As might be expected of one who speaks from the very treasures of the Spirit, John the Divine has arrived bringing to us sublime doctrines and the best way of life and wisdom, as though he had just arrived from the very heavens. In fact, it is likely that not even everyone there in heaven should know them. Do these things belong to a fisherman? Tell me. Do they at all belong to a rhetorician? To a sophist or philosopher? To anyone trained in the wisdom of the Gentiles? By no means. The human soul is simply unable to engage in philosophical speculation on that pure and blessed nature; on the powers that come next to it; on immortality and endless life; on the nature of mortal bodies that shall hereafter be immortal; on punishment and the judgment to come; on the inquiries that shall concern deeds and words, thoughts and imaginations.

I think that John’s Gospel, which you have enjoined us to examine to the best of our ability, is the firstfruits of the Gospels. It speaks of him whose descent is traced and begins from him who is without a genealogy…. The greater and more perfect expressions concerning Jesus are reserved for the one who leaned on Jesus’ breast. For none of the other Gospels manifested his divinity as fully as John when he presented him saying, I am the light of the world,^[1] I am the way and the truth and the life,^[2] I am the resurrection,^[3] I am the door,^[4] I am the good shepherd.^[5]… We might dare say then that the Gospels are the firstfruits of all Scripture but that the firstfruits of the Gospels is that according to John whose meaning no one can understand who has not leaned on Jesus’ breast or received Mary from Jesus to be his mother also.

While all the other Evangelists begin with the incarnation… John, passing by everything else—his conception, his birth, his education, and his growth— speaks immediately of his eternal generation.

There are two births of our Lord Jesus Christ, the one divine, the other human…. Consider that first begetting: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. Whose Word? The Father’s own. Which Word? The Son himself. The Father has never been without the Son; and yet the one who has never been without the Son begot the Son. He both begot and yet did not begin to do so. There is no beginning for one begotten without beginning. And yet he is the Son, and yet he is begotten. A mere human is going to say, How is it that he is begotten, and yet he does not have a beginning? If he does not have a beginning, how was he begotten? How, I do not know. Are you asking a mere human how God was begotten? I am overwhelmed by your questioning, but I appeal to the prophet: His begetting who can tell the tale of?^[1]

I will not endure to hear that Christ was born of Mary unless I also hear, In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was God.

There is nothing older than the beginning if we stay with the definition of beginning (for there cannot be a beginning of a beginning), or else it would diverge from being in truth a beginning if there is something else one can imagine before it or that arises before it. Otherwise, if anything can precede what is truly beginning, our language respecting it will go on into infinity with beginnings continually cropping up and making the one we are looking at a second.… And since its ever-backward flight has no termination, reaching up to the limit of the ages, the Son will be found to have been not made in time but rather invisibly existing with the Father. For in the beginning was the Son. But if he was in the beginning, what mind, tell me, can leap over the force of that word was? When will the was stay within a boundary, seeing that it always runs before… whatever conception follows it? COMMENTARY ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 1.1.^[1]

DIFFERENT WAYS TO UNDERSTAND BEGINNING IN SCRIPTURE. ORIGEN: One will discover many different meanings of the expression [beginning] even in the Word of God. One meaning involves change that has to do with a way or a length, as revealed in Scripture, The beginning of the right path is to do justice.^[2]… There is also a beginning of creation… in the statement In the beginning God made heaven and earth.^[3] But I think what is meant is more clearly stated in Job, This is the beginning of the Lord’s creation.^[4]… We can also understand what is meant by the beginning of creation in Proverbs: For God, [Wisdom] says, created me the beginning of his ways for his works.^[5]…

But someone will say with good reason that the God of all things is clearly a beginning too, proposing that the Father is the beginning of the Son, and the Creator is the beginning of the things created and, in general, God is the beginning of the things that exist…. And third, that from which something comes, as the underlying matter is thought to be a beginning by those who understand matter to be uncreated…. In addition to these definitions, that according to which something is made, as according to its form, is also a beginning.… Christ, for instance, is the beginning of those made according to the image of God….

There is also a beginning that pertains to doctrine… where the apostle says, Although, because of the time, you should be teachers, you need for someone to teach you again the rudiments of the beginning of the oracles of God.^[6] Now there are two kinds of beginning pertaining to doctrine. One involves its nature, and the other its relation to us…. We say that in nature Christ is the beginning of doctrine insofar as he is the wisdom and power of God.^[7] But in his relation to us the beginning of doctrine is the Word became flesh, that he might dwell among us who are able to receive him only in this way at first.

Although so many meanings of beginning have occurred to us at the present time, we are investigating how we ought to take the statement In the beginning was the Word. It is clear that we are not to understand it in its meaning related to change or a way and length. And we should certainly not take it in its meaning related to creation.

But it is possible that he is the by which, which is effective, since God commanded and they were created.^[1] For Christ is perhaps the creator to whom the Father says, Let there be light and Let there be a firmament.^[2]

But it is as the beginning that Christ is Creator, according to which he is wisdom. Therefore as wisdom he is called the beginning. For wisdom says in Solomon, God created me in the beginning of his ways for his works,^[3] that the Word might be in the beginning, in wisdom. It is wisdom that is understood, on the one hand, taken in relation to the structure of contemplation and the thoughts of all things, but it is the Word that is received, taken in relation to the communication of the things that have been contemplated to spiritual beings….

Since, then, our purpose is to perceive clearly the statement, In the beginning was the Word, and wisdom, with the aid of testimonies from the Proverbs, has been explained to be called beginning,^[4] and wisdom has been conceived as preceding the Word that announces it, we must understand that the Word is always in the beginning, that is, in wisdom. Being in wisdom, however, which is called beginning, does not prevent the Word from being with God, and himself being God and not merely being with God, but since he is in the beginning, that is in wisdom, that Word is with God.

Who beside the Father could clearly understand the Light that was before the world, the intellectual and essential Wisdom that existed before the ages, the living Word that was in the beginning with the Father and that was God, the first and only begotten of God that was before every creature and creation visible and invisible, the commander-in-chief of the rational and immortal host of heaven, the messenger of the great counsel, the executor of the Father’s unspoken will, the creator, with the Father, of all things, the second cause of the universe after the Father, the true and only begotten Son of God, the Lord and God and King of all created things, the one who has received dominion and power, with divinity itself, and with might and honor from the Father.

The Father begot me, creative Wisdom, before the ages;

He established me as the beginning of his ways

For the works now mystically accomplished^[1]

For though I am the uncreated Word by nature,

I make my own the voice

Of the nature I have now assumed.

As I am a man

In reality, not a mirage,

So divinized is the nature which,

By the manner of the exchange,

Is united to me.

Wherefore know that I am one Christ

Who saves that of which and in which I am. KANON FOR THE FIFTH DAY OF GREAT WEEK, ^[1]

It is not possible to take beginning (archē) of the Only Begotten as being understood in any way dealing with time, seeing that the Son is before all time and has his being before the ages, and, what is even more, that the divine nature shuns such a boundary…. For no beginning will ever be conceived of by itself that does not look to its own end, since beginning is called this in reference to an end, and end again in reference to a beginning. But the beginning we are pointing to in this instance is that relating to time and dimension. And so, since the Son is older than the ages themselves, he will be free of any generation in time, and he always was in the Father as in a source. The Father then being considered as the Source, the Logos was in him being his wisdom, power, express image, radiance and likeness. If there was no time when the Father was without Logos, wisdom, image, radiance and likeness, it is necessary to confess also that the Son, who is all these to the eternal Father, is eternal.

In a word, they^[1] have shown in their use of terms and exposition of their doctrines that they call beginning that which is before everything. Indeed, you will not find that the divine Scriptures say anything different. Even among common people the name beginning is used in a similar sense. Let me now give a suitable example: the blessed Moses, intending to instruct the Jewish nation both about God and created things—how God alone was the one who existed, while they were made—and wishing to explain to us the order of the creation of those things, said, In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.^[2] He did not say they were in the beginning, because he believed that expression was not suitable for things that did not exist by themselves and were created. This is because he knew that the Creator, God, existed before them. Nor was he content only to say in the beginning. Rather, he said, In the beginning God created, thinking that it would be better to mention their creator first and then add what had been created in the beginning. He first mentioned God their creator in order to raise the mind of his audience toward him, and then he related the things that were made.

Since he thought it necessary to speak about the divinity of the Only Begotten and to teach both who he is and the nature of his existence, the blessed John emulates this use of language, saying, In the beginning was the Word. You see, since Moses described the beginning of the things that were made—showing clearly in the account of creation that their maker preexisted—John judged it to be superfluous for himself also to recount the beginning of what was made and declares that the Son was the beginning of the things that exist; that is, he was in the beginning because he always was. So then, when making inquiry into issues of existence, one concerned with creation should not say that created things existed in the beginning, for they did not exist before they were made, because if they existed, they were not made. Rather, going beyond these—on the ground that at some time they did not exist—since we find something transcending them, we should say that it was this that was in the beginning.

Therefore, if indeed the Word did not exist—as the crazed Arians say—but received his existence at a later time, then he was not the one who was in the beginning, and [the title would belong to] the one who was when he was not. I shall not pass over the first and refer to the second as the beginning.^[1] This is, then, the meaning of the Word found in the Gospel of John, since he is the first terminus of the things that exist. If he is the first terminus, however, it was never when he was not, because he always was.^[2] Therefore, nothing will ever preexist him—inasmuch as the Father may be regarded as preceding any cause, for he himself exists in himself, so also the Son exists. For this reason he certainly did not mean for the phrase he was in the beginning to be taken in the same sense as the phrase in the beginning God created. Indeed, there^[3] the addition of the word created defined the beginning in regard to the created things, so as to signify only their beginning, whereas here he said simply and absolutely, He was in the beginning. And so it is apparent that the Word discussed here is the Word that is the first and principal beginning, to which nothing of what exists can be regarded as prior. And he added the word was to the phrase in the beginning to show that he was indicating without any qualification the beginning of the things that exist, which indeed is the first being and the ever-being and the never not being.

