Chapter 1

Chapter One

Jn. 1:1. In the beginning was the Word,
What I said in the preface, I will now repeat, namely: whereas the other evangelists narrate at length the earthly birth of the Lord, His upbringing and growth, John passes over these events, since enough has been said about them by his fellow disciples, and speaks instead of the Divinity of Him who became man for our sake. However, upon careful examination you will see that just as they did not pass over in silence the Divinity of the Only-begotten, but mentioned it, though not extensively, so too John, having fixed his gaze upon the Word on high, did not entirely neglect the economy of the incarnation. For one Spirit guided the souls of all.
John speaks to us about the Son, and mentions the Father as well.
He points to the eternity of the Only-Begotten when he says, "In the beginning was the Word," that is, was from the beginning. For that which exists from the beginning assuredly has no time when it did not exist. "How," someone will say, "is it evident that the expression 'in the beginning was' means the same as 'from the beginning'?" How? Both from the common understanding and especially from this very evangelist himself. For in one of his epistles he says, "that which was from the beginning, which we... have seen" (1 John 1:1). Do you see how the beloved one explains himself? So the questioner will say; but I understand this "in the beginning" in the same way as in Moses: "In the beginning God created" (Gen. 1:1). Just as the expression "in the beginning" there does not give the idea that heaven is eternal, so here too I will not understand the words "in the beginning" as though the Only-Begotten is eternal. So the heretic will say. To this insane insistence we shall say nothing other than this: O wise man of malice! Why did you pass over what follows in silence? But we shall say it even against your will. There Moses says that in the beginning God "created" heaven and earth, but here it says that in the beginning the Word "was." What then do "created" and "was" have in common? If here too it were written "in the beginning God created the Son," I would have kept silent; but now, since it says here "in the beginning was," I conclude from this that the Word exists from eternity and did not subsequently receive being, as you idly prattle. Why did John not say "in the beginning was the Son," but rather "the Word"? Listen. It was on account of the weakness of the hearers, so that we, hearing of the Son from the very start, might not conceive of a passionate and fleshly birth. He called Him "the Word" so that you would know that just as a word is born from the mind without passion, so also He is born from the Father without passion. Furthermore, he called Him "the Word" because He declared to us the properties of the Father, just as every word reveals the disposition of the mind; and also in order to show that He is co-eternal with the Father. For just as one cannot say that the mind is ever without a word, so the Father and God was never without the Son. John used this expression because there are many other words of God as well — for example, prophecies, commandments — as it is also said of the angels: "mighty in strength, who fulfill His word" (Ps. 102:20), that is, His commands. But the Word in the proper sense is a personal being.

Jn. 1:1. And the Word was with God,
Here the Evangelist shows even more clearly that the Son is co-eternal with the Father. Lest you think that the Father once existed without the Son, he says that the Word was with God, that is, with God in the bosom of the Father. For the preposition "with" you should understand as meaning "together with," as it is also used in another place: are not His brothers and His sisters "among us," that is, "living with us"? (Mark 6:3). So here too, understand "with God" as meaning: He was with God, together with God, in His bosom. For it is impossible that God should ever have been without the Word, or wisdom, or power. Therefore we believe that the Son, since He is the Word, wisdom, and power of the Father (1 Cor. 1:24), was always with God, that is, He existed contemporaneously and together with the Father. "But how," you will say, "is the Son not after the Father?" How? Learn from a material example. Does not the radiance of the sun come from the sun itself? Indeed it does. Is it then also later than the sun, so that one could supposedly imagine a time when the sun existed without radiance? One cannot. For how would it even be the sun if it had no radiance? If we think this way about the sun, then all the more should we think this way about the Father and the Son. One must believe that the Son, being the radiance of the Father, as Paul says (Heb. 1:3), always shines together with the Father, and not after Him.
Note also that by this expression Sabellius the Libyan is also refuted. He taught that the Father, Son, and Spirit are one person, and that this single person at one time appeared as the Father, at another time as the Son, and at yet another time as the Spirit. So babbled the son of the father of lies, filled with the spirit of the evil one. But by these words, "and the Word was with God," he is clearly exposed. The Evangelist here says in the most evident manner that the Word is one and God, that is, the Father, is another. For if the Word was together with God, then obviously two persons are introduced, although both share one nature. And that there is one nature, listen.

Jn. 1:1. And the Word was God.
Do you see that the Word is also God! This means that the Father and the Son have one nature, just as they have one divinity. Therefore, let both Arius and Sabellius be put to shame. Let Arius, who calls the Son of God a creation and a creature, be confounded by the fact that the Word was in the beginning and was God. And let Sabellius, who does not accept a trinity of persons but only a singularity, be confounded by the fact that the Word was with God. For here the great John clearly proclaims that the Word is one person and the Father is another person, though not one thing and another thing. For "one and another" is said of persons, while "one thing and another thing" is said of natures. For example, to set forth the thought more clearly, Peter and Paul are one and another, for they are two persons; but not one thing and another thing, for they have one nature—humanity. In the same way one must teach concerning the Father and the Son: on the one hand, They are one and another, for They are two persons; but on the other hand, They are not one thing and another thing, for They have one nature—divinity.

Jn. 1:2. He was in the beginning with God.
This God the Word was never separated from God the Father. Since John said that the Word was also God, lest anyone be troubled by such a satanic thought: if the Word is also God, did It not at some point rise up against the Father, as the gods of the pagans in their fables, and if It separated from Him, did It not become an adversary to God? — he says that although the Word is indeed God, nevertheless It is again with God the Father, abides together with Him, and was never separated from Him.
No less fitting is it to say this also to those who hold to the teaching of Arius: hear, you deaf ones, who call the Son of God a work and a creation of His; understand what name the Evangelist applied to the Son of God: he called Him the Word. But you call Him a work and a creation. He is not a work and not a creation, but the Word. "Word" is of two kinds. One is the internal word, which we have even when we are not speaking, that is, the capacity of speech, for even he who sleeps and does not speak still has the word placed within him and has not lost the capacity. So one word is internal, and the other is the uttered word, which we also pronounce with our lips, putting into action the capacity of speech, the capacity of the mental and inwardly lying word. Although, therefore, "word" is of two kinds, neither of them applies to the Son of God, for the Word of God is neither uttered nor internal. Those words are natural and ours, but the Word of the Father, being above nature, is not subject to earthly subtleties of reasoning. Therefore the cunning syllogism of Porphyry, the pagan, falls apart of itself. He, attempting to overthrow the Gospel, employed such a division: if the Son of God is a word, then He is either an uttered or an internal word; but He is neither one nor the other; therefore He is not the Word. Thus, the Evangelist resolved this syllogism in advance, having said that "internal" and "uttered" are spoken of us and of natural things, but of supernatural things nothing of the sort is spoken. However, this too must be said: the pagan's objection would have had a basis if this name "Word" were fully worthy of God and were used of Him in a proper and essential sense. But to this day no one has yet found any name fully worthy of God; nor is this very name "Word" used of Him in a proper and essential sense, but it only shows that the Son was born from the Father without passion, just as a word proceeds from the mind, and that He became the messenger of the Father's will. Why then do you, wretched one, cling to a name and, hearing of Father, Son, and Spirit, descend to material relations and imagine in your mind fleshly fathers and sons, and a wind of the air — perhaps the south wind or the north wind, or some other — producing a storm? But if you wish to learn what kind of word the Word of God is, then listen to what follows next.

