Chapter 1

Theophylact of Ohrid, Commentary on the Gospel of John

¹ THE INTERPRETATION OF THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN. THE LIFE OF JOHN. From Sophronius. John, whom Jesus greatly loved, the son of Zebedee, brother of that James who was beheaded by Herod after the Passion of the Lord, was the last of all to write a Gospel, being urged thereto by the bishops of Asia, and writing against Cerinthus and other heretics — and especially because at that time the doctrine of the Ebionites had arisen, who asserted that Christ had no existence before Mary. Whence he was constrained to speak of His divine generation. And they assign yet another reason for this writing. For having read the volumes of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, he approved the style of their narratives and confirmed that they had spoken truly; but they had treated of only one year — that in which He also suffered, after the imprisonment of John the Baptist. Leaving aside, therefore, the year whose deeds had been set forth by the three, he set forth the acts of the earlier time, before John was cast into prison — as may be made plain to those who diligently read the four Gospels; which also removes the seeming discord of John with the rest. He wrote, moreover, one Epistle, whose beginning is, “That which was from the beginning,” which is approved by all churchmen and learned men. The remaining two — whose beginnings are, of the first, “The elder to the elect lady,” and of the second, “The elder to Gaius the beloved” — are said to be of John the elder, whose separate tomb is yet to be found at Ephesus. And some suppose that the two tombs are both of John the evangelist; concerning whom, when in due order we come to Papias his hearer, we shall give our account. In the fourteenth year, then, when Domitian was raising a second persecution, having been confined to the island of Patmos, he composed the Apocalypse, which Justin Martyr and Irenaeus interpreted. And when Domitian had been slain, and his acts annulled by the Senate on account of their great cruelty, under Nerva he removed to Ephesus, and remaining there until the reign of the emperor Trajan, he founded and built up all the churches of Asia; and being very aged, in the sixty-eighth year after the Passion of the Lord, he was accounted worthy of repose. THE LIFE OF JOHN THE EVANGELIST.

² From the synopsis of Dorotheus, martyr and bishop of Tyre. John his brother, who also became the evangelist of the Lord, whom also the Lord loved, preached the Gospel of Christ in Asia, and was exiled by the emperor Trajan to the island of Patmos for the word of the Lord. And being there, he both wrote the holy Gospel and published it at Ephesus through Gaius the host and deacon, to whom also the apostle Paul bears witness when he says to the Romans: “Gaius mine host, and of the whole Church, greets you.” And after the death of Trajan the blessed John returns from the island, and abides at Ephesus, and lived a hundred and twenty years; and after this, while yet living, by the will of God he buried himself there. But there are some who say that this was under Domitian, the son of Vespasian.

³ Or rather, the power of the Holy Spirit is perfected in weakness, even as it is written, and as we believe — in weakness not of body only, but also of speech and of the wisdom that resides upon the tongue. And this is plain from many other instances, but most of all from that which is seen by grace in the case of the great Theologian and brother of Christ. For this man was the son of a fisherman, and plied the same trade as his father; and he was not only unlearned in Greek and Jewish education, but altogether unlettered, as indeed the most divine Luke also records concerning him in the Acts. For his homeland too was most lowly and obscure, a place not of letters but of the fisherman’s craft; for it was Bethsaida that brought him forth. Yet nevertheless such a man — unlettered, obscure, having nothing remarkable about him — behold of what Spirit he was deemed worthy, so that what none of the other evangelists taught us, he thundered forth. For since those others busied themselves with the bodily things of Christ, but said nothing clearer or plainer concerning His existence before the ages, there was danger lest certain men, grovelling and unable to conceive anything lofty, should suppose that Christ first came into existence when He was born of Mary, and was not begotten of the Father before the ages — which indeed Paul of Samosata suffered. For this cause the great John treats of the generation from above; and yet he did not leave the incarnation of the Word unmentioned, for he says, “And the Word became flesh.” And some say that the Orthodox also besought him to write concerning the generation from above, inasmuch as certain heretics had appeared in those days who taught that Jesus was a mere man. Whereupon the saint, it is said, having read the writings of the other evangelists, marveled at them for their narration, true in all things, and judged them to be sound, and to have said nothing to curry favor of the apostles. But the things which those did not say clearly, or wholly omitted, these he unfolded and made plain and added through his own Gospel; which also he composed while living in exile on the island of Patmos, two and thirty years after the Ascension of Christ. Now John was loved by the Lord above all the disciples, as being simple and most meek and most kindly, and as pure in heart, that is, a virgin. From which gift he was also entrusted with theology, taking his delight in the mysteries unseen by the many. For “Blessed,” He says, “are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.” And he was, moreover, a kinsman of the Lord; and how, hear. Joseph, the betrothed of the all-pure Theotokos, had by a former wife seven children, four male and three female — Martha, Esther, and Salome; of which Salome, I say, this John was the son. The Lord, then, is found to be his uncle. For since Joseph was reckoned father of the Lord, and Salome was daughter of this Joseph, Salome then is reckoned sister of the Lord, so that her son John is cousin of the Lord. And it is perhaps not unfitting to unfold also the names of his mother and of the evangelist himself. The mother, called Salome, is interpreted “peaceful”; and John, “her grace.” Let every soul therefore know that peace — both toward men, and within the soul, from the passions — becomes the mother of divine grace, and gives birth to it within us. For the troubled soul, still having battles both with other men and with itself, is not likely to be deemed worthy of divine grace. And we have observed yet a more wonderful thing that befell this evangelist John. For he alone is shown to have three mothers: the natural one, Salome; the thunder (for he is a son of thunder, because of the loud-voiced greatness of the Gospel); and the Theotokos — for “Behold,” He says, “your mother.” But since these things have been said by us before the exposition, we must now begin the unfolding of the text itself.