The blessed Evangelist, then, seems here to name the Father Archē,^[1] that is, the power over all, that the divine nature that is over all may be shown, having under its feet everything that is originate and borne above those things that are called by it into being. In this Archē, then, that is above all and over all, was the Word. The Word was not with all things under its feet, but [it was] apart from all things. It was in the Archē by nature as its co-eternal fruit, having the nature of him who begot him (as it were) the most ancient place of all. So then, he who is begotten free of a Father, who is also himself free, will with him possess the sovereignty over all…. The blessed Evangelist shows that the Son is of the essence that is free and sovereign over all and declares that he is in the Father by nature saying, In the beginning was the Word.

Moses, they tell us, says, In the beginning God made heaven and earth, and does not even mention the Son through whom all things were made; whereas John says, In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. This was in the beginning with God, all things were made through him, and without him was made nothing. Is this contradictory, or are they not rather contradicting themselves when they prefer blindly to find fault with what they do not understand instead of earnestly seeking to understand?… For the Lord says to the unbelieving Jews, If you believed Moses, you would believe me too; for he wrote about me.^[1] So why shouldn’t I understand the Lord himself as the beginning in which God the Father made heaven and earth? For Moses certainly wrote, In the beginning God made heaven and earth, and it is the Lord’s words that confirm that he wrote about the Lord. Or perhaps he himself is not also the beginning? But there need be no doubt about that either, with the Gospel telling us, when the Jews asked the Lord who he was, that he replied, The beginning, because I am also speaking to you.^[2] There you have the beginning in which God made heaven and earth. So God made heaven and earth in the Son, through whom all things were made and without whom was made nothing. And so, since the Gospel is in agreement with Genesis, we may retain our inheritance in line with the consensus of both Testaments and leave fault-finding quibbles to the disinherited heretics.

As when our ship is near shore and cities and ports pass in view before us that on the open sea vanish and leave nothing to fix the eye on, so the Evangelist here takes us with him in his flight above the created world leaving the eye to gaze upon emptiness and an unlimited expanse….

For the intellect, having ascended to the beginning, enquires, What beginning? Finding then that the was in the text exceeds its imagination, [the intellect] has no point on which to focus its thought. Looking intently onward but being unable to fix its gaze, it becomes wearied and turns back to things below. Indeed, this expression, was in the beginning, is expressive of eternal and infinite being.

Consider and decide whether it were the greater feat to raise the dead or impart to an untrained mind the knowledge of mysteries so deep as he reveals by saying, In the beginning was the Word. What does this in the beginning was mean? He ranges backward over the spaces of time, centuries are left behind, and ages are cancelled. Fix in your mind what date you will for this beginning; you miss the mark, for even then he of whom we are speaking was. Survey the universe; note well what is written of it: In the beginning God made the heaven and the earth.^[1] This word beginning fixes the moment of creation; you can assign its date to an event that is definitely stated to have happened in the beginning. But this fisherman of mine, unlettered and unread, is untrammeled by time, undaunted by its immensity; he pierces beyond the beginning. For his was has no limit of time and no commencement; the uncreated Word was in the beginning.

[Heretics] say that the words in the beginning was the Word do not denote eternity absolutely, for this same expression was also used concerning heaven and earth….

However, let us see the proofs that they give to us. In the beginning, it is said, God made the heavens and the earth, and the earth was invisible and unformed.^[1] And, There ‘was’ a certain man of Ramathaim-zophim.^[2] These are what they think are strong arguments, and they are strong—in proving the correctness of the doctrines asserted by us. Meanwhile, they are utterly powerless to establish their blasphemy. For tell me, what has the word was in common with the word made? What does God have in common with human beings? Why do you mix what may not be mixed? Why confound things that are distinct, why bring low what is above? In this text it is not only the expression was that denotes eternity, but also the expressions was in the beginning and the Word was. For even as the word being distinguishes present time when used in regard to human beings but denotes eternity when used in regard to God, so was signifies to us past time—limited at that—when used in regard to our nature but declares eternity when used in regard to God.

In the beginning, we are told, God created heaven and earth.^[1] And the world was therefore created and that which was not began to exist. And the word of God was in the beginning and always was.

He was, and he is, since he is from him who always is what he is…. Now since it is the special characteristic of his being that his Father always exists and that he is always his Son, and since eternity is expressed in the name he that is, therefore, since he possesses absolute being, he possesses also eternal being…. There can be no doubt that no one who already was in existence could be born. For no cause of birth can accrue to him who of himself continues eternal. But God Only Begotten… bears witness to the Father as the source of his being.

The same verb, was, is predicated of the Word when he was in the beginning and when he was with God. He is neither separated from the beginning, nor does he depart from the Father. And again, he does not come to be in the beginning from not being in the beginning, nor does he pass from not being with God to coming to be with God, for before all time and eternity the Word was in the beginning, and the Word was with God.… Perhaps John, seeing some such order in the argument, did not place the Word was God before the Word was with God, so that we might not be hindered in seeing the individual meaning of each proposition in the affirmation of the series.

The Greek word logos signifies in Latin both reason^[1] and word.^[2] However, in this verse the better translation is word, so that not only the relation to the Father is indicated but also the efficacious power with respect to those things that are made by the Word. Reason, however, is correctly called reason even if nothing is made by it.

Whoever, then, is able to understand a word, not only before it is uttered in sound but also before the images of its sounds are considered in thought… may see enigmatically, and as it were in a glass, some similarity with that Word of which it is said, In the beginning was the Word.… For when we give expression to something that we know, the word used is necessarily derived from the knowledge thus retained in the memory and must be of the same quality with that knowledge. For a word is a thought formed from a thing that we know. This word is spoken in the heart, being neither Greek nor Latin nor any other language, although, when we want to communicate it to others, some sign is assumed by which to express it….

Accordingly, the word that sounds externally is a sign of the word that lies hidden within, having the greater claim to be called a word. For what is uttered by the mouth of our flesh is the voice of the word and is in fact called word with reference to that from which it is taken as it then makes externally apparent.

Just as our knowledge is not like God’s knowledge, so also is our word, born from our knowledge, unlike that Word of God which is born from the essence of the Father—we might even say, born from the Father’s knowledge, from the Father’s wisdom, or still more exactly, from the Father who is knowledge, from the Father who is wisdom….

The Word of God, then, the only begotten Son of the Father—in all things like and equal to the Father, God of God, Light of Light, Wisdom of Wisdom, Essence of Essence—is altogether what the Father is. And yet, he is not the Father because the one is Son, the other is Father. Therefore he knows all that the Father knows; but his knowledge is from the Father. For knowing and being are one in him. And therefore, as the Father’s being is not from the Son, so neither is his knowing. Accordingly, the Father begat the Word equal to himself in all things as though uttering forth himself. For he would not have uttered himself wholly and perfectly if there were in his Word anything more or less than in himself….

Our own inner word… which is at least in some way like that [divine] Word,^[1] should nonetheless cause us to stop and consider how dissimilar it is as well….What is this [word that we have] that is formable, but not yet formed,^[2] except a something in our mind which we toss to and fro, turning it over in our mind, thinking first one thing and then another as each occurs to us? A true word comes into being when, as I said, what we have been tossing to and fro by turning it over in our minds arrives at what we know, and then takes on that entire likeness. At this point the conception corresponds exactly to the thing, In other words, it is said in the heart, but without articulate sound or even the thought of articulate sound that might otherwise belong to a particular language. And so, if we even admit (in order not to dispute laboriously about a name) that this something of our mind which can be formed from our knowledge is already to be called a word—even before it is so formed because it is, so to say, already formable—who would not see how great the dissimilarity would be between this word and that Word of God which is so in the form of God as not to have been formable before it was formed, or to have been capable at any time of being formless, but is a simple form, and simply equal to him from whom it is, and with whom it is wonderfully co-eternal?

Wherefore that Word of God is… not to be called a thought of God. Otherwise we might believe that there is something revolving in God so that it at one time receives and at another recovers a form, so as to be a word, and again can lose that form and revolve, in some sense, formlessly.

We are not now discussing, brothers and sisters, possible ways of understanding the text, In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. It can only be understood in ways beyond words; human words cannot suffice for understanding the Word of God. What we are discussing and stating is why it is not understood. I am not speaking in order that it may be understood but telling you what prevents it being understood.

You see, it is a kind of form, a form that has not been formed but is the form of all things that have been formed; an unchangeable form that has neither fault not failing, beyond space, standing apart as at once the foundation for all things to stand on and the ceiling of them to stand under. If you say that all things are in it, you are not lying. The Word itself, you see, is called the Wisdom of God; but we have it written, In wisdom you have made them all.^[1] Therefore all things are in it. And yet because it is God, all things are under it.

Our outward word has some similarity to the divine Word. For our word declares the whole conception of the mind; since what we conceive in the mind we bring out in word. Indeed our heart is as it were the source and the uttered word the stream that flows from there.

The things that were hidden were revealed through him [our Lord], just as the secrets of the heart are made known by a word.

Certain people affirm that in Hebrew Genesis begins, In the beginning God made for himself a son.^[1] Against the ratification of this I am persuaded by other arguments from God’s ordinance in which he was before the foundation of the world until the generation of the Son. For before all things, God was alone, himself his own world and location and everything—alone however because there was nothing external beside him. Yet not even then was he alone; for he had with him that Reason that he had in himself—his own, of course. For God is rational, and reason is primarily in him, and thus from him are all things: and that Reason is his consciousness. This the Greeks call Logos, by which expression we also designate discourse, and consequently our people are already wont, through the artlessness of the translation, to say that Discourse was in the beginning with God, though it would be more appropriate to consider Reason of older standing, seeing that God is [not] discursive from the beginning but is rational even before the beginning, and because discourse itself, having its ground in reason, shows reason to be prior as being its substance…. And that you may understand this the more easily, observe first from yourself, as from the image and likeness of God,^[2] how you also have reason within yourself, who are a rational animal not only as having been made by a rational Creator but also as out of his substance having made a living soul.^[3] See how, when you by reason argue silently with yourself, this same action takes place within you, while reason accompanied by discourse meets you at every movement of your thought, at every impression of your consciousness…. So in a sort of way you have in you as a second [person] discourse by means of which you speak by thinking and by means of which you think by speaking: discourse itself is another [than you]. How much more completely therefore does this action take place in God, whose image and similitude you are authoritatively declared to be, that even while silent he has in himself reason and in [that] reason discourse. So I have been able without rashness to conclude that even then, before the establishment of the universe, God was not alone, seeing he continually had in himself Reason, and in Reason Discourse, which he made another beside himself by activity within himself.

