Thomas Aquinas Commentary John 1:14

"And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us (and we beheld his glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father), full of grace and truth." — John 1:14 (ASV)

1. Having explained the necessity for the Word’s coming in the flesh and the benefits this conferred, the Evangelist now shows the way He came, with the words, and the Word was made flesh.

   He thus resumes the thread of his earlier statement, he came unto his own (John 1:11). It is as if to say: the Word of God came unto his own. But so that no one would suppose that He came by changing His location, the Evangelist shows the manner in which He came—that is, by an incarnation. For He came in the same way He was sent by the Father; that is, He was made flesh. God sent his Son, made of a woman (Galatians 4:4). And Augustine says about this that "he was sent in the manner in which he was made."Augustine, The Trinity (CPL 0329), bk. 5, ch. 19, par. 26.

   According to Chrysostom, however, John is here continuing the earlier statement, he gave them power to become the sons of God (John 1:12).John Chrysostom, Commentary on Saint John hom. 11, ch. 1. It is as if to say: if you wonder how He was able to give this power to men—that is, that they could become sons of God—the Evangelist answers that because the Word was made flesh, He made it possible for us to be made sons of God. God sent his Son... so that we might receive the adoption of sons (Galatians 4:5).

   But according to Augustine, he is continuing the earlier statement, who are born... of God (John 1:13).Augustine, Tractates on the Gospel of John (CPL 0278), tract. 2, par. 15. For since it seemed a difficult teaching that men could be born of God, then, as if arguing in support of this and to produce belief in the Word's existence, the Evangelist adds something that seems even less fitting: that the Word was made flesh. It is as if to say: do not wonder if men are born of God, because the Word was made flesh—that is, God became man.

2. It should be noted that this statement, the Word was made flesh, has been misinterpreted by some and made the occasion of error.

   For some have presumed that the Word became flesh in the sense that He or something of Him was turned into flesh, as when flour is made into bread, and air becomes fire. One of these was Eutyches, who proposed a mixture of natures in Christ, saying that in Him the nature of God and of man was the same.Eutyches (c. 380–456) first rose to prominence for his opposition to Nestorius (c. 386–450), who denied the appropriateness of Mary's epithet "mother of God" (theotokos) on the ground that she could only have been the mother of Christ's human nature. Nestorius' view was condemned at the Council of Ephesus (431) as implying that Christ comprised two distinct persons or hypostases. At the opposite extreme, Eutyches defended the theotokos by denying any duality of natures in Jesus, in whom, he argued, humanity and divinity were fused into a single nature (mono physis. At the Council of Chalcedon (451), this monophysite view of Jesus as possessed of a single hybrid nature was condemned as a heresy.

   We can clearly see that this is false because, as was said earlier, the Word was God (John 1:1). Now God is immutable, as is said, I am the LORD, and I do not change (Malachi 3:6). Therefore, it can in no way be said that He was turned into another nature. In opposition to Eutyches, one must say that the Word was made flesh means the Word assumed flesh, but not in the sense that the Word Himself is that flesh. It is as if we were to say: the man became white, not that he is that whiteness, but that he assumed whiteness.

3. There were others who, although they believed that the Word was not changed into flesh but assumed it, nevertheless said that He assumed flesh without a soul. They argued that if He had assumed flesh with a soul, the Evangelist would have said, "the Word was made flesh with a soul." This was the error of Arius, who said that there was no soul in Christ, but that the Word of God was there in place of a soul.

   The falsity of this opinion is obvious, both because it conflicts with Sacred Scripture, which often mentions the soul of Christ, as in: my soul is sad, even to the point of death (Matthew 26:38), and because certain affections of the soul are observed in Christ which cannot possibly exist in the Word of God or in flesh alone: he began to be sorrowful and troubled (Matthew 26:37). Also, God cannot be the form of a body. Nor can an angel be united to a body as its form, since an angel, by its very nature, is separate from a body, whereas a soul is united to a body as its form. Consequently, the Word of God cannot be the form of a body.

