The Divine Lamp

John’s Eucharistic catechesis begins in 4:4 and extends to 12:11.  In the overall structure of John’s Gospel this consists of parts 2, 3, and 4 of his Gospel.  Parts 2 and 4 are structured according to the law of reverse parallelism.  This sort of structure is usually outlined in a A1, B1, C, B2, A2 format.  In such a structure A1 parallels A2, and B1 parallels B2; the parallels being built around the central section C.  For this reason the structure is often called “concentric circle presentation.”  Below I give an outline which give a very basic indication of the parallelism of parts 2 and 4.  Below the outline I will give more details concerning the parallels and focus on the Eucharistic elements.

Part 2:  4:4-6:15

A1. (4:4-38)    A half-JEWISH woman in SAMARIA BELIEVES.
B1. (4:39-45)  The half- JEWISH SAMARITANS from the TOWN  BELIEVE.
C.   (4:46-52)  The royal official believes (he is probably Pagan)
B2. (5:1-47)    Full JEWS from the CITY OF JERUSALEM  refuse to BELIEVE.
A2. (6:1-15)    JEWS from GALILEE refuse to BELIEVE

Part 3:  6:16-21  Walking on the water.

Part 4: 6:22-12:11

A1. ( 6:22-71)  EATING leads to being RAISED UP to eternal LIFE. JUDAS’ BETRAYAL.  Peter’s CONFESSIONOF FAITH.
B1. (7:1-8:59)  The FEAST of tabernacles (This feast celebrated God’s dwelling with the people in the temple)
C.   (9:1-10:21) Jesus heals a blind man, calls the jewish leaders blind and calls himself the good shepherd.
B2. (10:22-39)  The FEAST of Dedication (sometimes called “second Tabernacles”.  Like that feast it celebrate God’s dwelling in the temple)
A2. (10:40-12:11) Jesus says, “I am the RESURRECTION  and the LIFE.  He eats with Lazarus whom he RAISED.  JUDAS’ BETRAYAL.  Martha’s CONFESSION OF FAITH.

Notes on Part 2 (4:4-6:15).

In the A1 section (4:4-38) Jesus comes from Judea and enters the land of the half-pagan Samaritans and sits down  in a field (chorion) because he is worked out (kopiao=wearied).  The disciples go into the town to buy (agorazo= purchase in the marketplace) food (trophe=food, nourishment).  Jesus engages a Samaritan woman in conversation by asking her for a drink, and tells her he has water to give her to drink. He also talks about true worship when asked on which mountain (oros) God is worshipped.  The reference to buying and worship and mountain are not unimportant here, for earlier in the Gospel Jesus had chased the money-changers and sellers out of the temple (located on a mountain), telling them that they had made the temple market-place (emporion, synonymous with agora).   The disciples return and bid Jesus to eat the food they had with them.  Jesus responds by saying “I have food to eat of which you do not know” causing the disciples to wonder if someone had brought him food.  Jesus responds: My food is to do the work of the one who sent me, and accomplish His work…lift up your eyes and see the fields are already white ripe for the harvest.  The reaper is already receiving his payment (misthos=wages) and gathering crops for eternal life, so that the sower and reaper can rejoice together.  For here the saying holds true that ‘one sows and another reaps.’  I sent you to reap what you have not worked (kopiao) for; others have done the work (kopiao), and you are sharing in the fruit of their labor (kopos).”

Most of the highlighted words in the above passage re-appear in the A2 section (6:1-15) of part 2 of the Gospel (4:4-6:15).  There are also some conceptual and thematic parallels as well.

In 6:1-15 Jesus travels from Judea to Galilee, a territory with a heavy pagan population.  He goes up a mountain and sits down with his disciples.  Jesus lifts up his eyes and sees a large crowd coming to him (here I should note that in 4:35 when Jesus tells his disciples to lift up their eyes to see the ripe fields the samariatan townspeople are coming to him, verse 30).  He asks Philip: “Where can we buy enough food for these people to eat?“  John adds that Jesus “said this to test him, for he himself knew what he would do.”  All of this recalls to mind the events in Samaria.  The disciples did not know that he had food until he told them that his food  was to do God’s will and work.  Jesus clearly expects Philip to remember this, but Philip says “two hundred days workers pay (wages) would not be enough for each to get a little.”  Clearly he had not understood Jesus words in Samaria.  Andrew introduces a boy with some bread and fish and Jesus tells the disciples to have the people recline (sit back), for, John notes, there was a great deal of grass (chortos, related to chorian=field) in the place.  Jesus then takes the bread and gives thanks (eucharisteo=Eucharist), then gives it to the people.  He then commands his disciples to gather up the fragments lest anything perish (an allusion to the harvest for eternal life theme in Samaria).  The people misunderstand the sign and Jesus goes into the mountains alone.

These parallels are certainly impressive.  When seen in connection with the A1 (6:22-71) and A2 (10:40-12:11) sections of part 4 (6:22-12:11), the overall meaning of them becomes clear.  In my next post on this subject I will look at the bread of life discourse (6:22-71) where Jesus tells us we must eat his flesh and drink his blood, rather than work for food which perishes, so that we may be raised up on the last day. I will also look at the raising of Lazarus by Jesus (10:40-12:11), who is the resurrection and the life, and who reclined at table with Lazarus after he raised him from the dead.

Share This

Outline:

A1)  2:1-2  And the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and the mother of Jesus was there; and Jesus was also bidden, and his disciples, to the marriage.

B1)  2:3-5  When the wine failed, the mother of Jesus saith unto him, “they have no wine.”  And Jesus saith unto her, “Woman, what have you to do with me?  Mine hour is not yet come.”  His mother saith unto the servants, “whatsoever he saith unto you, do it.

C)    2:6-8  Now there were six waterpots of stone set there in accord with the Jew’s manner of purifying, containing twenty or thirty gallons each.  Jesus saith unto them, “fill the water pots with water.”  And they filled them up to the brim.  And he saith unto them, “draw some out now and take it to the steward of the feast.”  So they took it.
B2)  2:9-10  And when the steward of the feast tasted the water now made (Gr. ginomai) wine, and knew not whence it was from (but the servants that had drawn the water knew), the steward of the feast calleth the bridegroom, and saith unto him, “Every man sets out first the good wine; and when men have drunk freely, then that which is worse; but you have kept the good wine until know.”

A2)  2:11-12  This beginning of his signs did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and manifested his glory; and his disciples believed in him.  After this he went down to Capernaum, he, and his mother, and his brethren, and his disciples; and they abode there not many days.

Notice how the A1 and A2 sections parallel one another.  Both narrate a change in place, involving going to (A1) and away from (A2) Cana of Galilee. Each movement is associated with a short period of days.  Jesus, his mother, and the disciples are mentioned.

