Church Fathers Commentary John 1

John 1:1a

St. John Chrysostom: While all the other Evangelists begin with the Incarnation, John passes over the Conception, Nativity, education, and growth, and speaks immediately of the Eternal Generation, saying, In the beginning was the Word.

St. Augustine of Hippo: The Greek word 'logos' signifies both Word and Reason. In this passage, however, it is better to interpret it as 'Word,' since it refers not only to the Father but also to the creation of all things by the operative power of the Word. In contrast, Reason, though it produces nothing, is still rightly called Reason.

Through their daily use, sound, and passage out of us, words have become common things. But there is a word that remains inward, within the person, distinct from the sound that proceeds from the mouth. This is a word that is truly and spiritually what you understand by the sound, yet it is not the actual sound itself.

Now, whoever can conceive of a word existing not only before its sound but even before the idea of its sound is formed, may see enigmatically—as if in a mirror—some likeness of that Word of whom it is said, In the beginning was the Word.

For when we express something we know, the word we use is necessarily derived from the knowledge retained in our memory and must be of the same quality as that knowledge. A word is a thought formed from something we know. This word is spoken in the heart; it is not Greek or Latin or of any language. Yet, when we want to communicate it to others, we must adopt some sign to express it.

Therefore, the word that sounds externally is a sign of the word that lies hidden within, to which the name 'word' more truly belongs. For what is uttered by our physical mouth is the voice of the word; it is called 'word' only in reference to that inner word from which it is taken when it is developed externally.

St. Basil the Great: This Word is not a human word. For how could there have been a human word in the beginning, when humanity received its being last of all? There was no word of man in the beginning, nor of angels, for every creature is within the limits of time, having its beginning of existence from the Creator. But what does the Gospel say? It calls the Only-Begotten Himself the Word.

St. John Chrysostom: But why, omitting the Father, does he proceed at once to speak of the Son? Because the Father was known to all—not as the Father, perhaps, but as God—whereas the Only-Begotten was not known. It was fitting, then, that he should first of all instill knowledge of the Son into those who did not know Him, although even in discussing the Son, he is not altogether silent about the Father.

And since he was about to teach that the Word was the Only-Begotten Son of God, he mentions 'the Word' first. He does this to prevent anyone from thinking of this as a passible generation, thereby destroying that dangerous suspicion and showing that the Son comes from God impassibly. A second reason is that the Son was to declare to us the things of the Father.

But he does not speak of 'the Word' simply, but with the addition of the definite article, in order to distinguish It from other words. For Scripture calls God’s laws and commandments 'words,' but this Word is a distinct Substance, or Person—an Essence, coming forth impassibly from the Father Himself.

St. Basil the Great: Why, then, 'the Word'? Because He is born impassibly, the Image of Him who begat Him, manifesting all of the Father in Himself. He abstracts nothing from the Father but exists perfect in Himself.

St. Augustine of Hippo: Just as our knowledge differs from God’s, so our word, which arises from our knowledge, differs from that Word of God, who is born of the Father’s essence. We might say He is born from the Father’s knowledge or the Father’s wisdom—or, more correctly, from the Father who is Knowledge, the Father who is Wisdom. The Word of God, then, the Only-Begotten Son of the Father, is in all things like and equal to the Father. He is altogether what the Father is, yet He is not the Father, because one is the Son and the other is the Father.

Through this, He knows all things that the Father knows; yet His knowledge is from the Father, just as His being is. For with Him, knowing and being are the same. Therefore, just as the Father’s being is not from the Son, neither is His knowing. For this reason, the Father begat the Word equal to Himself in all things, as one who utters forth Himself. For if there had been more or less in His Word than in Himself, He would not have uttered Himself fully and perfectly.

However, with respect to our own inner word—which we find is like the divine Word in some sense—let us not fail to see how very unlike it is as well. Our word is a formation of our mind that is about to take place but is not yet made. It is something in our mind that we toss to and fro in a slippery, roundabout way, as one thing after another is discovered or occurs to our thoughts.

When this thing that we toss to and fro has reached the subject of our knowledge and been formed from it—when it has assumed the most exact likeness to it and the conception has perfectly corresponded to the thing—then we have a true word. Who cannot see how great the difference is here from that Word of God? The divine Word exists in the Form of God in such a way that He could not have first been in the process of being formed and only afterward been formed. Nor can He ever have been unformed, for He is an absolute Form, absolutely equal to Him from whom He comes.

Therefore, in speaking of the Word of God, nothing is said about 'thought' in God. This is to prevent us from thinking there was anything revolving in God that might first receive form to become a Word, and afterward lose it and be tossed about again in an unformed state.

Now the Word of God is a Form, not a formation. He is the Form of all forms, a Form that is unchangeable, removed from accident, from failure, from time, and from space. He surpasses all things and exists in all things as a kind of foundation beneath them and a summit above them.