⁴ In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. In the beginning was the Word. What I said also in the introduction, this I will say again: that whereas the other evangelists narrated at large the lower generation of the Lord, His upbringing and His growth, this one runs past those things, as having been sufficiently told by his fellow-disciples, and discourses concerning the divinity of Him who for our sake became man. And yet, if you examine accurately, neither did those others thrust aside the speaking of the divinity of the Only-begotten, but made mention of it, even if not at large; nor did this one, looking to the loftier theme, altogether neglect the dispensation in the flesh; for there was one Spirit moving the souls of them all. He discourses, then, to us concerning the Son; for the Father was already known from the Old Testament. And yet neither did he pass over the Father in silence, but makes mention of Him also, while he speaks concerning the Son. He shows, therefore, the eternity of the Only-begotten in saying, “In the beginning was the Word.” For of that which is from the beginning, no time at all can be found when it was not. And whence, says one, is it plain that the “In the beginning was” signifies the same as “from the beginning”? Whence? Both from common supposition itself, and most of all from this very evangelist. For he says in one of his Epistles: “That which was from the beginning, which we have seen.” Do you see, then, how the beloved interprets himself? “Yes,” says the heretic, “but I understand the ‘in the beginning’ thus, even as it stands also in Moses: ‘In the beginning God made the heaven and the earth.’ For as there the ‘in the beginning’ is not understood as though the heaven were eternal, so neither here will I understand the ‘in the beginning’ as though the Only-begotten were eternal.” Thus the heretic. But we, to this senseless objection, will say nothing else but this: O sophist of wickedness, how did you suppress that which follows? But we will say it, even if you will not. For there Moses says, “In the beginning God made the heaven and the earth”; but here, “In the beginning was the Word.” What fellowship has “made” with “was”? For if here too it had been written, “In the beginning God made the Son,” I should have kept silence; but now it is, “In the beginning was”; from which I understand that the Word is eternally, and not afterward, as you prate. And for what reason did he not say, “In the beginning was the Son,” but “the Word”? Hear. Because of the weakness of the hearers, lest hearing at the very outset “Son,” we should conceive a passible and bodily generation; for this cause he called Him “Word,” that you might learn that, as the word is begotten of the mind impassibly, so also He was begotten of the Father impassibly. And in another sense too he called Him “Word,” because He announced to us the things of the Father, even as every word announces the counsels of the mind; and at the same time also that he might show Him to be co-eternal with the Father. For as it is not possible to say that the mind ever was without word, so neither was the Father and God ever without the Son. And he said “the Word” with the article. For there are also many other words of God — such as, I mean, the prophecies and the commandments; as it is said concerning the angels, that they are “mighty in strength, doing His word,” that is, His commandments. But the Word, properly so called, is a certain essence, subsisting in its own hypostasis. And the Word was with God. And here he shows more clearly that the Son is co-eternal with the Father. For lest you should think that the Father was ever without the Son, he says that the Word was with God, that is, together with God, in the bosom of the Father. For the “with” you ought to understand as “together with,” as it lies also elsewhere: “Are not his brethren and his sisters with us?” — that is, do they not dwell among us? So here too understand the “with God” as “was together with God,” in His bosom. For it is not possible that God should ever be without word, or without wisdom, or without power. For this cause we believe that, since the Son is the word and wisdom and power of the Father, He always was with God — that is, together with the Father, and with the Father. And how, says one, being a Son, is He not later than the Father? How? Learn from the material example. The radiance of the sun — is it not from the sun itself? Yes, assuredly. Is it then also later than the sun, so that the sun could ever be conceived without it? It cannot be said. For how could there even be a sun not having radiance? What therefore holds in this case, much more shall it be conceived in the case of the Father and the Son. For the Son, being the radiance of the Father, as Paul says, shall be believed always to shine forth together with the Father, and shall not be later than He. And mark for me Sabellius the Libyan also as overturned by this text. For he taught that the Father and the Son and the Spirit are one person, and that this one person at one time appeared as Father, at another as Son, at another as Spirit. These things did that son of the father of lies prate, being full of the evil spirit. But he is plainly refuted from this, I mean from the “And the Word was with God.” For most clearly the evangelist here says that the Word is one, and God — that is, the Father — is another. For since the Word was together with God, it is evident that two persons are introduced, even though there be one nature to these two. And that there is one nature, hear: And the Word was God. Do you see that the Word also is God? So that there is one nature to the Father and the Son, since there is also one divinity. Let Arius therefore be ashamed, and Sabellius: Arius, who calls the Son of God a creature and a thing made, let him be confounded by the “In the beginning was,” and “the Word was God”; and Sabellius, who speaks not of a trinity of persons but of a monad, by the “And the Word was with God.” For clearly here the great John proclaims that the Word is one and the Father another, although not one thing and another thing. For the “another and another” is said of persons, but the “another thing and another thing” of natures. For example, that I may set forth the thought more clearly: Peter and Paul are another and another, for they are two persons; but not another thing and another thing, for there is one nature to them, their humanity. So therefore also concerning the Father and the Son it must be held: another and another, for they are two persons; but not another thing and another thing, for there is one nature, the divinity.

⁵ The same was in the beginning with God. This God the Word was never separated from God the Father. For since he had said, “And the Word was God,” lest any satanic suspicion should trouble certain men — namely, Did the Word perhaps, since He also is God, rise up against the Father, as those fabled among the Greeks, and, as it were separated from Him, become a rival god? — for this cause he says that, even though the Word is God, yet again He is with God and the Father, being together with Him and never separated. Nor is it amiss to say this also against those who Arianize: Hear, you deaf, who say that the Son of God is a work and a thing made; understand what name the evangelist has set upon the Son of God. For he called Him “Word”; but you name Him a work and a thing made. He is a Word, not a work, nor a creature. Now the word is twofold (for one is the inward word, which we possess even when not speaking — I mean the power of speech; for one asleep, and not speaking, has nonetheless the word lying within him, and has not lost the power; this, then, is the inward word; but the other is the uttered word, which we bring forth through the lips, leading into act the power of speaking that lay within). The word, then, being twofold, neither of these suits the Son of God. For the Word of God is neither uttered nor inward. For those belong to natural things and to such as we are; but the Word of the Father, being above nature, is not subjected to these lowly distinctions of our craft. So that the sophism of Porphyry the Greek falls to the ground. For he, attempting to overthrow the Gospel, used such divisions as these. If the Son of God is Word, he says, He is either uttered or inward; but He is neither this nor that; therefore neither is He Word. The evangelist, then, has already dissolved this sophism by saying that the inward and the uttered are spoken of things that are according to us, and natural; but of that which is above nature, nothing of the kind. Yet this also must be said: if this name, “Word,” were worthy of God, and were spoken of Him properly and essentially, the Greek’s difficulty would have had some force; but as it is, neither can one find any other name proper to God, nor is the “Word” itself spoken essentially and properly, but is only indicative of His having been begotten impassibly of the Father, as the word from the mind, and of His having become the messenger of the Father’s will. Wherefore why do you lay hold of the name, O wretched man? Lest, hearing of Father, and Son, and Spirit, you fall down to material things, and fashion in your mind fleshly fathers, and sons, and an airy spirit — south wind, perhaps, or north, or some other of the things that stir up the surging waves. But come, let us go on to what follows. All things were made by Him. Do not suppose a word poured into the air and dissolved, but a Maker of all things, both intelligible and sensible. But again the followers of Arius break in, saying that, as we say a door is made by the saw, as by an instrument — yet the craftsman who moves the instrument is another — so also all things were made by the Son, not as though He were the Maker, but an instrument, just as there the saw, while God the Father is the Maker, using the Son as an instrument. So that the Son, they say, is a thing made, created for this purpose, that through Him all things might be made; even as the saw is made for this purpose, that through it the works of carpentry might be wrought. These things the wicked confraternity of Arius says. But we will say to them something simple and direct. If for this purpose the Father created the Son, as you say — that He might have Him as an instrument for the completing of the creation — then the Son shall be of less honor than the creation. For as the things made by the saw, which is an instrument, are of more honor than it (for the saw came to be for their sake, not they for the saw’s sake), so also the creation shall be of more honor than the Only-begotten; for, as they themselves say, for its sake did the Father create Him; as, had not God been about to create all things, neither would He have brought forth the Only-begotten. What could be more senseless than these words? “Yes,” says one, “and why then did he not say, ‘The Word Himself made all things,’ but used this preposition, ‘by’?” How? Lest you should suspect the Son to be unbegotten and without beginning and a rival god; for this cause he said that the Father made all things by the Word. For suppose one having a son a king, and being about to build a city, to entrust to his son the building of it. As, then, he who says, “By the king’s son the city was built,” does not introduce the king’s son as a slave, but shows that this son has a father, and is not alone; so here too the evangelist, saying that all things were made by the Son, made plain that the Father used Him, so to speak, as a mediator to the creation — not as His inferior, but rather as equal in power, and as strong enough to accomplish so great a charge. And this I say to you also: that if the preposition “by” troubles you, and you seek to find in the Scripture some saying which declares that the Word Himself made all things, hear David: “You, Lord, in the beginning have laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the works of your hands.” You see how he did not say, “By you were the heavens made, and the earth founded,” but, “You have founded,” and, “They are the works of your hands.” And that David says these things concerning the Only-begotten, and not concerning the Father, you may learn both from the Apostle himself, who uses the text in the Epistle to the Hebrews, and from the psalm itself. For having said that “The Lord looked down upon the earth, to hear the groaning, and to loose those that were appointed to death, and to declare in Sion the name of the Lord,” whom else does he signify than the Son of God? For He it was who looked down upon the earth — whether this on which we move, or our nature that was formed of earth, or the flesh, according to the “Earth you are,” which also He assumed — and loosed us who were fettered with the snares of our own sins, the sons of those appointed to death, of Adam and of Eve, and declared in Sion the name of the Lord. For standing in the temple He taught concerning His Father, even as He Himself says: “I have manifested your name to men.” To whom, then, do these things belong — to the Father, or to the Son? All to the Son. For He it was who declared the name of the Father, teaching. After saying these things, then, the blessed David adds: “And you, Lord, in the beginning have laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the works of your hands.” Does he not plainly bring in the Son as Maker, and not as instrument? And if again the preposition “by” seems to you to introduce some lowering, what will you say when Paul sets it upon the Father? For he says: “God is faithful, by whom you were called to the fellowship of his Son.” Does he here make the Father an instrument? And again, “Paul an apostle by the will of God.” But these things are enough; let us return again whence we departed. All things were made by Him. Moses, treating of the visible creation, made nothing plain to us concerning the things intelligible; but the evangelist, comprehending all in one word, says, “All things were made by Him” — both the visible and the intelligible.

