Commentary on the Gospel of John 1  John's Testimony of Christ. - Question to John: Is he not the Christ? - The calling of Andrew, Peter, Philip and Nathanael.

In the beginning was the Word.

For one Spirit guided the souls of all. John speaks to us about the Son, and he also mentions the Father. He points to the eternity of the Only-begotten when he says: "In the beginning was the Word," that is, it was from the beginning. For that which exists from the beginning, surely has no time when it does not exist. How, some will say, is it seen that the expression "in the beginning was" means the same as from the beginning? From where? Both from the most general understanding, and especially from this evangelist himself. For in one of his epistles (1:1) he says: "Of that which was from the beginning" (apў archV, from the beginning) which we have seen. Do you see how the beloved explains himself? Thus, the inquirer 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" does not give the idea that the heavens are eternal, so here I will not understand the word "in the beginning" as if the Only-begotten were eternal. A heretic will say so. To this insane insistence we will say nothing else but this: Sage of malice! Why did you keep silent about what followed? But we will say this against your will. There Moses says: In the beginning God "created" the heavens and the earth, and here it is said: in the beginning "was" the Word. What do "created" and "was" have in common? If it had been written here also, "In the beginning God created the Son," I would have kept silent; but now, when it is said here, "In the beginning was," I conclude from this that the Word has existed from eternity, and did not come into being afterwards, as you idlely say. Why did John not say, "In the beginning was the Son," but, "The Word"? Listen. This is for the sake of the weakness of the hearers, so that we, having heard about the Son from the very beginning, do not think about a passionate and carnal birth. For this reason I called Him "the Word," so that you might know that just as the Word is born of the mind without passion, so He is born of the Father without passion. Again, He called Him "the Word" because He has made known to us the attributes of the Father, just as every word declares the disposition of the mind; and at the same time in order to show that He is co-existent with the Father. For just as it cannot be said that the mind is sometimes without words, so the Father and God were not without the Son. — John said this word with a member (o LogoV) because there are many other words of God, for example, prophecies, commandments, as it is said about the angels: "Mighty in power, fulfilling His word" (Psalm 102:20), that is, His commandments. But the Word itself is a personal being.

And the Word was with God. Here the Evangelist shows even more clearly that the Son is co-equal with the Father. Lest you think that the Father was once without the Son, he says that the Word was with God, that is, with God in the bosom of the fathers. For you must understand the preposition (pri, u) instead of (s), as it is used in another place: "Are not His brethren and His sister in us, that is, they live with us" (Mark 6:3)? So here, too, understand "with God" instead of: was with God, together with God, in His bosom. For it is not possible that God could ever be 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 Corinthians 1:24), has always been with God, that is, He has been contemporary and together with the Father. And how, you say, is the Son not after the Father? How? Learn from material example. Is not the radiance of the sun from the sun itself? Yes, sir. Is it also later than the sun, so that it is possible to imagine a time when the sun was without radiance? Must not. For how could it also be the sun, if it did not have radiance? If we think in this way about the sun, then how much more should we think in this way about the Father and the Son. It must be believed that the Son, who is the radiance of the Father, as Paul says (Heb. 1:3), always shines with the Father, and not later than Him. "Note also that by this expression Sabelius the Libyan is also refuted. He taught that the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are one person, and that this one person appeared at one time as the Father, and at another as the Son, and at another as the Spirit. Thus the son of the father of lies, full of the spirit of evil, spoke idly. But by these words, "and the Word was with God," he is clearly rebuked. The Evangelist here says most clearly that there is another Word and another God, that is, the Father. For if the Word was with God, then two persons are evidently introduced, although they both have one nature. And what is one nature, listen.

And the Word was God. Do you see that the Word of God also! This means that the Father and the Son have one nature, as well as one divinity. Therefore let both Arius and Sabellius be ashamed. Let Arius, who calls the Son of God a creature and a creature, be ashamed of the fact that the Word was and was God in the beginning. And Sabellius, who does not accept the trinity of persons, but the singularity, let him be ashamed of the fact that the Word was with God. For here the great John clearly declares that there is another Word, and another Father, though not another and another. For some things are spoken of persons, and some things are spoken of natures. For example, in order to express the idea more clearly, Peter and Paul are different and different, for they are two persons; but not the other and the other, for they have one nature, humanity. The same should be taught about the Father and the Son: On the one hand, they are different and different, because they are two persons, and on the other hand, they are not different and different, because one nature is divinity.