St. Basil the Great: Yet our outward word has some similarity to the Divine Word. For our word declares the whole conception of the mind, since what we conceive in the mind we bring out in words. Indeed, our heart is, as it were, the source, and the uttered word is the stream that flows from it.

St. John Chrysostom: Observe the spiritual wisdom of the Evangelist. He knew that people honor most what is most ancient, and that by honoring what is before everything else, they conceive of it as God. For this reason, he first mentions the beginning, saying, In the beginning was the Word.

Origen of Alexandria: The word 'beginning' has many meanings. There is a beginning of a journey and a beginning of a length; as Proverbs says, the beginning of the right path is to do justice. There is also a beginning of a creation, as in Job: He is the beginning of the ways of God. Nor would it be incorrect to say that God is the Beginning of all things.

Again, the preexistent material from which anything is produced, when it is supposed to be original, is considered a beginning. There is also a beginning in respect to form, as when Christ is the beginning of those who are made according to the image of God. And there is a beginning of doctrine, as in Hebrews: When for the time you ought to be teachers, you have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God.

For there are two kinds of beginning of doctrine: one in itself, and the other relative to us. For example, we might say that Christ, in that He is the Wisdom and Word of God, was in Himself the beginning of wisdom; but to us, He is the beginning in that He was the Word incarnate.

Since the word has so many meanings, we may take it here as the Beginning through whom things are made—that is, the Maker. For Christ is Creator as 'the Beginning,' in that He is Wisdom. Thus, the Word is 'in the beginning'—that is, in Wisdom—for the Savior is all these excellences at once. As life is in the Word, so the Word is in the Beginning, that is to say, in Wisdom.

Consider, then, whether it is possible, according to this meaning, to understand 'the Beginning' as signifying that all things are made according to Wisdom and the patterns contained within it. Or, since the Beginning of the Son is the Father (who is the Beginning of all creatures and existences), we could understand the text In the beginning was the Word to mean that the Son, the Word, was in the Beginning—that is, in the Father.

St. Augustine of Hippo: Or, In the beginning means, as it were, 'before all things.'

St. Basil the Great: The Holy Spirit foresaw that people would arise who would envy the glory of the Only-Begotten, subverting their hearers with sophistry. They would argue that because He was begotten, He did not always exist, and that before He was begotten, He was not. So that no one might presume to babble such things, the Holy Spirit says, In the beginning was the Word.

St. Hilary of Poitiers: Years, centuries, and ages are passed over. Place whatever beginning you will in your imagination—you cannot grasp it in time, for He, from whom it is derived, still was.

St. John Chrysostom: Just as when our ship is near the shore, cities and ports pass in review before us, which on the open sea vanish and leave nothing for the eye to fix upon, so the Evangelist here, taking us with him in his flight above the created world, leaves the eye to gaze into the void of an illimitable expanse. For the words, was in the beginning, are indicative of an eternal and infinite essence.

St. Augustine of Hippo: They say, however, 'If He is the Son, He was born.' We allow it. They rejoin, 'If the Son was born to the Father, the Father existed before the Son was born to Him.' This the Faith rejects. Then they say, 'Explain to us how the Son could be born from the Father and yet be coeval with Him from whom He is born. For sons are born after their fathers, to succeed them upon their death.'

They bring up analogies from nature, and we must likewise endeavor to do the same for our doctrine. But how can we find in nature a coeternal being, when we cannot even find an eternal one? However, if a generating thing and a generated thing can anywhere be found to be coeval, it will help us form a notion of coeternals.

Now, Wisdom herself is called in the Scriptures, the brightness of Everlasting Light, the image of the Father. From this, then, let us take our comparison and from coevals form a notion of coeternals. No one doubts that brightness proceeds from fire; we may therefore consider fire the 'father' of the brightness. The moment I light a candle, brightness arises at the same instant as the fire. Give me fire without brightness, and I will believe with you that the Father existed without the Son.

An image is produced by a mirror. The image exists as soon as the beholder appears, yet the beholder existed before he came to the mirror. Let us suppose, then, a twig or a blade of grass that has grown up by the water's edge. Is it not born with its image? If the twig had always been there, the image proceeding from the twig would have always been there. And whatever is from another thing is 'born.' So then, that which generates can be coexistent from eternity with that which is generated from it.

But someone will perhaps say, 'Well, I understand now the eternal Father and the coeternal Son. Yet the Son is like the emitted brightness, which is less brilliant than the fire, or the reflected image, which is less real than the twig.' Not so: there is complete equality between the Father and the Son.

'I do not believe,' he says, 'for you have found nothing to which you can compare it.' However, perhaps we can find something in nature by which we may understand that the Son is both coeternal with the Father and in no respect inferior. We cannot find any single material comparison that will be sufficient on its own, so we must join together two: one that has been used by our adversaries, and the other by ourselves.