⁶ And without him was not any thing made that was made. Since he had said that He created all things, lest any should suppose that He created the Holy Spirit also, he adds that “All things were made by Him.” But what “all things”? The things that came to be. As though he said: Whatever is of created nature, that came to be through the Word; but the Spirit is not of created nature. Therefore “without Him was not any thing made that was made” — which is as much as to say, of the things that have come to be, nothing came to be apart from the power of the Word.

⁷ In him was life, and the life was the light of men. Now the Pneumatomachi read the present passage thus: “And without Him was not any thing made”; then, placing a stop here, they read what follows as from another beginning: “That which was made, in Him was life”; and they interpret the passage according to their own mind, saying that here the evangelist is treating of the Spirit, namely that the Holy Spirit “was life.” These things say the followers of Macedonius, eager to show the Holy Spirit a creature, and to number Him among the things made. But we read it not so; rather, placing the stop at “that was made,” we read “In Him was life” as from another beginning. For since he had spoken concerning the work of creation, that “All things were made by Him,” he speaks thereafter also concerning providence, that He not only created, but is Himself the One who holds together the life of the things created; for “In Him was life.” I know, however, that by one of the saints this passage was read thus: “And without Him was not any thing made that was made in Him”; and then, putting a stop there, he began the next clause, “Life was”; and I think that neither is this reading mistaken, but it holds to the same right meaning. For this saint too understood it in an Orthodox manner, that without the Word not even one thing came to be of what came to be in Him. For all things, as many as have come to be and been created, came to be in Him — I mean in the Word — and apart from Him have not come to be. Then from another beginning: “Life was, and the life was the light of men.” Now the evangelist names the Lord “Life,” as holding together the life of all things, and also as being the procurer of spiritual life to all rational beings. And “Light,” not such a one as is sensible, but intelligible, illuminating the soul itself. And he did not say that He is the light of the Jews only, but of all men. For all men, inasmuch as we received mind and reason from the Word that created us, are in this respect said to be illumined by Him. For the reason given to us, by which we are also called rational, is a light guiding us to the things to be done and the things not to be done.

⁸ And the light shines in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not. The Light, that is, the Word of God, shines in the darkness — that is, in death and in error. For even when He had come to be in death, He so prevailed over it that He compelled it to vomit up even those whom it had already swallowed; and in the error of the Greeks the preaching shines. And the darkness comprehended it not: for neither did death overpower Him, nor error. For unconquerable is this Light, I mean God the Word. But some have understood the “darkness” to be the flesh and this present life. So then, having come to be in the flesh and in this life, the Word shone; and the darkness — I mean the adverse power — set upon Him and pursued the Light, but found it unconquerable and unvanquished. And the flesh is called darkness, not as being such by nature — far from it! — but because of sin. For the flesh, when moved according to nature, has nothing evil whatever; but when moved contrary to nature, and made to serve sin, it both becomes and is called darkness.

⁹ There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. After discoursing to us concerning the existence of God the Word before the ages, since he is about to speak also concerning the incarnation of the Word, he interposes the account of the Forerunner. And what else, indeed? John, being the Forerunner, has also the account of his own coming run before the incarnate birth of the Lord. The evangelist says, then, concerning the Forerunner, that he “was sent from God” — that is, he was dispatched from God; for the false prophets are not from God. But when you hear that he was sent from God, suppose him to say nothing of his own, nothing human, but all things divine. For this cause he is also called an angel; and the virtue of an angel is to say nothing of his own. Yet hearing “angel,” do not think that he was an angel by nature, or that he came down from heaven; but because of his work and ministry he is called an angel. For since he ministered to the preaching and announced the Lord beforehand, for this cause he was called an angel. Wherefore the evangelist also, overturning the supposition of the many — who perhaps thought that John was an angel by nature — says, “There was a man sent from God.”

¹⁰ The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe. This man, he says, the one sent from God, came that he might bear witness concerning the Light. Then, lest any should suppose that the Only-begotten therefore had need of his witness, as being deficient, for this cause he adds that he came to bear witness concerning the Son of God — not as though He needed that man’s witness, but that all might believe through him. Did then all believe through him? No. How then does the evangelist say, “That all might believe”? How? So far as lay in him, for this cause he bore witness, that he might draw all; but if some disbelieved, he is not to be blamed. For the sun also rises for this end, that it may give light to all; but if one shut himself up in a gloomy chamber and enjoy not its ray, what is this to the sun? So here too, John was sent that all might believe; but if this did not come to pass, he is not the cause.

¹¹ He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light. Since for the most part it happens that the one who bears witness is greater than the one witnessed of, lest you should think that John also, bearing witness of Christ, was greater than He, removing this wicked suspicion he says, “He was not that Light.” But one might say: May we then not call John, nor any other of the saints, “light”? We may call each of the saints a light; but “the Light,” with the article, we may not call him. For instance, if one ask you, “Is John a light?” assent; but if he ask thus, “Is John the Light?” say, No. For he is not himself the Light properly, but a light by participation, having his radiance from the true Light.

¹² That was the true Light, which lights every man that comes into the world. He is about to speak concerning the incarnate dispensation of the Only-begotten — that He came to His own, that He became flesh. Therefore, lest any should suppose that before His being made flesh He was not, for this cause he leads up the understanding to the existence that is beyond all beginning, and says: The true Light was, even before being made flesh. And by this he overturns the heresy of Photinus and of Paul of Samosata, who taught that the Only-begotten then came into existence when He was born of Mary, and before this was not. Hear you also, O Arian, who deny the Son of God to be true God, what the evangelist says: “the true Light.” And you too, O Manichean, who say that we are creatures of the evil demiurge, hear that the true Light lights every man. If, then, the evil demiurge is darkness, he could not give light to any; so that we are creatures of the true Light. And how, says one, does He light every man, seeing that we behold some men darkened? So far as in Him lies, He lights all. For tell me, are not all rational? Do not all know by nature the good and its opposite? Have they not the power to conceive the Maker from the things made? So that the reason given to us, which trains us by nature, and which is also called the natural law — this might be called the light given to us by God; but if some have used the reason ill, they have darkened themselves. But some loose this difficulty thus: The Lord, they say, lights every man that comes into the world — that is, into a better order, and that is zealous to adorn his own soul, and not to leave it unadorned and unbeautiful.

¹³ He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. He was in the world, as God present everywhere; but also according to His providential and sustaining power He might be said to be in the world. And yet why do I say this, that He was in the world, when not even the world would have been, had not He Himself made it? On every side he shows Him to be Maker — at once checking the madness of Manes, who says that an evil demiurge brought forth the universe; and also that of Arius, who said the Son of God to be a creature; and at the same time leading every man to the confession of the Maker, that he should not serve the creatures, but worship the Creator. And “the world,” he says, “knew him not” — that is, the common multitude, that cleaves to the affairs of the world. For the name “world” signifies both this universe, as it is here said, that “the world was made by Him,” and also signifies those who are worldly-minded, as it is here said, that “the world knew Him not” — that is, the earthly men; since the saints and the prophets all recognized Him.

¹⁴ He came to his own, and his own received him not. Here most plainly he enters upon the account of the incarnate dispensation, and the whole texture of the thought is such as this: The true Light was in the world without flesh, and was not recognized; then He came also to His own with flesh. And by “His own” you will understand either the whole world, or Judaea, which He chose as the portion of His inheritance, and as His lot, and as His peculiar possession. And “His own received Him not” — either the Jews, or also the rest of men, who were created by Him. And so he laments the folly of men, and marvels at the love of the Master toward man. Being His own, he says, not all received Him. For the Lord draws no man by necessity, but by judgment and free choice.