It was with God in the beginning. This God the Word has never been separated from God and the Father. Since John said that the Word was also God, so that no one should be confused by this satanic thought: if the Word is also God, has He not ever rebelled against the Father, like the gods of the pagans in their fables, and if it separated from Him, did it not become an adversary of God? He says that although the Word is also God, yet He is again with God and the Father, abiding with Him, and has never been separated from Him. "It is no less fitting to say this to those who hold to the Arian teaching: hearken, you deaf, who call the Son of God His work and creation; you understand what name the Evangelist applied to the Son of God: he called Him the Word. And you call Him work and creation. He is not the work and not the creation, but the Word. A word of two kinds. One is internal, which we have, even when we do not speak, that is, the ability to speak, for even he who sleeps and does not speak, nevertheless has the word in him and has not lost the ability. Thus, one word is inner, and the other is pronounced, which we also pronounce with our lips, activating the faculty of speaking, the faculty of the mind and the word lying within. Though in this way the word is of two kinds, yet neither of them fits the Son of God, for the Word of God is neither spoken nor internal. "Those words are natural and ours, and the Word of the Father, being above nature, is not subject to any further intricacies. Therefore the cunning reasoning of Porphyry the pagan disintegrates by itself. In an attempt to overthrow the Gospel, he used the following distinction: if the Son of God is the word, then either the spoken word or the inner word; but He is neither; therefore He is not the Word either. And so, the Evangelist resolved this conclusion first, saying that the inner and what is spoken is said about us and natural things, but nothing of the kind is said about the supernatural. However, even then it must be said that the doubt of the pagan would have had a basis, if this name "Word" were fully worthy of God and properly and essentially used about Him. But so far no one has yet found any name fully worthy of God; nor is this very "Word" used properly and essentially about Him, but it only shows that the Son was born of the Father impassibly, like the word from the mind, and that He became the messenger of the will of the Father. Why then do you, wretched one, cling to the name, and hearing of the Father, the Son, and the Spirit, do you descend upon material relations, and imagine in your mind carnal fathers and sons, and the wind of the air, perhaps southern or northerly, or whatever it is, producing a storm? But if you want to know what kind of word is the Word of God, then listen to what follows.

All things were made through Him. Do not consider the Word, he says, to be overflowing in the air and disappearing, but consider everything imaginable and sensible to be the Creator. But the Arians again insistently say: "As we say that the door is made with a saw, although it is a tool here, and another moved the tool – a master, so by the Son all things came into being, not as if He were the Creator Himself, but an instrument, like a saw, and the Creator is God and the Father, and He uses the Son as an instrument. Therefore the Son is a creature created in order that everything might come into being by Him, just as a saw is built in order to do carpentry work." Thus repeats the evil host of Arius. "What should we say to them simply and directly?" If the Father, as you say, created the Son in order to have Him as an instrument for the perfection of creation, then the Son will be inferior to the creature in honor.

What is more insane than these speeches? "Why, they say, did the Evangelist not say: this Word created all things, but used the following preposition (through)? Lest you think that the Son is unbegotten, without beginning, and contrary to God, for this reason He said that the Father created all things by the Word. For imagine that a king, having a son and intending to build a city, entrusted its construction to his son.