Jn. 1:3. All things came into being through Him,
"Do not consider," he says, "the Word as something that dissolves into the air and vanishes, but honor Him as the Creator of all things both intelligible and sensible." But the Arians again insistently say: "Just as we say that a door is made by a saw, even though it is merely a tool and another—the craftsman—was moving the tool, so also through the Son all things received their being, not as though He Himself is the Creator, but as a tool, just as the saw is there, while the Creator is God the Father, and He uses the Son as a tool. Therefore the Son is a creature, created for the purpose that through Him all things might receive their being, just as a saw is fashioned for the purpose of performing carpentry work with it." So prattles the wicked assembly of Arius.
What then shall we say to them simply and directly? If the Father, as you say, created the Son for the purpose of having Him as an instrument for the accomplishment of creation, then the Son will be lower in honor than creation. For just as in the case when a saw serves as an instrument, that which is fashioned by it is more honorable than it, since the saw was made for the products and not they for the saw, so too creation will be more honorable than the Only-Begotten, for it was for creation's sake, as they say, that the Father created Him, as though God would not have brought forth the Only-Begotten from Himself had He not intended to create all things. What is more insane than these words?
"Why then," they say, "did the evangelist not say 'this Word created all things,' but used the preposition 'through'?" So that you would not think that the Son is unbegotten, without beginning, and opposed to God — for this reason he said that the Father created all things by the Word. For imagine that some king, having a son and intending to build a city, entrusted its construction to his son. Just as one who says that the city was built by the king's son does not reduce the king's son to a slave, but shows that this son also has a father and is not alone, so too here the evangelist, having said that all things were created by the Son, showed that the Father, so to speak, employed Him as a mediator in creation — not as one who is lesser, but on the contrary, as one equal in power and able to carry out so great a commission. I will also tell you this: if the preposition "through" troubles you, and you wish to find some passage in Scripture saying that the Word Himself created all things, then listen to David: "In the beginning You, [O Lord], laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of Your hands" (Ps. 102:26). Do you see? He did not say "through You the heavens were made and the earth was founded," but "You founded," and "the heavens are the work of Your hands." And that David says this about the Only-Begotten and not about the Father, you can learn both from the apostle, who uses these words in the Epistle to the Hebrews (Heb. 1:8–10), and from the psalm itself. For having said that the Lord looked down upon the earth — to hear the groaning, to set free those put to death, and to proclaim the name of the Lord in Zion — to whom else does David point but to the Son of God? For He looked down upon the earth — whether we understand by it the ground on which we walk, or our nature that has become earthly, or our flesh, according to the saying "you are dust" (Gen. 3:19), which He took upon Himself. He also set us free — us who were bound by the chains of our own sins, the children of the slain Adam and Eve — and proclaimed the name of the Lord in Zion. For standing in the temple, He taught about His Father, as He Himself says: "I have revealed Your name to the people" (John 17:6). To whom do these actions belong — to the Father or to the Son? All to the Son, for He in His teaching proclaimed the name of the Father. Having said this, the blessed David adds also: "In the beginning You, [O Lord], laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of Your hands." Is it not evident that he presents the Son as the Creator, and not as an instrument?
If again the preposition "through" in your opinion introduces some diminishment, then what will you say when Paul uses it of the Father? For "God is faithful," he says, "by whom ye were called unto the fellowship of His Son" (1 Cor. 1:9). Does he here make the Father an instrument? And again, Paul an apostle "by the will of God" (1 Cor. 1:1). But this is sufficient, and we must return again to the place from which we began.
All things came into being through Him. Moses, speaking of the visible creation, explained nothing to us about the intelligible creatures. But the Evangelist, having embraced everything in a single word, says: "all things were made by Him" — both the visible and the intelligible.

Jn. 1:3. And without Him nothing began to be, that began to be.
Since the evangelist said that the Word created all things, lest anyone think that It also created the Holy Spirit, he adds: "all things were made by Him." What "all things"? — created things. It is as if he said that whatever exists in created nature, all of it received its being from the Word. But the Spirit does not belong to created nature; therefore He did not receive His being from Him either. Thus, without the power of the Word nothing received being that received being, that is, whatever was in created nature.

Jn. 1:4. In Him was life, and the life was the light of men.
The Pneumatomachians read the present passage thus: "and without Him nothing began to be"; then, placing a punctuation mark there, they read as if from a new beginning: "that which began to be, in Him was life," and interpret this passage according to their own thinking, saying that here the Evangelist is speaking about the Spirit, that is, that the Holy Spirit was the life. So say the Macedonians, striving to prove that the Holy Spirit is created and to number Him among creatures. But we do not read it so; rather, placing a punctuation mark after the words "that which began to be," we read from a new beginning: "In Him was life." Having spoken about creation, that all things received being through the Word, the Evangelist speaks further about providence as well, that the Word not only created, but also preserves the life of what was created. For in Him was life.
I know that one of the saints read this passage as follows: "and without Him nothing began to be, that began to be in Him." Then, placing a punctuation mark there, he began further: "was life." I think that this reading also contains no error, but holds the same correct thought. For this saint also rightly understood that without the Word nothing received being that received being in Him, since everything that received being and was created was created by the Word Himself, and consequently was not without Him. Then he began again: "was life, and the life was the light of men." The Evangelist calls the Lord "life" both because He sustains the life of all things and because He grants spiritual life to all rational beings, and "light," not so much sensible as intellectual, illuminating the very soul. He did not say that He is the light of Jews alone, but of all "men." For all of us men, inasmuch as we have received mind and reason from the Word who created us, are therefore called enlightened by Him. For the reason given to us, by which we are also called rational, is a light guiding us in what we ought and ought not to do.

Jn. 1:5. And the light shineth in the darkness,
"The Light," that is, the Word of God, shines "in the darkness," that is, in death and error. For He, even having submitted to death, so overcame it that He compelled it to vomit up even those whom it had previously swallowed. And in pagan error the preaching shines.

Jn. 1:5. and the darkness did not overcome it.
Neither death overcame Him, nor error. For this light, that is, the Word of God, is unconquerable. Some considered "darkness" to be the flesh and earthly life. The Word shone even when It became flesh and was in this life, and the darkness, that is, the opposing power, tempted and pursued the Light, but found Him invincible and unconquerable. The flesh is called darkness not because it is such by nature (God forbid!), but on account of sin. For the flesh, so long as it is governed by the law of nature, has absolutely no evil whatsoever, but when it is moved beyond the bounds of nature and serves sin, it becomes and is called darkness.

Jn. 1:6. There was a man sent from God; his name was John.
Having told us about the pre-eternal existence of God the Word and intending to speak about the incarnation of the Word, the Evangelist inserts a discourse about the Forerunner. And what else, if not the birth of John the Forerunner, could be spoken of before the discourse on the birth of the Lord in the flesh? The Evangelist says of the Forerunner that he was "sent" by God, that is, sent from God. For false prophets are not from God. When you hear that he was sent from God, know that he said nothing of himself or from men, but all things from God. For this reason he is also called an angel (Mal. 3:1), and it is the prerogative of an angel to say nothing of himself. Hearing of an angel, do not think that John was an angel by nature or that he descended from heaven; he is called an angel by virtue of his work and ministry. Since he served the proclamation and heralded the Lord beforehand, for this he was called an angel. Therefore the Evangelist, in refutation of the supposition of many who perhaps thought that John was an angel by nature, says: "there was a man," sent from God.

Jn. 1:7. He came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all might believe through him.
"He," it says, "was sent from God to bear witness concerning the light." Then, lest anyone should think that his testimony was truly needed for the Only-Begotten, as though He were in need of something, the evangelist adds that John came to bear witness concerning the Son of God not because He needed his testimony, but so that all might believe through him. Did all then indeed believe through him? No. How then does the evangelist say: so that all might believe? How? — as far as it depended on him, he bore witness in order to draw all people, but if some did not believe, he does not deserve blame. The sun also rises in order to illuminate all, but if someone, having shut himself in a dark room, does not make use of its ray, is the sun to blame for this? So it is here as well. John was sent so that all might believe through him; but if this did not happen, he is not at fault.

