ACC ~ John 1 v1e

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.