They have drawn their comparison from things that are preceded in time by the things from which they spring—for example, a man from a man. In that nativity, we have an equality of nature, but an equality of time is wanting. But in the comparison we have drawn from the brightness of fire and the reflection of a twig, you cannot find an equality of nature, though you have an equality of time. In the Godhead, then, we find as a whole what exists here in single and separate parts. That which is in the creation exists in a manner suitable to the Creator.

Council of Ephesus: Therefore, in one place divine Scripture calls Him the Son, in another the Word, and in another the Brightness of the Father. These names are each meant to guard against blasphemy. For since your son is of the same nature as you, Scripture wishes to show that the Substance of the Father and the Son is one, and so it presents the Son of the Father, born of the Father, the Only-Begotten.

Next, since the terms 'birth' and 'son' can convey the idea of passibility, Scripture therefore calls the Son 'the Word,' declaring by that name the impassibility of His Nativity. But since a human father is necessarily older than his son, to prevent you from thinking that this also applies to the Divine nature, it calls the Only-Begotten 'the Brightness of the Father.' For brightness, though arising from the sun, is not subsequent to it.

Understand, then, that 'Brightness' reveals the co-eternity of the Son with the Father, 'Word' proves the impassibility of His birth, and 'Son' conveys His consubstantiality.

St. John Chrysostom: But they say that In the beginning does not absolutely express eternity, for the same is said of the heaven and the earth: In the beginning God made the heaven and the earth. But are not 'made' and 'was' altogether different? For just as the word 'is,' when spoken of a human, signifies the present only, but when applied to God, signifies that which always and eternally is; so too 'was,' when predicated of our nature, signifies the past, but when predicated of God, signifies eternity.

Origen of Alexandria: The verb 'to be' has a double meaning: sometimes it expresses the actions that take place in time, as other verbs do; at other times, it expresses the substance of the thing of which it is predicated, without reference to time. For this reason, it is also called a substantive verb.

St. Hilary of Poitiers: Consider the world, then, and understand what is written of it: In the beginning God made the heaven and the earth. Whatever is created, therefore, is 'made in the beginning,' and you would contain in time that which, because it was to be made, is contained in the beginning. But behold, for me, an illiterate, unlearned fisherman is independent of time, unconfined by ages, and advances beyond all beginnings. For the Word was what He is, and is not bounded by any time, nor did He commence in time, seeing that He was not 'made' in the beginning, but was.

Alcuin of York: To refute those who inferred from Christ’s birth in time that He had not existed from everlasting, the Evangelist begins with the eternity of the Word, saying, In the beginning was the Word.

John 1:1b

St. John Chrysostom: Because it is a special attribute of God to be eternal and without a beginning, he laid this down first. Then, so that no one, on hearing In the beginning was the Word, should suppose the Word to be unbegotten, he instantly guarded against this, saying, And the Word was with God.

St. Hilary of Poitiers: From the beginning He is with God; and though independent of time, He is not independent of an Author.

St. Basil the Great: Again he repeats 'was,' because of those who blasphemously say that there was a time when He was not. Where, then, was the Word? Illimitable things are not contained in space. Where was He, then? With God. For neither is the Father bounded by place, nor is the Son circumscribed by anything.

Origen of Alexandria: It is worthwhile to note that whereas the Word is said to 'come' to some (as to Hosea, Isaiah, and Jeremiah), with God the Word does not 'come' as though He were not with Him before. Instead, the Word having always been with Him, it is said, And the Word was with God, for from the beginning He was not separate from the Father.

St. John Chrysostom: He has not said the Word was 'in' God, but 'with' God, showing us the eternity He possessed in accordance with His Person.

Theophylact of Ohrid: Sabellius is overthrown by this text. He asserts that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one Person, who sometimes appeared as the Father, sometimes as the Son, and sometimes as the Holy Spirit. But he is manifestly confounded by this text, And the Word was with God, for here the Evangelist declares that the Son is one Person and God the Father is another.

John 1:1c

St. Hilary of Poitiers: You will say that a word is the sound of the voice, the enunciation of a thing, the expression of a thought. You might argue this Word was in the beginning with God because the utterance of thought is eternal when the one who thinks is eternal. But how was that 'in the beginning' which exists at no time, either before or after? I doubt it exists in time at all. For speech does not exist before one speaks, nor after; in the very act of speaking, it vanishes. By the time a speech has ended, that from which it began no longer exists.

But even if, through your inattention, the first sentence—In the beginning was the Word—was lost on you, why do you dispute the next: And the Word was with God? Did you hear it said, 'in God,' so that you should understand this Word to be only the expression of hidden thoughts? Or did John say 'with' by mistake, unaware of the distinction between being 'in' and being 'with,' when he said that what was in the beginning was not in God, but with God? Hear, then, the nature and name of the Word: And the Word was God. No more, then, of the sound of the voice or the expression of thought. The Word here is a Substance, not a sound; a Nature, not an expression; God, not a nonentity.

