He came for a testimony, to bear witness to the light, that all might believe through him. This one, he says, was sent from God to bear witness to the light.

Did all also believe through him? No. How then does the Evangelist say: that all may believe? How? — as much as depended on him, he testified in order to attract everyone, and if some did not believe, then he does not deserve blame. And then the sun rises to illuminate everyone, but if someone shuts himself up in a dark room and does not use its ray, then is the sun to blame for this? So it is here. John was sent that all might believe through him; if this does not happen, he is not to blame.

Он не был свет, но был послан, чтобы свидетельствовать о свете. Так как часто случается, что свидетель бывает выше того, о ком свидетельствует, то чтобы ты не подумал, что и Иоанн, свидетельствующий о Христе, был выше Его, евангелист в опровержение этого лукавого помысла говорит: “он не был свет”. Но, может быть, кто-нибудь скажет: ужели мы не можем называть светом ни Иоанна, ни иного кого из святых? Светом мы можем назвать каждого из святых, но оным светом (to fwV), с членом, не можем назвать. Например, если кто тебе скажет: Иоанн есть ли свет? — согласись. Если же спросит так: ужели Иоанн есть оный Свет? — скажи: нет. Ибо сам он не есть свет в собственном смысле, но свет по причастию, имеющий сияние от истинного света.

Был свет истинный, который просвещает всякого человека, приходящего в мир. Евангелист намерен говорить о домостроительстве Единородного во плоти, что Он пришел к Своим, что Он стал плотию. Итак, чтобы кто-нибудь не подумал, что Он не существовал прежде воплощения, для сего возводит мысль к бытию прежде всякого начала и говорит, что Свет истинный был и прежде воплощения. Этим он ниспровергает и ересь Фотина, и Павла самосатского, утверждавших, что Единородный тогда получил бытие, когда родился от Девы, а прежде сего не существовал. И ты, арианин, не признающий Сына Божия истинным Богом, слушай, что говорит евангелист: “свет истинный”. И ты, манихей, говорящий, что мы созданы злым творцом, слушай, что Свет истинный просвещает всякого человека. Если злой творец есть тьма, то он не может никого просвещать. Посему мы создания истинного Света. И как, скажет иной, просвещает всякого человека, когда мы видим некоторых омраченными? Сколько зависит от Него Самого, Он просвещает всех.

Если же некоторые худо воспользовались разумом, те сами омрачили себя. Иные разрешают это возражение так: просвещает, говорят, Господь “всякого человека, приходящего в мир” (kosmoV, украшение, порядок), то есть в лучшее состояние, и старающегося украсить свою душу, а не оставлять ее беспорядочною и безобразною.

В мире был, и мир чрез Него начал быть, и мир Его не познал. Был в мире как вездесущий Бог, а можно сказать, что был в мире и в отношении к промышлению и сохранению. Впрочем, говорит: что я говорю, что был в мире, когда не было бы и мира, если б Он не сотворил его? Со всех сторон доказывает, что Он �

Но “мир — говорит, — Его не познал”, то есть худые люди, занявшиеся мирскими делами. Ибо имя “мир” означает и эту вселенную, как и здесь сказано: “мир чрез Него начал быть”; означает и мудрствующих по мирскому, как здесь сказано: “мир Его не познал”, то есть люди, приверженные к земле. Но все святые и пророки познали.

He came to His own, and His own did not receive Him. Here the Evangelist, obviously, speaks of the economy of salvation in the flesh, and the whole order of thought is as follows: The Light was true in the world without flesh and was not known, then it came to His own with the flesh. By "His own" you can understand either the whole world, or Judea, which He has chosen as a portion of the inheritance, as a lot and His property (Psalm 113:2). "And His own did not receive Him," either the Jews, or other people created by Him. In this way he mourns the madness of people and is amazed at the love for mankind of the Lord. Being His own, he says, not all received Him, for the Lord does not attract anyone by force, but leaves them to His own discretion and arbitrariness.

And to those who received Him, to those who believe in His name, He gave the power to become children of God. To those who received Him, whether they were slaves or free, youths or elders, barbarians or Greeks, He gave to all the power to become children of God. Who are they? Those who believe in His name, that is, those who have received the Word and the true light, and have received by faith, and have embraced. 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 it is not enough to be baptized in order to preserve purity, but much effort is needed to preserve undefiled the image of sonship inscribed in baptism. For this reason, many have received the grace of sonship through baptism, but through negligence they have not remained children of God to the end.

Some will also say that although we receive the grace of adoption through baptism, we will receive perfection in the resurrection; then we hope to receive the most perfect adoption, as Paul says: "We expect adoption" (Romans 8:23). For this reason this Evangelist did not say that He made those who received Him children of God, but gave them the power to become children of God, that is, to receive this grace in the age to come.

Who were not born of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of a man, but of God.

