He came to His own, and His own people 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 the flesh and was not known, then it came to His own with the flesh. By "his own" you can understand to Him either the whole world, or Judea, which He has chosen, as a portion of the inheritance, as a plot and His property (Psalm 113:2). "And His own did not receive Him," or 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 accepted 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 received by faith, and embraced them. 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, although they received the grace of sonship through baptism, through negligence did not remain children of God to the end. Others, perhaps, will also say that many receive Him through faith only, for example, the so-called catechumens, but have not yet become children of God, however, if they wish to be baptized, they have the power to be worthy of this grace, that is, sonship. - 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 makes a comparison of the Divine and bodily birth in a certain way, not without purpose reminding us of the bodily generation, but so that we, having come to know the nobility and baseness of the bodily birth through comparison, may strive towards Divine grace. 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 could think so, the Evangelist adds: "Neither from the will of the flesh, nor from the will of a man." The birth of Isaac was, though 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 idea, namely, that 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 the future (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, through baptism by the very deed, having received the Spirit of God, cry out: Abba, Father (Gal. 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.