ACC ~ John 1 v1d

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.

Jn