in four books

2nd edition, revised

Russian translation from the Greek original

Book 4

Commentary on the Gospel of John

Chapter One

In the beginning was the Word.

What I said in the preface, I will repeat now, namely: while the other Evangelists tell at length about the earthly birth of the Lord, education and growth, John omits these events, since enough has been said about them by his fellow disciples, and speaks of the Divinity Who became man for our sake. However, if you look closely, you will see that just as they did not keep silent about the Divinity of the Only-begotten, but mentioned it, although not extensively, so John, fixing his gaze on the highest word, did not completely ignore the economy of the Incarnation. 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. Wherefore, some will say, is it evident 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, 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" to mean that the Only-begotten is 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 announced to us the attributes of the Father, just as every word declares the mood 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 used this phrase 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 "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: I was with God, together with God, in His bosom. For it is impossible that God should ever be without the Word, or wisdom, or power. Therefore we believe that the Son, since He is the Word, the 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, being the radiance of the Father, as Paul says (Heb. 1:3), always shines with the Father, and not later than Him. Note also that Sabellius the Libyan is also refuted by this expression. 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 with 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 it is evident that two persons are 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 there are two persons, and on the other hand, not another and different, because one nature is divinity.