In B1 and B2 parallels are seen between wine and servants. 

This sort of reverse parallelism is known as “concentrism”, “complex inclusion-conclusion narrative,” or “concentric circle presentation,” and it is a very popular literary device in Johns Gospel and the Bible as a whole.

The center around which the parallels are built (the “C” section, vss 6-8) often provide and interpretive key to the overall narrative.  In this case, the “C” section is what scholars call  “command and compliance narrative.”  Jesus issues a command and it is fullfilled.  The result of this is that the servants “know” where the good wine came from and the “disciples” see manifested Jesus’ glory and believe in him.

As I noted in a previous post, 2:1-12 forms the second part of a broader literary unit, 1:19-4:3, which itself is concentrically arraigned:

A1. ( 1:19-51)  The WITNESS  of the BAPTIST and the call of the first DISCIPLES.
B1. (2:1-12)     WATER MADE (Greek: GINOMAI) wine.  MOTHER.  DO whatever HE tells you.  Jars filled “TO THE BRIM” (Gr.  ANO=literally “ABOVE“)
C.   (2:13-25)   Jesus purifies temple.  Speaks about the destruction of His temple/body.
B2  (3:1-21)     A man must be BORN (Gr. GENNAO) from ABOVE (Gr. ANO) of WATER and Spirit rather than again by his MOTHER.  DOING DEEDS in                                         the LIGHT (parallels HE in B1).
A2  (3:22-4:3)   The BAPTISTS  gives a second WITNESS.  This is motivated by the fact that Jesus is making more DISCIPLES than the BAPTIST

Notice how the Cana episode, where water is literally “born” into wine, parallels the discourse to Nicodemus about rebirth through water and Spirit.  Only those who do whatever Jesus tells them to do (2:5), who come to Jesus the light (1:4-5), and do deeds in the light (3:19-21), can understand where the good wine of a new life comes from.  Those who are reluctant to come to Jesus cannot understand this (3:10-11).

In the near future I will post verse note on 2:1-12, and, when I come to the discourse to Nicodemus I will enter into more detail concerning the the parallels.

Share This

When I give heed to what we have just read from the apostolic lesson, that “the natural man perceiveth not the things which are of the Spirit of God,”1 and consider that in the present assembly, my beloved, there must of necessity be among you many natural men, who know only according to the flesh, and cannot yet raise themselves to spiritual understanding, I am in great difficulty how, as the Lord shall grant, I may be able to express, or in my small measure to explain, what has been read from the Gospel, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God;” for this the natural man does not perceive. What then, brethren? Shall we be silent for this cause? Why then is it read, if we are to be silent regarding it? Or why is it heard, if it be not explained? And why is it explained, if it be not understood? And so, on the other hand, since I do not doubt that there are among your number some who can not only receive it when explained, but even understand it before it is explained, I shall not defraud those who are able to receive it, from fear of my words being wasted on the ears of those who are not able to receive it. Finally, there will be present with us the compassion of God, so that perchance there may be enough for all, and each receive what he is able, while he who speaks says what he is able. For to speak or the matter as it is, who is able? I venture to say, my brethren, perhaps not Jn himself spoke of the matter as it is, but even he only as he was able; for it was man that spoke of God, inspired indeed by God, but still man. Because he was inspired he said something; if he had not been inspired, he would have said ‘nothing;’ but because a man inspired, he spoke not the whole, but what a man could he spoke.

2. For this John, dearly beloved brethren, was one of those mountains concerning which it is written: “Let the mountains receive peace for thy people, and the hills righteousness.”2 The mountains are lofty souls, the hills little souls. But for this reason do the mountains receive peace, that the hills may be able to receive righteousness. What is the righteousness which the hills receive? Faith, for” the just doth live by faith.”3 The smaller souls, however, would not receive faith unless the greater souls, which are called mountains, were illuminated by Wisdom herself, that they may be able to transmit to the little ones what the little ones can receive; and the hills live by faith, because the mountains receive peace. By the mountains themselves it was said to the Church, “Peace be with you;” and the mountains themselves in proclaiming peace to the Church did not divide themselves against Him from whom they received peace,4 that truly, not feignedly, they might proclaim peace.

3. For there are other mountains which cause shipwreck, on which, if any one drive his ship, she is dashed to pieces. For it is easy, when land is seen by men in peril, to make a venture as it were to reach it; but sometimes land is seen on a mountain, and rocks lie hid under the mountain; and when any one makes for the mountain, he falls on the rocks, and finds there not rest, but wrecking. So there have been certain mountains, and great have they appeared among men, and they have created heresies and schisms, and have divided the Church of God; but those who divided the Church of God were not those mountains concerning which it is said, “Let the mountains receive peace for thy people.” For in what manner have they received peace who have severed unity?

4. But those who received peace to proclaim it to the people have made Wisdom herself an object of contemplation, so far as human hearts could lay hold on that which “eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither has ascended into the heart of man.”5 If it has not ascended into the heart of man, how has it ascended into the heart of John? Was not John a man? Or perhaps neither into John’s heart did it ascend, but John’s heart ascended into it? For that which ascends into the heart of man is from beneath, to man; but that to which the heart of man ascends is above, from man. Even so brethren, can it be said that, if it ascended into the heart of Jn (if in any way it can be said), it ascended into his heart in so far as he was not man. What means “was not man”? In so far as he had begun to be an angel. For all saints are angels, since they are messengers of God. Therefore to carnal and natural men, who are not able to perceive the things that are of God, what says the apostle? “For whereas ye say, I am of Paul, I of Apollos, are ye not men?,6 What did he wish to make them whom, he upbraided because they were men? Do you wish to know what he wished to make them? Hear in the Psalms: “I have said, ye are gods; and all of you are children of the Most High.”7 To this, then, God calls us, that we be not men. But then will it be for the better that we be not men, if first we recognize the fact that we are men, that is, to the end that we may rise to that height from humility; lest, when we think that we are something when we are nothing, we not only do not receive what we are not, but even lose what we are.

5. Accordingly, brethren, of these mountains was Jn also, who said, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” This mountain had received peace; he was contemplating the divinity of the Word. Of what sort was this mountain? How lofty? He had risen above all peaks of the earth, he had risen above all plains of the sky, he had risen above all heights of the stars, he had risen above all choirs and legions of the angels. For unless he rose above all those things which were created, he would not arrive at Him by whom all things were made. You cannot imagine what he rose above, unless you see at what he arrived. Dost thou inquire concerning heaven and earth? They were made. Dost thou inquire concerning the things that are in heaven and earth? Surely much more were they made. Dost thou inquire concerning spiritual beings, concerning angels, archangels, thrones, dominions, powers, principalities? These also were made. For when the Psalm enumerated all these things, it finished thus: “He spoke, and they were made; He commanded, and they were created.”8 If “He spoke and they were made,” it was by the Word that they were made; but if it was by the Word they were made, the heart of Jn could not reach to that which he says, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God,” unless he had risen above all things that were made by the Word. What a mountain this! How holy! How high among those mountains that received peace for the people of God, that the hills might receive righteousness!

