ACC ~ John 1 v1

OVERVIEW:

With the wisdom of an enlightened fisherman (CHRYSOSTOM), John brings us the firstfruits of the gospel (ORIGEN). He begins his gospel with the eternal generation of the Son (CHRYSOSTOM, AUGUSTINE), leaving his human birth from Mary to be understood in the context of this first birth (HILARY). He speaks of the Son as the Word “in the beginning,” which, by its very definition, means there can be nothing prior (CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA). Scripture uses “beginning” in a number of different senses, but here the apostle speaks of the eternal beginning, linking the Word’s generation with the creative wisdom present at the beginning, which, according to Proverbs 8:22, brought about the creation of the world (ORIGEN). He is the light before the world came into being, the intellectual and essential Wisdom existing before the ages (EUSEBIUS), the living Word that was in the beginning with the Father and who was himself God and the voice of God (COSMAS).

Thus, John cannot be dealing strictly with time (CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA) or ordered sequence, except in the sense of indicating by “beginning” what is before everything else, as Moses wrote at the beginning of his account of creation. In this sense, he contrasts Moses’ account of the beginning of created things with his own account of the beginning when their Creator was already in existence as the author of existence (THEODORE). John points to the Father as the archē, that is, the source of the Son (CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA), who himself as the Son and agent of creation is the source and cause, or “beginning,” of all that exists (AUGUSTINE).

John’s paradoxical combination of “was” with “in the beginning” leaves us contemplating nothing short of eternity and infinity (CHRYSOSTOM, HILARY). In the case of human beings, the word was signifies the past; with God it declares eternity (CHRYSOSTOM). The Word of God always was in the beginning and always was (AMBROSE) even as he always is (HILARY). The same verb is predicated of the Word when he “was in the beginning” and when he “was with God” (ORIGEN).

The word Logos, which John chooses to use, can signify both “reason” and “word,” but here the better translation is “word” because of the power it connotes. A word already exists in our minds even before it is spoken or conceived. But we should not think that the Word of which John speaks is like our human word. In a sense, it is incomprehensible because it is speaking of that which is before form, shape or conception of the mind (AUGUSTINE). And yet, just as our words declare what is on our minds (BASIL), so also the Word declares to us the mind of God (TERTULLIAN) and those things that were hidden (EPHREM). We forget the power that words have, let alone that the Word has (AUGUSTINE). The eternal, creative, divine Word of the Father accomplishes whatever it says, while human words disappear as soon as they are spoken (ATHANASIUS), which is why this Word is set apart from human words that did not even exist in the beginning (BASIL).

The Son has always been with the Father (GREGORY OF NAZIANZUS), but is also shown here to be distinct from the Father even as he is of one substance with the Father (CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA). We should, however, realize that the name “Father” is not yet used here in the prologue, nor is that of the “Son,” because John is concerned that someone might unwittingly try to humanize the Godhead (GREGORY OF NYSSA). John also guards against anyone who may think that the Word was unbegotten, telling us that the Word was not “in God” but “with God” and thus declaring his eternity as a person with the Father (CHRYSOSTOM). And so, the Father and Son remain at the same time distinct (CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA) but also one (AMBROSE). In this sense, then, the Son can be understood as present in the beginning as Wisdom at the side of the Father (METHODIUS).

The Word itself is more than just the utterance of sound or the hidden thought of God; it is a substance, a Being, it is God. Others have been called God; however, this verse reveals that the Son is God and not merely called God (HILARY). The third repetition of “was” in the final clause of John 1:1 confirms by number that what he “was” (i.e., God), he laid aside (GREGORY OF NAZIANZUS). Those who would point to the lack of article as making the Word “a God,” that is, a subordinate deity and not fully God, would also have to make the same observation concerning the Father, since there are instances in Scripture where the article is also lacking in designating the Father—and besides, adding the article here would be superfluous since the article already had been affixed previously to the Word (CHRYSOSTOM). John anticipated those who would deny the deity of the Son, and so he ensured the establishment of the Son’s divinity by confessing him as God (CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA). This Word was in the beginning and was the one who told Moses, “He who is has sent me” (AMBROSE).

THE WISDOM OF A FISHERMAN

CHRYSOSTOM: 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. HOMILIES ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 2.2. [1]

[1] NPNF 1 14:4.