   Furthermore, it is plain that flesh does not acquire its specific nature except through its soul. This is shown by the fact that when the soul has withdrawn from the body of a man or a cow, the flesh of the man or the cow is called flesh only in an equivocal sense. So if the Word did not assume flesh with a soul, it is obvious that He did not assume flesh. But the Word was made flesh; therefore, He assumed flesh with a soul.

4. And there were others who, influenced by this reasoning, said that the Word did indeed assume flesh with a soul, but this soul was only a sensitive soul, not an intellectual one; the Word took the place of the intellectual soul in Christ’s body. This was the error of Apollinaris. He followed Arius for a time, but later, faced with the scriptural authorities cited above, was forced to admit a soul in Christ that could be the subject of these emotions. But he said this soul lacked reason and intellect, and that in the man Christ their place was taken by the Word.

   This too is obviously false, because it conflicts with the authority of Sacred Scripture, in which certain things are said of Christ that can be found neither in His divinity, nor in a sensitive soul, nor in flesh alone. For example, Christ marveled, as in Matthew (Matthew 8:10). For to marvel or wonder is a state that arises in a rational and intellectual soul when a desire to know the hidden cause of an observed effect emerges. Therefore, just as sadness compels one to posit a sensitive element in the soul of Christ, against Arius, so marveling or amazement forces one to admit an intellectual element in Christ, against Apollinaris.

   The same conclusion can be reached by reason. For just as there is no flesh without a soul, so there is no human flesh without a human soul, which is an intellectual soul. So if the Word assumed flesh that was animated with a merely sensitive soul to the exclusion of a rational soul, He did not assume human flesh; consequently, one could not say, "God became man."

   Besides, the Word assumed human nature in order to restore it. Therefore, He restored what He assumed. But if He did not assume a rational soul, He would not have restored it. Consequently, no benefit would have come to us from the incarnation of the Word; and this is false. Therefore, the Word was made flesh means He assumed flesh that was animated by a rational soul.

5. But you may ask: if the Word did assume flesh with such a soul, why did the Evangelist not mention the rational soul, instead of only the flesh, saying, the Word was made flesh?

   I answer that the Evangelist had four reasons for doing this.

   1. To show the truth of the incarnation against the Manichaeans, who said that the Word did not assume true flesh, but only imaginary flesh, since it would not have been fitting for the Word of the good God to assume flesh, which they regarded as a creature of the devil. And so to exclude this, the Evangelist made special mention of the flesh, just as Christ showed the truth of the resurrection to the disciples when they took Him for a spirit, saying: a spirit does not have flesh and bones, as you see that I have (Luke 24:39).

   2. To show the greatness of God’s kindness to us. For it is evident that the rational soul has a greater likeness to God than does flesh, and that it would have been a great sign of compassion if the Word had assumed only a human soul, as being similar to Himself. But to assume flesh too, which is something far removed from the simplicity of His nature, was a sign of a much greater—indeed, an incomprehensible—compassion. As the Apostle says: obviously great is the mystery of godliness which appeared in the flesh (1 Timothy 3:16). And so to indicate this, the Evangelist mentioned only flesh.

   3. To demonstrate the truth and uniqueness of the union in Christ. For God is indeed united to other holy people, but only with respect to their soul; so it is said: she passes into holy souls, making them friends of God and prophets . But that the Word of God is united to flesh is unique to Christ, according to the Psalmist: I am alone until I pass (Psalms 140:10), and gold cannot equal it (Job 28:17). So the Evangelist, wishing to show the uniqueness of the union in Christ, mentioned only the flesh, saying, the Word was made flesh.

   4. To suggest its relevance to humanity’s restoration. For humanity was weak because of the flesh. And thus the Evangelist, wishing to suggest that the coming of the Word was suited to the task of our restoration, made special mention of the flesh in order to show that the weak flesh was restored by the flesh of the Word. And this is what the Apostle says: the law was powerless because it was weakened by the flesh. God, sending his Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and in reparation for sin, condemned sin in his flesh (Romans 8:3).