6. Consider, then, brethren, if perchance Jn is not one of those mountains concerning whom we sang a little while ago, “I have lifted up mine eyes to the mountains, from whence shall come my help.” Therefore, my brethren, if you would understand, lift up your eyes to this mountain, that is, raise yourselves up to the evangelist, rise to his meaning. But, because though these mountains receive peace he cannot be in peace who places his hope in man, do not so raise your eyes to the mountain as to think that your hope should be placed in man; and so say, “I have lifted up mine eyes to the mountains, from whence shall come my help,” that you immediately add, “My help is from the Lord, who made heaven and earth.”9 Therefore let us lift our eyes to the mountains, from whence shall come our help; and yet it is not in the mountains themselves that our hope should be placed, for the mountains receive what they may minister to us; therefore, from whence the mountains also receive there should our hope be placed. When we lift our eyes to the Scriptures, since it was through men the Scriptures were ministered, we are lifting our eyes to the mountains, from whence shall come our help; but still, since they were men who wrote the Scriptures, they did not shine of themselves, but “He was the true worllight,10 who lighteth every man that cometh into the d.” A mountain also was that Jn the Baptist, who said, “I am not the Christ,”11 lest any one, placing his hope in the mountain, should fall from Him who illuminates the mountain. He also confessed, saying, “Since of His fullness have all we received.”12 So thou oughtest to say, “I have lifted up mine eyes to the mountains, from whence shall come my help,” so as not to ascribe to the mountains the help that comes to thee; but continue and say, “My help is from the Lord, who made heaven and earth.”

7. Therefore, brethren, may this be the result of my admonition, that you understand that in raising your hearts to the Scriptures (when the gospel was sounding forth, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God,” and the rest that was read), you were lifting your eyes to the mountains, For unless the mountains said these things, you would not find out how to think of them at all. Therefore from the mountains came your help, that you even heard of these things; but you cannot yet understand what you have heard. Call for help from the Lord, who made heaven and earth; for the mountains were enabled only so to speak as not of themselves to illuminate, because they themselves are also illuminated by hearing. Thence John, who said these things, received them-he who lay on the Lord’s breast, and from the Lord’s breast drank in what he might give us to drink. But he gave us words to drink. Thou oughtest then to receive understanding from the source from which he drank who gave thee to drink; so that thou mayest lift up thine eyes to the mountains from whence shall come thine aid, so that from thence thou mayest receive, as it were, the cup, that is, the word, given thee to drink; and yet, since thy help is from the Lord, who made heaven and earth, thou mayest fill thy breast from the source from which he filled his; whence thou saidst, “My help is from the Lord, who made heaven and earth:” let him, then, fill who can. Brethren, this is what I have said: Let each one lift up his heart in the manner that seems. fitting, and receive what is spoken. But perhaps you will say that I am more present to you than God, Far be such a thought from you! He is much more present to you; for I appear to your eyes, He presides over your consciences. Give me then your ears, Him your hearts, that you may fill both. Behold, your eyes, and those your bodily senses, you lift up to us; and yet not to us, for we are not of those mountains, but to the gospel itself, to the evangelist himself: your hearts, however, to the Lord to be filled. Moreover, let each one so lift up as to see what he lifts up, and whither. What do I mean by saying, “what he lifts up, and whither?” Let him see to it what sort of a heart he lifts up, because it is to the Lord he lifts it up, lest, encumbered by a load of fleshly pleasure, it fall ere ever it is raised. But does each one see that he bears a burden of flesh? Let him strive by continence to purify that which he may lift up to God. For “Blessed are the pure in heart, because they shall see God.”13

8. But let us see what advantage it is that these words have sounded, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” We also uttered words when we spoke. Was it such a word that was with God? Did not those words which we uttered sound and pass away? Did God’s Word, then, sound and come to an end? If so, how were all things made by it, and without it was nothing made? how is that which it created ruled by it, if it sounded and passed away? What sort of a word, then, is that which is both uttered and passes not away? Give ear, my beloved, it is a great matter. By everyday talk, words here become despicable to us, because through their sounding and passing away they are despised, and seem nothing but words. But there is a word in the man himself which remains within; for the sound proceeds from the mouth. There is a word which is spoken in a truly spiritual manner, that which you understand from the sound, not the sound itself. Mark, I speak a word when I say “God.” How short the word which I have spoken-four letters and two syllables!14 Is this all that God is, four letters and two syllables? Or is that which is signified as costly as the word is paltry? What took place in thy heart when thou heardest “God “? What took place in my heart when I said “God “? A certain great and perfect substance was in our thoughts, transcending every changeable creature of flesh or of soul. And if I say to thee, “Is God changeable or unchangeable?” thou wilt answer immediately, “Far be it from me either to believe or imagine that God is changeable: God is unchangeable.” Thy soul, though small, though perhaps still carnal, could not answer me otherwise than that God is unchangeable: but every creature is changeable; how then weft thou able to enter, by a glance of thy spirit, into that which is above the creature, so as confidently to answer me, “God is unchangeable”? What, then, is that in thy heart, when thou thinkest of a certain substance, living, eternal, all-powerful, infinite, everywhere present, everywhere whole, nowhere shut in? When thou thinkest of these qualities, this is the word concerning God in thy heart. But is this that sound which consists of four letters and two syllables? Therefore, whatever things are spoken and pass away are sounds, are letters, are syllables. His word which sounds passes away; but that which the sound signified, and was in the speaker as he thought of it, and in the hearer as he understood it, that remains while the sounds pass away.

9. Turn thy attention to that word. Thou canst have a word in thy heart, as it were a design born in thy mind, so that thy mind brings forth the design; and the design is, so to speak, the offspring of thy mind, the child of thy heart. For first thy heart brings forth a design to construct some fabric, to set up something great on the earth; already the design is conceived, and the work is not yet finished: thou seest what thou wilt make; but another does not admire, until thou hast made and constructed the pile, and brought that. fabric into shape and to completion; then men regard the admirable fabric, and admire the design of the architect; they are astonished at what they see, and are pleased with what they do not see: who is there who can see a design? If, then, on account of some great building a human design receives praise, do you wish to see what a design of God is the Lord Jesus Christ, that is, the Word of God? Mc this fabric of the world. View what was made by the Word, and then thou wilt understand what is the nature of the world. Mc these two bodies of the world, the heavens and the earth. Who will unfold in words the beauty of the heavens? Who will unfold in words the fruitfulness of the earth? Who will worthily extol the changes of the seasons? Who will worthily extol the power of seeds? You see what things I do not mention, lest in giving a long list I should perhaps tell of less than you can call up to your own minds. From this fabric, then, judge the nature of the Word by which it was made: and not it alone; for all these things are seen, because they have to do with the bodily sense. By that Word angels also were made; by that Word archangels were made, powers, thrones, dominions, principalities; by that Word were made all things. Hence, judge what a Word this is.