But the title is absolute and free from the offense of an extraneous subject. To Moses it is said, I have given you for a god to Pharaoh. But is not the reason for the name added when it says, 'to Pharaoh'? Moses is given as a god to Pharaoh when he is feared, entreated, punishes, and heals. It is one thing to be given as a god, but another thing to be God. I also remember another application of the name in the Psalms: I have said, You are gods. But there too, it is implied that the title was merely bestowed; the introduction of 'I said' makes it the phrase of the Speaker, rather than the name of the thing itself. But when I hear, And the Word was God, I not only hear the Word said to be God, but I perceive that He is proved to be God.

St. Basil the Great: Thus, cutting off the cavils of blasphemers and those who ask what the Word is, he replies, And the Word was God.

Theophylact of Ohrid: Or, combine it this way: From the fact that the Word was 'with God,' it follows plainly that there are two Persons. But these two are of one Nature, and therefore the text proceeds, And the Word was God, to show that the Father and Son are of one Nature, being of one Godhead.

Origen of Alexandria: We must also add that the Word illuminates the Prophets with Divine wisdom in that He 'comes' to them, but He is ever 'with God' because He is God. For this reason, the Evangelist placed And the Word was with God before And the Word was God.

St. John Chrysostom: He is not asserting, as Plato does, that one is intelligence and the other is soul, for the Divine Nature is very different from this. But you say, 'The Father is called God with the addition of the article, but the Son is called God without it.' What do you say, then, when the Apostle writes, The great God and our Savior Jesus Christ, and again, Who is over all, God, and, Grace be to you and peace from God our Father, all without the article? Besides, it would be superfluous here to affix the article to 'God' when it had been affixed just before. So it does not follow that the Son is an inferior God just because the article is not affixed to His title.

St. Hilary of Poitiers: Since the evangelist had said, the Word was God, the awe-inspiring and unusual nature of this statement disturbed me, for the prophets had declared that God is one. But to resolve my concerns, the fisherman reveals the divine plan of this great mystery. He refers everything to one God—without dishonor, without erasing the Person, and without reference to time—saying, The same was in the beginning with God. He is with the one unbegotten God, from whom He is, the one only-begotten God.

Theophylact of Ohrid: Again, to prevent any demonic suspicion that the Word, because He was God, might have rebelled against His Father (as some pagans invent in their fables) or, being separate, might have become an adversary to the Father, the evangelist says, The same was in the beginning with God. This is to say that the Word of God never existed apart from God.

St. John Chrysostom: Or, lest upon hearing In the beginning was the Word, you should consider the Word eternal yet still believe the Father's life had some priority, the evangelist introduced the words, The same was in the beginning with God. For God was never solitary, apart from the Son, but always God with God. Furthermore, since he had said, the Word was God, so that no one might think the Son's divinity is inferior, he immediately adds the marks of true divinity. He does this by mentioning His eternity again—The same was in the beginning with God—and by adding His attribute as Creator: All things were made by him.

Origen of Alexandria: Alternatively, the Evangelist, having started with those propositions, reunites them into one by saying, The same was in the beginning with God. In the first of the three propositions, we learned where the Word was: in the beginning. In the second, with whom He was: with God. In the third, who the Word was: God. Then, by using the phrase “the Same,” he sets before us God the Word, of whom he had spoken. He then gathers everything from the first three propositions—In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God—into this single statement: The same was in the beginning with God.

It may be asked, however, why the text does not say, “In the beginning was the Word of God, and the Word of God was with God, and the Word of God was God.” Whoever admits that truth is one must also admit that the demonstration of truth—that is, wisdom—is also one. But if truth is one and wisdom is one, then the Word who declares truth and develops wisdom in those capable of receiving it must also be one. Therefore, it would have been out of place here to say “the Word of God,” as if there were other words besides God’s Word, such as a word of angels or a word of men.

We do not say this to deny that He is the Word of God, but to show the reason for omitting the phrase “of God.” John himself also says in the Apocalypse, And his name is called The Word of God.

Alcuin of York: Why does the evangelist use the verb “was”? So that you might understand that the Word, who is coeternal with God the Father, existed before all time.

John 1:3a

Alcuin of York: After speaking of the Son’s nature, he proceeds to His works, saying, All things were made by him—that is, everything, whether substance or property.

St. Hilary of Poitiers: Or, to put it another way: some might say that while the Word was indeed in the beginning, perhaps He was not before the beginning. But what does John say? All things were made by him. He by whom everything that exists was made is infinite; and since all things were made by Him, time was as well.