He says: "Who are not born of blood," that is, of menstruation, for by them the child is nourished and grows in the womb. It is also said that semen first turns into blood, then is formed into flesh and other arrangements. And since some could say that the birth of Isaac was the same as those who believe in Christ are born, since Isaac was not born of blood, for Sarah's menstruation (separation of blood) ceased (Gen. 18:11); — Since some might think so, the Evangelist adds: "Neither by the will of the flesh, nor by the will of man." The birth of Isaac was not from blood, but from the will of the husband, since the husband certainly desired that a child should be born to him from Sarah (Gen. 21:8). And "from the will of the flesh", for example, Samuel from Hannah. Thus, you can say that Isaac from the will of her husband, and Samuel from the will of the flesh, that is, Hannah, for this barren woman greatly desired to have a son (1 Samuel 1:6), or perhaps both were on both. If you want to learn something else, then listen. Carnal confusion occurs either from natural ignition, for often someone receives a very hot constitution and is therefore very inclined to coitus. This the Evangelist called the will of the flesh. Or an irrepressible desire for coitus comes from a bad habit and an immoderate lifestyle. He called this striving "the will of the husband," and since it is not the work of the natural constitution, but of the immoderation of the husband. Since a strong inclination to coition is sometimes found in the wife, sometimes in the husband, then, perhaps, the Evangelist meant the husband's voluptuousness by the "will of the husband," and the wife's voluptuousness by the "will of the flesh." It is also true that by "the will of the flesh" you can understand lust, which inflames the flesh to confusion, and by the "will of the man" the consent of the lustful to copulation, which consent is the beginning of the matter. The Evangelist put both because many lust, yet they are not immediately carried away by the flesh, but overcome it and do not fall into the work itself. And those who are overcome by it come to the point of wanting to copulate, because they were originally inflamed by the flesh and the lust that smolders in it. Thus, the Evangelist decently placed the will of the flesh before the will of the man, because naturally lust precedes mixing; both desires necessarily flow together during copulation. All this is said for the sake of those who often ask unreasonable questions, because, properly speaking, all this expresses one thought, namely, the baseness of bodily birth is exposed. "What then do we, who believe in Christ, have greater than the Israelites under the law? True, they were also called sons of God, but there is a great difference between us and them. The law in all things had a shadow of things to come (Heb. 10:1) and did not communicate to the Israelites the sonship (completely), but as if in an image and a mental representation. And we, having received the Spirit of God through baptism by our very deed, cry out: Abba, Father (Galatians 4:6). For them, just as baptism was an image and a shadow, so their sonship prefigured our adoption. Though they were called sons, they were in the shadows, and they did not have the very truth of sonship, as we now have through baptism.

And the Word was made flesh. Having said that we, who believe in Christ, if we wish, become children of God, the Evangelist adds the reason for such a great good. Do you want to know, he says, what this sonship has brought us? — that the Word was made flesh. But when you hear that the Word became flesh, do not think that He left His own nature and became flesh (for He would not have been God if He had been changed and changed), but that, while remaining what He was, He became what He was not. But Apollinaris the Laodicean composed a heresy from this. He taught that our Lord and God did not take on the whole human nature, that is, the body with a verbal soul, but only flesh without a verbal and rational soul. What need was there for God's soul, when His body was governed by a divinity, just as our body is governed by a soul? And he thought to see the reason for this in the present saying: "And the Word was flesh." He did not say, says the Evangelist, that the Word became man, but "flesh"; this means that He did not take on a rational and verbal soul, but an irrational and dumb flesh. Surely he did not know that the Scriptures often call the whole a part. For example, it wants to mention the whole person, but calls him a part, the word "soul". Every "soul" that is not circumcised will be destroyed (Gen. 17:14). So, instead of saying, "Every man," a part is named, namely, "soul." The Scriptures also call the whole man the flesh, when, for example, it says: "And all flesh shall see the salvation of God" (Isaiah 40:5). It should be said: every "man," and the name "flesh" is used. In the same way, the Evangelist, instead of saying, "The Word became "man," said, "The Word became "flesh," calling man, consisting of soul and body, one part.

For the soul has a certain affinity with God, and the flesh has absolutely nothing in common. For this reason I think that the Evangelist used here only the name of the flesh, not because the soul does not participate in the reception (incarnation), but in order to show more how wonderful and terrible the mystery is. For if the incarnate Word did not receive the human soul, then our souls are not yet healed, for what He did not receive, He did not sanctify. And how funny! Whereas the soul was the first to fall ill (for in paradise it surrendered to the words of the serpent and was deceived, and then the hand also touched the soul as a mistress and mistress), the flesh was received, sanctified and healed, the servant, and the mistress was left without reception and without healing. But let Apollinaris be mistaken. And when we hear that the Word was made flesh, we believe that He became perfect man, since it is the custom of the Scriptures to call man one part, flesh and soul. By this saying Nestorius is also overthrown. He said that it was not God the Word Himself who became man, conceived from the most pure blood of the holy Virgin, but the Virgin gave birth to man, and this man, blessed with every kind of virtue, began to have the Word of God, united with him and giving power over unclean spirits, and therefore he taught that two sons, one son of the Virgin Jesus a man, and the other the Son of God, united to this man and inseparable from him, but by grace, attitude, and love, because this man was virtuous. So he is deaf to the truth. For if he had wished, he himself would have heard what this blessed evangelist says, namely, that the Word was made flesh. Isn't there a rebuke obvious to him here? For the Word Himself became Man. The Evangelist did not say: "The Word, having found man, was united with him, but He Himself became Man." "By this saying Eutyches, Valentinus, and Manes are overthrown. They said that the Word of God appeared illusory. Let them hear that the Word was "made" flesh; it is not said: the Word was presented or appeared to be flesh, but "became" it in truth and in essence, and not by a ghost. For it is absurd and unreasonable to believe that the Son of God, in essence and in name Truth (John 14:6), lied in Incarnation. And a deceptive ghost would undoubtedly have led to this thought.