10. Perhaps some one now answers me, “Who so conceives this Word?” Do not then imagine, as it were, some paltry thing when thou hearest “the Word,” nor suppose it to be words such as thou hearest them every day-“he spoke such words,” “such words he uttered,” “such words you tell me;” for by constant repetition the term word has become, so to speak, worthless. And when thou hearest, “In the beginning was the Word,” lest thou shouldest imagine something worthless, such as thou hast been accustomed to think of when thou weft wont to listen to human words, hearken to what thou must think of: “The Word was God.”

11. Now some unbelieving Arian may come forth and say that “the Word of God was made.” How can it be that the Word of God was made, when God by the Word made all things? If the Word of God was itself also made, by what other Word was it made? But if thou sayest that there is a Word of the Word, I say, that by which it was made is itself the only Son of God. But if thou dost not say there is a Word of the Word, allow that that was not made by which all things were made. For that by which all things were made could not be made by itself. Believe the evangelist then. For he might have said, “In the beginning God made the Word:” even as Moses said, “In the beginning God made the heavens and the earth;” and enumerates all things thus: “God said, Let it be made, and it was made.”15 If “said,” who said? God. And what was made? Some creature. Between the speaking of God and the making of the creature, what was there by which it was made but the Word? For God said, “Let it be made, and it was made.” This Word is unchangeable; although changeable things are made by it, the Word itself is unchangeable.

12. Do not then believe that that was made by which were made all things, lest thou be not new-made by the Word, which makes all things new. For already hast thou been made by the Word, but it behoves thee to be new-made by the Word. If, however, thy belief about the Word be wrong, thou wilt not be able to be new-made by the Word. And although creation by the Word has happened to thee, so that thou hast been made by Him, thou art unmade by thyself: if by thyself thou art unmade, let Him who made thee make thee new: if by thyself thou hast been made worse, let Him who created thee re-create thee. But how can He re-create thee by the Word, if thou boldest a wrong opinion about the Word? The evangelist says, “In the beginning was the Word;” and thou sayest, “In the beginning the Word was made.” He says, “All things were made by Him;” and thou sayest that the Word Himself was made. The evangelist might have said, “In the beginning the Word was made:” but what does he say? “In the beginning was the Word.” If He was, He was not made; that all things might be made by it, and without Him nothing be made. If, then, “in the beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God;” if thou canst not imagine what it is, wait till thou art grown. That is strong meat: receive thou milk that thou mayest be nourished, and be able to receive strong meat.

13. Give good heed to what follows, brethren, “All things were made by Him, and without Him was nothing made,” so as not to imagine that “nothing” is something. For many, wrongly understanding “without Him was nothing made,” are wont to fancy that “nothing” is something. Sin, indeed, was not made by Him; and it is plain that sin is nothing, and men become nothing when they sin. An idol also was not made by the Word ;-it has indeed a sort of human form, but man himself was made by the Word;-for the form of man in an idol was not made by the Word, and it is written, “We know that an idol is nothing.”16 Therefore these things were not made by the Word; but whatever was made in the natural manner, whatever belongs to the creature, everything that is fixed in the sky, that shines from above, that flies under the heavens, and that moves in universal nature, every creature whatsoever: I will speak more plainly, brethren, that you may understand me; I will say, from an angel even to a worm. What more excellent than an angel among created things? what lower than a worm? He who made the angel made the worm also; but the angel is fit for heaven, the worm for earth. He who created also arranged. If He had placed the worm in heaven, thou mightest have found fault; if He had willed that angels should spring from decaying flesh, thou mightest have found fault: and yet God almost does this, and He is not to be found fault with. For all men born of flesh, what are they but worms? and of these worms God makes angels. For if the Lord Himself says, “But I am a worm and no man,”17 who will hesitate to say what is written also in Job, “How much more is man rottenness, and the son of man a worm?”18 First he said, “Man is rottenness;” and afterwards, “The son of man a worm:” because a worm springs from rottenness, therefore “man is rottenness,” and “the son of man a worm.” Behold what for thy sake He was willing to become, who “in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God!” Why did He for thy sake become this? That thou mightest suck, who wert not able to chew. Wholly in this sense, then, brethren, understand “All things were made by Him, and without Him was nothing made.” For every creature, great and small, was made by Him: by Him were made things above and things beneath; spiritual and corporeal, by Him were they made. For no form, no structure, no agreement of parts, no substance whatever that can have weight, number, measure, exists but by that Word, and by that Creator Word, to whom it is said, “Thou hast ordered all things in measure, and in number, and in weight.”19

14. Therefore, let no one deceive you, when perchance you suffer annoyance from flies. For some have been mocked by the devil, and taken with flies. As fowlers are accustomed to put flies in their traps to deceive hungry birds, so these have been deceived with flies by the devil. Some one or other was suffering annoyance from flies; a Manichaean found him in his trouble, and when he said that he could not bear flies, and hated them exceedingly, immediately the Manichaean said, “Who made them?” And since he was suffering from annoyance, and hated them, he dared not say, “God made them,” though he was a Catholic. The other immediately added, “If God did not make them, who made them?” “Truly,” replied the Catholic, “I believe the devil made them.” And the other immediately said, “If the devil made the fly, as I see you allow, because you understand the matter well, who made the bee, which is a little larger than the fly?” The Catholic dared not say that God made the bee and not the fly, for the case was much the same. From the bee he led him to the locust; from the locust to the lizard; from the lizard to the bird; from the bird to the sheep; from the sheep to the cow; from that to the elephant, and at last to man; and persuaded a man that man was not made by God. Thus the miserable man, being troubled with the flies, became himself a fly, and the property of the devil. In fact, Beelzebub, they say, means “Prince of flies;” and of these it is written, “Dying flies deprive the ointment of its sweetness.”20

15. What then, brethren? why have I said these things? Shut the ears of your hearts against the wiles of the enemy. Understand that God made all things, and arranged them in their orders. Why, then, do we suffer many evils from a creature that God made? Because we have offended God? Do angels suffer these things? Perhaps we, too, in that life of theirs, would have no such thing to fear. For thy punishment, accuse thy sin, not the Judge. For, on account of our pride, God appointed that tiny and contemptible creature to torment us; so that, since man has become proud and has boasted himself against God, and, though mortal, has oppressed mortals, and, though man, has not acknowledged his fellowman,-since he has lifted himself up, he may be brought low by gnats. Why art thou inflated with human pride? Some one has censured thee, and thou art swollen with rage. Drive off the gnats, that thou mayest sleep: understand who thou art. For, that you may know, brethren, it was for the taming of our pride these things were created to be troublesome to us, God could have humbled Pharaoh’s proud people by bears, by lions, by serpents; He sent flies and frogs upon them,21 that their pride might be subdued by the meanest creatures.

