ‘Not-being,’ there will seem to be a synonymy — ‘Not-being’ being called ‘Nothing,’ and ‘Nothing’ being ‘Not-being.’ Now it appears that the Apostle names ‘the things that are not’ not with reference to things that in no way whatsoever exist, but with reference to wicked things, considering evil things to be ‘not-being’; for he says: ‘God called the things that are not as though they were.’

But Mordecai too, in the Septuagint Esther, calls the enemies of Israel ‘those who are not,’ saying: ‘Do not give over your scepter, O Lord, to those who are not.’ And it is possible to show further how, because of their wickedness, the wicked are called ‘those who are not,’ from the name of God recorded in Exodus; for the Lord said to Moses:

‘I AM WHO I AM — this is my name.’ Now, in our case, we who pray to belong to the Church, it is the good God who says these things — the very one whom the Savior glorifies when he says: ‘No one is good but one, God the Father.’ Therefore the Good is, in fact, the same as He Who Is. And opposite to the Good is evil or wickedness, and opposite to He Who Is is that which is not; from which it follows that the wicked and the evil is that which is not.

And this is what moved those who said that the devil is not a creation of God: for insofar as he is ‘devil,’ he is not a creation of God; but insofar as it has befallen him to be ‘devil’ — he being a created being, and nothing created existing apart from our God — he is a creature of God; just as if we were to say that the murderer too is not a creation of God, we would not thereby be denying that, insofar as he is a man, he has been made by God.

For while we assert that, insofar as he is a man, he has received his being from God, we do not assert that, insofar as he is a murderer, he has received this from God. All, then, who partake of He Who Is — and it is the saints who partake — could reasonably be called ‘those who are’; but those who have turned away from participation in He Who Is have, by being deprived of He Who Is, become ‘those who are not.’

We have already said that there is a synonymy between ‘Not-being’ and ‘Nothing’; and for this reason those who ‘are not’ are ‘Nothing,’ and all evil is ‘Nothing,’ since it too happens to be ‘not-being,’ and, being called ‘Nothing,’ has come to be apart from the Word, not being numbered among ‘all things.’ We, then, have shown, as far as possible, what all the things are that came to be through the Word, and what that is which, though it has come to be, apart from him, never truly ‘is,’ and is therefore called ‘Nothing.’

I think that Heracleon, who is said to be a disciple of Valentinus, in expounding ‘All things came to be through him,’ has, without any proof, forcibly taken ‘all’ to mean the world and the things in it, excluding from ‘all things’ — as far as his hypothesis goes — the things that differ from the world and the things in it. For he says: ‘Not the aeon, or the things in the aeon, came to be through the Word’ — things which he supposes came to be prior to the Word. And, standing even more shamelessly against ‘And without him not one thing came to be,’ not fearing the words ‘Do not add to his words, lest he reprove you and you be found a liar,’ he adds to ‘not one thing’ the words ‘of the things in the world and in the’…

…‘creation.’ And since what is said by him is plainly very much forced and stated contrary to what is evident — namely, that the things he considers divine are excluded from ‘all things,’ while the things that, as he supposes, are utterly perishable, are properly called ‘all things’ — it is not necessary to dwell on the refutation of things that from the outset display their own absurdity; such is indeed also the case with the scripture that says: ‘Without him not one thing came to be,’ when he, without any support from scripture, adds ‘of the things in the world and in creation,’ and does not even make his assertion with plausibility, yet claims to be believed just as much as the prophets or apostles — who, with authority and without being accountable, leave behind, for their own time and for those who come after, writings of salvation.

Furthermore, he interpreted ‘All things came to be through him’ in his own peculiar way as well, saying: ‘The one who provided the cause of the coming-to-be of the world to the demiurge — being the Word — is not the “from whom” or “by whom,” but the “through whom,”’ taking what is written contrary to its customary sense. For if it were as he understands the truth of the matter to be, it would have had to be written that all things came to be, through the demiurge, by the Word — not, conversely, through the Word, by the demiurge.

And we, having used ‘through whom’ in accordance with customary usage, have not left our interpretation without support; whereas he, besides not having derived his own understanding from the support of the divine writings, appears even to have suspected the truth and shamelessly looked it in the face; for he says: ‘The Word did not act as one worked upon by another, so that “through him” should be understood in this sense; rather, it was another who acted while the Word himself worked.’

It is not the present occasion to refute the claim that the demiurge, without having become the servant of the Word, made the world, and to demonstrate that it was the Word, having become the servant of the demiurge, who fashioned the world. For, according to the prophet David: ‘God spoke, and they came to be; he commanded, and they were created.’ For the unbegotten God commanded the firstborn of all creation, and they were created — not only the world and the things in it, but also all the rest, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers; for all things have been created through him and unto him, and he is before all things.