¹⁵ But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name. Whether bond or free, whether children or old men, whether barbarians or Greeks — as many as received Him, to them gave He power to become children of God. And who are these? They that believe on His name. So that they who received the Word and the true Light, received and welcomed Him through faith. And for what reason did he not say that He made them children of God, but that He gave them power to become children of God? For what reason? Hear: because it does not suffice to the keeping of purity to be baptized, but there is need also of much diligence, so as to preserve unstained the image of adoption stamped in baptism. Wherefore many received indeed through baptism the grace of adoption, but, growing slothful, did not become children of God to the end. And perhaps one might say this also, that many receive Him through believing only — such as those called catechumens — but are not yet become children of God; yet they have the power, if they should will to be baptized, to be deemed worthy also of this grace, I mean of adoption. And one will say this too: that even though through baptism we receive the grace of adoption, yet the perfect we receive at the resurrection, and we hope then to receive the most complete adoption; even as Paul also says, that “we wait for the adoption.” For this cause, then, this evangelist also did not say, “As many as received Him, He made them children of God,” but, “He gave them power to become children of God” — that is, to receive this grace in the age to come. Which were born not of bloods, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. He makes, as it were, a comparison of the divine and the fleshly birth, not without cause reminding us of the fleshly pangs, but in order that we, recognizing through the comparison the ignobility and lowliness of the fleshly birth, may run to the divine grace. He says, then: who were born not of bloods — that is, of the menses; for from these is the nourishment and growth of the embryo; and they say that the seed too is first turned to blood, then is moulded into flesh and the rest of the frame. But since it was likely that one should say that the birth of Isaac too was such as that whereby those born who believe in Christ — for Isaac also was not born of bloods, since the menses had failed Sarah — since therefore it was possible for some to suppose this, he adds the words that follow.

¹⁶ Nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man. For in the case of Isaac, even if the birth was not of bloods, yet it was of the will of man; for the husband doubtless willed that a child should be born to him of Sarah. And “of the will of the flesh,” as Samuel of Hannah. You might say, then, that Isaac was of the will of man, but Samuel of the will of the flesh — that is, of the human flesh; for this barren woman thirsted to obtain a child; or perhaps both apply to both. And if you would learn something further, hear: the union according to the flesh comes either from natural heat — for often one happens to have a warmer constitution, and is from this prone to intercourse (this, then, he named the will of the flesh) — or, through evil habit and an unchaste manner of life, the impulse to intercourse becomes uncontrollable, which he called the will of man, as being the work, not of the natural constitution, but of the man’s incontinence. Or perhaps, since at one time the woman is found prone to intercourse, at another the man, by “the will of man” he signified the lust of the man, and by “the will of the flesh,” that of the woman. And you might fittingly understand by “the will of the flesh” the desire that kindles the flesh to yielding, and by “the will of man” the consent of him who desires to the union, which is the beginning of the act. And he set down both, because many desire, yet are not straightway carried away by the desire, but master it, and do not slip into the act; whereas those who are vanquished, being first inflamed by the flesh and by the desire smouldering within it, are turned aside to the will of union. Fitly, then, the evangelist set the will of the flesh before the will of man, since the desire goes before the union by nature, and both run together of necessity at the coupling. And all these things have been said for the sake of those who often ask foolish questions; since, to speak of what is more to the point, one thought is shown through all these — I mean the setting forth of the lowliness of the fleshly birth. What more, then, have we who believe in Christ than the Israelites under the law? For they too were called sons of God. Great is the difference between us and them. For since the law in all things had a shadow of things to come, it did not even grant the Israelites to have adoption, but as in a type and figure; whereas we, having in truth received the Spirit of God through baptism, cry, “Abba, Father.” But as for them, even as their baptism was typical and shadowy, so also was their adoption, prefiguring ours. Though, then, they were called sons, yet it was in shadow, and they had not the very truth of adoption, as we now have through baptism. And the Word was made flesh. Having said that we become children of God, if we will, who believed in Christ, he adds also the cause of so great a good. For what, he says, procured for us this adoption — do you wish to learn? The Word’s becoming flesh. But when you hear that He was made flesh, do not think that He departed from His own nature and was turned into flesh; for He would not be God, if He were turned and altered; but that, remaining what He was, He became what He was not. But Apollinarius of Laodicea framed a heresy from this text; for he taught that our Lord and God did not assume the perfect nature of man — that is, a body with a rational soul — but flesh only, destitute of a rational and intellectual soul. For what need, says he, had God of a soul, having the Godhead to govern the body, even as we have the soul to direct our body? And he had, as he thought, for support the present text: “And the Word was made flesh.” For he did not say, says he, “He became man,” but “flesh.” So that He did not assume a soul having mind and reason, but flesh without mind and reason. The wretched man, then, was ignorant that the Scripture often names the whole from the part; as, being about to make mention of the whole man, it names him from a part, the soul: “Every soul that is not circumcised, let it be put to death.” For behold, instead of saying “every man,” it said the part, I mean the soul. And again it names the whole from the flesh, as when it says, “And all flesh shall see the salvation of God”; for being about to say “every man,” it used the name of the flesh. So then the evangelist also, instead of saying, “The Word became man,” said, “The Word became flesh,” naming the man from a part, the man that is composed of soul and body. And perhaps, since the flesh is most alien to the divine nature, the evangelist, wishing to declare the boundless condescension of God, made mention of the flesh, that we might be amazed at His unspeakable love toward man — that, for our salvation, He assumed what was alien and wholly strange to His nature, I mean the flesh. For the soul has a certain kinship to God, but the flesh is altogether without communion with Him. For this cause, then, I think the evangelist here used the name of the flesh alone, not as though the thing assumed were destitute of a soul, but for the fuller showing of the wonderful and awful mystery. For if the Word incarnate did not assume a human soul, our souls are yet unhealed; for that which He did not assume, neither did He sanctify. And what a mockery, that the soul, having suffered first (for it was the soul that yielded to the words of the serpent and was deceived in paradise, and then the hand too touched, following its lady and mistress the soul) — that the handmaid, the flesh, should be both assumed and sanctified and healed, but the mistress left unassumed and unhealed! But let Apollinarius perish. As for us, when we hear that the Word was made flesh, we believe that He became perfect man, the Scripture being wont to name the composite man by one part only, either flesh or soul. And by this text Nestorius also is overturned. For he said that not God Himself became man, conceived of the all-pure blood of the holy Virgin, but that the Virgin bore a man; and that this man, being graced with every kind of virtue, had the Word of God joined to him, giving him power against unclean spirits; and from this he taught two sons, one the son of the Virgin, Jesus the man, and another the Son of God joined to the man, and inseparable from him, yet by grace and relation and love, inasmuch as the man was virtuous. These things he prated, willfully deaf to the truth. For had he willed, he too would have heard this blessed evangelist saying, “The Word was made flesh.” Is he not plainly refuted here? For the Word Himself became man. He did not say, “The Word, finding a man, was joined to him,” but, “He Himself became man.” And by this Eutyches too is overturned, and Valentinus, and Manes. For these said that the Word of God appeared in semblance only. Let them hear, then, that “the Word was made flesh.” He did not say, “Flesh was imagined,” or “seemed,” but that “He became” it in truth and substance, and not in seeming and fantasy. For it is absurd and senseless to believe that the Son of God, being and being called Truth, lied as to the incarnation; for such is a fantasy — an utterly false showing. And dwelt among us. Since above he said, “The Word was made flesh,” lest any should suppose that Christ thereafter became one nature, for this cause he adds, “He dwelt among us,” that he might show the two natures, ours and that of the Word. For as the tabernacle is of one nature, and he who dwells in it of another, so also the Word, said to dwell among us — that is, in our nature — would be of another nature than ours. Let the Armenians be ashamed, who maintain one nature. We learn, then, through the “The Word was made flesh,” that the Word Himself became man, and being Son of God, became also Son of a woman, who is also properly called Theotokos, as having given birth to God in the flesh. And through the “He dwelt among us,” we are taught this, to believe two natures in the one Christ. For though He is one according to hypostasis, that is, according to person, yet He is two according to the natures; for He is God and man; and the divine nature and the human could not be one, even though they be contemplated about the one Christ.