16. “All things,” then, brethren, “all things were made by Him, and without Him was nothing made.” But how were all things made by Him? “That, which was made, in Him is life.” It can also be read thus “That, which was made in Him, is life;” and if we so read it, everything is life. For what is there that was not made in Him? For He is the Wisdom of God, and it is said in the Psalm,22 “In Wisdom hast Thou made all things.” If, then, Christ is the Wisdom of God, and the Psalm says, “In Wisdom hast Thou made all things:” as all things were made by Him, so all things were made in Him. If, then, all things were made in Him, dearly beloved brethren, and that, which was made in Him, is life, both the earth is life and wood is life. We do indeed say wood is life, but in the sense of the wood of the cross, whence we have received life. A stone, then, is life. It is not seemly so to understand the passage, as the same most vile sect of the Manichaeans creep stealthily on us again, and say that a stone has life, that a wall has a soul, and a cord has a soul, and wool, and clothing. For so they are accustomed to talk in their raving; and when they have been driven back and refuted, they in some sort bring forward Scripture, saying, “Why is it said, ‘That, which was made in Him, is life’?” For if all things were made in Him, all things are life. Be not carried away by them; read thus “That which was made;” here make a short pause, and then go on, “in Him is life.” What is the meaning of this? The earth was made, but the very earth that was made is not life; but there exists spiritually in the Wisdom itself a certain reason by which the earth was made: this is life.

17. As far as I can, I shall explain my meaning to you, beloved. A carpenter makes a box. First he has the box in design; for if he had it not in design, how could he produce it by workmanship? But the box in theory is not the very box as it appears to the eyes. It exists invisibly in design, it will be visible in the work. Behold, it is made in the work; has it ceased to exist in design? The one is made in the work, and the other remains which exists in design; for that box may rot, and another be fashioned according to that which exists in design. Give heed, then, to the box as it is in design, and the box as it is in fact, The actual box is not life, the box in design is life; because the soul of the artificer, where all these things are before they are brought forth, is living. So, dearly beloved brethren, because the Wisdom of God, by which all things have been made, contains everything according to design before it is made, therefore those things which are made through this design itself are not forthwith life, but whatever has been made is life in Him. You see the earth, there is an earth in design; you see the sky, there is a sky in design; you see the sun and the moon, these also exist in design: but externally they are bodies, in design they are life. Understand, if in any way you are able, for a great matter has been spoken. If I am not great by whom it is spoken, or through whom it is spoken, still it is from a great authority. For these things are not spoken by me who am small; He is not small to whom I refer in saying these things. Let each one take in what he can, and to what extent he can; and he who is not able to take in any of it, let him nourish his heart, that he may become able. How is he to nourish it? Let him nourish it with milk, that he may come to strong meat. Let him not leave Christ born through the flesh till he arrive at Christ born of the Father alone, the God-Word with God, through whom all things were made; for that is life, which in Him is the light of men.

18. For this follows: “and the life was the light of men;” and from this very life are men illuminated. Cattle are not illuminated, because cattle have not rational minds capable of seeing wisdom. But man was made in the image of God, and has a rational mind, by which he can perceive wisdom. That life, then, by which all things were made, is itself the light; yet not the light of every animal, but of men. Wherefore a little after he says, “That was the true light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.” By that light John the Baptist was illuminated; by the same light also was Jn the Evangelist himself illuminated. He was filled with that light who said, “I am not the Christ; but He cometh after me, whose shoe’s latchet I am not worthy to unloose.”23 By that light he had been illuminated who said, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” Therefore that life is the light of men.

19. But perhaps the slow hearts of some of you cannot receive their sins, so that they cannot see. Let them not on that account think that the light is in any way absent, because they are not able to see it; for they themselves are darkness on account of their sins. “And the light shineth in darkness, and the darkness comprehended it not.” Accordingly, brethren, as in the case of a blind man placed in the sun, the sun is present to him, but he is absent from the sun. So every foolish man, every unjust man, every irreligious man, is blind in heart. Wisdom is present; but it is present to a blind man, and is absent from his eyes; not because it is absent from him, but because he is absent from it. What then is he to do? Let him become pure, that he may be able to see God. Just as if a man could not see because his eyes were dirty and sore with dust, rheum, or smoke, the physician would say to him: “Cleanse from your eye whatever bad thing is in it, so that you may be able to see the light of your eyes.” Dust, rheum, and smoke are sins and iniquities: remove then all these things, and you will see the wisdom that is present; for God is that wisdom, and it has been said, “Blessed are the pure in heart; for they shall see God.”24

Share This

1. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

in the beginning; i.e.., at the dawn of creation, when time began, when all created things began to be, the Word was already in existence,-from which it follows that the Word had no beginning, and consequently was eternal.

Was. The imperfect tense (Greek: en) is here used to signify continuous existence; had the perfect tense been used a cessation of existence, following upon the beginning of created things, would be implied.

The Word, means here the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, as is evident from verse 14, where it is said, “The Word was made flesh.” it is only St John who makes use of the term Logos, Word, to signify a person; and this he does not only in his Gospel, but in his First Epistle (1:1) and in the Apocalypse (19:13). In other parts of the Old and New Testament the term, logos, usually means speech, word.

It is a grave mistake, however, to hold as some do, that St John got his idea of the Word or the term Logos other than from biblical or divine sources. First of all the name Logos is not uncommon to the language of the Old Testament. The sacred writers often speak of a divine envoy, Maleach, who was to be the final Mediator (cf. Genesis 16:7,13; Exodus 23:20; Hosea 12:4,5; Zechariah 12:10). They personify divine Wisdom, with which Memra, or Word of the Eternal, is eminently endowed, and make both divine Wisdom and the Word special agents of divine activity in the work of creation and in the world (Prov 8; Psalm 106:20; 109:1; Isaiah 55:11).

It was natural, therefore, that St John, in characterizing the Messianic action of Jesus, should identify the Christ with the Angel of the Covenant, the Wisdom and the Word of Yahweh, since these are the personal and external manifestation of God. Perhaps also St John was moved by the divine inspiration to make use of the term in speaking of the Second Divine Person, in order to refute many of the heretics of His time who had abused the term in expressing their own errors

The Word was with God; i.e., this Second Divine Person existed from eternity with God the Father, one with the Father in nature, but distinct from Him in person.