Further, concerning ‘Without him not one thing came to be,’ the account concerning evil must not be left unexamined either; for even though this may seem quite discordant, it does not seem to me at all a matter to be despised. For it must be inquired whether evil too came to be through the word — the term ‘word’ being taken here in the strict sense as the reason within each person, just as that too has come to be present in each person from the Word ‘in the beginning.’

The Apostle, then, says: ‘Apart from the law, sin is dead,’ and adds: ‘But when the commandment came, sin sprang to life’ — teaching universally concerning sin that it has no activity at all before law and commandment. And how the word/reason comes to be law and commandment [must be examined] — and how there could be no sin where there is no law, for ‘sin is not reckoned where there is no law’ — and again, there could be no sin where there is no word; for he says: ‘If I had not come and spoken to them, they would have had no sin.’

For every pretext is removed from one who wishes to make excuse for his sin, whenever, a word being present within him and pointing out what must be done, he does not obey it. Perhaps, then, all things — even down to the worse things — have come to be through the word, and ‘apart from him not one thing came to be,’ if we understand ‘Nothing’ more simply.

And the word must not at all be blamed if all things came to be through it and without it not one thing came to be — just as a teacher who has shown the learner what must be done ought not to be blamed, when, because of his instruction, no room for excuse on the ground of ignorance is left to the one who sins — especially if we understand the teacher to be inseparable from the learner.

For the word inherent in the nature of rational beings is, as it were, a teacher inseparable from the learner, always suggesting what must be done, even if we disobey its commandments, giving ourselves over to pleasures and dismissing its best counsels. And just as we make use of the eye, which was given to us for better purposes, as a servant, even for things we look upon improperly, so likewise with hearing, whenever we give ourselves over to listening to useless songs and forbidden sounds — thus, by insulting the word within us and not using it as we ought, we transgress the law through it, this word being present precisely in order to judge, and therefore to condemn, the one who has not honored it above all things.

Hence he also says: ‘The word which I have spoken, that itself will judge you’ — teaching the equivalent of: ‘I, the word, who continually resound within you, will myself condemn you,’ leaving you no room whatsoever for excuse. Yet this interpretation will seem rather forced, since we earlier understood by ‘word’ the one ‘in the beginning,’ ‘with God,’ the God who is the Word, while now we understand it otherwise, when we said that ‘All things came to be through him’ is said not only of the primary works of creation, but also of everything done by rational beings, apart from whose word we sin in nothing.

And it must be inquired whether the word within us is to be called the same as the Word ‘in the beginning,’ ‘with God,’ and ‘God’ the Word — especially since the Apostle does not seem to be teaching that this inner word is different from the Word ‘in the beginning, with God,’ when he says: ‘Do not say in your heart, “Who will ascend into heaven?” that is, to bring Christ down; or “Who will descend into the abyss?” that is, to bring Christ up from the dead. But what does the scripture say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart.”’ [Next lemma:] ‘What came to be in him was life,’ and ‘life was the light of men.’

There are certain doctrines among the Greeks called ‘paradoxes,’ since, according to them, a great many things are attached to them together with some proof, or apparent proof — according to which they say that the wise man alone, and every wise man, is a priest, since the wise man alone, and every wise man, has knowledge of the service of God; and that the wise man alone, and every wise man, is free, having received from the divine law the authority to act on his own initiative; and this authority they define as ‘lawful license.’

And why should we now speak concerning the so-called paradoxes, since there is much labor involved in the study of them, and they require a comparison with the intention of scripture as regards what is asserted by them concerning the paradoxes — so that we may be able to show on which points the reasoning of piety agrees, and on which points the intention of scripture is opposed to what is said by them?

We have made mention of these while inquiring into ‘What came to be in him was life,’ because, since it is characterized, as it were, in the manner of a paradox — and, if one must say so, even more paradoxical than what is said by them — someone following scripture would be able to show many more such things. For if we understand the Word ‘in the beginning,’ ‘with God,’ the Word who is God, perhaps we shall be able to say that only the one who partakes of him, insofar as he is such, is rational; so that one might even declare that only the holy person is rational.

Again, if we understand the life that came to be in the Word — that is, the one who said, ‘I am the life’ — we shall say that none of those outside the faith of Christ live, but that all who do not live for God are dead, and that their ‘living’ is a living of sin, and, on this account, so to speak, a living that amounts to death.

But observe whether the divine scriptures do not establish this in many places: on the one hand, the Savior says: ‘Have you not read what was said at the bush: “I am the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob”? He is not the God of the dead, but of the living’; and also, ‘No living person shall be justified before you.’ But what must be said concerning this — whether it belongs to God or to the Savior? For it is disputed to which of the two belongs the voice that says, among the prophets: ‘As I live, says the Lord.’

And let us first observe that ‘He is not the God of the dead but of the living’ is equivalent in meaning to ‘He is not [the God] of sinners, but of the saints.’ For it is a great gift to the patriarchs that God should attach, instead of a mere name, their own designation to his own proper title ‘God’ — according to which Paul also says:

‘Wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God.’ Therefore he is the God of the fathers and of all the saints; and nowhere would it be found written that God is the God of any of the impious. If, then, God is the God of the saints, and is said to be the God of the living, then the saints are living, and the living are saints — there being neither a saint who is outside the living, nor one who is merely called ‘living’ without also, along with the living, possessing holiness.