St. John Chrysostom: Indeed, Moses, at the beginning of the Old Testament, speaks to us in great detail about the natural world, saying, In the beginning God made the heaven and the earth; he then relates how the light, the firmament, the stars, and the various kinds of animals were created. But the Evangelist, as if speaking to an audience already familiar with this, summarizes all of it in a single phrase. He then hastens to a loftier subject, making his entire book focus not on the works, but on the Maker.

St. Augustine of Hippo: Since all things were made by him, it is evident that light was also made by Him, when God said, Let there be light. The same is true for everything else. But if so, the command that God spoke, namely, Let there be light, is eternal.

For the Word of God—God with God—is coeternal with the Father, even though the world created by Him is temporal. Whereas our words “when” and “sometimes” belong to time, in the Word of God, the decision for when a thing ought to be made is eternal. The thing is made at the moment when, in that Word, it is determined that it ought to be made. This Word contains in Itself neither “when” nor “sometime,” since It is entirely eternal.

How then can the Word of God be made, when God made all things by the Word? For if the Word Himself were made, by what other Word was He made? If you say it was by a “Word of the Word” that He was made, then that is the very Word I call the Only-Begotten Son of God. But if you do not call It the “Word of the Word,” then you must grant that the Word by whom all things were made was not made.

And if He is not made, He is not a creature; but if He is not a creature, He is of the same Substance with the Father. For every substance that is not God is a creature, and whatever is not a creature is God.

Theophylact of Ohrid: The Arians are accustomed to say that all things are spoken of as made “by” the Son in the same sense that we say a door is made “by” a saw—that is, as an instrument, not as the actual Maker. They therefore speak of the Son as a thing that was made, as if He were created for the purpose of making all other things through Him.

To the inventors of this lie, we reply simply: If, as you say, the Father had created the Son to use Him as an instrument, it would follow that the Son is less honorable than the things He made, just as things made by a saw are more noble than the saw itself, which was made for their sake. In the same way, they speak of the Father creating the Son for the sake of created things, as if God would not have produced the Son had He not decided to create the universe. What could be more insane than such language? They argue, however, “Why was it not said that the Word made all things, instead of using the preposition by?” It is for this reason: so that you would not imagine an unbegotten and unoriginated Son, who would be a rival God.

St. John Chrysostom: If the preposition “by” perplexes you, and you wish to learn from Scripture that the Word Himself made all things, listen to David: You, Lord, in the beginning have laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of Your hands. That he spoke this of the Only-Begotten, you learn from the Apostle, who applies these words to the Son in the Epistle to the Hebrews.

But if you say that the prophet spoke this of the Father and that Paul applied it to the Son, it amounts to the same thing. For Paul would not have applied it to the Son unless he considered the Father and the Son to be of equal dignity. Furthermore, if you imagine that the preposition “by” implies any subjection, why does Paul use it in reference to the Father? For instance, God is faithful, by whom you were called into the fellowship of His Son; and again, Paul an Apostle by the will of God.

Origen of Alexandria: Here, too, Valentinus errs, saying that the Word supplied the cause of creation to the Creator. If this interpretation were true, it should have been written that all things had their existence from the Word through the Creator, not the other way around: through the Word from the Creator.

John 1:3b

St. John Chrysostom: So that you do not suppose, when John says, All things were made by Him, that he meant only the things Moses spoke of, he appropriately adds, And without Him was not any thing made. This means nothing was made that is cognizable either by the senses or by the understanding. Alternatively, lest you suspect the sentence All things were made by Him refers only to the miracles related by the other Evangelists, he adds, and without Him was not any thing made.

St. Hilary of Poitiers: Or, to put it another way: some might say that the statement all things were made by him claims too much. After all, there is the Unbegotten, who is made by no one, and there is the Son Himself, begotten from the One who is Unbegotten. The Evangelist, however, implies the Son's role as Author again when he speaks of Him as being associated with the act of creation, saying, without Him was not any thing made. I understand this phrase—that nothing was made without Him—to mean that the Son was not alone in the work, for “by whom” is one thing, and “not without whom” is another.

Origen of Alexandria: Alternatively, so that you might not think that the things made by the Word had a separate existence and were not contained in the Word, John says, and without Him was not any thing made. This means that nothing was made externally to Him, for He encircles all things as their Preserver.

St. Augustine of Hippo: Or, by saying, without Him was not any thing made, John tells us not to suspect that the Son is in any sense a thing that was made. For how can He be a thing that was made when, as it is said, God made nothing without Him?

Origen of Alexandria: If all things were made by the Word, and if wickedness and the entire influx of sin are included in “all things,” then these too would have been made by the Word—which is false. Now, “nothing” and “a thing which is not” mean the same thing. The Apostle seems to call wicked things “things which are not,” as when he says, God calls those things which be not, as though they were. All wickedness, then, is called “nothing,” because it is made without the Word.