The Word was God. This clause expressed the essence or the nature of the Word. The use of the article “the” before “Logos” shows that “Logos”, and not “Theos” (God), is the subject of the clause. The identity, therefore, of the nature of the Word with the nature or essence of the Godhead is here distinctly declared. It is absurd for the Arians to say that the use of “Theos” here without the article means a being with a nature inferior to the Supreme Being.

2. The same was in the beginning with God. This verse is but a recapitulation of the first verse.

3. All things were made through him. The Evangelist now passes on to a consideration of the relations of the Word towards created things; and he shows that all things that have had a beginning have come into being by or through the Logos. The Arians maintained that since creation was through the Word, the Son was therefore inferior to the Father, forgetful of the fact that, as the essence and nature of the Father and the Son are one, the action of the one must be the action of the other. The Father and the Son are inseparable in the creative act, precisely because they are one in nature.

Was made nothing that was made. While this is the usual punctuation (i.e., “All things were made by Him: and without Him was made nothing that made.) of these words, there is equal authority in both Latin and Greek for putting the period after nothing, and writing the remaining words with the following verse thus: “What was made in him was life,” meaning that living creatures were made to live by His power. In Him means by Him; and life is taken passively, meaning made to live, vivified. Cf. Summa Theol. ia, qu. 18, a. 4.

In Him was life; i.e., in Him, as in its cause, was that supernatural life which, through His revelation and grace, He has communicated to men. The life, then, here spoken of was supernatural, of which men and angels only are capable.

And the life was the light of men; i.e., this Divine Word who was the source of all supernatural spiritual life was also the source and author of the faith which men have. “The light of men” means, therefore, their faith; and the Word, who is the source and author of faith, is the cause of the faith which men possess.

And the light shines. The term “light” here means the Word, and this Divine Word or light has been shining on men from the beginning, enlightening them through their reason and through divine revelation. he has offered the light to men, but men have been free to accept or reject it.

The darkness signifies the moral obscurity to which unbelief had reduced man,. Sins are “works of darkness” (Ephesians 5:11; 6:12).

The darkness did not comprehend it. The meaning is that the majority of men did not believe in God whose existence and attributes were manifested by the visible things of the world from the beginning; nor did they believe the revelation which God gave them through Christ. This rejection of belief in God and His revelation was possible only because men were free agents.

6-8 There was a man sent from God, ect. The Evangelist now introduces John the Baptist and his mission for two reasons: (a) as a witness to prove that our Lord was the Messiah; (b) to show that the Baptist himself was not the Christ, as some erroneously thought. John’s mission was a divine one, it was from God, but it was only to prepare the way for the Messiah and to give testimony to him.

9 That was the true light, which enlightens every man that comes (was coming) into the world. The most probable Greek construction of this verse is that which connects coming with man, which gives the meaning that the Word was the essential, everlasting light which enlightens, so far as he is concerned, every man born of woman. If this true light does not enlighten everyone, it is because men are free to prevent it, just as they are free to conceal themselves from the light of the sun shining in the heavens. The Word, therefore, not only at His coming into the world, at His incarnation, but from the very beginning, was the cause and source of the faith of men; but men, of course, as free agents, were and are able to reject belief in God and in God’s revelation

Note: The above translation: “that was the true light, which enlightens every man that comes into the world,” and the interpretation following it, while common in the history of translation and interpretation is not the translation/interpretation commonly accepted today. Most modern translations indicate that it is the light which is coming into the world: “The true light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world” (NAB). For many older translators/commentators this made no sense because of the beginning of the next verse: “He was in the World.” If He was in the World, how could He be coming into it?  

Because His coming was based upon the promises of God, and because God’s promises are assured to happen (for God is faithful) ,  the Messiah was known as  “the Coming One;” the One whose coming was certain.   The meaning of verses 9-11 seems to be: “He was coming into the world, that we knew for certain; yet when He was in the world, the world knew Him not.  When He came to His own people, His own people knew Him not.”

10  He was in the world.  “He,” i.e., the Word was in the World from the time of its creation, conserving it in existence, “sustaining all things by the word of His power” (Hebrews 1:3).  The Word was God, and God is everywhere by His essence, by His presence and by His power.  Thus nearly all the Fathers understand the reference  here to be the presence of the Word in the world, as God and  Creator, before the Incarnation, from the very creation of the world.  Maldonatus, however, holds that there is reference here only to  the presence of the Word in the world during His mortal life.

Note:  I understand the meaning of the verse as follows: He was in (i.e., came into) the world by being made flesh.  This is the world which He Himself had made, yet this world He made and came into as man did not know Him.  

And the world was made by Him, ect.  Although the Word was the Creator and Conserver of the world from the beginning, still the majority of mankind had failed to recognize Him, transferring the worship due Him to senseless idols (Romans 1:23).

11  He came unto His own, ect.  All the Fathers understand this to refer to the Incarnation of the Word.  By His Incarnation the Word came into His own world which He had created and conserved; and in particular He came to His own chosen people, the  Jews, and they “received Him not,” they would not believe in Him, but on the contrary rejected him.

12 To all who did believe in Him, (Whether Jew or Gentile, the Eternal Word) gave the power (i.e., the grace) to become (the adopted) children of God.  The faith of those who did believe in Him was the effect of grace and a necessary condition of the justification which followed and which made them children of God.  Faith, as the Council of Trent teaches (Sess 6. can. 6, 8) is the root of justification, it is the condition sine qua non;  but faith is neither the formal, nor even the meritorious cause of justification; men are justified by charity which follows upon faith (i.e., by “faith working through love,”)

Note: for the important relationship between faith and love in John, see the Jerome Biblical Commentary’s article “Johannine Theology 80:25-26, 35-38.  See also the commentary of 1 John 4:7-5:12.

13  Who are born, not of blood…but of God.  This shows that while men and the will of men, are the cause of carnal generation, it is only God who can be the cause of spiritual generation through faith and Baptism.  This was the argument against the Jews who considered themselves just because they had Abraham as their father.

14  And the Word was made flesh.  Some think this clause should be introduced by for instead of and, in which case the Evangelist would be assigning the cause, or the reason, why those who received the Word were made sons of God.  “Flesh” may be only a Hebraism for man, or it may have been used intentionally against the Docetae-heretics who denied that Christ had taken flesh because they considered flesh to be essentially corrupt.

Dwelt; i.e., took up a transitory abode  on earth among me,- literally, “pitched His tent or tabernacle.”  The Incarnation of the Word was permanent, ut His visible dwelling among men was not so.