Words, by their everyday usage, sound and proceeding out of us, have become common, almost despicable things to us, seeming to be nothing more than words. However, there is a word that remains inward, in the very person himself; distinct from the sound that proceeds out of the mouth. There is a word that is truly and spiritually that which you understand by the sound, not being the actual sound itself. Notice, for instance, when I say God, how short the word is I have spoken—four letters and two syllables [in Latin].^[1] Is this all that God is, four letters and two syllables? Or is that which is signified as costly as the word is paltry?… What then is in your heart when you think of a certain substance, living, eternal, all-powerful, infinite, everywhere present, everywhere whole, nowhere shut in? When you think of these qualities, this is the word concerning God in your heart. But is this the sound that consists of four letters and two syllables? Therefore, those things that are spoken and pass away are sounds, are letters and are syllables. His word, which sounds, passes away; but what the sound signified— and what is in the speaker as he thought it and in the hearer as he understood it—that is what remains while the sound itself passes away.

[The Arians] whisper, How can the Son be Word or the Word be God’s image? For a human word is composed of syllables, and only signifies the speaker’s will and then is over and done with.… But the word of truth confutes them as follows: If they were disputing concerning any human being, then let them exercise reason in this human way, both concerning his Word and his Son. But if their dispute concerns God, who created humanity, let them no longer entertain human thoughts but others that are above human nature. For such as he that begets, such of necessity is the offspring. Whatever the Word’s Father is, the Word also must be. Now a man, begotten in time, also himself begets children in time. And since he came to be out of nothing, his word also is over and done with.

But God is not like humans as Scripture has said. God is, exists and has always existed. Therefore also his Word exists and is forever with the Father, as radiance accompanies light. The human word is composed of syllables and neither lives nor operates anything but only signifies the speaker’s intention. It goes out and then goes away, no more to appear, since it did not exist at all before it was spoken. The word of human beings neither lives nor operates anything. Nor, in short, is it human. And this happens to it, as I said before, because the human being who begets it has his nature out of nothing. But God’s Word is not merely pronounced, as one may say, nor is it a sound of accents, nor should we think of his Son as his command. Rather he is the radiance of light and so is perfect offspring from perfect being. And so he is also God, since he is God’s image. For the Word was God, says Scripture.^[1] Since human words have no power or energy on their own, they work not by means of words but with their hands which they do have. But the human word does not subsist on its own. The Word of God, however, as the apostle says, is living and powerful and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing of soul and spirit and of the joints and marrow, and it is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight, but all things are naked and opened before his eyes.^[2] He is then Framer of all, and without him was not one thing made,^[3] nor can anything be made without him. Nor must we ask why the Word of God is not such as our word, considering God is not such as we are.

This Word is not a human word. For how was there a human word in the beginning, when the man received his being last of all?… There was not then any word of humankind in the beginning, nor yet of angels; for every creature is within the limits of time, having its beginning of existence from the Creator…. But what does the Gospel say? It calls the Only Begotten himself the Word.

There never was a time when [the Father] was without his Word, or when he was not the Father.

John taught in the foregoing, that the Word was in archē, that is, in God the Father, as we said. But, with the eye of his understanding illumined, he was not ignorant that certain people would arise who, out of their great ignorance, would say that the Father and Son are one and the same and distinguish the Holy Trinity in name only. Thus, they wouldn’t allow them to exist in their several Persons so that the Father should be conceived of as in truth Father and not Son, the Son again to be by himself Son, not Father, as the word of truth is. Since John knew this would happen and that, perhaps, this heresy was already confronting him and being debated at that time—or was about to be so—John arms himself for its destruction. And so, by the side of In the beginning was the Word, he put, And the Word was with God everywhere adding of necessity the was on account of his generation before the ages. And yet, by saying that the Word was with God, he shows both that the Son is One, having his existence by himself, and that God the Father is another, with whom the Word was. For how can that which is one in number be conceived of as itself with itself, or beside itself?…

The Son is consubstantial with the Father and the Father with the Son, which is why they arrive at an unchangeable likeness, so that the Father is seen in the Son, the Son in the Father, and each flashes forth in the other, even as the Savior himself says: He that has seen me has seen the Father,^[1] and again, I in the Father and the Father in me.^[2]

[John] declares, And the Word was with God. Once more the Evangelist fears for our untrained state, once more he dreads our childish and untaught condition. He does not yet entrust to our ears the appellation of Father, in case any of the more carnally minded, learning of the Father, may be led by his understanding to imagine also by consequence a mother. Neither does he yet name in his proclamation the Son, for he still suspects our customary tendency to the lower nature and is concerned that if someone hears of the Son, that person might humanize the Godhead by an idea of passion. For this reason, resuming his proclamation, he again calls him the Word, making this the account of his nature to you in your unbelief. For as your word proceeds from your mind, without requiring the intervention of passion, so here also, in hearing of the Word, you shall conceive that which is from something and shall not conceive passion.

The first was applied to the Word is only indicative of his eternal Being—for In the beginning, he says, was the Word. The second was—and the Word was with God—denotes his relational being.^[1] For since to be eternal and without beginning is most peculiar to God, this he puts first. Then, in case any one hearing that he was in the beginning should assert that he was unbegotten also, he immediately remedies this by saying (before he declares what he was) that he was with God. And he has prevented anyone from supposing that this Word is simply one who is either uttered or conceived, by the addition, as I said before, of the article, as well as by this second expression. For he does not say was in God but was with God, declaring to us his eternity as to person.

[The] sameness of nature will be confessed of both [Father and Son], yet the individual existence of each will surely follow, so that both the Father should be conceived of as indeed Father and the Son as Son. For thus, the Holy Spirit being numbered with them and counted as God, the holy and adorable Trinity will have its proper fullness.

That which was in the beginning is not comprehended in time, is not preceded by any beginning. Let Arius, therefore, hold his peace. Moreover, that which was with God is not confounded and mingled with him but is distinguished by the perfection unblemished that it has as the Word abiding with God; and so let Sabellius keep silence. And the Word was God. This Word, therefore, consists not in uttered speech but in the designation of celestial excellence, so that Photinus’s teaching is refuted. Furthermore, by the fact that in the beginning he was with God is proven the indivisible unity of eternal Godhead in Father and Son, to the shame and confusion of Eunomius.

He [Methodius] says, concerning the words In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth,^[1] that one will not err who says that the Beginning is Wisdom. For Wisdom is said by one of the divine band to speak in this manner concerning herself: The Lord created me the beginning of his ways for his works: of old he laid my formulation.^[2] It was fitting and more seemly that all things that came into existence should be more recent than Wisdom, since they existed through her. Now consider whether the saying In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God—whether these statements are not in agreement with those. For we must say that the Beginning, out of which the most upright Word came forth, is the Father and Maker of all things, in whom it was. And the words The same was in the beginning with God seem to indicate the position of authority of the Word, which he had with the Father before the world came into existence; beginning signifying his power. And so, after the peculiar unbeginning beginning, who is the Father, he is the beginning of other things, by whom all things are made.

You will plead that a word is the sound of a voice; that it is a naming of things, an utterance of thought…. The nature of a word is that it is first a potentiality, afterwards a past event; an existing thing only while it is being heard. How can we say, In the beginning was the Word, when a word neither exists before, nor lives after, a definite point of time? Can we even say that there is a point of time in which a word exists? Not only are the words in a speaker’s mouth nonexistent until they are spoken and perished the instant they are uttered, but even in the moment of utterance there is a change from the sound that commences to that which ends a word…. Even though your unpracticed ear failed to catch the first clause, In the beginning was the Word, why complain of the next, And the Word was with God? Was it and the Word was in God that you heard?… Or is it that your provincial dialect makes no distinction between in and with? The assertion is that which was in the beginning was with, not in, another…. Hear now the rank and the name of the Word: And the Word was God. Your plea that the Word is the sound of a voice, the utterance of a thought, falls to the ground. The Word is a reality, not a sound, a Being, not a speech, God, not a nonentity.

[The Son], being God, is nothing else than God. For when I hear the words And the Word was God, they do not merely tell me that the Son was called God; they reveal to my understanding that he is God. In those previous instances, where Moses was called god and others were styled gods,^[1] there was the mere addition of a name by way of title. Here a solid essential truth is stated: The Word was God. That was indicates no accidental title but an eternal reality, a permanent element of his existence, an inherent character of his nature.

[He] is not contained in any place; the timeless, the bodiless, the uncircumscribed, the same who was and is; who was both above time and came under time, and was invisible and is seen. He was in the beginning and was with God and was God. The word was occurs the third time to be confirmed by number. What he was, he laid aside; what he was not, he assumed; not that he became two, but he deigned to be one made out of the two. For both are God, that which assumed and that which was assumed; two natures meeting in one, not two sons (let us not give a false account of the blending).

See, he says, how the Father is named with the addition of the article but the Son without it. What do you do then when the apostle says, The great God, and our Savior Jesus Christ,^[1] and again, Who is above all, God?^[2] It is true that here he has mentioned the Son, without the article; but [the apostle] does the same with the Father also, at least in his epistle to the Philippians, where he says, Who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God,^[3] and again to the Romans, Grace to you, and peace, from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.^[4] Besides, it was superfluous for it to be attached in that place, when close above it was continually attached to the Word. For as in speaking concerning the Father, he says, God is a Spirit,^[5] and we do not, because the article is not joined to Spirit, yet deny the spiritual nature of God. Likewise here, although the article is not annexed to the Son, the Son is not on that account a lesser God. Why so? Because in saying God and again God, he does not reveal to us any difference in this Godhead, but the contrary. For having before said, and the Word was God, so that no one might suppose the Godhead of the Son to be inferior, he immediately adds the characteristics of genuine Godhead, including eternity, for He was, says he, in the beginning with God, and attributes to him [in the next verse] the office of creator.