¹⁷ And we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth. Since he said, “He was made flesh,” he adds thereafter, “We beheld His glory” — being, that is, in the flesh. For if the Israelites could not look upon the face of Moses made radiant from his converse with God, much less could the apostles have contained the naked Godhead of the Only-begotten, had He not been manifested through the flesh. And we beheld a glory not such as Moses had, nor such as that with which the Cherubim and Seraphim were seen by the prophet, but such a glory as became the only-begotten Son, belonging to Him by nature from the Father. For the “as” here is not of likeness, but of confirmation and of an indisputable defining. As when, beholding a king coming forth with much glory, we say that he came forth as a king — meaning, as one truly and in reality a king — so here too we ought to understand the “as of the only-begotten” as meaning: the glory which we beheld is as that of one truly and in reality the Son. Full of grace and truth. Full of grace, inasmuch as His very word was full of grace, so to speak, even as David says, “Grace is poured into your lips,” and as the evangelist says, that “All marveled at the words of grace that proceeded out of His mouth.” And to all who had need of them He freely gave healings. And He was full of truth, inasmuch as the prophets, and Moses himself, whatever they said or did, all were types; but Christ, the things He said and did, were all full of truth, being Himself grace itself and truth itself, and supplying these to others. And where did they behold the glory? Perhaps some will suppose, on Mount Tabor. And perhaps this too is true; yet not on the mount alone, but in all the things He did and said, they beheld His glory.

¹⁸ John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spoke, He that comes after me is preferred before me: for he was before me. The evangelist continually brings in the witness of John — not making the Master credible from the slave, but because the multitudes had a great opinion of John; for this cause he brings in, to the witness concerning Christ, the John who was reckoned great among them, and on this account believed above all. And the word “cried” shows the great boldness of John. For not in a corner, but with much boldness he cried aloud concerning Christ. And what did he say? “This was he of whom I spoke”; for even before he saw Christ, John bore witness concerning Him. And this was assuredly the good pleasure of God, that he might not seem, in flattery of the person of Christ, to bear the kindlier witness concerning Him. Wherefore he also says, “Of whom I spoke” — that is, even before I saw Him. “He that comes after me,” namely according to the times of birth; for the Forerunner was six months before Christ according to the birth in the flesh. “Is preferred before me” — that is, became more honored and more glorious than I. Why? “Because He was before me,” according to the Godhead. But the Arians have foolishly interpreted this text. For wishing to show that the Son of God was not begotten of the Father, but came to be as one of the creatures, they say: Behold, John bears witness of Him, “He is preferred before me” — that is, He came to be before me, and was created by God as one of the things made. But they are refuted, as misunderstanding the text, by what follows. For what meaning appears in saying that “This One,” namely Christ, “is preferred before me” — that is, was created before me — “because He was before me”? For it is altogether senseless to say, “God created Him before, because He was before me.” For on the contrary he ought rather to have said, “This One is before me, because He is preferred before me” — that is, was created. So much, then, for the sayings of the Arians. But we understand in an Orthodox manner, that He who “comes after me,” according to the birth in the flesh of the Virgin, “is preferred before me” — that is, became more glorious and more honored than I, from the wonders that befell concerning Him, from the place, from the manner of His upbringing, from His wisdom. And fitly so. For He was also “before me,” according to the birth from the Father before the ages, even though He came after me according to the presence in the flesh.

¹⁹ And of his fulness have all we received, and grace for grace. These too are the words of the Forerunner, speaking concerning Christ, that “We all, the prophets, have received of His fulness.” For He has not so much grace as the men inspired by the Spirit, but, being the fount of every good, and of all wisdom and prophecy, He pours it forth abundantly upon all the worthy, and in the pouring forth remains full, and is never diminished. And we received “grace for grace” — that is, the grace of the New Covenant for the grace of the old legislation. For since that Covenant had grown old and was decayed, in place of it we received the New. And how, says one, did he name the Old Covenant “grace”? Because the Jews too were by grace adopted and received. For Scripture says, “Not because you were more in number, but for your fathers’ sakes were you received.” And we likewise, confessedly by grace. For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. He explains to us how we received the greatest grace for a small grace; and he says that the law was given by Moses, God using a man as mediator, I mean Moses; but the New Covenant by Jesus Christ — which is also called grace, because God freely gave us not only the remission of sins, but also adoption. And it is called truth, inasmuch as the things which the ancients either saw or said in type, these the New Covenant proclaimed brightly. The New Covenant, then, which is called both grace and truth, used not a mere man as mediator, but the Son of God. And mark how, of the Old, he said, “It was given by Moses”; for he was a minister and servant. But of the New, he did not say, “It was given,” but, “It came to be,” that he might show the grace and the truth to have come to be by the Lord Jesus Christ, as Master, not as slave, and to have advanced to perfection. For the law was given by God through the mediation of Moses; the grace came to be — not was given — by Jesus Christ. For “came to be” is authoritative, but “was given” is servile. No man has seen God at any time; the only-begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he has declared him. Since he said—

²⁰ For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. Wishing to establish this, that “grace and truth came by Jesus Christ,” he says: I have said nothing incredible. For Moses neither saw God, as neither did any other, nor had he any most clear and plain account to give us concerning Him; but, being a servant, he ministered only to the service of the letter of the law. But Christ, being Son and Only-begotten, and being in the bosom of the Father, not only beholds Him, but also declares Him to all men. So that, since He is Son, and beholds the Father, as being in His bosom, fitly He gave us the grace and the truth. But one will perhaps say: How is it that here we learn that no man has seen God, while the prophet says, “I saw the Lord”? The prophet saw indeed, but not the very essence, but a certain likeness and appearance, so far as he was able to see. And another again saw in another figure, and another in another. Whence it is plain that they did not behold the very truth; for they would not have contemplated in diverse figures that which is simple and without figure. But neither do the angels behold the essence of God, even though they are said to behold the face of God; for this is indicative only of their ever contemplating God. The Son, then, alone beholds the Father, and declares Him to all men. And hearing of the Father’s bosom, suspect nothing bodily concerning God. For wishing to show the genuineness, and the inseparability, and the co-eternity of the Son with the Father, the evangelist made mention of this name.

²¹ And this is the record of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, Who are you? And he confessed, and denied not; but confessed, I am not the Christ. He said above that “John bears witness of Him”; then, having stated in passing what John bore witness concerning Christ — that “He is preferred before me,” and that “We all the prophets have received of His fulness” — he adds, “And this is the record of John.” What record? Both that which he stated above, that “He is preferred before me,” and the rest; but also what he says hereafter, that “I am not the Christ” — these too are the witness of John. The Jews, then, sent to John the better men they had — for they were priests and Levites, and these of Jerusalem — that these, as being more discerning, might persuade John by flattery to confess himself the Christ. But mark their craft: they do not ask him outright, “Are you the Christ?” but, “Who are you?” And he, knowing their malice, does not say who he was, but confesses, “I am not the Christ,” looking to their aim, and on every side drawing them on to believe that the Christ is another — the one reckoned by them mean, and of a mean father (for He was a carpenter’s son), and of a mean homeland, Nazareth, out of which they believed no good thing could be. But concerning the Forerunner himself they had a great opinion; for he was of a high-priestly father, and of an angelic life, and almost without combat. Whence it is just to marvel how, by the very things by which they thought to injure the glory of Christ, they are entangled. For they ask John as one worthy of credit, that they might have his witness as a ground for their unbelief toward Christ, should he not confess Him to be the Christ; but it turned out for them to the contrary. For this man, whom they held worthy of credit, they find bearing witness concerning Christ, and not drawing the honor to himself.