And we saw His glory.  St John is here proclaiming himself to have been an eye-witness of the glory of the Word.

Glory as it were, ect.; i.e., such glory as was befitting and possible only to the Only-begotten Son of the Father.

Full of grace and truth.  These words are to be joined with the first part of the verse, so as to read as follows: “And the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth.”  The clause, “and we saw His glory,” etc., is parenthetic.  Our Lord was “full of grace” in the strictest and widest sense of the term, both as God and as man, and hence He was an overflowing source of sanctification to all men.  He was “full of truth” as containing all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge (Colossians 2:3), and as being the all-wise and infallible Teacher of faith and the way to Heaven.

This was He, ect.  The Evangelist more probably is here giving by anticipation what he descries more fully in verses 29-30.  He is citing the testimony of John the Baptist relative to the Incarnation of the Word “full of grace and truth.”

He that shall come after me, ect.; i.e., he that shall succeed me in the exercise of His public ministry “is preferred before me” in dignity, “because He existed before me.”  Our Lord being eternal existed before John the Baptist, and was superior to the Baptist in dignity, and preferred before him in the designs and counsels of the Eternal Father.

And of His fullness we have all received.  These are the words of the Evangelist continuing what was said in verse 14.

Grace for grace.  This is explanatory of the preceding clause, and means, according to the more probable opinion of Patrizi and others, the more abundant and perfect grace of the New Law, as compared with that of the Old Law.  The opinion also seems very probable which says that the above phrase means a succession of graces, one after another.

17   For the law was given by Moses; grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.  The Evangelist had already asserted the superiority of our Lord over John the Baptist, and now he proclaims Him superior to Moses,  Through Moses the Jews had received the Law which pointed out man’s duties, but did not of itself give grace to fulfill those duties; whereas Christ, the author and source of grace and truth, in the New Law has given to the world not only a thorough knowledge of the things necessary for man’s salvation, but abundant grace also to perform all these things.

18  No man has seen God at any time; i.e., no man while here on earth, at least while living the life of the senses, has ever seen God as he is in Himself.  When we read in Scripture that Jacob or Job or Moses or Isaiah saw God, the meaning is that they saw Him represented under some visible human form, or as an angel who had assumed human appearances in order to represent in some degree the glory of God.  St Thomas, however, holds that Moses and St Paul here below enjoyed while in rapture a real vision of the divine essence.

The angels and saints in Heaven see God as He is, they behold His essence, but even then only according to their own capacity and not comprehensively.  As God is infinite in essence it is impossible that any creature should see and understand Him perfectly and completely.  The present verse seems to assign the reason why the New Law and the gifts of Christ are so superior to the Law of Moses; namely, because Christ who is consubstantial with the Father and knows all the secrets of the Godhead, has declared the doctrines and mysteries contained in the New Law.Excerpted from THE FOUR GOSPELS, by Charles Callan.  Published in 1918

Share This

Analysis of 1:1-51.
1-18 The prologue declares the Word’s eternity, distinct personality, and essential unity with God; His relations with creation generally, and with man in particular; His incarnation, and the fulness of grace, and perfection of revelation attained through Him.
19-34 Some of the Baptist’s testimonies to Christ.
35-51 Circumstances in which Christ’s first disciples were called.

Vs 1.  In (In) Principio (the beginning) erat (was) Verbum (the Word), et (and the) Verbum (Word) erat (was) apud (with) Deum (God), et (and the) Deus (Word) erat (was)  Verbum (God).

1.  In the beginning.  These words most probably mean here, as in Gen, 1:1, at the beginning of all created things; in other words, when time began.  Their meaning must always be determined from the context.  Thus we know from the context in Acts 11:15, that St Peter there uses them in reference to the beginning of the Gospel.  Similarly, the context here determines the reference to the beginning of creation; for He who is here said to have been in the beginning, is declared in verse 3 to be the creator of all things, and must therefore have already been in existence at their beginning.

Others, however, have interpreted the words differently.  Many of the Fathers understood them to mean: in the Father, and took this first clause of vs 1 as a declaration that the Word was in the Father.  but, though it is quite true to say that the Word was and is in the father (10:38), both being consubstantial, still such does not seem to be the sense of the phrase before us.  Has St John meant to say this, surely he would have written: In God, or, in the Father, was the Sord.  He names God in the next two clauses: And the Word was with God, and the Word was God.  Why then should he at the risk of being misunderstood, refer to Him in this first clause under another name?  Besides, if this first clause stated the Word’s consubstantiality with the Father, the third: And the Word was God, would then be tautological.

Many also urge against this view, that if the first clause meant, in God (or, in the Father) was the Word, the second clause would be merely a repetition.  But we cannot assent to this, since, as we shall see, the second clause would add the important statement of the Word’s distinct personality.  However, the view seems to us improbable for the other reasons already stated.

Others take “beginning” here to mean eternity, so that we should have in this first clause a direct statement of the Word’s eternity.  But against this is the fact that arche (beginning) nowhere else bears this meaning, and can be satisfactorily explained, “in the beginning” means: when time began.

Was.  (Greek: en); (Latin: erat).  i.e., was already in existence.  Had St John meant to declare that at the dawn of creation the Word began to exist, he would have used (Gr. ginomai) as he does in verse 3 regarding the beginning of the world, and again in verse 6 regarding the coming of the Baptist.  This cannotfail to be clear to anyone who contrasts verses 1, 2, 4, and 9 of this chapter with verses 3, 6, and 14.  In the former en is used throughout in reference to the eternal existence of the Word; in the latter ginomai, when there is a question of the beginning of created things (vs 3), or of the coming of the Baptist (vs 6), or of the assumption by the Word of human nature at the incarnation (vs 14).  At the beginning of creation, then, the Word was already in existence; and hence it follows that He must be uncreated, and therefore eternal.  St John’s statement here that the Word was already in existence in the beginning, is accordingly, equivalent to our Lord’s claim to have existed before the world (17:5), and in both instances the Word’s eternity, though not directly stated, follows immediately.  Hence we find that the Council of Nice and the fathers generally inferred, against the Arians, the eternity of the Son of God from this first clause of verse 1.  “If He was in the beginning,” writes St Basil, “when was He not?”

The Word.   St John here, as well as in his first Epistle (1:1), and in the Apocalypse (19:13), designates by this term the Second Divine Person.  That he speaks of no mere abstraction, or attribute of God, but of a Being who is distinct Divine Person, is clear.  For this “Word was with God, was God, was made flesh, and dwelt amongst us,” and in the person of Jesus Christ was witnessed to by the Baptist (1:1, 14, 15, 29, 30).  Outside the writings of St John there is noclear instance in either Old or New Testament of this use of the term Logos (Word).  Throughout the rest of the Scriptures its usual meaning is speech or word.