Jn. 1:8. He was not the light, but was sent to bear witness of the Light.
Since it often happens that a witness is greater than the one about whom he testifies, lest you think that John, who testifies about Christ, was also greater than Him, the Evangelist, in refutation of this wicked thought, says: "he was not the Light." But perhaps someone will say: "Can we not call John, or any other of the saints, light?" We can call each of the saints a light, but the Light, in this sense, we cannot call them. For example, if someone asks you: "Is John a light?" — agree. But if he asks thus: "Is John that Light?" — say "no." For he himself is not the light in the proper sense, but light by participation, having his radiance from the true Light.

Jn. 1:9. There was the true Light, which enlightens every man coming into the world.
The Evangelist intends to speak of the Incarnate Economy of the Only-Begotten in the flesh — that He came to His own, that He became flesh. Therefore, lest anyone think that He did not exist before the Incarnation, he raises the mind to existence before every beginning and says that the true Light existed even before the Incarnation. By this he also overthrows the heresy of Photinus and Paul of Samosata, who maintained that the Only-Begotten received His being only when He was born of the Virgin, and did not exist before that. And you, Arian, who do not acknowledge the Son of God as true God, hear what the Evangelist says: "the true Light." And you, Manichean, who say that we were created by an evil creator, hear that the true Light enlightens every man. If the evil creator is darkness, then he cannot enlighten anyone. Therefore we are creatures of the true Light. "And how," someone will say, "does He enlighten every man, when we see some who are darkened?" As far as it depends on Him, He enlightens all. For tell me, are we not all rational? Do we not all know by nature what is good and its opposite? Do we not have the ability, through contemplation of created things, to know the Creator? Therefore the reason given to us, which instructs us by nature — which is also called the natural law — may be called a light given to us from God. But if some have made poor use of reason, they have darkened themselves. Others resolve this objection thus: "The Lord enlightens," they say, "every man who comes 'into the world' (in Greek, *kosmos* — adornment, order), that is, into a better state, and who strives to adorn his soul rather than leave it disordered and shapeless."

Jn. 1:10. He was in the world, and the world came into being through Him, and the world did not know Him.
He was in the world as the omnipresent God, and one might also say that He was in the world with respect to providence and preservation. However, he says: "Why do I say that He was in the world, when there would not even be a world if He had not created it?" From all sides he proves that He is the Creator, at once removing both the madness of Manes, who said that an evil creator produced all things, and the madness of Arius, who called the Son of God a creature, and at the same time leading every person to the confession of the Creator, teaching not to serve creatures but to worship the Maker. But "the world," he says, "did not know Him," that is, the wicked people who occupied themselves with worldly affairs. For the name "world" signifies both this universe, as is said here: "the world came into being through Him"; and it signifies those who think in a worldly manner, as is said here: "the world did not know Him," that is, people attached to the earth. But all the saints and prophets knew Him.

Jn. 1:11. He came to His own,
Here the Evangelist is clearly speaking of the Dispensation of salvation in the flesh, and the entire order of thought is as follows: the Light was true, in the world, without flesh, and was not known; then He came to His own with flesh. By "His own" you may understand either the whole world, or Judea, which He chose as a portion of inheritance, as a lot and His own possession (Ps. 113:2).

Jn. 1:11. His own did not receive Him.
or the Jews, or the rest of the people created by Him. Thus, he laments the madness of men and marvels at the love of the Master for mankind. "Being," he says, "His own, not all received Him, for the Lord does not attract anyone by force, but leaves it to their own judgment and free will."

Jn. 1:12. But to those who received Him, who believe in His name, He gave the power to become children of God,
To those who received Him, whether slaves or free, young or old, barbarians or Greeks, to all He gave the power to become children of God. And who are these? Those who believe in His name, that is, those who received the Word and the true Light, and received by faith, and embraced Him. Why did the evangelist not say that He "made" them children of God, but "gave (them) the power" to become children of God? Why? Listen. Because to preserve purity it is not enough to be baptized, but much effort is needed to keep undefiled the image of adoption that is imprinted in baptism. Therefore many, although they received the grace of adoption through baptism, did not remain children of God to the end because of their negligence.
Another person might also say that many receive Him through faith only, for example, the so-called catechumens, but they have not yet become children of God; however, if they wish to be baptized, they have the power to be deemed worthy of this grace as well, that is, adoption as sons.
Another will say also this: that although through baptism we receive the grace of adoption, we will receive the perfection in the resurrection; then we hope to receive the most perfect adoption, as Paul also says: "we wait for the adoption" (Rom. 8:23). Therefore this evangelist also did not say that those who received Him, He made children of God, but gave them power to become children of God, that is, to receive this grace in the age to come.

Jn. 1:13. Who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
He makes a kind of comparison between Divine and fleshly birth, not without purpose reminding us of fleshly births, but so that we, having recognized through comparison the ignobility and lowliness of fleshly birth, might hasten toward Divine grace. He says "who were born not of blood," that is, of the menstrual blood, for by it the child is nourished and grows in the womb. They also say that the seed is first converted into blood, then formed into flesh and the rest of the body's structure. Since some might say that the birth of Isaac was therefore the same as the birth of those who believe in Christ, since Isaac was born not of blood, for Sarah's monthly discharges (separations of blood) had ceased (Gen. 18:11); since some might think this, the Evangelist adds: "nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man." The birth of Isaac was, though not of blood, yet of the will of a man, since the husband indeed desired that a child be born to him from Sarah (Gen. 21:8). But "of the will of the flesh," for example, was Samuel from Hannah. Thus, you can say that Isaac was of the will of a man, and Samuel of the will of the flesh, that is, of Hannah, for this barren woman intensely desired to receive a son (1 Sam. 1:6), though perhaps both elements were present in both cases.
If you wish to learn something more, then listen. Carnal union occurs either from natural inflammation, for often a person receives a very hot constitution and from that is very inclined to intercourse. This the Evangelist called "the will of the flesh." Or the unrestrained impulse toward intercourse comes from bad habit and an intemperate way of life. This impulse he called "the will of man," since it is a matter not of natural constitution but of the intemperance of the man. Since, however, a strong inclination toward intercourse is found sometimes in the wife, sometimes in the husband, perhaps by "the will of man" the Evangelist signified the sensuality of the husband, and by "the will of the flesh" the sensuality of the wife. You may also rightly understand by "the will of the flesh" the lust that inflames the flesh toward union, and by "the will of man" the consent of the one lusting to copulation, which consent is the beginning of the act. The Evangelist set down both because many feel lust yet are not immediately carried away by the flesh, but overcome it and do not fall into the act itself. But those whom it overcomes reach the desire to copulate, because at first the flesh and the lust smoldering in it inflamed them. Thus the Evangelist fittingly placed the will of the flesh before the will of man, because naturally lust precedes union; and both wills necessarily converge in copulation. All this has been said on account of those who often ask foolish questions, because, strictly speaking, all these expressions convey one thought, namely: the lowliness of carnal birth is set in plain view.
What then do we, who believe in Christ, have that is greater than the Israelites under the Law? True, they too were called sons of God, but between us and them there is a great difference. The Law in all things had "a shadow of the good things to come" (Heb. 10:1) and did not impart to the Israelites sonship (fully), but only as it were in figure and mental representation. But we, through baptism in very deed, having received the Spirit of God, cry out: "Abba, Father!" (Gal. 4:6). Just as their baptism was a figure and shadow, so too their sonship foreshadowed our adoption. Although they too were called sons, it was in shadow, and they did not possess the very reality of sonship, as we now possess it through baptism.