I will also tell you that if you are perplexed by the pretext of "through" and wish to find some passage in the Scriptures that says that the Word Himself created all things, then listen to David: "In the beginning, O Lord, Thou didst founded the earth, and the heavens are the work of Thy hands" (Psalm 101:26). See, he did not say, "Through Thee the heavens were created, and the earth was founded," but, "Thou didst found, and the heavens are the work of Thy hands." And that David says this about the Only-begotten, and not about the Father, you can learn from the Apostle who uses these words in the Epistle to the Hebrews (Heb. 1:8-10), and you can learn from the Psalm itself. For when he says that the Lord looked upon the earth to hear the sighing, to absolve the slain, 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 upon the earth, whether by it we mean that on which we move, or our earthly nature, or our flesh, according to what is said: "Thou art the earth" (Gen. 3:19), which He took upon Himself; He also loosed us, bound by the chains of our own sins, the sons of Adam and Eve who were killed, 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 Thy name to men" (John 17:6). To whom are these actions befitting, the Father or the Son? All things are to the Son, for He has proclaimed the name of the Father in His teaching. Having said this, Blessed David adds this: In the beginning, O Lord, Thou didst founded the earth, and the heavens are the work of Thy hands. Is it not obvious that he presents the Son as the Creator, and not as an instrument? "If, in your opinion, the preposition introduces a certain diminution, what do you say when Paul uses it about the Father?" For God is faithful, he says, who was called in the communion of His Son (1 Corinthians 1:9). Is it here that he makes the Father an instrument? And again: Paul is an apostle by the will of God (1 Corinthians 1:1). But this is enough, and we must return again to the same place from which we began. "All things were made through Him." Moses, speaking of the visible creature, did not explain to us anything about intelligible creatures. And the Evangelist, embracing everything in one word, says: "All things" were seen and imagined.

And without Him, nothing was made that was made. Since the Evangelist said that the Word created all things, so that no one should think that He also created the Holy Spirit, he adds: "All things were by Him." What is everyone? —created. As if he had said so, whatever is in created nature, all this received its existence from the word. But the Spirit does not belong to the created nature; therefore He did not receive existence from Him. Thus, without the power of the Word, nothing came into being that did not come into being, that is, anything that was in created nature.

In Him was life, and life was the light of men. The Doukhobors read the present passage thus: "And without Him nothing was made"; then, putting a punctuation mark here, they read as if from a different beginning: "That which was made, in Him was life," and interpret this passage according to their own thought, saying that here the Evangelist speaks of the Spirit, that is, that the Holy Spirit was life. Thus say the Macedonians, trying to prove that the Holy Spirit was created, and to number Him among the creatures. But we are not so, but, putting a punctuation mark after the words "that was made," we read from a different beginning: "In Him was life." Having said of creation that all things came into being by the Word, the Evangelist goes on to say of providence, that the Word not only created, but also preserves the life of the created. For in Him was life. "I know of the following reading of this passage in one of the saints: 'And without Him was not anything made that was made in Him.' Then, putting a punctuation mark here, he began further: "there was life." I think that this reading does not contain an error, but contains the same correct idea. For this saint also correctly understood that without the Word nothing came into being that did not come into being in Him, since everything that came into being and was created was created by the Word Himself, and consequently without Him there was no existence. Then he began again: "There was life, and life was the light of men." The Evangelist calls the Lord "life" both because He sustains the life of all things, and because He gives spiritual life to all rational beings, and "light," not so much sensual as intellectual, enlightening the soul itself. He did not say that He was the light of the Jews alone, but of all "men." For we are all men, inasmuch as we have received understanding and understanding from the Word Who created us, we are therefore called enlightened by Him. For the reason given to us, by which we are called rational, is the light that guides us in what we should and should not do.

And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not enveloped it. "Light," that is, the Word of God, shines "in darkness," that is, in death and error. For He, having submitted to death, so overcame it that He compelled it to vomit even those whom it had previously devoured. And in pagan error the preaching shines. "And the darkness did not overtake him." Neither death overcame Him, nor error. For this light, that is, the Word of God, is insurmountable. Some considered the flesh and earthly life to be "darkness." The Word shone even then, as it became in the flesh and was in this life, but darkness, that is, the opposite force, tempted and pursued the Light, but found Him invincible and invincible. The flesh is called darkness not because it is so by nature (let it not be!), but because of sin. For the flesh, as long as it is governed by the law of nature, has absolutely no evil, but when it moves beyond the limits of nature and serves sin, it becomes and is called darkness.

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 speech about the Forerunner. And what else, if not about the birth of John the Baptist, can there be a word before the speech about 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 of God. When you hear that he was sent from God, then know that he did not say anything from himself or from people, but everything is from God. For this reason he is called an angel (Matt. 10:11; Malach. 3:1), and the advantage of an angel is not to speak of himself. When you hear about an angel, do not think that John was an angel by nature, or that he came down from heaven; He is called an angel by deed and service. Since he preached and foretold the Lord, he was called an angel for this. For this reason the Evangelist, in refutation of the assumption of many, who perhaps thought that John was an angel by nature, says: "There was a man," sent from God.