The one who bore within him the Spirit was not ignorant that some should arise in the last times who would accuse the essence of the Only Begotten and deny the Lord that bought them.^[1] These suppose that the Word who appeared from God the Father is not by nature God but rather bring in besides him some, so to speak, spurious and false-called god having the name of Sonship and Deity, but this not really being the case….

It was almost as though someone was already resisting the words of truth and almost saying to the holy Evangelist: ‘The Word was with God.’ And so it was. We agree fully to what you have written concerning this. The Father has being and exists separately, and the Son is the same way. What now should one suppose that the Word is by nature? For his being with God does not at all reveal his essence. But since the divine Scriptures proclaim one God, this pertains to the Father only with whom the Word was.

What then does truth’s herald reply? Not only was the Word with God, but he was also God. Through his being with God, he might be known to be other than the Father and might be believed to be Son distinct and by himself. Through being God, he might be conceived of as consubstantial and of him by nature as being both God and coming forth from God. For it were inconceivable, since the Godhead is by all confessed to be one, that the holy Trinity should not in every possible way arrive at sameness of essence and so reach one relation of Godhead. He was then also God. He did not become so at last, but he was, if indeed eternal being will most specially and surely follow on being God. For that which became in time, or was at all brought from not being into being, will not be by nature God. Seeing then that God the Word has eternity through the word was, consubstantiality with the Father through being God, how great punishment and vengeance must we necessarily think that they shall be found to incur who think that he is in any way inferior or unlike him who begat him.

Let the soul that wishes to approach God raise itself from the body and cling always to that highest Good that is divine and lasts forever and that was from the beginning and that was with God, that is, the Word of God. This is the divine Being in which we live and are and move.^[1] This was in the beginning, this is The Son of God, Jesus Christ in you, he says, in whom there was not yes and no, but only yes was in him.^[2] He himself told Moses to say, He who is has sent me.^[3]

We do indeed believe that there is only one God, but we believe that under this dispensation, or, as we say, “divine economy,” there is also a Son of this one and only God, his Word, who proceeded from him and through whom all things were made and without whom nothing was made.

The Logos alone of this God is from God himself; wherefore also the Logos is God, being the substance of God. Now the world was made from nothing; therefore it is not God.

For Scripture announces Christ as God, as it announces God himself as man. It has described Jesus Christ as man, as it has described Christ the Lord as God. It does not set him forth as the Son of God only, but also the Son of man; nor only as the Son of man, but it has been accustomed to speak of him as the Son of God. Being of both, he is both, lest if he should be only one, he could not be the other. For as nature has prescribed that he must be believed to be a man who is of man, so nature prescribes that he must be believed to be God who is of God; but if he should not also be God when he is of God, then he should not be man although he is of man. And thus both doctrines would be endangered in one or the other way, by one being convicted to have lost belief in the other. Let them, therefore—who read that Jesus Christ the Son of man is man—read also that this same Jesus is also called God and the Son of God.

The Son of God is older than all his creation, so that he became the Father’s adviser in his creation. Therefore also he is ancient.

Jesus Christ . . . who was with the Father before the beginning of time, and in the end was revealed. . . . Jesus Christ . . . who came forth from one Father, and is with and has gone to one . . . . [T]here is one God, who has manifested himself by Jesus Christ his Son, who is his eternal Word, does not proceed from silence, and in all things pleased him that sent him.

[The Father] sent the Word, that he might be manifested to the world. . . . This is he who was from the beginning, who appeared as if new, and was found old. . . . This is he who, being from everlasting, is today called the Son.

For our God, Jesus Christ, was, according to the appointment of God, conceived in the womb of Mary, of the seed of David, but by the Holy Spirit.

The Church is beloved and enlightened by the will of him who wills all things that are according to the love of Jesus Christ our God.

[Christians] are those who more than all the nations on the earth have found the truth. For they know God, the Creator and fashioner of all things through the only-begotten Son and the Holy Spirit.

We do not act as fools, O Greeks, nor utter idle tales, when we say that God was born in the form of a man.

It is not necessary in dealing with persons of intelligence to reason that the actions of Christ after his baptism are proof that his soul and his body, his human nature, were like ours, real and not phantasmal. The activities of Christ after his baptism, and especially his miracles, gave indication and assurance to the world of the deity hidden in his flesh. Being God and also perfect man, he gave positive proofs of his two natures: of his deity, by the miracles during the three years following after his baptism, and of his humanity, in the thirty years that came before his baptism, during which, by reason of his condition according to the flesh, he concealed the signs of his deity, although he was the true God existing before the ages.

The Church, though dispersed throughout the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and their disciples this faith: [She believes] in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who proclaimed through the prophets the dispensations of God, and the advents, and the birth from a virgin, and the Passion, and the Resurrection from the dead, and the Ascension into heaven in the flesh of the beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord, and his [future] manifestation from heaven in the glory of the Father “to gather all things in one” [Eph 1:10], and to raise up anew all flesh of the whole human race, in order that to Christ Jesus, our Lord, and God, and Savior, and king, according to the will of the invisible Father, “every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess”.

Since the Word was from the beginning, he was and is the divine source of all things; but because he has now assumed the name Christ, consecrated of old, and worthy of power, he has been called by me the New Song. This Word, then, the Christ, the cause of our being at first (for he was in God) and of our well-being, this very Word has now appeared as man, he alone being both God and man—the author of all blessings to us.

For it was not without divine care that so great a work was accomplished in so brief a space by the Lord, who, though despised in terms of his humble appearance, was in reality adored, the expiator of sin, the Savior, the clement, the divine Word, he that is truly the most manifest Deity, he that is made equal to the Lord of the universe; because he was his Son.

God alone is without sin. The only man who is without sin is Christ; for Christ is also God.

Thus the nature of the two substances displayed him as man and God—in one respect born, in the other unborn; in one respect fleshly, in the other spiritual; in one sense weak, in the other exceeding strong; in one sense dying, in the other living.

He in the last times, divesting himself [of his glory], became a man, and was incarnate although he was God, and while made a man remained the God that he was.

Only the Logos of this God is from God himself; thus the Logos is also God, being the substance of God.

For Christ is the God above all, and he has arranged to wash away sin from human beings, rendering the old man regenerate.

If Christ was only man, why did he lay down for us this rule of believing, “And this is life eternal, that they should know you, the only and true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent”? If he did not wish to be understood to be God, why did he add, “And Jesus Christ, whom you have sent,” unless he wished to be received as God? Because if he did not wish to be understood to be God, he would have added, “And the man Jesus Christ, whom you have sent”; but, in fact, he did not, nor did Christ deliver himself to us as Christ only, but associated himself with God, as he wished to be understood by this to be God also, as he is. We must therefore believe, according to the rule prescribed, in the Lord, the one true God, and consequently in him whom he has sent, Jesus Christ, who would not have linked himself to the Father if he had not wished to be understood to be God also: for he would have separated himself from him if he did not wish to be understood to be God.

There is one God, the Father of the living Word, who is his subsistent wisdom and power and eternal image: perfect begetter of the perfect begotten, Father of the only-begotten Son. There is one Lord, only of the only, God from God, image and likeness of Deity, efficient Word, wisdom comprehensive of the constitution of all things, and power formative of the whole creation, true Son of true Father, invisible of invisible, and incorruptible of incorruptible, and immortal of immortal and eternal of eternal. And there is one Holy Spirit, having his subsistence from God, and being made manifest by the Son, to men: image of the Son, perfect image of the perfect; life, the cause of the living; holy fount; sanctity, the supplier, or leader, of sanctification; in whom is manifested God the Father, who is above all and in all, and God the Son, who is through all. There is a perfect Trinity, in glory and eternity and sovereignty, neither divided nor estranged. Therefore there is nothing either created or in servitude in the Trinity; or anything added on, as if at some former period it was nonexistent, and at some later period it was introduced. And thus neither was the Son ever wanting to the Father, nor the Spirit to the Son; but without variation and without change the same Trinity abides ever.

“Is that Christ of yours a god, then?,” some raving, wrathful, and excited man will say. “A God,” we will reply, “and the God of the inner powers”.

He became both the Son of God through the Spirit, and the Son of man through the flesh—that is, both God and man.

We, on the other hand, are [truly] religious, who pray to the one true God. Someone may perhaps ask how, when we say that we worship one God only, we also assert that there are two, God the Father and God the Son—which has driven many into the greatest error . . . [thinking] that we confess that there is another God, and that he is mortal. . . . [But w]hen we speak of God the Father and God the Son, we do not speak of them as different, nor do we separate them, because the Father cannot exist without the Son, nor can the Son be separated from the Father.

We believe . . . in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only-begotten of his Father, of the substance of the Father, God from God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father. By whom all things were made, both in heaven and in earth.

But those who say, “There was a time when he [the Son] did not exist,” and “Before he was born, he did not exist,” and “Because he was made from non-existing matter, he is either of another substance or essence,” and those who call “God the Son of God changeable and mutable,” these the Catholic Church anathematizes.

Jesus Christ is the only proper Son who has been begotten by God, his Word and first-begotten, and power; and, becoming man according to his will, he taught us these things for the conversion and restoration of the human race.

God begot before all creatures a beginning, who was a certain rational power from himself and whom the Holy Spirit calls . . . sometimes the Son . . . sometimes Lord and Word. . . . We see things happen similarly among ourselves, for whenever we utter some word, we beget a word, yet not by any cutting off, which would diminish the word in us when we utter it. We see a similar occurrence when one fire kindles another. It is not diminished by kindling the other, but remains as it was.

[The Gnostics] transfer the generation of the word to which men gave utterance to the eternal Word of God, assigning a beginning. . . . And in what respect will the Word of God—yes, God himself, since he is the Word—differ from the word of men, if he follows the same order and process of generation?