Jn. 1:14. And the Word became flesh,
Having said that we who believe in Christ, if we desire, become children of God, the Evangelist adds also the cause of so great a blessing. "You wish," he says, "to know what brought us this adoption? That the Word became flesh." But when you hear that the Word became flesh, do not think that He abandoned His own Nature and was converted into flesh (for He would not even be God if He had been converted and changed), but that, remaining what He was, He became what He was not. But Apollinarius of Laodicea formed a heresy from this. He taught that our Lord and God did not assume the whole human nature, that is, a body with a rational soul, but only flesh without a rational and intelligent soul. For what need had God of a soul, when His body was governed by the Divinity, just as our body is governed by our soul? And he thought he saw the basis for this in the present saying: "and the Word became flesh." "The Evangelist did not say," he argues, "that the Word became man, but 'flesh'; therefore He assumed not a rational and intelligent soul, but irrational and senseless flesh." Evidently the wretch did not know that Scripture often names the whole by a part. For example, it wishes to mention the whole man, but names him by a part, by the word "soul." Every "soul" that shall not be circumcised shall be destroyed (Gen. 17:14). So then, instead of saying "every man," a part is named, namely "soul." Scripture also calls the whole man "flesh," as when, for example, it says: "and all flesh shall see the salvation of God" (Isa. 40:5). It should have said "every man," but the name "flesh" is used. So too the Evangelist, instead of saying "the Word became man," said "the Word became flesh," calling the man consisting of soul and body by one part. And since flesh is foreign to the Divine nature, perhaps the Evangelist mentioned flesh with the intention of showing the extraordinary condescension of God, so that we might marvel at His inexpressible love for mankind, by which He assumed for our salvation what is distinct and utterly foreign to His own nature, namely flesh. For the soul has a certain kinship with God, but the flesh has absolutely nothing in common.
Therefore I think that the Evangelist used here the name of flesh alone not because the soul had no part in the assumption (the incarnation), but in order to show more fully how wondrous and awesome the mystery is. For if the incarnate Word did not assume a human soul, then our souls are not yet healed, for what He did not assume, He did not sanctify. And how absurd! While it was the soul that first fell sick (for it was the soul that in paradise yielded to the words of the serpent and was deceived, and only afterwards, following the soul as its mistress and sovereign, did the hand also reach out), it is the flesh, the handmaid, that is assumed, sanctified, and healed, while the mistress is left without assumption and without healing. But let Apollinarius remain in his error. As for us, when we hear that the Word became flesh, we believe that He became a perfect Man, since it is the custom of Scripture to designate man by one part alone, either flesh or soul.
By this saying Nestorius is also overthrown. He said that it was not God the Word Himself who became the Man conceived from the most pure blood of the holy Virgin, but that the Virgin gave birth to a man, and this man, endowed with grace through every form of virtue, came to have the Word of God united with him and giving him authority over unclean spirits, and therefore he taught that there are two sons — one, the son of the Virgin, Jesus the man, and another, the Son of God, united with this man and inseparable from him, but by grace, relation, and love, because this man was virtuous. So deaf is he to the truth. For if he had wished, he himself would have heard what this blessed Evangelist says, namely: "The Word became flesh." Is this not an obvious reproof to him? For the Word Himself became Man. The Evangelist did not say "the Word, having found a man, united with him," but "He Himself became Man."
By this saying both Eutyches, and Valentinus, and Manes are overthrown. They said that the Word of God appeared as a phantom. Let them hear that the Word "became" flesh; it does not say "the Word seemed or appeared to be flesh," but "became" it in truth and in essence, and not as an apparition. For it is absurd and unreasonable to believe that the Son of God, who is in essence and in name the Truth (John 14:6), lied in His incarnation. And a deceptive apparition would, without a doubt, have led to this conclusion.

Jn. 1:14. and dwelt with us,
Since the Evangelist said above that the Word became flesh, lest anyone think that Christ ultimately became one Nature, he adds for this reason: "dwelt among us," in order to show two Natures: one ours, and the other of the Word. For just as the dwelling is of one nature and the one dwelling in it is of another nature, so also the Word, when it is said of Him that He dwelt in us, that is, in our nature, must be of a Nature other than ours. Let the Armenians be ashamed, who profess one Nature. Thus, by the words "the Word became flesh" we are taught that the Word Himself became Man and, being the Son of God, became also the son of a woman, who is truly called the Theotokos, as having given birth to God in the flesh. And by the words "dwelt among us" we are taught to believe that in the one Christ there are two Natures. For although He is one in Hypostasis, or in Person, yet in Natures He is twofold — God and Man, and the Divine nature and the human nature cannot be one, even though they are contemplated in the one Christ.

Jn. 1:14. Full of grace and truth; and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the Only-Begotten from the Father.
Having said that the Word became flesh, the evangelist adds: "we beheld His glory," that is, of Him who was in the flesh. For if the Israelites could not look upon the face of Moses, which shone from his conversation with God, then the apostles all the more could not have endured the pure (unveiled) Divinity of the Only-Begotten, had He appeared not in the flesh. And we beheld glory not such as Moses had, nor such as the cherubim and seraphim appeared with to the prophet, but such glory as was fitting for the Only-Begotten Son, such as belonged to Him by nature from God the Father. The particle "as" here signifies not comparison, but affirmation and undoubted definition. Seeing a king approaching with great glory, we say that he came as a king, instead of saying "truly in a kingly manner." Likewise here, the words "as of the Only-Begotten" we must understand thus: the glory which we beheld was the true glory of the true Son, full of grace and truth. "Full of grace" because His teaching was, so to speak, graced, as David also says: "grace was poured from Thy lips" (Ps. 45:2), and the evangelist notes that all "wondered at the gracious words proceeding out of His mouth" (Luke 4:22), and because He bestowed healings upon all who were in need of them. "Full of truth" because all that the prophets and Moses himself said or did were types, but what Christ said and did was all full of truth, for He Himself is grace and truth, and distributes them to others.
They saw this glory where? One may think, along with some, that the apostles saw this glory of His on Mount Tabor, but it is also correct to understand that they saw it not on this one mountain alone, but in everything that He did and said.

Jn. 1:15. John bears witness concerning Him and cries out, saying: This was He of whom I said, "He who comes after me has come to be before me, for He was before me."
The Evangelist frequently refers to the testimony of John not because he makes the credibility of the Master depend on the servant, but since the people had a high opinion of John, he cites John as a witness concerning Christ, as one whom they regarded as great and therefore more worthy of trust than all others. The word "crying out" indicates the great boldness of John, for he proclaimed Christ not in a corner, but with great boldness.
What then did he say? "This was He of whom I said." John bore witness concerning Christ before he saw Him. God so willed this, of course, so that when he testified about Christ in a very favorable manner, he would not appear to be showing partiality toward Him. This is why he says "of whom I said," that is, before he saw Him.
"He who comes after me" means, of course, the one who comes after in time of birth; for the Forerunner was six months older than Christ by birth in the flesh.
"He came before me," that is, He became more honored and more glorious than me. Why? Because He also existed before me, in His Divinity. But the Arians insanely explained this saying. Wishing to prove that the Son of God was not begotten of the Father, but came into being as one of the creatures, they say: "Behold, John testifies of Him — He came before me, that is, He came into existence before me, and was created by God as one of the creatures." But from what follows they are convicted of a poor understanding of this saying. For what sense is expressed in the words: "This One (that is, Christ) came before me (that is, was created before me), because He existed before me"? It is utterly insane to say that God created Him before because He existed before me. On the contrary, it would have been better to say, "This One existed before me, because He came into being or was created before me." Thus do the Arians reason. But we, in the Orthodox manner, understand it thus: "He who comes after me," by birth from the Virgin in the flesh, "came before me," became more glorious than me and more honored through the miracles that were performed over Him, through His Birth, through His upbringing, through His wisdom. And this is rightly so, "because He existed before me," by His pre-eternal birth from the Father, even though in His appearance in the flesh He came after me.