²² And they asked him, What then? Are you Elias? And he says, I am not. Are you that prophet? And he answered, No. Then said they to him, Who are you? that we may give an answer to them that sent us. What do you say of yourself? He said, I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make straight the way of the Lord, as said the prophet Esaias. They expected Elias to come, being persuaded by an ancient tradition; wherefore they ask him whether he is Elias; for indeed his manner of life resembled that of Elias. He denies this also. “Are you that prophet?” He denies this too, although he was a prophet. How then does he deny it? How? Because they did not ask him, “Are you a prophet?” but, “Are you that prophet?” making the question with the article, that is, “that expected prophet of whom Moses said, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up to you.” John did not, then, deny that he was a prophet, but that he was that prophet, the expected one. For since they had heard Moses say that a prophet should arise, they hoped that at certain seasons this prophet should come to be. Then again they press him: “Tell us, then, who are you?” Then he answers them: “I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness.” I, he says, am he concerning whom it is written, “The voice of one crying in the wilderness.” For unless you add the “concerning whom it is written,” the construction of the saying appears strange. And of one crying what? “Make straight the way of the Lord.” I am a servant, he says, and I prepare the way for the Lord in your hearts. Make these straight, you crooked and deceitful, and make them level, that there may be made a way for the Lord Christ through you. Then he brings in Isaiah as witness. For having said great things concerning Christ — that He is Lord, and that he himself plies the work of a servant and herald — he takes refuge in the prophet. And perhaps one might interpret the “I am the voice of one crying” thus: that “I am the voice of Christ who cries” — that is, of Him who plainly proclaims the truth. For all those of the law were of weak utterance, inasmuch as the truth of the Gospel had not its season; and this was the weakness of utterance of Moses, the indistinctness and obscurity of the law. But Christ, as being Himself the truth, and having announced to us all the things of the Father, is one who cries aloud. John, then, says: I am the voice of the Word who cries, passing my life in the wilderness. Then from another beginning: “Make straight the way of the Lord.” Fitly is John called a voice, as being the Forerunner of Christ, even as the voice runs before the word. For — that I may speak more clearly — the voice is an unarticulated breath that issues from the chest; but when it is articulated by the tongue, then it becomes a word. First, then, the voice, then the word: first John, then Christ according to His presence in the flesh. And the baptism of John was unarticulated, for it had not the “in the Spirit”; but that of Christ was articulated, and had nothing of the shadowy and typical; for it was in the Spirit.

²³ And they which were sent were of the Pharisees. And they asked him, and said to him, Why do you baptize then, if you are not that Christ, nor Elias, neither that prophet? Since by flattery they could not catch him, by harsher and more upbraiding words they seek to frighten him, that he might say what they wished, and confess himself the Christ. “Why do you baptize then?” they say; who gave you so great authority? And so far as may be gathered from this saying, it is shown that they reckoned the Christ to be one, and the expected prophet another. For they say: “If you are not the Christ, nor that prophet” — supposing the Christ to be one, and the prophet another, in their ignorance. For the prophet is Himself the Christ and our God. And all these things they said, as I have noted, in order that they might constrain him to confess himself the Christ; or rather — if one must speak the truer thing — out of envy of his glory they ask him. Wherefore they do not even inquire whether he is the Christ, but, “Who are you?” — as if saying, Who are you, that take in hand so great a work, to baptize and to cleanse those that make confession? For the Jews seem to me to wish that not even John should be reputed the Christ among the many, but out of grudge and envy to ask him, “Who are you?” Most accursed, then, are the Jews, who welcomed him while baptizing, but after they were baptized were thankless — truly a generation of vipers.

²⁴ John answered them, saying, I baptize with water: but there stands one among you, whom you know not; he it is, who coming after me is preferred before me, whose shoe’s latchet I am not worthy to unloose. Behold both the meekness of the saint and his truth: his meekness, in that he speaks nothing harsh toward them, though they were insolent; his truth, in that he is a bold witness of the glory of Christ, and does not hide the glory of the Lord, procuring fame for himself, but confesses: I indeed baptize a mean baptism — for it is in water only, having not remission of sins, but preparing men beforehand to receive the spiritual baptism, which bestows the remission of sins. But there stands one among you, whom you know not; for the Lord, mingled with the multitude, was unknown, who He might be and whence. And perhaps one might say that in another way too the Lord stood in the midst of the Pharisees, but they knew Him not. For since they seemed to study the Scriptures, and in these the Lord was proclaimed, He was in their midst — that is, in their hearts — but they knew Him not, as not understanding the Scriptures, even though they had them in their hearts. Or perhaps, inasmuch as the Lord was Mediator of God and men, He stood in the midst of the Pharisees, wishing to reconcile them to God, but they knew Him not. And continually he sets down the “He that comes after me,” showing that his baptism is not perfecting, but a preparing of the way for the spiritual baptism. And the “Is preferred before me” means: more honored, more glorious, and so much so that I am not to be numbered even among the last of His servants; for to unloose the sandal is of the lowest service. And I know an interpretation that I read in one of the saints: The sandal is everywhere taken for the flesh of sinners, subject to corruption; and the latchet, or thong, for the bond of sins. John, then, among the others, those who came forth to him and confessed, had power to loose the thong of sins; for, bound with the cords of their own sins, they came forth to him; and by exhorting them to repentance, he prepared the way for them to cast off this thong altogether, and the sinful sandal. But in the case of Christ, finding no thong — that is, no bond of sin — fitly neither could he loose it. For how could he loose what he found not? For He did no sin, neither was guile found in His mouth. And the sandal is the Lord’s presence among us; and its latchet is the manner of the incarnation, and of how the Word of God was bound together with the body. This manner, then, it is impossible to loose; for who can loose how God was bound together with the body?

²⁵ These things were done in Bethany beyond Jordan, where John was baptizing. For what reason did he say, “These things were done in Bethany”? That he might show the boldness of the great herald, that not in a house, nor in a corner, but having reached the Jordan, in the midst of a multitude he proclaimed these things concerning Christ. But it must be known that the accurate copies read “in Bethabara”; for Bethany is not beyond Jordan, but somewhere near Jerusalem.

²⁶ The next day John sees Jesus coming to him, and says, Behold the Lamb of God, which takes away the sin of the world. Continually the Lord comes to the Forerunner; for what cause? Surely because, having been baptized like one of the many by John, lest some should think that He was baptized as being liable to sins on a par with the rest, the Baptist, wishing to correct this supposition, says: Behold the Lamb of God, which takes away the sin of the world. For He who is so pure as even to take away and abolish the sins of others, plainly would not have received the baptism of confession on a par with the rest. And examine the saying for me also thus: “Behold the Lamb of God” is spoken as to men longing to behold the Lamb proclaimed by Isaiah. Behold the Lamb, he says, that sought-for One — behold, that Lamb is here present. For it was likely that many, having studied the prophetic book of Isaiah, sought who the Lamb might be. John, then, points Him out. And he did not say “a lamb,” but “the Lamb.” For there are many lambs, even as there are many christs; but the true Lamb, the one prefigured by Moses and proclaimed by Isaiah, is this One. And Christ is called the Lamb “of God,” either of God as having accepted the death of Christ for our salvation, or as of God who gave Him for us to death. As we are wont to say, “This sacrifice is so-and-so’s,” meaning, So-and-so offered it; so then the Lord is called the Lamb of God, as of God the Father who, through His love toward us, gave Him to slaughter for us. And he did not say, “Who took away the sin,” but, “Who takes away”; for daily He takes away our sins, some through baptism, others through repentance. And the lambs sacrificed in the Old Covenant utterly abolished the sin of no one; but this One takes away — that is, abolishes, removes out of the midst — the sin of the whole world. And for what cause did he say not “sins,” but “sin”? Perhaps by saying “sin” he spoke universally, as we are wont to say, “Man fell away,” meaning, all humanity, from God; so then here too, saying “the sin,” he signified all sins. Or perhaps, since man, having disobeyed God, was hurled headlong into the passions, the sin of the world was disobedience, which the Lord took away out of the midst, becoming obedient to death, and healing the contrary by the contrary.