Therefore, this sole and universal God, by reflecting, first brought forth the Word—not a word as in speech, but a mental word, the reason for everything. . . . The Word was the cause of the things that came into existence, carrying out in himself the will of him by whom he was begotten. . . . The Logos alone is from God himself; thus the Logos is also God, being the substance of God.

There is one God, the Father of the living Word, who is his subsistent wisdom and power and eternal image: perfect begetter of the perfect begotten, Father of the only-begotten Son. There is one Lord, only of the only, God from God, image and likeness of Deity, efficient Word, wisdom comprehensive of the constitution of all things, and power formative of the whole creation, true Son of true Father, invisible of invisible, and incorruptible of incorruptible, and immortal of immortal and eternal of eternal. And there is one Holy Spirit, having his subsistence from God, and being made manifest by the Son, to men: image of the Son, perfect image of the perfect; life, the cause of the living; holy fount; sanctity, the supplier, or leader, of sanctification; in whom is manifested God the Father, who is above all and in all, and God the Son, who is through all.

When we speak of God the Father and God the Son, we do not speak of them as different, nor do we separate them, because the Father cannot exist without the Son, nor can the Son be separated from the Father, since the name of Father cannot be given without the Son, nor can the Son be begotten without the Father. Since, therefore, the Father makes the Son, and the Son the Father, they both have one mind, one spirit, one substance; but the former is as it were an overflowing fountain, the latter as a stream flowing forth from it: the former as the sun, the latter as it were a ray extended from the sun.

We believe . . . in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only-begotten of his Father, of the substance of the Father, God from God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father. By whom all things were made, both in heaven and in earth.

Believe also in the Son of God, one and only, our Lord Jesus Christ, who was begotten God from God, begotten life of life, begotten light of Light, who is in all things like him who begat him, who received not his being in time, but was before all ages eternally and incomprehensibly begotten of the Father: The wisdom and the power of God, and his righteousness subsisting as a Person, and who sits on the right hand of the Father before all ages.

But some most worthless persons are in the habit of carrying about the name [of Jesus Christ] in wicked guile while they practice things unworthy of God, and hold opinions contrary to the doctrine of Christ—to their own destruction, and those who give credit to them—and you must avoid them as you would wild beasts. For “the righteous man who avoids them is saved for ever; but the destruction of the ungodly is sudden, and a subject of rejoicing. For they are dumb dogs, that cannot bark, raving mad, and biting secretly, against whom you must be on your guard, since they labor under an incurable disease. But our physician is the only true God, the unbegotten and unapproachable, the Lord of all, the Father and begetter of the only-begotten Son. We have also as a physician the Lord our God, Jesus the Christ, the only-begotten Son and Word, before time began, but who afterwards became also man, of Mary the Virgin”.

When these points are thus proved, their profaneness goes further. “If there never was, when the Son was not,” they say, “but he is eternal, and coexists with the Father, you call him no more the Father’s Son, but brother.” O, senseless and contentious! For if we only said that he was eternally with the Father, and not his Son, their pretended scruple would have some plausibility; but since, when we say he is eternal, we also say he is Son from the Father, how can he that is begotten be considered brother of him who begets? . . . For the Father and the Son were not generated from some preexisting origin, that we may account them brothers, but the Father is the origin of the Son and begat him. . . . While it is proper for men to beget in time, from the imperfection of their nature, God’s offspring is eternal, for his nature is ever perfect.

But the Arians think that they must oppose the fact that he said, “I live by the Father.” Certainly (suppose that they conceive the words as referring to his Godhead) the Son lives by the Father, because he is the Son begotten of the Father—by the Father, because he is of one substance with the Father, by the Father, because he is the Word given forth from the heart of the Father, because he came forth from the Father, because he is begotten of the “bowels of the Father,” because the Father is the fountain and root of the Son’s being.

He is called Son because he is identical to the Father in essence; and not only this, but also because he is of him. He is called only-begotten not because he is a unique Son . . . but because he is Son in a unique fashion and not in a corporeal way. He is called Word because he is to the Father what a word is to the mind.

We believe . . . in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only-begotten of his Father, of the substance of the Father, God from God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father.

God gave out his Word, that is, he begot the Son. And you [when you think of a word of human language that you might utter], begettest the word even in your heart according to time; [but] God without time begot the Son by whom he created all times.

If anyone shall not confess that the Word of God has two nativities, the one from all eternity of the Father, without time and without body; the other in these last days, coming down from heaven and being made flesh of the holy and glorious Mary, Mother of God and always a Virgin, and born of her: Let him be anathema [ Capitula of the Council 2.

But I tremble to say it; the audacity staggers me. I hear, And the Word was God—I, who have been taught by the prophets that God is one. To save me from further apprehension, my friend, the fisherman, needs to provide a fuller understanding of this great mystery. Show me that these assertions are consistent with the unity of God; that there is no blasphemy in them, no explaining away, no denial of eternity. And so he continues, He was in the beginning with God. This He was in the beginning removes the limit of time; the word God shows that he is more than a voice; that he is with God proves that he neither encroaches nor is encroached on, for his identity is not swallowed up in that of Another, and he—that is, his one and only begotten Son—is clearly stated to be present with the one unbegotten God as God.

As therefore the expression in the beginning was the Word shows his eternity, so was in the beginning with God has declared to us his coeternity. For, so that you may not think the Word is eternal when you hear in the beginning was the Word, but yet imagine the life of the Father to differ from his by some interval and longer duration and thus assign a beginning to the Only Begotten—this is why John adds, was in the beginning with God. He exists eternally even as the Father himself does, for the Father was never without the Word, but he was always God with God, yet each in his proper person…. So that no one might suppose the Godhead of the Son to be inferior, he immediately added the characteristics of genuine Godhead, including eternity (for He was, says he, in the beginning with God,) and attributed to him the office of Creator. For by him were all things made.

The backward straining of our thoughts can never grasp anything prior to God’s property of absolute existence since nothing presents itself to enable us to understand the nature of God, even though we might go on seeking it forever—nothing, that is, except the fact that God always is. That then which has both been declared about God by Moses, that of which our human intelligence can give no further explanation, that [is] the very quality the Gospels testify to be a property of God the only begotten since in the beginning was the Word, and since the Word was with God, and since he was the true Light, and since God the only begotten is in the bosom of the Father,^[1] and since Jesus Christ is God over all.^[2]

Therefore he was and he is, since he is from him who always is what he is. But to be from him, that is to say, to be from the Father, is birth. Moreover, to be always from him, who always is, is eternity; but this eternity is derived not from himself but from the Eternal. And from the Eternal nothing can spring but what is eternal: for if the offspring is not eternal, then neither is the Father, who is the source of generation, eternal.

John wanted to persuade by using the name Word, as if by an analogy, that it was possible for something to be from something else without having to be separated from it by length of time…. Also, because he said he was in the beginning, he showed not that he was without a beginning but rather that he was coexistent from eternity with his beginning.

After the Evangelist has taught us the three orders through the three propositions that were previously mentioned, he sums up the three under one head, saying, The same was in the beginning with God.

Now we have learned from the three propositions first, in what the Word was, namely, in the beginning, and with whom he was, namely, God, and who the Word was, namely, God. It is as if, therefore, he indicates the previously mentioned God the Word by the expression the same and gathers the three, in the beginning was the Word and The Word was with God, and the Word was God, into a fourth proposition and says, The same was in the beginning with God. COMMENTARY ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 2.34-35.^[1]

THIS IS AN IMPORTANT ADDITION. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA: The Evangelist here makes a sort of recapitulation of what had already been said. But when he adds the word this, he is all but crying aloud, He who is in the beginning, the Word with the Father, he who is God of God, he it is and no one else who is the subject of this august book. But he seems again not idly to add to what has been said, This was in the beginning with God. For he, enlightened by the divine Spirit about the future, was not ignorant … that certain people would appear,… who would rise up and strive against their own leader, saying that one is the word that is conceived in God the Father, and that the other, who is very similar and like the conceived one, is the Son and Word through whom God works all things. In this way he might be [falsely] conceived of as word of word and image of image and radiance of radiance.

The blessed Evangelist, then, as though he had already heard them blaspheming, and having already defined and shown by many words that the Word is one and only and truly of God and in God and with God—with flashing eye adds, This was in the beginning with God, as Son, that is, with the Father, as inborn, as of his [the Father’s] essence, as only begotten—this one, there being no second.

Someone perhaps may ask with good reason why it was not said, In the beginning was the Word of God, and the Word of God was with God, and the Word of God was God. But one who asks this… is proposing that there are many words, and perhaps different kinds of words of which one is the word of God, and another, let us say, is the word of angels, and another the word of people….

For every person imaginable would admit that the truth is one. No one would dare say, in the case of [truth] too, that the truth of God is one thing, and that of the angels is another, and that of people still another. For it belongs to the nature of beings that the truth concerning each is one…. And if truth is one and wisdom is one, the Word also, who announces the truth and wisdom simply and openly to those capable of apprehending it, would be one. And we say these things, not to deny that the truth and wisdom and the Word are of God but to show the advantage of the omission of the phrase of God.

Though you came from the mouth of God,

Born as his Word on earth below,

Yet as his Wisdom you lived

Forever in the Father’s heart.

This Wisdom uttered made the sky,

The sky and light and all besides;^[1]

All by the Word’s almighty power

Were fashioned, for the Word was God.

But when the universe was formed

And ordered by unchanging laws,

The Cause and architect divine

In the Father’s bosom still remained,^[2]

Until the slow revolving years

In centuries at length had passed,^[3]

And he himself condescended to come

Down to the world grown old in sin….

But such destruction of humankind

The heart of Christ could not endure;

And lest his Father’s handiwork,

Unvindicated, should be lost,

He clothed himself in mortal flesh,

That by arising from the tomb

He might unlock the chains of death

And bring man to his Father’s house.