Jn. 1:16. And of His fullness we have all received, and grace upon grace,
And these are the words of the Forerunner, speaking about Christ, that all of us, the prophets, have received from His fullness. For He possesses grace not such as spiritual people have, but, being the source of all goodness, all wisdom, and prophecy, He abundantly pours it out upon all who are worthy, and despite such outpouring remains full, and is never exhausted. And we received "grace," namely, of the New Testament, in place of the grace of the giving of the Law. Since that Covenant grew old and decrepit, in place of it we received the New. Why then, some will say, did he call the Old Testament grace? Because the Jews too were adopted and accepted by grace. For it is said: "I chose you not for your great number, but for the sake of your fathers." Both those of the Old Testament were accepted by grace, and we, evidently, are saved by grace.

Jn. 1:17. For the law was given through Moses; but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.
He explains to us in what manner we received the greatest grace in place of the lesser grace. He says that the law was given through Moses, that is, God used a man as mediator, namely Moses, but the New Testament was given through Jesus Christ. It is called both "grace," because God granted us not only the forgiveness of sins but also sonship; and it is called "truth," because He clearly proclaimed what the Old Testament figures saw or spoke of in types. This New Testament, called both grace and truth, had as its mediator not a mere man but the Son of God. Note also that concerning the Old Law he said "was given" through Moses, for he was a subordinate and servant, but concerning the New he did not say "was given" but "came to be," in order to show that it came from our Lord Jesus Christ as from a Master and not from a slave, and reached its fulfillment in grace and truth. The Law "was given" by God through the mediation of Moses; grace "came to be," and was not given, through Jesus Christ. "Came to be" is a sign of sovereignty; "was given" is a sign of servitude.

Jn. 1:18. God no one has ever seen; the Only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him.
Having said that grace and truth came through Jesus Christ, and wishing to confirm this, the evangelist says: "I have said nothing incredible. For Moses, like no one else, neither saw God nor could communicate to us a clear and vivid concept of Him, but, being a servant, served only for the writing of the law. But Christ, being the Only-begotten Son and dwelling in the bosom of the Father, not only sees Him, but also clearly speaks of Him to all people. Thus, since He is the Son and sees the Father, as being in His bosom, He rightly gave us grace and truth."
But perhaps someone will say, "here we learn that no one has seen God"; how then does the prophet say, "I saw the Lord" (Isa. 6:1)? The prophet saw, but not the very essence, rather a certain likeness and a certain mental representation, insofar as he was able to see. Moreover, one saw in one form, another in another. And from this it is evident that they did not see the Truth itself, for they would not have beheld It, which is essentially simple and formless, in different forms. Even the angels do not see the essence of God, although it is said of them that they see the face of God (Matt. 18:10). This indicates only that they always hold God before their mind. Thus, the Son alone sees the Father and reveals Him to all people.
Hearing of the bosom of the Father, do not imagine anything corporeal in God. The Evangelist used such a designation with the purpose of showing the intimacy, inseparability, and co-eternity of the Son with the Father.

Jn. 1:19. And this is the testimony of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him: Who are you?

Jn. 1:20. He declared, and did not deny, and declared, "I am not the Christ."
Above the evangelist said that John testifies about Him; then he inserted what John testified about Christ, namely: that He came before me, and that all we prophets received from His fullness; now he adds: "and this is the testimony of John." What testimony? That which he spoke of above, namely: "before me" and so forth. But the words that follow below, "I am not the Christ," also constitute the testimony of John.
The Jews sent to John people who were, in their opinion, the best, namely priests and Levites, and moreover from Jerusalem, so that they, being more clever than others, might by flattery persuade John to declare himself to be the Christ. Notice the evasiveness. They do not ask directly, "Are you the Christ?" but rather, "Who are you?" And he, seeing their craftiness, does not say who he is, but declares that I am not the Christ, having in mind their purpose and in every way drawing them to the belief that the Christ is another, the One whom they considered a poor son of a poor carpenter father, coming from the poor homeland of Nazareth, from which they expected nothing good. Meanwhile, they held a high opinion of the Forerunner himself, since he had a high priest for a father and led an angelic and almost bodiless life. Therefore it is worthy of wonder how they become entangled in the very thing by which they thought to harm the glory of Christ. They question John as a trustworthy man, so that in his testimony they might have a pretext for unbelief in Christ, in the event that he would not declare Him to be the Christ. But this turned against them. For they find that the one whom they considered trustworthy testifies in favor of Christ and does not claim His honor for himself.

Jn. 1:21. And they asked him: What then? Art thou Elijah? He said: No. A prophet? He answered: No.
On the basis of ancient tradition, the coming of Elijah was expected. Therefore they ask John whether he is Elijah, since his life was also similar to the life of Elijah. But he denied this as well.
Are you that prophet? He denies this too, even though he was a prophet. How then does he deny it? Why? Because they did not ask him: are you a prophet? But they posed the question: are you that prophet? That prophet whom they were expecting, of whom Moses said that the Lord God will raise up a prophet for you (Deut. 18:15)? So John denied not that he was a prophet, but that he was that prophet whom they were expecting. And since they knew the words of Moses about a prophet who would arise, they hoped that at some point that prophet would appear.

Jn. 1:22. They said to him: Who then are you? That we may give an answer to those who sent us: what do you say about yourself?

Jn. 1:23. He said: I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness: Make straight the way of the Lord, as the prophet Isaiah said.
Then again they insistently ask: tell us, who are you? Then he answers them: I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness. "I," he says, "am the one about whom it is written, 'the voice of one crying in the wilderness' (Isa. 40:3). For if one does not add the words 'about whom it is written,' the combination of words will appear strange.
What then does the voice cry out? "Make straight the way of the Lord." "I," he says, "am a servant and prepare your hearts for the Lord." So then, you who are crooked and cunning, straighten them and make them level, so that through you there may be a way for the Lord Christ. Then he brings Isaiah as a witness. Having said something great about Christ, that He is the Lord, and about himself, that he fulfills the role of a servant and herald, he turns to the prophet.
Perhaps someone might explain the words "I am the voice of one crying out" in this way: I am the voice of Christ "crying out," that is, clearly proclaiming the truth. For all the messengers of the law were not loud-voiced, since the time of the truth of the Gospel had not yet come, and the weak voice of Moses truly indicated the indistinctness and obscurity of the law. But Christ, as self-existent Truth who proclaimed the Father to us all, is "the one crying out." Thus John says: I am the voice of the Word crying out, dwelling in the wilderness.
Then another beginning: "make straight the way of the Lord." John, as the Forerunner of Christ, is rightly called a voice, because the voice also precedes the word. I will say it more clearly: a voice is an inarticulate breath coming from the chest; but when the tongue divides it into articulate parts, then it becomes a word. Thus, first the voice, then the Word; first John, then Christ — in manifestation in the flesh. And the baptism of John is inarticulate, for it did not have the action of the Spirit, while the baptism of Christ is articulate, having nothing shadowy or figurative, for it is accomplished by the Spirit (Matt. 3:11).

Jn. 1:24. And those who had been sent were from the Pharisees;

Jn. 1:25. And they asked him: why then do you baptize, if you are not the Christ, nor Elijah, nor the prophet?
After they could not entice him (John) with flattery so that he would say what they desired and declare himself to be the Christ, they intimidate him with very stern and threatening words, saying: "Why then do you baptize? Who gave you such authority?" From this statement it is also evident that they considered the Christ to be one person and the expected prophet to be another. For they say "if you are not the Christ, nor that prophet (evidently)," meaning that the Christ is one and that prophet is another. They understood poorly. For that prophet is the very Christ and our God. All this they said, as I have stated, in order to compel John to declare himself to be the Christ.
But closer to the truth, one can say that they ask him as if out of envy of his glory. They do not ask "Are you the Christ?" but rather "Who are you?" As if saying: "Who are you, that you undertake such an important matter — baptizing and purifying those who confess?" And it seems to me that the Jews, wanting John not to be accepted by the majority as the Christ, ask him out of envy and ill will, "Who are you?"
So then, cursed are those who accept the Baptist but after baptism do not acknowledge him: truly the Jews are a brood of vipers.