However, those who say that the devil is not a creature of God are in error. Insofar as he is “the devil,” he is not a creature of God; but the being whose character it is to be the devil is a creature of God. It is as if we were to say a murderer is not a creature of God, when in fact, insofar as he is a man, he is a creature of God.

St. Augustine of Hippo: For sin was not made by Him, since it is clear that sin is nothing, and that people become nothing when they sin. Nor was an idol made by the Word. An idol does indeed have a kind of human form, and man himself was made by the Word, but the human form in an idol was not made by the Word, for it is written, we know that an idol is nothing. These things, then, were not made by the Word. Rather, whatever things were made according to nature—the whole universe—were made by Him, every creature from an angel to a worm.

Origen of Alexandria: Valentinus excludes from the things made by the Word everything that was made in the ages he believes existed before the Word. This is plainly false, because in his system, the things he considers divine are excluded from “all things,” while what he deems wholly corrupt are considered to be “all things”!

St. Augustine of Hippo: We must not listen to the folly of those who think “nothing” should be understood here as “something” simply because it is placed at the end of the sentence. It makes no difference whether it is said, “without Him nothing was made,” or, “without Him was made nothing.”

Origen of Alexandria: If “the word” is taken to mean the reason that is in each person, implanted there by the Word who was in the beginning, then we also commit “nothing” (that is, sin) without this inner “word” or reason.

For the Apostle says that sin was dead without the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived, because sin is not imputed when there is no law. But neither was there sin when there was no Word, for our Lord says, If I had not come and spoken to them, they had not had sin.

For every excuse is withdrawn from the sinner if, with the Word present and commanding what is to be done, he refuses to obey. The Word is not to be blamed on this account, any more than a teacher whose instruction leaves no excuse for a disobedient student on the grounds of ignorance. All things, then, were made by the Word—not only the natural world, but also whatever is done by those acting with reason.

John 1:4a

The Venerable Bede: The Evangelist had said that every creature was made by the Word. So that no one might think His will was changeable, as if He suddenly decided to make a creature which He had not made from eternity, the Evangelist was careful to show the following: although a creature was made in time, it had been arranged from eternity in the Wisdom of the Creator what and when He would create.

St. Augustine of Hippo: The passage can be read this way: What was made in Him was life. Therefore, the whole universe is life, for what was not made in Him? He is the Wisdom of God, as it is said, In wisdom have you made them all. All things, therefore, are made in Him, just as they are by Him. But if whatever was made in Him is life, then the earth is life, and a stone is life. We must not interpret it so unsoundly, lest the sect of the Manicheans creep in and say that a stone has life and a wall has life. For they insanely assert this, and when corrected or refuted, they appeal as if to Scripture and ask why it was said, That which was made in Him was life?

Instead, read the passage this way: place the pause after What was made, and then continue, In Him was life. The earth was made, but the earth itself, as a created thing, is not life. In the Wisdom of God, however, there is a spiritual "Reason" according to which the earth is made. This Reason is Life.

For example, a chest as a physical object is not life, but a chest in the mind of the artisan is life, because the mind of the worker, where that original pattern exists, is alive. In this sense, the Wisdom of God, by which all things are made, contains in His art all things that are made according to that art. Therefore, whatever is made is not life in itself, but it is life in Him.

Origen of Alexandria: The passage can also be divided this way: That which was made in Him; and then, was life. The meaning is that all things made by Him and in Him are life in Him and are one in Him. That is, they existed in Him as the cause before they existed in themselves as effects.

If you ask how all things made by the Word subsist in Him vitally, immutably, and causally, take some examples from the created world. See how all things within the arch of the sensory world have their causes subsisting simultaneously and harmoniously in the sun, the world's greatest luminary. See how countless crops of herbs and fruits are contained in single seeds, how the most complex variety of rules in the art of the craftsman and the mind of the director are a living unit, and how an infinite number of lines coexist in one point.

Contemplate these examples, and you will be able, as if on the wings of natural science, to penetrate the secrets of the Word with your intellectual eye. You will see, as far as a human understanding is allowed, how all things that were made by the Word live in Him and were made in Him.

St. Hilary of Poitiers: Alternatively, it can be understood this way. Since the Evangelist had said, without Him was not anything made, one might be perplexed and ask: "Was something made by another, which was nevertheless not made without Him?" If so, then although nothing is made without Him, not all things are made by Him—since it is one thing to make, and another to be with the maker.

For this reason, the Evangelist declares what it was that was not made without Him: namely, that which was made in Him. This, then, is what was not made without Him: that which was made in Him. And that which was made in Him was also made by Him, for all things were created in Him and by Him.

Now, things were made in Him because He was born God the Creator. For this reason also, things that were made in Him were not made without Him: because God, in that He was born, was life, and He who was life was not made life after being born. Therefore, nothing that was made in Him was made without Him, because He was the life in whom they were made; because God who was born of God was God—not becoming God after being born, but being God in being born.