This is your natal day, on which

The high Creator sent you forth,^[4]

And gave to you a form of clay,

Uniting flesh with his own Word. HYMNS ^[1]

Intending to make the divinity of the Only Begotten clearer, [the Evangelist] wanted to show the difference [of the Son] not only by indicating his dignity but also by demonstrating that he has no participation with the created order. He says, [The Word] was with God in the beginning, and All things were made through him. By saying this, he has opposed^[1] himself to all things made. He was, he says, in the beginning with God, all creatures were made through him. And clearly he made a comparison with in the beginning was, and its opposite, all things were made through him. Therefore he was not made, because in the beginning he was; they were made because they did not exist before. He himself is the explanation of the precedents. He shows what he means through the words In the beginning was, clearly asserting his eternity.

Moses in the beginning of the history and writings of the Old Testament speaks to us of the objects of sense and enumerates them to us at length. For in the beginning, he says, God made the heaven and the earth, and then he adds that light was created, and a second heaven and the stars, the various kinds of living creatures, and (that we may not delay by going through particulars) everything else. But this Evangelist, cutting to the quick, includes both these things and the things that are above these in a single sentence. He does this because they were known to his hearers and because he is hurrying on to a greater subject. His treatise is not so much about the works as about the Creator and him who produced them all. And therefore Moses, though he has selected the smaller portion of the creation (for he has spoken nothing to us concerning the invisible powers), dwells on these things;^[1] while John, as hurrying to ascend to the Creator himself, passes over both of these things and those on which Moses was silent, having comprised them in one little saying: All things were made by him.

Let someone of the unbelieving Arians come forward now and say that the Word of God was made.^[1] How can it happen that the Word of God was made when God made all things through the Word? If even the Word of God itself was made, through what other Word was it made? If you say that there is a Word of the Word, through which that [Word] was made, I say that this itself is the only Son of God. If you deny there is a Word of the Word, grant that that through which all things were made was itself not made. For that through which all things were made could not be made through itself.

And if he was not made, then he is not a creature; but if he is not a creature, then he is of the same substance with the Father. For all substance that is not God is creature, and all that is not creature is God.^[1] And if the Son is not of the same substance with the Father, then he is a substance that was made; and if he is a substance that was made, then all things were not made by him; but all things were made by him, therefore he is of one and the same substance with the Father. And so, he is not only God but also very God.

The fact that all things were made through him, will not, I think, cause any damage concerning what is said about the Son. For the Son is not introduced here as an employee or servant of someone else’s will just because it says that the things that exist were made through him, implying that he should be no longer conceived of as being by nature Creator. Nor is he someone who was given the power of creation by someone else, but rather being himself alone the strength of God the Father, as Son, as only begotten, he works all things, the Father and the Holy Spirit co-working and coexisting with him. For all things are from the Father through the Son in the Holy Spirit. And we conceive of the Father as coexisting with the Son, not as though he were powerless to bring anything into existence but rather as one who is wholly in [the Son] because of the unchangeableness of essence.

Paul, inspired by the same grace, said, For by him were all things created.^[2]… But if you think that the expression through is a mark of inferiority (as making Christ an instrument), listen to what [David] says: You, Lord, in the beginning, have laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands.^[3] He says of the Son what is said of the Father in his character of Creator. This is something he would not have said unless he had thought of him as he thought of a Creator and yet not subservient to any. And if the expression through him is used here, it is for no other reason than to prevent anyone from thinking that Son is unbegotten. For listen to Christ himself tell how, with respect to the title of Creator, he is nothing inferior to the Father: As the Father raises up the dead and quickens them, even so the Son quickens whom he will.^[4] If now in the Old Testament it is said of the Son, You, Lord, in the beginning have laid the foundation of the earth, his title of Creator is plain. But if you say that the prophet spoke this of the Father and that Paul attributed to the Son what was said of the Father, even so the conclusion is the same. For Paul would not have decided that the same expression suited the Son, unless he had been very confident that between Father and Son there was an equality of honor.

He himself who calls the Son of God the maker even of heavenly things has also plainly said that all things were made in the Son, that in the renewal of his works he might by no means separate the Son from the Father but unite him to the Father.

And that you may not think that he merely speaks of all the things mentioned by Moses, he adds that without him was not anything made that was made. That is to say, that of created things, not one—whether it be visible or intelligible—was brought into being without the power of the Son.

All things were made through him needs qualification. There is the Unbegotten who no one made; there is also the Son, begotten of the unborn Father. All things is an unguarded statement, admitting no exceptions. While we are silent, not daring to answer or trying to think of some reply, you [John] break in with, And without him was nothing made. You have restored the author of the Godhead to his place while proclaiming that he has a companion. From your saying that nothing was made without him, I learn that he was not alone. He through whom the work was done is one; he without whom it was not done is another: a distinction is drawn between Creator and Companion.

Reverence for the one unbegotten Creator distressed me, lest in your sweeping assertion that all things were made by the Word you had included him. You have banished my fears by your without him was nothing made. Yet this same without him was nothing made brings its own trouble and distraction. There was, then, something made by that other; not made, it is true, without him. If the other did make anything, even if the Word were present at the making, then it is untrue that through him all things were made. It is one thing to be the Creator’s Companion, quite another to be the Creator’s self. I could find answers of my own to the previous objections; in this case, fisherman, I can only turn at once to your words, All things were made through him. And now I understand, for the apostle has enlightened me with these words: Things visible and things invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers, all are through him and in him.^[1]

Now let us see why the statement And without him was not anything made is added. Some might think it superfluous to subjoin without him was not anything made to all things were made through him. For if every conceivable thing has been made through the Word, nothing has been made without the Word. That all things have been made through the Word, however, does not now follow from the assertion that nothing has been made without the Word. It is possible that not only have all things been made through the Word but also that some things have been made by the Word.

We must know, therefore, how the expression all things is to be understood and how nothing should be understood. For it is possible, if both expressions have not been made clear, to take it to mean that if all things were made through the Word, and evil and all the profusion of sin and wickedness belong to the all things, that these too, were made through the Word. But this is a false conclusion. For… it is not surprising that all creatures have been made through the Word… but this does not now follow also for acts of sin and falling away.

So far as the meaning of nothing and not being are concerned, they will appear to be synonyms. Not being would be meant by nothing, and nothing by not being. The apostle indeed appears to use the expression those things that are not not for things that exist nowhere but for things that are wicked, considering those things that are not to be things that are bad. For he says, God called those things that are not as those that are.^[1]… Not being and nothing are synonyms, and for this reason those who are not are nothing, and all evil is nothing, since it too is not being. And evil, which is called nothing, has been made without the Word, not being included in all things. We have presented then to the best of our ability, what the all things are that have been made through the Word, and what that is which was made without him, and, because it never was, is also for this reason called nothing.

Certainly sin was not made through him, and it is clear that sin is nothing and that human beings become nothing when they sin. And an idol was not made through the Word. Indeed an idol has a certain shape, but humankind has been made through the Word. For the form of humanity in the idol was not made through the Word. And it has been written, We know that an idol is nothing.^[1] These things, then, were not made through the Word; but whatever things were made through the agency of nature, whatever exist in creation, all things of all kinds whatsoever—from the angel to the grubworm—[these are what were made by the Word].

We have found the genuine poor person. We have found him to be kind and humble, not trusting in himself, truly poor, a member of the poor man, who became poor for our sake, though he was rich. Look at this rich man of ours, who for our sake became poor, though he was rich;^[1] see how rich he is: All things were made through him, and without him was made nothing. There is more to making gold than to having it. You are rich in gold, silver, flocks, household, farms, produce; you were unable to create these things for yourself, though. See how rich he is: All things were made though him. See how poor he is: The Word became flesh and dwelt among us.^[2] Who can fittingly reflect on his riches, how he makes and is not made, how he creates and is not created, is not formed but forms, forms changeable things while changelessly abiding ephemeral things while he himself is everlasting? Who can fittingly ponder his riches? Let us ponder his poverty instead, in case being poor ourselves we may just be able to grasp it.

Since then, all things were made through him, come to our help and tell us what it was that was made not without him.^[1] That which was made in him is life. That which was in him was certainly not made without him, for that which was made in him was also made through him. All things were created in him and through him. They were created in him,^[2] for he was born as God the Creator. Again, nothing that was made in him was made without him, for the reason that God the begotten was life and was born as life, not made life after his birth; for there are not two elements in him, one inborn and one afterwards conferred. There is no interval in his case between birth and maturity. None of the things that were created in him was made without him, for he is the life that made their creation possible. Moreover God, the Son of God, became God by virtue of his birth, not after he was born. Being born the Living from the Living, the True from the True, the Perfect from the Perfect, he was born in full possession of his powers. He did not need to learn in the time that followed what his birth was, but was conscious of his Godhead by the very fact that he was born as God of God.

We will not put the break at without him was not any thing made, as the heretics do. For they are trying to prove the Holy Spirit is a creature and so read, That which was made in him was life. But this cannot be so understood. For first of all, this was not the place for mentioning the Holy Spirit…. But let us suppose it was; let us take the passage for the present according to their reading, and we shall see that it leads to a difficulty. For when it is said, That which was made in him was life, they say the life spoken of is the Spirit. But this life is also light, for the Evangelist proceeds, The life was the light of men [humankind]. And so, according to them, light of men here means the Spirit…. But the Word mentioned above is what he here calls consecutively God and life and light. If now this Word was life and if this Word and the life became flesh… it follows that the Spirit is incarnate, not the Son….

Dismissing then this reading, we adopt a more suitable one, with the following meaning: All things were made by him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. There we make a break and begin a fresh sentence: In him was life. Without him was not any thing made which was as made, that is, that could be made. You see how by this short addition he removes any difficulty that might follow. For by introducing without him was not any thing made and adding which was made, he includes all things invisible but excludes the Spirit…. For the Spirit is uncreated. Do you see the precision of his teaching?

Many read this inaccurately because they add without any punctuation, that which has been made in him was life. The correct statement is All things were made through him, and without him was made nothing that has been made, meaning that that which has been made without him has not been made.^[1]… Now, if all things were made through him, is the Father, on that account, excluded from creation, or Holy Spirit, and has the Son alone worked? Because the Evangelist had said, All things were made through him, lest he take away creation from the Holy Spirit and the Father, he added, And without him was made nothing that has been made. When he says, without him was made nothing, he reveals that another has made but has made nothing without him.