Jn. 1:26. John said to them in answer: I baptize in water; but there stands among you One whom you do not know.
Note the meekness of the saint and his truthfulness. Meekness in that he does not answer them anything harsh, despite their arrogance; truthfulness in that he testifies to the glory of Christ with great boldness and does not conceal the glory of the Lord in order to earn himself a good name, but declares that I baptize with a baptism that is not perfect (for I baptize in water alone, which has no forgiveness of sins), but one that is preparatory to receiving spiritual baptism, which grants the forgiveness of sins.
"There stands among you One whom you do not know." The Lord mingled with the people, and therefore they did not know who He was or where He was from. Perhaps someone might say that in another sense too the Lord stood among the Pharisees, but they did not know Him. Since they apparently studied the Scriptures diligently, and the Lord was proclaimed in them, He was "among" them, that is, in their hearts, but they did not know Him, because they did not understand the Scriptures, even though they had them in their hearts. Perhaps also in the sense that the Lord was the mediator between God and men, He stood "among" the Pharisees, desiring to reconcile them with God, but they did not know Him.

Jn. 1:27. He it is Who comes after me, but Who has been placed before me. I am not worthy to untie the strap of His sandal.
He constantly adds "He who comes after me," in order to show that his baptism is not complete, but preparatory to the spiritual baptism.
"He came before me," that is, more honored, more glorious than me, and to such a degree that I do not consider myself even among the least of His servants. For untying sandals is the task of the lowest service.
I know, and I have read in one of the saints, the following explanation: "sandals" are everywhere understood as the flesh of sinners, subject to corruption, and the "strap" or band refers to the bonds of sin. Thus, John, with the others who came to him and confessed, was able to untie the strap of sins, for they came to him bound by the bonds of their own sins; and, persuading them to repentance, he showed them the way to the complete casting off of this strap and the sinful sandals; but on Christ, finding no strap or bond of sin, he naturally could not untie it either. Why then did he not find it? Because He committed no sin, and no deceit was found in His mouth (1 Pet. 2:22).
The "sandal" signifies the Lord's appearing among us, and the "strap" of it signifies the manner of the incarnation and how the Word of God was united with a body. This manner is impossible to untie. For who can explain how God was united with a body?

Jn. 1:28. This took place in Bethabara (Bethany) beyond the Jordan, where John was baptizing.
Why did the evangelist say that this took place in Bethany? In order to show the boldness of the great preacher, that he preached thus about Christ not in a house, not in a corner, but at the Jordan, amidst a multitude of people. It is necessary, however, to know that in the most accurate manuscripts it reads: in Bethabara. For Bethany is not on the other side of the Jordan, but near Jerusalem.

Jn. 1:29. The next day John sees Jesus coming toward him and says: Behold the Lamb of God, who takes upon Himself the sin of the world.
The Lord often comes to the Forerunner. Why is this? Since the Lord was also baptized by John, as one of many, He often comes to him, no doubt, so that some would not think that He was baptized on equal terms with the rest as one guilty of sins. The Baptist, wishing to correct such an assumption, says: "Behold the Lamb of God, who takes upon Himself the sin of the world." He who is so pure that He takes upon Himself and destroys the sins of others clearly could not have received the baptism of confession (repentance) on equal terms with the rest.
Examine, I ask you, this expression as well: "behold the Lamb of God." This word is addressed to those who desire to see the Lamb of whom Isaiah proclaims (Isa. 53:7–8). "Behold," he says, "that Lamb whom they seek; that Lamb is right here." For naturally, many who had diligently studied the prophetic book of Isaiah were occupied with the question of who that Lamb might be. So John points Him out. He did not say simply "a lamb," but "that Lamb," for there are many lambs, just as there are many christs; but He is that Lamb whose type was set forth by Moses (Exod. 12) and of whom Isaiah proclaims (Isa. 53:7–8).
Christ is called the "Lamb of God" either because God gave Him over to death for us, or because God accepted Christ's death for our salvation. Just as we commonly say "this is the sacrifice of so-and-so," instead of saying "so-and-so offered this sacrifice," so too the Lord is called the Lamb of God because God the Father out of love for us gave Him over to be slain for us.
John did not say "took away" sin, but "takes away," because He takes upon Himself our sins every day, some through baptism, others through repentance. The lambs that were slain in the Old Testament did not perfectly destroy a single sin; but this Lamb takes away the sin of the whole world, that is, destroys and blots it out. Why did John not say "sins," but "sin"? Perhaps because, by saying "sin," he spoke of all sins in general; just as we usually say "man" fell away from God, instead of "all mankind," so he here, by saying "sin," indicated all sins. Or perhaps because the sin of the world consisted in disobedience, since man plunged into passions through disobedience to God, and the Lord blotted out this disobedience by being obedient unto death and healing the opposite with the opposite.

Jn. 1:30. This is He of whom I said: after me comes a Man who has been placed ahead of me, because He was before me.
Above, John says to those who came from the Pharisees: "There stands among you One whom you do not know, but Who takes precedence before me" (Jn. 1:26–27), and now he also points Him out with his finger and declares to those who do not know, saying: "This is the One about whom I testified before the Pharisees, that He takes precedence before me, that is, He surpasses me in dignity and honor." Why? Because He was before me. Listen, Arius. John did not say of Christ "created before me," but "was." Listen also, you sect of the Samosatene. The Lord did not begin His existence from Mary, but was before the Forerunner by His pre-eternal existence. For if the Lord, as you idly babble, received the beginning of His existence from Mary, how could He have been before the Forerunner? And the Forerunner, as everyone knows, came into the world six months before the Lord's birth in the flesh.
He is called "a Man" perhaps because He had reached full maturity, for He was baptized at thirty years of age, or perhaps in the sense that He is the Husband of every soul and the Bridegroom of the Church. For the apostle Paul says: "I betrothed you, to present you to one Husband, namely Christ" (2 Cor. 11:2). So too the Forerunner says: "I am only the friend of the Bridegroom and mediator, but the Husband comes after me; I draw souls to faith in Christ, and He is the Husband who will be united with them."

Jn. 1:31. I did not know Him; but for this reason I came baptizing in water, that He might be made manifest to Israel.
Since the Forerunner was a relative of the Lord (for the angel says to the Virgin: "Behold, Elizabeth your 'kinswoman' has conceived" (Luke 1:36)), lest anyone think that the Forerunner was favoring the Lord and giving such lofty testimony about Him because of his kinship with Him, he often says: "I did not know Him," and thereby removes the suspicion.
"But for this reason I came baptizing in water, that He might be made manifest to Israel," that is, so that all might come to faith in Him and He might be made manifest to the people, for this reason I baptize; for when I baptize, the people flock together, and when the people gather, then I also proclaim to them about Christ in my preaching, and He Himself, being in plain sight, is present before them. For if people had not come for baptism, how would John have made the Lord manifest to them? He would not have gone from house to house, leading Christ by the hand and pointing Him out to everyone. Therefore he also says: "I came for this reason to baptize in water, that He might be made manifest by me to the people who come for baptism."
From this we also learn that the miracles attributed to Christ in His childhood are false and were composed by those who wished to mock the mystery. For if they were true, how could they not have known the Lord who performed them? At the very least, it is unnatural that such a Wonderworker would not have been spoken of everywhere. But this is not so, no. For before His baptism, the Lord neither performed miracles nor enjoyed renown.