6. A question arises: why did the Evangelist not say that the Word assumed flesh, but rather that the Word was made flesh?

   I answer that he did this to exclude the error of Nestorius. He said that in Christ there were two persons and two sons, the other being the son of the Virgin. Thus, he did not admit that the Blessed Virgin was the mother of God.

   But if this were so, it would mean that God did not become man, for one particular suppositum cannot be predicated of another. Accordingly, if the person or suppositum of the Word is different from the person or suppositum of the man in Christ, then what the Evangelist says is not true, namely, the Word was made flesh. For a thing is made or becomes something in order to be that thing; if, then, the Word is not man, it could not be said that the Word became man. And so the Evangelist expressly said was made, and not "assumed," to show that the union of the Word to flesh is not like the inspiration of the prophets, who were not taken up into a unity of person, but only for the prophetic act. This union is such that it would truly make God man and man God—that is, that God would be man.

7. There were some, too, who, misunderstanding the manner of the incarnation, did indeed admit that the aforesaid assumption resulted in a unity of person, acknowledging in Christ one person of God and man. But they said that in Him there were two hypostases, that is, two supposita;'Suppositum' (pl. supposita) is most simply defined in terms of the distinction between properties and their bearers. A suppositum, accordingly, is an individual bearer of properties that is not itself a property. See under "suppono," in Roy J. Deferrari, A Lexicon of Saint Thomas Aquinas. Fitzwilliam, NH: Loreto, 2004. one of a human nature, created and non-eternal, and the other of the divine nature, non-created and eternal. This is the first opinion presented in the Sentences (3, d. 6).

   According to this opinion the proposition, that God was made man and man was made God, is not true. Consequently, this opinion was condemned as heretical by the Fifth Council, where it is said: "if anyone shall assert one person and two hypostases in the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be anathema."The Second Council of Constantinople (553), canon 3. And so the Evangelist, to exclude any assumption that did not result in a unity of person, says, was made.

8. If you ask how the Word is man, it must be said that He is man in the same way anyone is a man: namely, by having a human nature. The Word is not human nature itself, but is a divine suppositum united to a human nature.

   The statement, the Word was made flesh, does not indicate any change in the Word, but only in the nature newly assumed into the unity of a divine person. And the Word was made flesh through a union to flesh. Now a union is a relation. And relations newly attributed to God with respect to creatures do not imply a change on God's part, but on the part of the creature, which now relates to God in a new way.

9. Next follows, and dwelt among us. This can be understood in two ways in relation to what came before.

   First, above, the Evangelist dealt with the incarnation of the Word when he said, the Word was made flesh; but now he touches on the manner of the incarnation, saying, and dwelt among us. For according to Chrysostom and Hilary, by the Evangelist saying the Word was made flesh, someone might think that the Word was converted into flesh and that there are not two distinct natures in Christ, but only one nature compounded from the human and divine natures.John Chrysostom, Commentary on Saint John, hom. 11, ch. 2. Hilary of Poitiers, The Trinity (CPL 0433), bk. 10, ch. 22. And so the Evangelist, excluding this, added, and dwelt among us, that is, in our nature. Furthermore, something that is not distinct from another does not dwell in it, because to dwell implies a distinction between the one dwelling and the place in which it dwells. But the Word dwelt in our nature; therefore, He is distinct in nature from it. And so, insofar as the human nature in Christ was distinct from the nature of the Word, the human nature is called the dwelling place and temple of the divinity: but he was speaking of the temple of his body (John 2:21).