St. John Chrysostom: To give another explanation, we will not place the pause as the heretics do. Wishing to prove the Holy Spirit is a creature, they read, That which was made in Him, was life. But it cannot be understood this way. First, this was not the place to mention the Holy Spirit. But even if we suppose it was and take the passage according to their reading, we see it leads to a difficulty.

When it says, That which was made in Him, was life, they say the life spoken of is the Holy Spirit. But this life is also light, for the Evangelist continues, The life was the light of men. Therefore, according to them, he calls the Holy Spirit the light of all men. But the Word mentioned above is the one he consecutively calls God, Life, and Light. And the Word was made flesh. It would follow, then, that the Holy Spirit was incarnate, not the Son.

Dismissing that reading, we adopt a more suitable one with the following meaning: we pause after All things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made that was made. Then we begin a new sentence: In Him was life. The phrase without Him was not anything made that was made means "anything that could be made." You see how, with this short addition, he removes any potential difficulty.

By introducing without Him was not anything made and adding, that was made, he includes all invisible things and excepts the Holy Spirit, for the Spirit cannot be made. After mentioning creation, he moves to providence: In Him was life.

Like a fountain that produces vast depths of water and yet is not diminished at its source, so the Only-Begotten works. However great His creations may be, He Himself is no less because of them. The word "life" here means not only creation but also the providence by which created things are preserved. But when you are told that in Him was life, do not suppose He is a composite being; for, as the Father has life in Himself, so has He given to the Son to have life in Himself. Just as you would not call the Father a composite being, neither should you call the Son one.

Origen of Alexandria: Or consider this: Our Savior is said to be some things not for Himself but for others, and other things for both Himself and others. When it says, That which was made in Him was life, we must ask whether this life is for Himself and others, or for others only—and if for others, for whom?

Now, the Life and the Light are the same Person. He is the light of men; He is therefore their life. The Savior is called Life here not for Himself, but for others, whose Light He also is. This life is inseparable from the Word from the time it is joined to it. For Reason—that is, the Word—must first exist in the soul, cleansing it from sin, until it is pure enough to receive the life, which is then engrafted or inborn in everyone who makes himself fit to receive the Word of God.

Hence, observe that although the Word Himself was not made in the beginning (for the Beginning was never without the Word), yet the life of men was not always in the Word. This life of men was made in that it was the light of men, and this light of men could not exist before man existed, since "the light of men" is understood in relation to men. Therefore, he says, That which was made in the Word was life, not "That which was in the Word was life."

Some copies read, not incorrectly, "That which was made, in Him is life." If we understand the life in the Word to be He who says later, I am the life, we must confess that no one who does not believe in Christ lives, and that all who do not live in God are dead.

John 1:4b

Theophylact of Ohrid: He had said, In Him was life, so that you might not suppose the Word was without life. Now he shows that this life is spiritual and is the light of all rational creatures. And the life was the light of men means it is not a perceptible light, but an intellectual light that illuminates the soul itself.

St. Augustine of Hippo: Life itself gives illumination to men, but not to cattle, for they do not have rational souls by which to discern wisdom. In contrast, man, being made in the image of God, has a rational soul by which he can discern wisdom. Hence, that life by which all things are made is a light, not for all animals whatsoever, but for men.

Theophylact of Ohrid: He did not say "the Light of the Jews only," but of all men. For all of us, insofar as we have received intellect and reason from the Word who created us, are said to be illuminated by Him. The reason that is given to us, which makes us the rational beings we are, is a light directing us on what to do and what not to do.

Origen of Alexandria: We must not fail to notice that he puts the life before the light of men. It would be a contradiction to suppose a being without life could be illuminated, as if life were an addition to illumination.

But to proceed: if the life was the light of men, meaning only men, then Christ would be the light and life of men only—a heretical supposition. It does not follow, when something is predicated of a group, that it is predicated of them alone. For of God it is written that He is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and yet He is not the God of those patriarchs only. In the same way, the "light of men" is not excluded from being the light of others as well.

Furthermore, some contend from Genesis, Let us make man in our image, that "man" here means whatever is made in the image and likeness of God. If so, "the light of men" is the light of any rational creature whatsoever.

St. Augustine of Hippo: Since that life is the light of men, foolish hearts cannot receive it, being so burdened with sins that they cannot see it. For this reason, so that no one would think there is no light near them simply because they cannot see it, he continues: And the light shines in darkness, and the darkness comprehended it not. Suppose a blind man is standing in the sun; the sun is present to him, but he is absent from the sun. In the same way, every fool is blind, and wisdom is present to him. But though wisdom is present, it is absent from his sight because his sight is gone. The truth is not that wisdom is absent from him, but that he is absent from her.