²⁷ This is he of whom I said, After me comes a man which is preferred before me: for he was before me. Above, to those who came from the Pharisees, John said, “There stands one among you, whom you know not, who is preferred before me”; but now he even points Him out with the finger, and makes Him manifest to those who knew Him not. This is that One concerning whom I bore witness, he says to the Pharisees, that “He is preferred before me” — that is, more notable than I and more honored. Why? “Because He was before me.” Hear, O Arius: he did not say, “He was created before me,” but, “He was.” Hear too, O confraternity of the Samosatene, that the Lord did not begin to be from Mary, but was before the Forerunner, according to His existence before the ages. For if, as you prate, the Lord took the beginning of His being from Mary, how was He before the Forerunner? For this man plainly precedes the Lord by six months according to the birth in the flesh. And the Lord is called a man, perhaps because of the perfection of His age — for He was baptized at thirty years; perhaps also as being the man of every soul, and the Bridegroom of the Church. For “I have espoused you,” says Paul, “to present you to one husband,” namely to Christ. The Forerunner says, then: I am the bringer of the bride and the matchmaker; but after me comes the man. For I draw souls to faith in Christ; but He is the man who is to be wedded to them.

²⁸ And I knew him not: but that he should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water. And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him. And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said to me, Upon whom you shall see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizes with the Holy Ghost. And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God. Since the Forerunner was a kinsman of the Lord — for the angel says to the Virgin, “Behold, your kinswoman Elizabeth has also conceived” — lest any should suppose that, because of the kinship, the Forerunner shows favor to the Lord and bears such witness concerning Him, for this cause he says repeatedly, “And I knew Him not,” doing away with the suspicions. But that He should be made manifest to Israel, he says, for this cause am I come baptizing. That all, he says, might be guided to faith in Him, and that He might be pointed out to the peoples, for this cause I baptize. For while I baptize, the peoples run together; and when they are gathered, Christ is made manifest to them, being preached by me, and present, He is shown to those present. For unless they had run together because of the baptism, how would the Lord have been pointed out by John? For he could not have gone about the houses and led Christ from house to house, showing Him to each. For this cause, then, he says, I am come baptizing in water, that, while the peoples run together because of the baptism, He might be made manifest by me. And from this we learn that the so-called childhood miracles of Christ are false, and composed by those who wish to mock the mystery. For if they were true, how was the Lord, while doing these things, unknown? For surely it was not likely that one working such wonders should not be renowned. But this is not so, it is not. For before He was baptized He neither did signs nor was known. But He that sent me to baptize said to me, Upon whom you shall see the Spirit descending, the same is He that baptizes with the Holy Ghost. Making, as I said, his witness concerning Christ free from suspicion, John refers the witness to God and the Father. For I, he says, knew Him not, but the Father revealed Him to me at the baptism. But one might ask: If John knew Him not, how does Matthew say that he forbade Him, saying, “I have need to be baptized of you”? It is possible, then, to say this: Understand the “I knew Him not” thus, that for a long time and before the baptism he knew Him not; but at the season of the baptism, then he knew Him. Or it is possible to say otherwise, that he knew Him indeed to be the Christ, but that He Himself is the one to baptize in the Holy Spirit, this he learned then, when he saw the Spirit descending. Saying then, “I knew Him not,” he gives us to understand that he knew not that He is the one to baptize in the Holy Spirit; but that He is above the many, this he knew. Wherefore also, according to Matthew, he forbade Him, knowing Him to be assuredly greater; but when the Spirit came down, then, recognizing Him more clearly, he proclaimed Him also to the rest. And the Spirit was seen by all that were present, and not by John only. Why then, one says, did they not believe? Because their senseless heart was darkened, since even when they saw Him working wonders they believed not. But some say that not all saw, but the more reverent. For even though the Spirit descended bodily, yet it is likely that He was not seen by all, but by the worthy; since the prophets too beheld many things in a sensible form — as Daniel, as Ezekiel — yet no other beheld these things. And I saw, and bare record, that this is the Son of God. And where did John bear witness that He is the Son of God? For nowhere is this written; he calls Him a Lamb, but the Son of God nowhere. Whence it is reasonable to conjecture that many other things too have been omitted; for they did not write down everything.

²⁹ Again the next day after John stood, and two of his disciples; and looking upon Jesus as he walked, he says, Behold the Lamb of God! And the two disciples heard him speak, and they followed Jesus. Because of the slothfulness of his hearers, John is compelled to say the same things, that by the very continuance of the witness he may accomplish something. And so he was not disappointed, but led two disciples to Christ. For being in truth the bringer of the bride, he did all things so as to lead human nature to the Bridegroom; wherefore Christ is silent, as the Bridegroom, but the matchmaker speaks everything. And as a bridegroom the Lord comes to the multitude; for at weddings it is not the bride who goes to the bridegroom, but he to her, even if he be a king’s son. Wherefore also the Lord, being about to wed our nature, came down to it upon the earth; and when the marriage was accomplished, He took it, being taken up to the Father’s house. Looking, then, upon Jesus, John — that is, showing with his very eyes the joy he had in Christ, and his wonder — says, Behold the Lamb! And the disciples, softened by the continual witnesses, followed Jesus, not in contempt of John, but choosing the better things of Christ.

³⁰ Then Jesus turned, and saw them following, and says to them, What seek you? They said to him, Rabbi, (which is to say, being interpreted, Master,) where do you dwell? He says to them, Come and see. They came and saw where he dwelt, and abode with him that day. And it was about the tenth hour. Matthew, having narrated the baptism of the Lord, leads Him straightway up into the mountain to be tempted; but the present evangelist, leaving aside what was said by that one, narrates the things after the descent from the mountain. And the following of John’s disciples, and their coming to Christ, takes place after the descent from the mountain and the temptation; the word showing, I think, that no one ought to set himself up as a teacher unless he first himself, having gone up to the summit of virtue (for this is the mountain) and overcome every temptation, raise the trophy over the tempter. The disciples follow first, then, and only then ask Him where He dwells. For not publicly, with many present, but privately it behooved them to converse, as concerning necessary things. Or rather, neither do they ask first, but Christ Himself leads them on to ask. For He says to them, “What seek you?” — not as ignorant (for how should He who knows the hearts of men be ignorant?), but that through the question He might invite them to say what they wished. For it was likely that they both blushed and feared Him, as one borne witness to by John as above man. But marvel for me at their right disposition. For they not only followed, but also call Him Rabbi, that is, Master, and that when they had as yet heard nothing from Him. But wishing to learn something privately from Him, they ask, “Where do you dwell?” for in quiet it is more convenient to speak and to hear. And the Lord tells them not the marks of the house, but, “Come,” He says, “and see.” And this He does, at once drawing them on the more to the following, and at the same time exercising their longing, whether they would not grow weary on the way; for had they come with a cold mind, they would not have followed even to the house. But how does He elsewhere say, “The Son of man has not where to lay his head,” while here He appears to have a house? This is not contrary to that. For when He says, “He has not where to lay His head,” He does not mean that He had no lodging at all, but that He had none of His own. If, then, He abode in a house, He abode not in His own, but in another’s. And not in vain does the evangelist note the time, “It was about the tenth hour,” but that he may teach both teachers and learners that one ought not to put things off because of the season; the teacher not to defer, and say, “It is late, tomorrow you shall learn”; and the learner to know every season is one of learning, and not to defer his hearing to the morrow. And this too we learn, that they so kept their stomach unburdened and were so sober, that the time which others spend on the body’s rest, weighed down with food and unable to set hand to any earnest work, this they spent on hearing. Truly they were disciples of John the fasting one. And mark for me that Jesus turns toward those who follow Him, and shows them His own face. For unless through good practice you follow Jesus, you will not attain to the contemplation of the Lord’s face, nor will you come to His abiding-place — that is, you will not attain to the illumination of divine knowledge; for the house of Christ is light. For “He dwells,” it says, “in light unapproachable.” For how shall he who has not cleansed himself, and through cleansing followed, be illumined in knowledge?