Jn. 1:32. And John bore witness, saying: I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and remaining upon Him.

Jn. 1:33. I did not know Him; but He who sent me to baptize in water said to me: "Upon whom you see the Spirit descending and remaining upon Him, that is He who baptizes with the Holy Spirit."
"But He who sent me to baptize in water said to me: 'Upon whom you see the Spirit descending and remaining on Him, He is the one who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.'" John, deflecting, as I said, suspicion from his own testimony about Christ, traces this testimony back to God the Father. "I," he says, "did not even know Him, but the Father revealed Him to me at the baptism."
"But," someone may ask, "if John did not know Him, how does the evangelist Matthew (Matt. 3:14) say that he tried to prevent Him and said, 'I need to be baptized by You'?" To this one may answer that the words "did not know Him" should be understood to mean that long beforehand and before the baptism, John did not know Him, but then, at the time of the baptism, he recognized Him. Or one may answer differently: although John knew about Jesus, that He was the Christ, that He would baptize with the Holy Spirit he learned only then, when he saw the Spirit descending upon Him.
So, by the words "I did not know Him," John gives us to understand that although he did not know that He would baptize with the Holy Spirit, he did know that He was superior to many. That is why, knowing surely that He was greater than all, John, according to the evangelist Matthew, tried to prevent Him. But when the Spirit descended, he came to know Him even more clearly and proclaimed Him to the rest.
And the Spirit appeared to all those present, and not to John only. "Why then," someone will say, "did they not believe?" Because their foolish heart was darkened so that, even seeing Him working miracles, they did not believe. Some, however, say that not all saw the Spirit, but only the most devout. For although the Spirit descended in a sensible form, it was fitting for Him to appear not to all, but to the worthy, since the prophets too, for example Daniel and Ezekiel, although they saw many things in sensible form, yet no one else saw those things.

Jn. 1:34. And I saw and bore witness that this is the Son of God.
Where then did John testify about Jesus that He is the Son of God? This is nowhere written. He calls Him the Lamb, but nowhere the Son of God. From this it is natural to suppose that very much else was also left unrecorded by the apostles, for not everything was written down.

Jn. 1:35. On the next day John was standing again, and two of his disciples.
On account of the fickleness of his listeners, John is compelled to repeat the same things, so that at least by continuous testimony he might accomplish something. And he was not deceived in this; but he brought two disciples to Christ.
Being a true groomsman, he did everything to bring human nature to her bridegroom. For this reason Christ, as the bridegroom, is silent, and the mediator proclaims everything. And the Lord, as the bridegroom, comes to the people. At weddings it is customary for the bride not to come to the bridegroom, but the bridegroom to the bride, even if he be a king's son. So too the Lord, desiring to betroth our nature to Himself, came down to her on earth Himself, and when the marriage was accomplished, He took her with Him when He ascended to the house of His Father.

Jn. 1:36. And, having seen Jesus walking, he said: behold the Lamb of God.
"Having seen," it says, "Jesus," that is, having before his eyes his joy about Jesus and the miracle, John said: "behold the Lamb."

Jn. 1:37. Having heard these words from him, both disciples followed Jesus.
Disciples, prepared by constant testimony, followed after Jesus not out of contempt for John, but most of all out of obedience to him, as he testified about Christ in the best way.

Jn. 1:38. Jesus, having turned and seen them following, says to them: What do you seek? They said to Him: Rabbi — which means: Teacher — where do You stay?
The Evangelist Matthew, having recounted the baptism of the Lord, immediately leads Him up to the mountain for the temptation, while the present evangelist, omitting what Matthew related, narrates the events that took place after the Lord's descent from the mountain. Thus, John's disciples follow Christ and go to Him after He came down from the mountain and endured the temptation. In my opinion, this combination of events shows that no one should assume the office of teacher before he has ascended to the height of virtue (for this is what is signified by the mountain), conquered every temptation, and obtained the sign of triumph over the tempter.
These disciples first follow Jesus, and only then ask Him where He lives. For they needed to converse with Him not openly, in the presence of many, but privately, as about a matter of necessity. They do not even ask first themselves, but Christ Himself leads them to the question. "What do you seek?" He says to them. He asks not because He did not know (He who knows the hearts of men), but so that by His question He might draw them to express their desire. Probably they were ashamed and afraid of Jesus after John's testimony that He is above man. And you, I ask you, marvel at their good sense. They not only followed after Jesus, but also call Him "Rabbi," which means "Teacher," and this when they had not yet heard anything from Him. However, wishing to learn something from Him in private, they ask Him: where do You live? For in quietness it is easier both to speak and to hear.

Jn. 1:39. He says to them: Come and see. They went and saw where He lives; and they stayed with Him that day. It was about the tenth hour.
The Lord does not tell them the signs of the house, but says: "Come and see." He does this in order to draw them even more to follow Him, and at the same time to reveal the strength of their desire in the event that they are not deterred by the journey. For if they had followed Jesus with cold feeling, they would not have resolved to go all the way to the house.
How can one reconcile the fact that Christ is here presented as having a house, while in another place it is said that the Son of Man has nowhere to lay His head (Luke 9:58)? One does not contradict the other. For when He says that He has nowhere to lay His head, He does not mean that He had absolutely no shelter at all, but that He had none of His own. So even if He did live in a house, He lived not in His own house, but in someone else's.
The Evangelist notes the time, that "it was about the tenth hour," not without purpose, but in order to teach both teachers and students not to postpone their work to another time; the teacher must not put it off and say: today is late, you will learn tomorrow; and the student must recognize every time as suitable for learning, and not postpone listening until tomorrow. And we also learn that the disciples were so temperate and sober that they devoted to listening a time which others spend in bodily rest, being weighed down with food and having become incapable of engaging in important matters. True disciples of John the faster!
Note, if you will, that Jesus turns to those who follow Him and shows them His face. For if you do not follow after Jesus through your own good works, you will not attain the contemplation of the Lord's face, that is, you will not attain enlightenment by divine knowledge. For light is the dwelling of Christ, as it is said: "dwelling in unapproachable light" (1 Tim. 6:16). And how shall one who has not cleansed himself and does not walk the path of purification be enlightened by knowledge?

Jn. 1:40. One of the two who heard from John about Jesus and followed Him was Andrew, the brother of Simon Peter.
The Evangelist tells us the name of Andrew, but is silent about the name of the other. Some say that the other was John himself, who writes this, while others say that he was one of the obscure ones. Besides, knowing the name would have added no benefit. Andrew is mentioned both because he was one of the notable ones, and because he brought his brother.

Jn. 1:41. He first finds his own brother Simon and says to him: we have found the Messiah, which means: Christ;
Look, if you will, at his love for his brother, how he did not hide that good thing from his brother, but communicates to him about the treasure and with great joy says: we have found (probably they strongly desired and spent much time seeking the Messiah), and he does not simply say "Messiah," but with the article "that" Messiah, that very one who is truly Christ. For although many were called anointed ones and sons of God, the one awaited by them was one.