THE FIRSTFRUITS OF THE GOSPELS

ORIGEN: 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. COMMENTARY ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 1.21-23. [6]

[1] Jn 8:42.

[2] Jn 14:6.

[3] Jn 11:25.

[4] Jn 10:9.

[5] Jn 10:11.

[6] FC 80:37-38.

1:1a | In the Beginning

THE ETERNAL GENERATION OF THE SON

CHRYSOSTOM: 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. HOMILIES ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 4.1. [1]

[1] NPNF 1 14:16**; SC 120:68-70.

THE FIRST BIRTH OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST

AUGUSTINE: 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] SERMON 196.1. [2]

[1] Is 53:8.

[2] WSA 3 6:60.

CHRIST’S BIRTH FROM MARY

HILARY OF POITIERS: 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.” ON THE COUNCILS 27.70. [1]

[1] NPNF 2 9:22.

NOTHING IS PRIOR TO THE BEGINNING

CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA: 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]

[1] LF 43:11-12**.

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.” [1] … There is also a “beginning” of creation… in the statement “In the beginning God made heaven and earth.” [2] But I think what is meant is more clearly stated in Job, “This is the beginning of the Lord’s creation.” [3] … 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.” [4] …

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.” [5] 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.” [6] 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. COMMENTARY ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 1.90-91, 95, 101-4, 106-7. [7]

[1] Prov 16:7 LXX.

[2] Gen 1:1.

[3] Job 40:19.

[4] Prov 8:22.

[5] Heb 5:12.

[6] 1 Cor 1:24.

[7] FC 80:52-56**; SC 120:106-16.

CHRIST AS WISDOM AT THE BEGINNING

ORIGEN: 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.” COMMENTARY ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 1.109-11, 289. [5]

[1] Ps 148:5.

[2] Gen 1:3, 6.

[3] Prov 8:22.

[4] Prov 8:22.

[5] FC 80:56-57, 93-94**; SC 120:118-20, 204-6. See also Athanasius, who has an extended discussion of the Word as Wisdom in his Discourse Against the Arians 2.18-81 (NPNF 2 4:357-92), refuting the Arian charge that the Son is a creature according to Prov 8:22.

PREEXISTENCE AND DIVINITY OF JESUS CHRIST

EUSEBIUS OF CAESAREA: 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. ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY 1.2.2-3. [1]

THE VOICE OF THE NATURE ASSUMED

COSMAS OF MAIUMA:

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

He established me as the beginning of his ways

For the works now mystically accomplished [2]

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, NINTH ODE. [3]

“BEGINNING” CANNOT BE REFERENCING TIME

CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA: 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. COMMENTARY ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 1.1. [4]

[1] NPNF 2 1:82.

[2] Prov 8:22.

[3] MFC 7:391-92.

[4] LF 43:12-13**.

MOSES ACCOUNTS FOR CREATED THINGS

THEODORE OF MOPSUESTIA: 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. COMMENTARY ON JOHN 1.1.1. [3]

[1] Theodore is speaking of those whose specialty is language.

[2] Gen 1:1.

[3] CSCO 4 3:15-16.

JOHN ACCOUNTS FOR THEIR CREATOR’S PREEXISTENCE

THEODORE OF MOPSUESTIA: 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.” COMMENTARY ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN, FRAGMENT 2.1, 1-2. [4]

[1] Here the Greek text can be confusing; the interpretive gloss of the Syriac version clarifies this point:“We call beginning of any things that which is first in them, but we do not call what is second the beginning. For if it is after another, it is not first; and if it is not first, a fortiori, it is not the beginning.”

[2] This is a play on the Arian,“There was when he was not.”

[3] Gen 1:1.

[4] ECS 7:44-45.

THE SON IS IN THE BEGINNING

CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA: 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.” COMMENTARY ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 1.1. [2]

[1] The Greek text of John’s Gospel begins En archē ēn ho logos. … The Greek word archēis usually translated“beginning,” but it can also be understood to signify“sovereignty” or“authority” (cf. Lk 20:20; Eph 1:21; Col 2:10; 1 Cor 15:24). It is this latter meaning of the word archēthat Cyril is using. Thus the beginning of John’s Gospel is understood by Cyril as saying,“In the Father was the Word.”