³¹ One of the two which heard John speak, and followed him, was Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother. He first finds his own brother Simon, and says to him, We have found the Messias, which is, being interpreted, the Christ. And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, You are Simon the son of Jona: you shall be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone. The name of Andrew he makes known to us, but that of the other in no wise. For some say that he was John, the writer of these things; and some, that that man was not of the notable ones; and at the same time there was no gain in learning the name. But of Andrew he makes mention, both as notable, and as having brought his own brother. And mark for me his love of his brother, how he did not hide the good thing from his brother, but shares the treasure with him, and utters a voice of exceeding joy, saying, “We have found”; for, as it seems, of a long time they had longed for and studied the search. And he does not say simply “Messias,” but “the Messias,” with the article — that very One who is properly the Christ. For the one expected by them was one, even though many were called christs and sons of God. And he brought him to Jesus, not as one easy in disposition and carried along by every word, but as keen rather and warm, and apt to receive the words his brother spoke to him concerning Christ. For it is likely that Andrew discoursed more with him, and announced to him accurately the things concerning Christ, inasmuch as he had abode with Christ and been taught certain more mystical things. And if one persists in charging Peter with easiness, let him learn this also, that it is not even written that he straightway believed Andrew, but that he brought him to Jesus — which is rather the mark of a steadfast mind, and not of one carried along. For he did not simply accept Andrew’s words, but wished to see Christ also; that if he should find something worthy of account, he might follow, but if not, withdraw; so that his being brought to Jesus was a token, not of simplicity, but of carefulness. What, then, does the Lord do? From prophesying concerning him, He begins to reveal Himself to him. For since prophecies persuade men no less than signs, and perhaps even more, He prophesies concerning Peter. “For you,” He says, “are Simon the son of Jona”; then also the future: “You shall be called Cephas.” For from speaking the present, He confirms the future also. And He did not say, “I will call you Peter,” but, “You shall be called.” For He did not wish at the outset to display the tokens of His authority, since neither had they firm faith concerning Him. And for what cause does He surname this man Peter, and the sons of Zebedee, sons of thunder? That He might show that He is the same who gave the Old Covenant, and who then, as now, changed the names, calling Abram Abraham, and Sarah Sarrah. And know that Simon is interpreted “obedience,” and Jonah, “dove.” A child, then, of meekness, which is signified by the dove, is obedience; and he who has obedience becomes also Peter, being advanced through obedience to the steadfastness of the good.

³² The day following Jesus would go forth into Galilee, and finds Philip, and says to him, Follow me. Now Philip was of Bethsaida, the city of Andrew and Peter. Philip finds Nathanael, and says to him, We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph. Andrew, having heard the Forerunner, and Peter, having heard Andrew, followed Jesus; but Philip appears to have heard nothing, and yet straightway followed the Lord when He said to him, “Follow me.” Whence, then, was he so quickly persuaded? It is likely, then, that first the Lord’s voice wrought in his soul some sting of love. For the Savior’s voice was not spoken simply, but to the worthy it straightway set the inward parts on fire to love of Him; even as those about Cleopas say, “Did not our heart burn within us, while He talked with us by the way?” And then also, because Philip had a careful heart, and continually studied the things of Moses, and ever expected the Christ, straightway when he saw Him he was persuaded; wherefore also he says, “We have found Jesus” — showing that he sought Him. And perhaps from Andrew and Peter he had learned concerning Christ. For being of the same homeland, it is likely that these, conversing with him, narrated concerning the Lord; which the evangelist too seems to hint at by saying, “Now Philip was of the city of Andrew and Peter.” And this was a small city, and rather to be called a village. Whence also it is worthy to marvel at the power of Christ, that from those bearing no fruit He chose the chief of His disciples. Nor, then, does Philip keep the good thing to himself, but imparts it also to Nathanael. And since Nathanael was learned in the law, Philip refers him to the law and the prophets; for he was exact and well-versed in the things of the law. And he calls the Lord the son of Joseph, since He was reckoned that man’s child; and he names Him from Nazareth, though properly He was from Bethlehem. For in the latter He was born, but in Nazareth He was brought up; His birth was hidden, but His upbringing was known, from Nazareth.

³³ And Nathanael said to him, Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth? Philip says to him, Come and see. Jesus saw Nathanael coming to him, and says of him, Behold an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile! Nathanael says to him, Whence do you know me? Jesus answered and said to him, Before that Philip called you, when you were under the fig tree, I saw you. Philip said that Christ was from Nazareth; but Nathanael, as being more exact, knew from the Scriptures that the Christ must come from Bethlehem; and for this cause he says, “Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth?” And Philip says, “Come and see,” knowing that if he should taste the words of Christ, he would not stand off. And Nathanael is praised by Christ as “an Israelite indeed,” since he said nothing for favor or for enmity. For his words were not of unbelief, but of carefulness and of a law-learned mind, which knew that the Christ comes not from Nazareth but from Bethlehem. What, then, does Nathanael? Was he puffed up by the praise? By no means; but he remains seeking to learn something more plainly and exactly; wherefore also he asks, “Whence do you know me?” And the Lord, by saying to him what no one knew — the counsel between him and Philip, as having been spoken and done in private — reveals His own Godhead. For Philip in private, with no one present, had conversed with Nathanael under the fig tree; and all these things Christ, though not present, knew; wherefore He says, “When you were under the fig tree, I saw you.” And before Philip drew near, the Lord spoke concerning Nathanael, lest any should suspect that Philip had told what concerned the fig tree and the rest, which he discoursed with Nathanael. Whence Nathanael, recognizing the Lord, confessed Him to be the Son of God. For hear what he says.

³⁴ Nathanael answered and says to him, Rabbi, you are the Son of God; you are the King of Israel. Jesus answered and said to him, Because I said to you, I saw you under the fig tree, do you believe? you shall see greater things than these. And he says to him, Truly, truly, I say to you, Hereafter you shall see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man. Great is the power of prophecy to the drawing of some to faith, and it has power even greater than the wonders. For the wonders the demons too can counterfeit in fantasy; but the foreknowledge and foretelling of things to come no one has accurately, neither angel, nor much less the demons. Wherefore the Lord drew Nathanael, telling him both the place, and that Philip had called him, and that he is truly an Israelite. Nathanael, then, hearing these things, comes to a sense of the Lord’s majesty, so far as was then possible, and confesses Him to be the Son of God. Yet, even though he confesses Him to be the Son of God, he does so not as Peter did. For Peter confessed Him to be the Son of God as true God; wherefore he is also called blessed, and is entrusted with the Church. But Nathanael confessed Him as a mere man, adopted of God by grace because of his virtue; and this is plain from his adding, “You are the King of Israel.” Do you see that he had not yet attained to the perfect knowledge of the true Godhead of the Only-begotten? For he believes Him to be a God-beloved man, and the King of Israel. But had he confessed Him truly to be God, he would not have called Him King of Israel, but King of all; wherefore neither is he called blessed, as Peter was. Whence also the Lord, correcting him, and leading him up to conceive something worthy of His Godhead, says, “You shall see the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man.” Do not suppose me, He says, a mere man, but Master of the angels. For He whom angels minister to could not be a mere man, but true God. And on the cross and at the ascension these things came to pass. For at the time of the Passion an angel from heaven strengthened Him; and at the tomb, an angel; and at the ascension, as Luke records. But some have understood by the fig tree the law, which has a fruit sweetening for a season, but which, by the harshness of the legal observances and the difficulty of the commandments, is as it were covered with leaves. They say, then, that the Lord beheld Nathanael — that is, looked graciously upon him — and perceived his understanding, while he was yet under the law. And do you too set your mind on this, if you are charmed by such things: that the Lord saw Nathanael under the fig tree — that is, under the law, within the law, searching out its depths. For unless he had searched out the depths of the law, the Lord would not have seen him. And know this too, that Galilee is interpreted “that which rolls down.” The Lord went forth, then, to the rolling-down region of this world — both human nature, and us who are under the fig tree, that is, under pleasurable sin (with which no little sharpness is joined, by reason of the repentance and the chastisements there); and, as one who loves mankind, He beheld and chose those who confess Him Son of God, and King of Israel, the Israel that sees God. And if we should strain our diligence, He will deem us worthy of greater sights, and we shall see the angels ascending to the height of His divine knowledge, and again descending, through their not attaining to comprehend, when the mind dwells upon the doctrines concerning the Godhead of the Only-begotten and concerning the descent into Hades.