A similar thing can also be seen concerning ‘I shall be well-pleasing to the Lord in the land of the living,’ as if it said ‘in the rank of the saints’ or ‘in the place of the saints’ — since being well-pleasing in the proper sense consists either in the rank of the saints or in the place of the saints, and one who has not advanced into the rank of the saints, or who has not come to be in the place of the saints, is not yet perfectly well-pleasing; into which place it will be necessary for everyone who, in this life, has beforehand received only a shadow and image, as it were, of the true well-pleasing, to advance.

And ‘No living person shall be justified before God’ also indicates that, in relation to God and to the righteousness that is in him, none of even the most blessed shall be justified — as if we were to say something similar by way of another example: ‘No lamp will give light before the sun’; for every lamp does give light, but not when it is being outshone by the sun; and every living person shall likewise be justified, but not before God — rather, when compared with those below, who are held fast by darkness, before whom their light will shine.

And see whether, in accordance with this, what is in the Gospel must also be understood: ‘Let your light shine before men.’ For it does not say, ‘Let your light shine before God’; for if this had been commanded, he would have been giving an impossible commandment — as if he were commanding lamps, were they ensouled, to shine their light before the sun.

It is not, then, only ordinary living persons who shall not be justified before God, but also those who, among the living, excel over their lesser fellows; or rather — what is more accurate — the righteousness of all the living together shall not be justified in comparison with the righteousness of God; just as if, gathering together all the nocturnal lights upon the earth, I were to say that these are unable to give light in comparison with the rays of this sun.

By way of ascent from what has been said, one must also understand ‘As I live, says the Lord’ — perhaps referring to living in the proper sense, most especially in accordance with what has been said, that living belongs solely to God. And observe whether, on this account, the Apostle, having understood the surpassing pre-eminence of the life of God, and comprehending it in a manner worthy of God, is able to say that ‘As I live, says the Lord’ has been spoken concerning God, when he calls him ‘He who alone possesses immortality’ — since none of those who live apart from God possess the wholly unchangeable and unalterable life. And why do we hesitate concerning the rest, when even Christ himself did not possess the immortality of the Father? For he tasted death on behalf of all.

And at the same time, as we examine the matters concerning the living God and Life, which is Christ, and concerning the living who exist in their own proper region, and the living who are not justified before God, and, following upon these, setting forth ‘He who alone possesses immortality,’ we shall include, along with these, the implications concerning the fact that no rational being whatsoever possesses blessedness essentially, as an inseparable attribute.

For if it possessed blessedness and pre-eminent life inseparably, how could it still be true, what is said concerning God: ‘He alone who has immortality’? One must know, however, that some things the Savior is, not for himself, but for others; and some things he is both for himself and for others; and it must be inquired whether there is anything he is for himself alone and for no one else. For clearly he is, for others, a shepherd — not as the shepherds among men, who derive benefit for themselves from their shepherding — unless perhaps one should reckon the benefit of those being shepherded as his own, on account of his love for mankind.

But he is also, for others, ‘the way,’ and likewise ‘the door,’ and, admittedly, also ‘the rod’; but for himself and for others, ‘wisdom,’ and perhaps also ‘word.’ And it must be inquired whether, there being in him a system of contemplations, in respect of which he is Wisdom, there are certain contemplations that are inaccessible to the rest of begotten nature apart from him, which he knows for himself alone.

And this account must not be left unexamined, on account of the reverence due concerning the Holy Spirit. For that it too is instructed by him is clear from what is said concerning the Paraclete and the Holy Spirit: ‘For he will take from what is mine, and will declare it to you.’ But whether, being instructed, it comprehends all the things which the Son, gazing intently upon the Father from the beginning, knows, must be inquired into more carefully.

If, then, the Savior is certain things for others, and certain things perhaps for himself alone, and either for no one, or for one, or for a few — then, in respect of his being the Life that came to be in the Word, it must be examined closely whether he is Life for himself and for others, or for others only, and if for others, for which of them. If indeed Life is the same as that of men — for it is said: ‘What came to be in him was life, and life was the light of men’ — and the light of men is the light of certain persons, and this not of all rational beings, as far as concerns the very placement of the word ‘of men,’ but is truly the light of men — then it would also be the life of men, of whom it is also the light; and, in respect of being Life, the Savior would be said to be Life not for himself, but for others — those of whom he is also the Light.

This life comes to accompany the Word, being inseparable from him once it has come to be present. For a word/reason that purifies the soul must pre-exist within the soul, so that, in accordance with this and the purification proceeding from it, once all deadness and weakness has been removed, pure life may come to be present in everyone who has made himself capable of receiving the Word in that respect in which he is god.