[2] LF 43:14-15*.

GENESIS AGREES WITH JOHN

AUGUSTINE: 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. SERMON 1.2. [3]

[1] Jn 5:46.

[2] Jn 8:25.

[3] WSA 3 1:169-70. In another of his sermons (Sermon 117), Augustine answers the Arian charge that a father, by definition, must be before a son. See WSA 3 4:213-17.

1:1b | Was

THE INFINITE BEGINNING WHEN COUPLED WITH WAS

CHRYSOSTOM: 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. HOMILIES ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 2.9. [1]

[1] NPNF 1 14:7-8**. See also Chrysostom’s Homily 3.2, where he goes into further detail on the meaning of “was” as an expression of the eternal creative word.

JOHN TAKES US BEYOND “BEGINNING”

HILARY OF POITIERS: 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.” ON THE TRINITY 2.13. [2]

“WAS” AND “MADE” MUST BE DISTINGUISHED

CHRYSOSTOM: [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.” [3] And, “There ‘was’ a certain man of Ramathaim-zophim.” [4] 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. HOMILIES ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 3.2. [5]

[1] Gen 1:1.

[2] NPNF 2 9:56*. See also Cyril of Alexandria, loc. cit.

[3] Gen 1:2.

[4] HE WORD IN THE BEGINNING | JOHN 1:1

[5] NPNF 1 14:11**.

THE WORD OF GOD ALWAYS WAS

AMBROSE: “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. SIX DAYS OF CREATION 1.5.19. [2]

[1] Gen 1:1.

[2] FC 42:17*.

CHRIST WAS AND IS, JUST AS THE FATHER ALWAYS IS

HILARY OF POITIERS: 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. ON THE TRINITY 12.25. [1]

[1] NPNF 2 9:224*.

THE WORD DOES NOT COME TO BE

ORIGEN: 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. COMMENTARY ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 2.9, 11. [1]

[1] FC 80:97; SC 120:212-14.

1:1c | The Word

“LOGOS” CAN MEAN BOTH “REASON” AND “WORD”

AUGUSTINE: 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. ON EIGHTY-THREE VARIED QUESTIONS 63. [3]

[1] at Ratio.

[2] Lat Verbum.

[3] FC 70:127.

WORD OCCURS BEFORE SOUND OR THOUGHT

AUGUSTINE: 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. ON THE TRINITY 15.10.19-11.20. [1]

[1] NPNF 1 3:209**.

THE HUMAN WORD IS A HELPFUL, IF IMPERFECT, ANALOGY

AUGUSTINE: 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. ON THE TRINITY 15.13.22-16.25. [3]

[1] See also Theodore on this point, loc. cit.

[2] Augustine is here employing the neoplatonic understanding of the realm of ideas in the mind of God, which he called “forms.” These forms were the unchangeable essence of things. They are themselves not formed, and they are eternal and always in the same state because they are contained in God’s intelligence. They neither come into being, nor do they pass away, but everything that can or does come into being and pass away is formed in accordance with them.

[3] NPNF 1 3:213-14**; see also Sermon 214.5 (WSA 3 6:153).

THE INCOMPREHENSIBILITY OF AN UNCHANGEABLE FORM

AUGUSTINE: 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. SERMON 117.3. [2]

[1] Ps 104:24 (103:24 LXX, Vg).

[2] WSA 3 4:210.

THE SIMILARITY OF OUR WORD TO THE WORD

BASIL THE GREAT: 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. HOMILY 16.3, IN THE BEGINNING WAS THE WORD. [1]

[1] PG 31:477.

THE WORD REVEALS WHAT IS HIDDEN

EPHREM THE SYRIAN: The things that were hidden were revealed through him [our Lord], just as the secrets of the heart are made known by a word. COMMENTARY ON TATIAN’S DIATESSARON 1.2. [1]

[1] CB709.2.

THE WORD AS THE THOUGHT OF GOD

TERTULLIAN: 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. AGAINST PRAXEAS 5. [4]

[1] See Gen 1:1.

[2] Gen 1:26.

[3] Gen 2:7.

[4] TTAP 134-36.

THE COMMONNESS OF WORDS HIDES THEIR POWER

AUGUSTINE: 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. TRACTATES ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 1.8. [2]

[1] Lat Deus.

[2] NPNF 1 7:9-10**.