10. Now, although what is said here by these holy men is orthodox, care must be taken to avoid a certain pitfall. For the early doctors and saints were so intent on refuting emerging errors concerning the faith that they sometimes seemed to fall into the opposite errors. For example, Augustine, speaking against the Manichaeans who denied free will, argued in such terms that he seemed to have fallen into the Pelagian heresy.Cf. Thomas Aquinas, Liber contra Errores Graecorum pt. 1 where he elaborates this point. The point is not that Augustine had actually held to a form of Pelagianism in his polemics against the Manicheans but that prior to the Pelagian controversy there had been no need for him to qualify his affirmations of the freedom of the will. The broader point is that the teaching of earlier fathers, because it is often underqualified in relation to later controversies, needs to be interpreted carefully and reverently in light of the teaching of the Church.

    In this way, so that in saying the Word was made flesh it would not be thought that there was a confusion or change of natures in Christ, John the Evangelist added, and dwelt among us. Nestorius misunderstood this phrase and said that the Son of God was united to man in such a way that there was not one person of both God and man. For he held that the Word was united to human nature only by an indwelling through grace. From this, however, it follows that the Son of God is not truly man.

11. To clarify this, we should understand that we can consider two things in Christ: His nature and His person.

    In Christ there is a distinction of nature but not of person. The person is one and the same in both natures, since the human nature in Christ was assumed into a unity of person. Therefore, the indwelling that the saints speak of must be referred to the nature, so that we say He dwelt among us, meaning the nature of the Word inhabited our nature. This does not apply to the hypostasis or person, which is the same for both natures in Christ.

12. The blasphemy of Nestorius is further refuted by the authority of Sacred Scripture.

    For the Apostle calls the union of God and man an "emptying," saying of the Son of God: who, being in the form of God... emptied himself, taking the form of a servant (Philippians 2:6). Clearly, God is not said to empty Himself insofar as He dwells in a rational creature by grace, because then the Father and the Holy Spirit would also be emptying themselves, since they too are said to dwell in man through grace. For Christ, speaking of Himself and of the Father says, we will come to him, and will make our abode with him (John 14:23); and of the Holy Spirit the Apostle says: the Spirit of God dwells in us (1 Corinthians 3:16).

    Furthermore, if Christ were not God in His person, He would have been extremely presumptuous to say, I and my Father are one (John 10:30), and before Abraham was, I am (John 8:58). The word I refers to the person of the speaker. And the one who was speaking was a man who, as one with the Father, existed before Abraham.

13. However, another connection to what came before is possible. Above, the Evangelist dealt with the incarnation of the Word, but now he is treating the manner of life of the incarnate Word, saying, He dwelt among us, that is, He lived on familiar terms with us apostles. Peter alludes to this when he says, during all the time that the Lord Jesus came and went among us (Acts 1:21). Afterward he was seen on earth .

14. The Evangelist added this for two reasons.

    1. To show the marvelous similarity of the Word to men, among whom He lived in such a way as to seem one of them. For He not only chose to be like men in nature, but also in living with them on close terms, yet without sin, in order to draw to Himself men who were won over by the appeal of His way of life.

    2. To show the truth of the Evangelist’s statements. For the Evangelist had already said many great things about the Word, and was yet to mention even more wonderful things about Him. So that his testimony would be more credible, he offered as proof of his truthfulness the fact that he had lived with Christ, saying, He dwelt among us. It is as if to say: I can bear true witness to Him, because I lived in close fellowship with Him. We tell you... what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes (1 John 1:1); God raised him up on the third day, and granted that he be seen, not by all the people, but by witnesses preordained by God, that is, to us who ate and drank with him (Acts 10:40).

1. Having explained the incarnation of the Word, the Evangelist then begins to present the evidence for the incarnate Word.

   He does two things regarding this. First, he shows the ways in which the incarnate Word was made known. Second, he clarifies each way, beginning with and of his fullness we have all received (John 1:16).

   The incarnate Word was made known to the apostles in two ways: first, they obtained knowledge of him by what they saw; second, by what they heard from the testimony of John the Baptist.

   So first, he states what they saw concerning the Word, and second, what they heard from John, beginning with John bears witness to him (John 1:15).