Our Savior is said to be some things not for himself but for others; others again, both for himself and others…. When it is said then, That which was made in him was life… we must inquire whether the life is for himself and others or for others only; and if for others, for whom? Now the Life and the Light are both the same person: he is the light of men [humanity]; he is therefore their life. The Savior is called Life here, not to himself but to others whose Light he also is….

This life is inseparable from the Word, from the time it is added on to it. For Reason or the Word must exist before in the soul, cleansing it from sin, till it is pure enough to receive the life, which is thus engrafted or inborn in everyone who renders himself fit to receive the Word of God. And so, observe… that though the Word itself in the beginning was not made—the beginning never having been without the Word—yet the life of people was not always in the Word. This life of people was made in the sense that it was the light of people. And this light of people could not be before humankind was; the light of people being understood relatively to people….

And therefore he says, that which was made in the Word was life, and not that which was in the Word was life. Some copies read, and perhaps not without credibility, that which was made, in him is life. If we understand the life in the Word, to be he who says below, I am the life, we shall confess that none who believe not in Christ live, and that all who live not in God, are dead.

But how were all things made by him? That, which was made, in him is life. It can also be read, That, which was made in him, is life, and if we read it this way, everything is life. For what is there that was not made in him? For he is the wisdom of God, and it is said in the psalm, In Wisdom you have made all things.^[1] If then Christ is the wisdom of God, and the psalm says, In wisdom you have made all things, since all things were made by him all things were also made in him. If, then, all things were made in him, dearly beloved brothers, and that, which was made in him, is life, both the earth is life and wood is life. We do indeed say wood is life, but in the sense of the wood of the cross from which we have received life. A stone, then, is life. But this is an unseemly way to read this passage…. Rather, read it this way: That which was made; here make a short pause and then go on, in him is life. What is the meaning of this? The earth was made, but the very earth that was made is not life; but there exists spiritually in the wisdom itself a certain reason by which the earth was made: this [reason] is life.

As far as I can, I shall explain my meaning to you, beloved. A carpenter makes a box. First he has the box in design; for if he had it not in design, how could he produce it by workmanship? But the box in theory is not the very box as it appears to the eyes. It exists invisibly in design; it will be visible in the work. Behold, it is made in the work; has it ceased to exist in design? The one is made in the work, and the other remains that exists in design; for that box may rot and another be fashioned according to that which exists in design. Listen, then, to the box as it is in design and the box as it is in fact; the actual box is not life, the box in design is life; because the soul of the artificer, where all these things are before they are brought forth, is living. So, dearly beloved brothers, because the wisdom of God, by which all things have been made, contains everything according to design before it is made, therefore those things that are made through this design itself are not immediately life, but whatever has been made is life in him.

John spoke of the work of creation, that all things were made by him, and without him was not anything made that was made. And so now he goes on to speak concerning his providence, where he says, In him was life. That no one may doubt how so many and so great things were made by him, he adds, In him was life. For as [it is] with the fountain, which is the mother of the great deeps—however much you take away, you do not lessen the fountain—so [it is] with the energy of the Only Begotten. However much you believe has been produced and made by it, it has not diminished. Or, to use a more familiar example, I will use the instance of light, which the apostle himself added immediately, saying, And the life was the light. Light, however many millions of times it may enlighten, suffers no diminution of its own brightness. In the same way also God, before commencing his work and after completing it, remains alike indefectible, undiminished, unwearied by the greatness of the creation. No, if it were necessary that ten thousand or even an infinite number of such worlds were created, he still remains the same, sufficient for them all not merely to produce but also to control them after their creation. For the word life here refers not merely to the act of creation but also to the providence engaged in maintaining the things created.

It also lays down beforehand the doctrine of the resurrection and is the beginning of these marvelous good tidings, since when life has come to be with us, the power of death is dissolved; and when light has shone upon us, there is no longer darkness, but life always remains within us, and death cannot overcome it. So that what is asserted of the Father might be asserted absolutely of [Christ] also, that in him we live and move and have our being.^[1] As Paul has shown when he says, By him were all things created and by him all things consist. Thus, [Christ] has been called also root and foundation.

From where do we get life, from where does he get death? Just look at him: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.^[1] Look for death there. Where? Where from? What sort of Word? The Word with God, the Word that was God. If you can find flesh and blood there, you can find death. So where did death come from for that Word? On the other hand, where did life come from for us human beings, stuck on the earth, mortal, perishable, sinners? He had nothing where he could get death from; we had nothing where we could get life from. He accepted death from what was ours, in order to give us life from what was his. How did he get death from what was ours? The Word became flesh and dwelt among us.^[2] He accepted from us here what he would offer for us. And where did life come from for us? And the life was the light of men. He was life for us; we were death for him.

Let us not fail to notice that while it could have been written, What was made in him was the light of men, and the light of men was life, John has done the reverse. For he places the life before the light of men, although life and light of men are the same….

Why isn’t the Word said to be the light of men, instead of the life that was made in the Word?… The life mentioned there is not that life that makes both rational and irrational beings [alive]. It is instead the life that is added to the Word, which is completed in us when a share from the first Word is received. And so, when we turn away from what seems to be life but really is not and we yearn to truly possess life—that is when we first share in it. Once this [kind of] life exists in us, it also becomes the foundation of the light of knowledge.

And perhaps this life is light potentially (and not actually) for those who really do not want to learn, but with others it becomes light also in actuality.

The most wise Evangelist now expands the thought expressed above…. Not only is the Word of God indeed truly light, but he is also the giver of light to all whom he infuses with the light of understanding.

But perhaps the foolish hearts cannot receive that light because they are so encumbered with sins that they cannot see it. Let them not on that account think that the light is in any way absent, because they are not able to see it. For they, because of their sins, are darkness…. For suppose, as in the case of a blind person placed in the sun, the sun is present to him, but he is absent from the sun. This is how every foolish person, every unjust person, every irreligious person is blind in heart. Wisdom is present, but it is present to a blind person and is absent from his eyes; not because it is absent from him but because he is absent from it. What then is he to do? Let him become pure, that he may be able to see God.^[1]

People are not [darkness] by nature, since Paul says, For we were once darkness but now are light in the Lord,^[1] and this is especially the case if we are now called saints and spiritual. Just as Paul, although he was darkness, became capable of becoming light in the Lord, so may anyone who was once darkness.

Let us not be troubled when we are plunged into darkness, especially if we are not the cause of it ourselves. For this darkness is brought about by divine providence for reasons that are known only to God. Our soul becomes suffocated and placed, as it were, in the middle of a storm system. Even if someone tries to approach Scripture—or whatever he approaches, it is only darkness on darkness that he finds instead that causes him to give up. How often is it that he is not even allowed to approach. He is totally incapable of believing that any other possibilities are out there that might give him some peace again. It is an hour filled with despair and fear! The soul is utterly deprived of hope in God and the consolation of faith. It is entirely filled with doubt and fear.

But those who have been tested by the distress of such an hour know that in the end it is followed by a change. God never leaves the soul for a whole day in such a state, otherwise it would lose life and all Christian hope…. Rather, he allows it to emerge very soon from the darkness. Blessed is he who endures such temptations. For, as the Fathers say, great will be the stability and the strength to which he will come after that. This struggle will not be over all at once, however; neither will grace come and dwell in the soul completely at once, but gradually. After grace, the trial returns. Sometimes there is temptation, sometimes consolation…. We do not expect complete deliverance from it here, nor do we expect complete consolation.

The person who supposes that he is protected by the darkness is vain, since he cannot escape the light that shines in the darkness, and the darkness grasped it not. Accordingly, he is discovered like a fugitive and a wicked hireling and is recognized before he can conceal himself. For all things are known to the Lord before he seeks them out, not only past events but also those that are to come.

The light shines in darkness, in this life and in the flesh, and is chased by the darkness but is not overtaken by it.^[1] By this I mean the adverse power leaping up in its shamelessness against the visible Adam but encountering God and being defeated—in order that we, putting away the darkness, may draw near to the Light and may then become perfect Light, the children of perfect Light.

Christ, because of the benefit that follows for humankind, took our darkness on himself that by his power he might destroy our death^[1] and completely destroy the darkness in our soul so that what Isaiah said might be fulfilled: The people who sat in darkness have seen a great light.^[2]

This light, indeed, that was made in the Word, which also is life, shines in the darkness of our souls. It has come to stay where the world rulers of this darkness live.^[3] They by wrestling with the human race struggle to subject those who do not stand firm in every manner to darkness. He comes that, when they have been enlightened, they may be called children of light. And this light shines in the darkness and is pursued by it, but it is not overcome….

The darkness pursued this light, as is clear from what our Savior and his children suffer. The darkness fighting against the children of light wanted to chase the light away. However, if God is for us, no one will be able to be against us.^[4]…

Now there are two ways that the darkness did not overcome the light. The darkness is either left very far behind it and, because it is slow, cannot keep up with the swiftness of the flight of light even to a limited extent, or, perhaps the light wanted to set an ambush for the darkness and awaited its approach and when the darkness drew near the light it was destroyed.

Darkness is what John calls the nature that lacks illumination, that is, the whole originate nature…. For such a nature produces nothing on its own. Instead, it receives its whole being and well-being, such as it is, from its creator. This is why Paul says, What do you have that you did not receive?^[1] And since, along with the rest, it receives its light from God, not possessing it on its own, it receives it. But that which does not have light of itself cannot be called anything but darkness. The fact that the Light shines in darkness is a credible demonstration (in fact, one following from very necessity) that the creation is darkness while the Word of God is Light. For if the nature of things originate receives the Word of God by participation, as Light, or as of Light, it receives it then since it is inherently darkness, and the Son shines in it as the light shines in darkness, even though the darkness has no idea of the light’s existence. For this, I suppose, is the meaning of the darkness did not comprehend it. For the Word of God shines upon all things that are receptive to his radiance and illumines without exception things that have a nature that is receptive to being illumined. But [the Word of God] is unknown by the darkness. For that which is the rational nature upon earth, I mean humanity, served the creature more than the Creator: it did not comprehend the Light,^[2] for it did not know the Creator, the fountain of wisdom, the beginning of understanding, the root of sense. Nevertheless, because of his love for humankind, things originate possess the light and are provided with the power of perception implanted concurrently with their passing into being.

