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.

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: Hear, ye deaf ones, 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 the inner one, 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 faculty. 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, but the Word of the Father, being above nature, is not subject to any further subtleties. 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. 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 were actually 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, become attached to the name, and when you hear of the Father, the Son, and the Spirit, you descend upon material relations, and imagine in your mind carnal fathers and sons, and the wind of the air may be southerly, or northerly, or some other wind that produces a storm? But if you want to know what kind of word the Word of God is, 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 insist on saying: "As we say that the door is made by a saw, although it is a tool here, and the other moved the tool – a master, so by the Son everything 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 perform carpentry work with it." 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 to have Him as an instrument for the perfection of creation, then the Son will be inferior in honor to the creature. For as in the case when a saw is a tool, what it builds is more honest than it, since the saw is made for the products, and not they for the saw; so also the creature will be more honorable than the Only-begotten, for for it, as they say, the Father created Him, as if God had not made of Himself the Only-begotten, if He had not intended to create all things. 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. Just as he who says that the city was built by the king's son does not reduce the king's son to a slave, but shows that this son also has a father, and not only one, so here the Evangelist, by saying that all things were created by the Son, showed that the Father, so to speak, used Him as a mediator in creation, not as a lesser one, but on the contrary, as equal and able to fulfill such a great commission. I will also tell you that if you are confused by the preposition "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 were the work of Thy hands" (Psalm 101:26). You see, he did not say, "Through you the heavens were created, and the earth was founded, but "you" founded, and the heavens are the work of your 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 (1:8-10), and you can learn from the Psalm itself. For, having said 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 slain, 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 made Thy name known 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 "through" introduces a certain diminution, what do you say when Paul uses it about the Father? For God is faithful, saith He, and together be 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, then, lest anyone think that He also created the Holy Spirit, he adds: "All things were by Him." What is everyone? – created. Whatever he said 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.