ACC ~ John 1 v1a

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.

Jn