The old saint Simplicianus, afterwards bishop of Milan, used to tell me that a certain Platonist was in the habit of saying that this opening passage of the holy Gospel, entitled According to John, should be written in letters of gold and hung up in all churches in the most conspicuous place.

Christ obviously neither came nor departed according to his Godhead since he is present everywhere and is contained in no place. But how did he come? He appeared as a man.

Therefore, because he was such a man, albeit that God lay hidden in him, there was sent before him a great man whose testimony would confirm that Christ was more than man. And who is this? He was a man.

By what God, then, was John, the forerunner, who testifies of the Light, sent [into the world]? Truly it was by him of whom Gabriel is the angel, who also announced the glad tidings of his birth: [that God] who also had promised by the prophets that he would send his messenger before the face of his Son,^[1] who should prepare his way, that is, that he should bear witness of that Light in the spirit and power of Elijah.^[2] But, again, of what God was Elijah the servant and the prophet? Of him who made heaven and earth,^[3] as he does himself confess. John, therefore, having been sent by the founder and maker of this world is… deemed more than a prophet.^[4] For all the other prophets preached the advent of the paternal Light and desired to be worthy of seeing him whom they preached. But John both announced [the advent] beforehand in the same way as the others did, and actually saw him when he came and pointed him out and persuaded many to believe on him, so that he did himself hold the place of both prophet and apostle.

Where we say sent, the Hebrew says, one sent forth; in Greek apostolos, in Hebrew siloas. You see, therefore, that this John, the prophet, is not only a prophet but also an apostle. Isaiah is sent; he was an apostle. Here I am, send me!^[1] Sent is a term well said…. Those who have come on their own authority and have not been sent are the thieves and robbers.^[2] But this man has been sent from God, whose name was John and whose name corresponds to his calling. The name Ioannes is interpreted as the grace of the Lord, for io means Lord, and anna means grace. And so John is called the grace of the Lord. His mission as messenger he receives from the Lord.

The fact that John was filled with the Holy Spirit while he was still in his mother’s womb is an even more striking argument for John to have been sent from some other region^[1] when he was placed in a body with no other purpose for his sojourn in life than his testimony to the light. Gabriel mentions that John was filled with the Spirit while still in his mother’s womb when he announces the birth of John to Zechariah.^[2]…

John is like sound^[3] in relation to Christ, who is speech.^[4]… John himself suggests this view since he once said, I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness.^[5]… And perhaps it is because Zechariah disbelieved in the birth of the voice that makes known the Word of God that he loses his voice and regains it when the voice that is the forerunner of the Word is born.^[6] For a voice must be listened to so that the mind can afterwards receive the word revealed by the voice.

Since, according to what was said by God through Moses, At the mouth of two and three witnesses shall every word be established,^[1] wisely does [John the Evangelist] bring in addition to himself the blessed Baptist. … For he did not suppose that he ought, even if of gravest weight, to demand of the readers in his book concerning our Savior credence above that of the law, and that they should believe him by himself when declaring things above our understanding and sense.

Some try to undo the testimonies of the prophets to Christ by saying that the Son of God had no need of such witnesses…. To this we may reply that where there are a number of reasons to make people believe, persons are often impressed by one kind of proof and not by another.

And with respect to the doctrine of the incarnation, it is certain that some have been forced by the prophetical writings into an admiration of Christ by the fact of so many prophets having, before his advent, fixed the place of his birth [and by other proofs of the same kind]….

It is to be remembered too, that, though the display of miraculous powers might stimulate the faith of those who lived in the same age with Christ, they might, in the lapse of time, fail to do so; as some of them might even get to be regarded as fabulous. Prophecy and miracles together are more convincing than simply past miracles by themselves…. We must remember too that people receive honor themselves from the witness that they bear to God….

He, therefore, who maintains that there is no need for the prophetic witness to Christ deprives the choir of prophets of their greatest gift. For what would prophecy, which is inspired by the Holy Spirit, have that is so great, if one exclude from it those matters related to the dispensation of our Lord?… John, too, therefore came to bear witness concerning the light.

He could have proven that he had no need of that [herald’s] testimony by showing himself in his unveiled essence, had he so chosen, and that would have confounded them all. But he did not do this because he would have annihilated everybody since no one could have endured the encounter of that unapproachable light. This is why he put on flesh and entrusted the witness [of himself] to one of our fellow servants, since everything he did was for the salvation of men and women, looking not only to his own honor but also to what might be more readily received by and profitable to his hearers.

The Baptist’s leaping for joy in the womb of Elizabeth at Mary’s greeting was a testimony about Christ.^[1] He was testifying to the divinity of Christ’s conception and birth. For what indeed is John, except everywhere a witness and forerunner of Jesus? He precedes his birth and dies a little before the death of the Son of God, that, by appearing before the Christ not only to those in birth but also those awaiting the freedom from death through Christ, he might everywhere prepare for the Lord a prepared people….

Now since there was the beginning in which the Word was… and since the Word also existed, and life was made in him, and the life was the light of people… why then did he not come to give testimony of the life, or to give testimony of the Word, or of the beginning, or of any other aspect of the Christ whatsoever? Consider whether it is not [because] the people who sat in darkness have seen a great light^[2] and because the light shines in the darkness and is not overcome by it. Those who are in darkness, that is, men and women, need light. For if the light shines in the darkness—there is no activity of darkness at all there—we shall share in other aspects of the Christ in which we do not now participate.

It follows that the Word is the Son. But if the Son is the Light that has come into the world, beyond all dispute the world was made by the Son. For in the beginning of the Gospel, the Evangelist, speaking of John the Baptist, says, He was not that Light, but that he might bear witness concerning that Light. For Christ himself was, as we have said before, the true Light that enlightens everyone that comes into the world. For if he was in the world, and the world was made by him,^[1] of necessity he is the Word of God, concerning whom also the Evangelist witnesses that all things were made by him. For either they will be compelled to speak of two worlds, that the one may have come into being by the Son and the other by the Word, or, if the world is one and the creation one, it follows that Son and Word are one and the same before all creation, for by him it came into being.

How right it was for the Lord to call [John] a lamp. This is what the Lord said about John: He was a burning and a shining lamp, and you were willing for a time to exult in his light.^[1] What, though, does John the Evangelist say about him? There was a man sent by God, whose name was John; this man came for witness, to bear witness about the light; that man was not the light. Who? John the Baptist. Who says this? John the Evangelist. That man was not the light. You say that man was not the light, while the light itself says about him, That man was a burning and a shining lamp? But I know, he says, what sort of light I am talking about; a light, I am well aware, in comparison with which a lamp is not a light. Listen to what comes next: That was the true light that enlightens everyone coming into this world. John does not enlighten every person; Christ does. And John recognized himself as a lamp, in order not to be blown out by the wind of pride. A lamp can both be lit and be put out. The word of God cannot be put out; a lamp always can.

If he enlightens everyone that comes into the world, how is it that so many continue unenlightened? For not all have known the majesty of Christ. How then does he enlighten everyone? He enlightens all who live in him. But if some, willfully closing the eyes of their mind, would not receive the rays of that light, their darkness arises not from the nature of the light but from their own wickedness as they willfully deprive themselves of the gift. For the grace is shed forth upon all, turning its back on no one… but admitting all alike and inviting all equally. And those who are not willing to enjoy this gift ought in justice to impute their blindness to themselves. For if when the gate is opened to all and there is none to hinder, any who are willfully evil remain outside. They perish through no one else but their own wickedness.

The rational portion of the creation, being enlightened, enlightens by sharing ideas from one mind as they are poured into another. Such enlightenment will rightly be called teaching rather than revelation. But the Word of God enlightens everyone that comes into the world, not after the manner of teaching, as the angels, for example, or people, but rather, as God after the mode of creation, he engrafts in each of those that are called into being the seed of wisdom or of divine knowledge and implants a root of understanding. In this way, he renders the living creature rational, allowing it to participate in his own nature and sending into the mind, as it were, certain luminous vapors of the unutterable brightness in a way and mode that only he himself knows. For one may not, I think, say too much on these subjects. Therefore our forefather Adam too is seen to have attained wisdom not in time, as we, but right away from the first beginnings of his being he appears perfect in understanding, preserving in himself the illumination given of God to his nature as yet untroubled and pure and holding the dignity of his nature unadulterated.

The Son therefore lights after the manner of creation, as being himself the very Light. And by participation with the Light the creature shines forth and is therefore called and is light. The creature mounts up to what is above its nature by the kindness of him who glorified it and who crowns it with diverse honors. And so each one of those who have been honored may with good reason come forward and lift up prayers of thanksgiving…. For truly does the Lord commit acts of mercy, rendering those that are little and a mere nothing according to their own nature, great and worthy to be marveled at through his goodness toward them, even as he has, as God, willed to adorn us ungrudgingly with his own goods. And so he calls us gods and light. In fact, what good things are there that he does not call us?

But the apostles too, my brothers and sisters, are lamps for the day. Do not imagine that John alone is a lamp and that the apostles are not. The Lord said to them, You are the light of the world.^[1] And in case they should suppose they were light of the same sort as the light about which it is said, That was the true light, which enlightens everyone coming into this world, he went on immediately to teach them this true light. After saying, You are the light of the world, he added, Nobody lights a lamp and puts it under the bushel. In calling you light, I meant you are a lamp; do not jump about for joy in your pride, in case its little flame gets blown out. I am not placing you under a bushel; but in order to shine, you shall be on the lampstand.

Listen to the lampstand; be lamps, and you shall have a lampstand. The cross of Christ is a great lampstand. Whoever wishes to shine must not be ashamed of this wooden lampstand.