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. 

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 became 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 either, 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 the Divine, just as our body is governed by the 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, unfortunate man, 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 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. And since the flesh is alien to the Divine nature, it is possible that the Evangelist mentioned the flesh with the intention of showing the extraordinary condescension of God, so that we might be amazed at His inexpressible love for mankind, by which for our salvation He took upon Himself that which is different and completely alien to His own nature, namely, the flesh. 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 partake of what is received (incarnation), but in order to show more how wondrous 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! While the soul was the first to fall ill (for in paradise it surrendered to the words of the serpent and was deceived, and then after the soul, as a mistress and mistress, it was touched by the hand), 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 we, when we hear that the Word was made flesh, believe that He became perfect man, since it is the custom of the Scriptures to call man one part, flesh and soul. - Nestorius is also overthrown by this saying.

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 is Truth (John 14:6), lied in the incarnation. And a deceptive ghost would undoubtedly have led to this thought.

And it dwelt with us. 

Since the Evangelist said above that the Word was made flesh, so that no one should think that Christ finally became one Nature, he adds: "dwelt among us," in order to show two Natures: one is ours, and the other is the Word. For just as the abode is of another nature, and of another nature dwelling in it, so 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, who worship one Nature, be ashamed. Thus, by the words: "The Word was made flesh" we learn that the Word Himself became Man and, being the Son of God, became also the son of a woman, who is truly called the Mother of God, as having given birth to God in the flesh. By the words: "dwelt among us," we learn to believe that in one Christ there are two natures. For although He is one in Hypostasis, or in Person, yet in His Natures He is twofold – God and Man, and the Divine nature and the human cannot be one, although they are contemplated in one Christ.