Jn. 1:42. And he brought him to Jesus. And Jesus, looking at him, said: You are Simon, the son of Jonah; you shall be called Cephas, which means: stone (Peter).
Andrew brought Simon to Jesus not because Simon was frivolous and carried away by every word, but because he was very quick and ardent, and readily accepted the words that his brother conveyed to him about Christ. For Andrew probably expressed a great deal to Simon and proclaimed Christ thoroughly, since he had spent considerable time with Christ and learned something most mysterious. But if anyone continues to accuse Peter of frivolity, let such a person also know that it is not written that he immediately believed Andrew, but that Andrew brought him to Jesus; and this is the act of a mind more firm than impressionable. For Simon did not simply accept Andrew's words, but wished to see Christ as well, so that if he found in Him something worthy of the reports, he would follow Him, but if he did not, he would turn back — so that the bringing of Simon to Jesus is a sign not of his frivolity, but of his thoroughness.
What then does the Lord do? He begins to reveal Himself to him through a prophecy about him. Since prophecies convince people no less than miracles, if not more, the Lord prophesies about Peter. "You," He says, "are Simon, the son of Jonah." Then He also reveals the future: "You shall be called Cephas." Having declared the present, through this He also gives assurance concerning the future. However, He did not say "I will rename you Peter," but rather "you shall be called"; for at first He did not wish to display His full authority, since they did not yet have firm faith in Him.
Why then does the Lord call Simon "Peter," and the sons of Zebedee "sons of thunder"? In order to show that it was the same One who gave the Old Testament who now also changes names, just as He then called Abram "Abraham" and Sarai "Sarah" (Gen. 17:5, 15).
Know also that "Simon" means obedience, and "Jonah" means dove. Thus, obedience is born from meekness, which is signified by the dove. And whoever has obedience also becomes a Peter, through obedience attaining firmness in good.

Jn. 1:43. The next day Jesus desired to go into Galilee, and He finds Philip and says to him: Follow Me.
Andrew, having heard from the Forerunner, and Peter, having heard from Andrew, followed Jesus; but Philip, it seems, heard nothing and yet followed the Lord as soon as He said to him: "Follow Me." How then was Philip so quickly convinced? It seems, first, that the voice of the Lord produced in his soul a certain wound of love. For the speech of the Lord was not simply spoken, but immediately inflamed the hearts of the worthy with love for Him, as Cleopas and his companion say: "Did not our heart burn within us, while He talked with us on the road?" (Luke 24:32). Second, since Philip had a preoccupied heart, constantly occupied himself with the writings of Moses, and always awaited Christ, as soon as he saw Him, he was immediately convinced and says: "We have 'found' Jesus," and this shows that he had been seeking Him.

Jn. 1:44. Now Philip was from Bethsaida, from the same city as Andrew and Peter.
Then, did not Philip learn something about Christ from Andrew and Peter? Probably, conversing with him as a fellow townsman, they told him about the Lord as well. It seems the evangelist hints at this when he says that Philip was from the city of Andrew and Peter. This city was small and could more properly have been called a village. Therefore one must marvel at the power of Christ, that He chose the best disciples from among those bearing no fruit.

Jn. 1:45. Philip finds Nathanael and says to him: we have found Him of Whom Moses wrote in the Law, and the Prophets — Jesus, the Son of Joseph, from Nazareth.
Philip also does not keep the good to himself, but passes it on to Nathanael, and since Nathanael was learned in the law, Philip refers him to the law and the prophets, because he diligently studied the law. He calls the Lord the Son "of Joseph," because at that time they still considered Him to be the Son of Joseph.
He calls Him "Nazarene," although He was properly a Bethlehemite, because He was born in Bethlehem but raised in Nazareth. But since His birth was unknown to many, while His upbringing was well known, they call Him a Nazarene, as one who was raised in Nazareth.

Jn. 1:46. But Nathanael said to him: Can anything good come out of Nazareth? Philip said to him: Come and see.
Philip said that Christ was from Nazareth, but Nathanael, being more learned in the law, knew from the Scriptures that Christ was to come from Bethlehem, and therefore says: "Can anything good come out of Nazareth?" Philip says: "Come and see," knowing that Nathanael would not turn away from Christ if he heard His words.

Jn. 1:47. Jesus, seeing Nathanael coming to Him, says of him: Behold, truly an Israelite, in whom there is no guile.
Christ praises Nathanael as a true Israelite, because he said nothing either for or against Him; for his words proceeded not from unbelief, but from prudence and from a mind that knew from the law that Christ would come not from Nazareth, but from Bethlehem.

Jn. 1:48. Nathanael says to Him: how do You know me? Jesus said to him in answer: before Philip called you, when you were under the fig tree, I saw you.
What about Nathanael? Was he carried away by the praise? No, he desires to learn something more clearly and precisely, and therefore asks: "How do You know me?" The Lord tells him that which no one knew except himself and Philip, that which was spoken and done in private, and thus reveals His Divinity. Philip conversed with Nathanael in private, when no one was under the fig tree, yet Christ, without even being there, knew everything, which is why He says: "I saw you when you were under the fig tree."
The Lord spoke about Nathanael before Philip approached, so that no one would think that Philip had told Him about the fig tree and the other things He had discussed with Nathanael.
From this Nathanael recognized the Lord and confessed Him as the Son of God. For hear what he says next.

Jn. 1:49. Nathanael answers Him: Rabbi! You are the Son of God, You are the King of Israel.

Jn. 1:50. Jesus answered and said to him: You believe because I said to you: I saw you under the fig tree; you will see greater things than these.
Prophecy has the greatest power to draw some to faith, and its power is greater than the power of miracles. For miracles can be presented as illusions by demons, but no one has exact foreknowledge and prediction of the future—neither angels, nor still less demons. This is why the Lord also drew Nathanael, telling him both the place and that Philip had called him, and that he was truly an Israelite. Nathanael, hearing this, felt the greatness of the Lord as much as was possible, and confessed Him as the Son of God.
However, although he confesses Him as the Son of God, it is not in the same sense as Peter. Peter confessed Him as the Son of God as true God, and for this the Lord blessed him and entrusted the Church to him (Matt. 16:16–19). But Nathanael confessed Him as a mere man, adopted by God through grace on account of his virtue. And this is evident from the addition: You are the King of Israel. Do you see? He has not yet attained to the perfect knowledge of the true Divinity of the Only-Begotten. He only believes that Jesus is a man beloved of God and the King of Israel. If he had confessed Him as true God, he would not have called Him King of Israel, but King of the whole world. For this reason he is not blessed, as Peter was.

Jn. 1:51. And He says to him: Truly, truly, I say to you: henceforth you will see heaven opened and the Angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of Man.
Therefore the Lord also, correcting him and leading him to an understanding worthy of His Divinity, says: you will see the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of Man. "Accept Me," He says, "not as a mere man, but as the Master of angels." For He whom the angels serve cannot be a mere man, but is true God. This was fulfilled at the crucifixion and at the ascension. For, as Luke relates, both before the sufferings an angel from heaven strengthened Him, and at the tomb an angel appeared, and at the ascension (Luke 22:43; Luke 24:4, 23; Acts 1:10).
Some understood the "fig tree" to mean the law, since it had fruit that was sweet for a time, but by the strictness of the legal prescriptions and the difficulty of fulfilling the commandments was covered as if by leaves. The Lord "saw" Nathanael. Regarding this they say that He mercifully looked upon and understood his comprehension, even though he was still under the law. I ask you, if you take delight in such things, to also pay attention to the fact that the Lord saw Nathanael under the fig tree, or under the law, that is, within the law, searching its depths. If he had not searched the depth of the law, the Lord would not have seen him. Know also that "Galilee" means cast down.
So, the Lord came to the fallen land of the whole world, or to human nature, and, as the Lover of mankind, looked upon us who were under the fig tree, that is, under sin — pleasant for a time, but with which is joined no small sharpness on account of repentance and the future punishments there — and chose for Himself those who acknowledge Him as the Son of God and King of Israel, who sees God.
If we continue our diligence, then He will deem us worthy of even greater contemplations, and we shall see angels "ascending to the height of divine knowledge of Him" and again "descending," because they do not attain full knowledge of the incomprehensible Essence.
And in another sense: one "ascends" when he engages in contemplation of the Divinity of the Only-begotten; he "descends" when he willingly engages in contemplations of the incarnation and the descent into hell.