What, then, we may ask, led our Evangelist, in the beginning of his Gospel, to apply this term rather than Son, or Son of God, to the Second Divine Person?  Why did he not say: In the beginning was the Son?

Apart from inspiration, which, of course, may have extended to the suggestion of an important word like the present, apart also from the appropriateness of the term, of which we shall speak in a moment, it seems very probable that St John was impelled to use the term Logos because it had been already used by the heretics of the time in the expression of their errors.  Endowed, too, as St John was, like the other Apostles, with a special power of understanding the Sacred Scriptures (Luke 24:46), and privileged as he had been on many an occasion to listen to the commentaries of Christ Himself on the Old Testament, he may have been able, where we are not, to see clearly in the Old Testament instances in which Logos refers to the Son of God; e.g., “Verbo Domini coeli firmati sunt” (Psalm 32:6).

One thing, at all events, is quite plain, that, whatever may be said regarding his reason for the application of the term to the Son of God, St John did not borrow his doctrine regarding the logos from Plato or Philo or the Alexandrain School.  For though the term logos is frequently met with in the writings of both Plato and Philo, yet  Plato never speaks of it as a person, but only as an attribute of God; and Philo, though in our opinion, he held the distinct personality of the Word, yet denied that he was God, or the creator of matter, which latter Philo held to be eternal.  As to the Alexandrian School, to which Philo belonged, and of whose doctrines he is the earliest witness, there is not a shadow of foundation for saying that any of its doctors held the same doctrine as St John regarding the Divine Word.

From the teaching of Christ, then, or by inspiration, or in both ways, our Evangelist received the sublime doctrine regarding th Logos with which his Gospel opens.

Having now inquired into the origin of the term Logos as applied to the Son of God, and having learned the source whence St John derived his doctrine regarding this Divine  Word, let us try to understand how it is that the Son of God could be appropriately referred to as the Word.  Many answers have been given, but we will confine ourselves to the one that seems to us most satisfactory.

We believe, and profess in the Athanasian Creed (Filius a Patre solo est non factus, nec creatus, sed genitus), that the Son is begotten by the Father; and it is the common teaching that He is begotten through the Divine intellect.  Now,  this mysterious procession of the Son from the Father through the intellect, is implied here in His being called the Word.  For, as our word follows, without passion or carnal feelings, from our thought, as it is the reflex of our thought, from which it detracts nothing, and which it faithfully represents; so, only in an infinitely more perfect way, the Son of God proceeds without passion or any carnal imperfection, through the intellect of the Father, detracting nothing from Him who begot Him, being the image of the Father, “the figure of His substance” (Hebrews 1:3).  “Verum proprie dictum,” says St Thomas, “in Divinis personaliter accipitur, et est proprium nomen personae filii, significat enim quamdam emanationem intellectus.  Persona autem quae procedit in Divinis secundum emanationem intellectus, dicitur filius, et hujusmodi procession dicitur generatio.”

And the Word was with God (et Verum erat epud Deum).   Here “was” (Gr. pros; Lat. epud) signifies not motion towards, but a living union with, God.  God refers not to the Divine Nature, but to the Divine Person of the Father (see 1 John 1:2); otherwise the Verbum (Word, Logos) would be unnecessarily and absurdly said here to be with Himself, since He is the Divine Nature terminated in the Second Person.  Many commentators are of the opinion that the use of pros (epud; was), and not en (in), proves that the Verbum  is not a mere attribute of the Father, ut a distinct Person.

And the Word was God (et Deus erat Verbum).  As our English version indicates, Word is the subject of this clause, God the predicate, for in the Greek Logos has the article, Theos (God) wants (is lacking) it; and besides, as appears from the whole context, St John is declaring what the Word is, not was God is.  A desire to begin this clause with the last word of the clause preceding-a favorite construction with St John (see vss 4 and 5)-may have led to the inversion in the original.  Or the inversion may have been intended to throw the Divinity of the Word into greater prominence by placing the predicate efore the ver.

Some, like Corluy, refer God, in this third clause, to the Divine Nature, which is common to the three Divine Persons; others, as Patrizi, to the Divine Nature as terminated in the Second Divine Person.  We prefer the latter view, but in either interpretation we have in this clause a declaration of the Divinity of the Word, a proof that cannot be gainsaid of His essential unity with the Father.  Nor does the absence of the Greek article before “God” in this third clause, when taken in conjunction with its presence in the second, imply, as the Arians held, that the Word is inferior to the Father.  For our Evangelist certainly refers sometimes to the supreme Deity without using the article (1:6, 12, 18); and the absence of the article is sufficiently accounted for in  the present case by the fact that Theos (God) is a predicate standing before the copula. Excerpted from THE GOSPEL OF JOHN by Browne and Nolan

Share This

Most of the Biblical notes on this site are my own, however, what follows comes from a public domain work.   To view the previous entry on John 1:1 go here.  To view my personal notes on John 1:19-51 go here, here, and here.

1:2 The same (or that one) was in the beginning with God.

Latin: hoc erat in principio apud Deum.

The emphatic opening of verse 2 (Greek, houtos) reiterates and gives added emphasis to the opening verse with its three great truths; i.e., the Word’s eternity, His distinct personality, and His essential unity with the Father. “Various attempts have been made by the Unitarians to escape the invincible argument for a Second Divine Person which these opening verses of our Gospel contain. Thus, they put a full stop after the the last “erat” of verse 1; and, taking the words in the order in which they occur in the Greek and Latin, make the sense of the third clause: “and God was.” Then they join “verbum,” the last word of verse 1, with verse 2: “This Word was in the beginning with God.” But even if we granted to the Unitarians this punctuation of the verses, the sense of the third clause would still be that the Word was God, and not that God existed. For “Deus” (in Greek, theos without the article), in the beginning of the third clause ought still to be regarded as the predicate, with “verbum” of the preceding clauses as the subject. This follows not merely from the absence of the Greek article already alluded to, but also from the absurdity of the Unitarian view, which supposes that St John thought it necessary, after telling us that the Word was with God, to tell us that God existed!

Others have tried to explain away the text thus: At the beginning of the Christian dispensation the Word existed, and the Word was most intimately united to God by love (but was not God). But, (1), they still have to explain how the word is declared creator in verses 3 and 10; (2), the statement in verse 14: “and the Word was made flesh,” implies transition of the word to a state different from that in which He existed “in the beginning;” but the time of the transition is just the commencement of the Christian dispensation, which cannot, therefore, the time referred to in verse 1 as “the beginning.” (Most of the above has been taken, with some modification by me, from THE HOLY GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN by John McIntyre. The book is in the public domain)

Share This