THE CREATIVE DIVINE WORD OF THE FATHER

ATHANASIUS: [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. DISCOURSES AGAINST THE ARIANS 2.18.34-36. [4]

[1] See Ephrem Commentary on Tatian’s Diatessaron 1.3 (ECTD 41).

[2] Heb 4:12-13.

[3] Jn 1:3.

[4] NPNF 2 4:367*.

THE ONLY BEGOTTEN WORD

BASIL THE GREAT: 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. HOMILY 16.3, IN THE BEGINNING WAS THE WORD. [1]

[1] PG 31:477. Chrysostom notes that the article, as in“the Word,” distinguishes this Word from all other words.

1:1d | The Word Was with God

ETERNALLY UNCHANGEABLE

GREGORY OF NAZIANZUS: There never was a time when [the Father] was without his Word, or when he was not the Father. ON THE SON, THEOLOGICAL ORATION 3(29).17. [1]

[1] NPNF 2 7:307*.

THE SON IS DISTINCT FROM AND CONSUBSTANTIAL WITH THE FATHER

CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA: 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] COMMENTARY ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 1.2. [3]

[1] Jn 14:9.

[2] Jn 14:11.

[3] LF 43:16-17**.

NO MENTION OF FATHER AND SON

GREGORY OF NYSSA: [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. AGAINST EUNOMIUS 4.1. [1]

[1] NPNF 2 5:154*. The critical Greek text references this quote as Contra Eunomius 3.2.19-20 (TLG 2017.030).

JOHN GUARDS AGAINST ANYONE THINKING THE WORD IS UNBEGOTTEN

CHRYSOSTOM: 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. HOMILIES ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 3.3. [2]

[1] That is, with whom he was.

[2] NPNF 1 14:12**.

FATHER AND SON ARE DISTINCT PERSONS

CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA: [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. COMMENTARY ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 1.2. [1]

[1] LF 43:18*.

BEING WITH GOD DOES NOT MEAN BEING MINGLED WITH GOD

AMBROSE: 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. ON THE CHRISTIAN FAITH 1.8.57. [1]

[1] NPNF 2 10:210. See also Ambrose On the Christian Faith 5.1.18.

WISDOM WITH GOD IN THE BEGINNING

METHODIUS: 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. EXTRACTS FROM THE WORK ON THINGS CREATED 8. [3]

[1] Gen 1:1.

[2] Prov 8:22.

[3] ANF 6:381. See also Ambrose On the Holy Spirit 1.11.120 and Basil Hexaemeron 3.2.

1:1e | The Word Was God

THE WORD IS MORE THAN THE UTTERANCE OF A SOUND

HILARY OF POITIERS: 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. ON THE TRINITY 2.15. [1]

[1] NPNF 2 9:56. See also Tertullian Against Praxeas 7.

GODHEAD IS AN INHERENT CHARACTER OF CHRIST’S NATURE

HILARY OF POITIERS: [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. ON THE TRINITY 7.11. [2]

[1] Ps 82:6 (81:6 LXX, Vg).

[2] NPNF 2 9:122.

WHAT HE WAS, HE LAID ASIDE

GREGORY OF NAZIANZUS: [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). ON THE WORDS OF THE GOSPEL, “WHEN JESUS HAD FINISHED THESE SAYINGS,” ORATION 37.2. [1]

[1] NPNF 2 7:338.

NO ARTICLE NEEDED IN AFFIRMING DIVINITY OF THE WORD

CHRYSOSTOM: 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. HOMILIES ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 4.3. [6]

[1] Tit 2:13.

[2] Rom 9:5.

[3] Phil 2:6.

[4] Rom 1:7.

[5] Jn 4:24.

[6] NPNF 1 14:18**.

JOHN ANTICIPATES THOSE DENYING THE DEITY OF THE SON

CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA: 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. COMMENTARY ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 1.3. [2]

[1] 2 Pet 2:1.

[2] LF 43:22-23**. See also Ambrose Letter 79; Concerning Virgins 3.1.2.

THE WORD OF GOD IS YAHWEH, THE ONE WHO IS

AMBROSE: 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] LETTER 79. [4]

[1] Acts 17:28.

[2] 2 Cor 1:19.

[3] Ex 3:14.

[4] FC 26:443.