Origen of Alexandria: This kind of darkness, however, is not in men by nature, according to the text in Ephesians: You were once darkness, but now you are light in the Lord.

Alternatively, the light shines in the darkness of faithful souls, beginning from faith and drawing them onward to hope. But the deceit and ignorance of undisciplined souls did not comprehend the light of the Word of God shining in the flesh. This, however, is an ethical meaning.

The metaphysical meaning of the words is as follows. Human nature, even if it had not sinned, could not shine by its own strength alone, for it is not light by nature but only a recipient of light. It is capable of containing wisdom but is not wisdom itself. Just as the air does not shine by itself but is called darkness, so also is our nature, considered in itself, a dark substance that nevertheless admits and partakes of the light of wisdom. And as the air, when it receives the sun’s rays, is not said to shine by itself but to make the sun’s radiance apparent, so the rational part of our nature, while possessing the presence of the Word of God, does not understand God and intellectual things on its own, but only by means of the divine light implanted in it. Thus, the light shines in darkness, for the Word of God—the life and the light of men—never ceases to shine in our nature, even though that nature, regarded in itself, is formless and dark. And because pure light cannot be comprehended by any creature, the text says, The darkness comprehended it not.

St. John Chrysostom: Alternatively, throughout the entire preceding passage, John had been speaking of creation. Then he mentions the spiritual benefits which the Word brought with it: and the life was the light of men. He did not say, "the light of the Jews," but of all men without exception, for not only the Jews but the Gentiles also have come to this knowledge. He omits the angels, for he is speaking of human nature, to whom the Word came bringing good news.

Origen of Alexandria: But some ask why the Word Itself is not called the light of men, instead of the life which is in the Word. We reply that the life spoken of here is not the life that rational and irrational animals have in common, but the life that is joined to the Word within us through participation in the eternal Word. For we must distinguish the external and false life from the desirable and true life. We are first made partakers of life, and for some, this life is light only potentially, not actually—namely, for those who are not eager to seek out the things that pertain to knowledge. For others, it is actual light—for those who, as the Apostle said, covet earnestly the best gifts, that is, the word of wisdom. (If the life and the light of men are the same, whoever is in darkness is proven not to live, and no one who lives abides in darkness.)

St. John Chrysostom: Now that life has come to us, the empire of death is dissolved. A light has shone upon us, so there is darkness no longer. Instead, there remains forever a life that death cannot overcome and a light that darkness cannot conquer.

Therefore, he continues, And the light shines in darkness. By "darkness" he means death and error. For physical light does not shine in darkness—the darkness must first be removed. In contrast, the preaching of Christ shone forth in the midst of error's reign and caused it to disappear. By dying, Christ changed death into life, so overcoming it that even those who were already in its grasp were brought back again. Because neither death nor error has overcome His light, which shines conspicuously everywhere by its own strength, he therefore adds, And the darkness comprehended it not.

Origen of Alexandria: Just as "the light of men" is a phrase expressing two spiritual things, so also is "darkness." To one who possesses the light, we attribute both the doing of the deeds of light and also true understanding, since he is illuminated by the light of knowledge. On the other hand, we apply the term "darkness" both to unlawful acts and also to that knowledge which seems to be knowledge, but is not. Now, as the Father is light, and in Him is no darkness at all, so also is the Savior. Yet, because He took on the likeness of our sinful flesh, it is not incorrect to say that there was some darkness in Him, for He took our darkness upon Himself in order to dispel it.

This Light, which was made the life of man, therefore shines in the darkness of our hearts when the prince of this darkness makes war against the human race. The darkness persecuted this Light, as is clear from what our Savior and His children suffer, with the darkness fighting against the children of light. But because God takes up their cause, the darkness does not prevail, nor does it apprehend the light. For it is either too slow to overtake the light’s swift course or, when waiting for the light to approach, it is put to flight by its arrival.

We should bear in mind, however, that "darkness" is not always used in a bad sense, but sometimes in a good one, as in Psalm 18:11: He made darkness His secret place. Here, the things of God are unknown and incomprehensible. This darkness, then, I will call praiseworthy, since it tends toward light and lays hold of it. For though it was darkness before, while it was unknown, it is turned to light and knowledge in the one who has learned.

St. Augustine of Hippo: A certain Platonist once said that the beginning of this Gospel ought to be copied in letters of gold and placed in the most conspicuous place in every church.

The Venerable Bede: The other Evangelists describe Christ as born in time; John testifies that He was in the beginning, saying, In the beginning was the Word. The others describe His sudden appearance among men; John testifies that He was always with God, saying, And the Word was with God. The others prove Him to be truly man; John proves Him to be truly God, saying, And the Word was God. The others show Him as a man conversing with men for a season; John declares Him to be God abiding with God in the beginning, saying, The same was in the beginning with God. The others relate the great deeds He did among men; John relates that God the Father made every creature through Him, saying, All things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made.