   He states three things about the Word. First, the manifestation of his glory; hence he says, and we saw his glory. Second, the uniqueness of his glory, when he adds, as it were of the only begotten. Third, the precise nature of this glory, because he is full of grace and truth.

2. The phrase And we saw his glory can be connected in three ways with what came before.

   First, it can be taken as an argument for his having said, the Word was made flesh. It is as if to say: I hold and know that the Word of God was incarnate because I and the other apostles have seen his glory. We speak what we know, and we testify what we have seen (John 3:11). We tell you . . . what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes (1 John 1:1).

3. Second, according to Chrysostom, the connection is made by taking this statement as expressing many benefits.John Chrysostom, Commentary on Saint John, hom. 12, ch. 1. It is as if to say: the incarnation of the Word not only conferred on us the benefit of becoming sons of God, but also the good of seeing his glory.

   For dull and feeble eyes cannot see the light of the sun, but they can see it when it shines in a cloud or on some opaque body. Before the incarnation of the Word, human minds were incapable of seeing the divine light in itself—the light which enlightens every rational nature. And so, that it might be more easily seen and contemplated by us, he covered it with the cloud of our flesh: they looked towards the wilderness: and behold the glory of the Lord appeared in a cloud (Exodus 16:10), that is, the Word of God in the flesh.

4. According to Augustine, however, the connection refers to the gift of grace.Augustine, Tractates on the Gospel of John (CPL 0278), tract. 2, par. 16.

   The failure of humanity's spiritual eyes to contemplate the divine light is due not only to our natural limitations but also to the weakness caused by sin: fire, that is, of concupiscence, fell on them, and they did not see the sun, of justice (Psalms 57:9). Therefore, so that the divine light might be seen by us, he healed our eyes, making an eye salve of his flesh. With the salve of his flesh, the Word could heal our eyes, weakened by the concupiscence of the flesh.

   This is why just after saying, the Word was made flesh, he says, we saw his glory. To indicate this, the Lord made clay from his saliva and spread the clay upon the eyes of the man born blind (John 9:6). For clay is from the earth, but saliva comes from the head. Similarly, in the person of Christ, his human nature was assumed from the earth, but the incarnate Word is from the head, that is, from God the Father. So, when this clay was spread on the eyes of men, we saw his glory.

5. This is the glory Moses longed to see, saying, show me your glory (Exodus 32:18). But he did not merit to see it; indeed, he was answered by the Lord: you shall see my back (Exodus 33:23), that is, shadows and figures. But the apostles saw his brightness: all of us, gazing on the Lord’s glory with unveiled faces, are being transformed from glory to glory into his very image (2 Corinthians 3:18).

   For Moses and the other prophets saw obscurely and in figures the glory of the Word that was to be manifested to the world at the end of their times, as the Apostle says (1 Corinthians 13:12). Thus, it is also said: these things said Isaias, when he saw his glory, and spoke of him (John 12:41). But the apostles saw the very brilliance of the Word through his bodily presence: all of us, gazing on the Lord’s glory, and so forth (2 Corinthians 3:18); blessed are the eyes which see what you see. For many kings and prophets desired to see what you see, and did not see it (Luke 10:23).

6. Then when he says, the glory as it were of the only begotten, he shows the uniqueness of his glory.

   Since it is written of certain men that they were in glory—as of Moses it says that his face shone (Exodus 34:29), or was horned, according to another text—someone might say that from the fact that they saw him in glory, it should not be concluded that the Word of God was made flesh. But the Evangelist excludes this when he says, the glory as it were of the only begotten of the Father. It is as if to say: his glory is not like the glory of an angel, or of Moses, or Elijah, or Elisha, or anything like that, but the glory as it were of the only begotten. For as it is said, he was counted worthy of more glory than Moses (Hebrews 3:3); who among the sons of God is like God? (Psalms 88:7).

7. The word as, according to Gregory, is used to express the fact (Moral. 18.6). But according to Chrysostom, it expresses the manner of the fact. It is as if someone were to see a king approaching in great glory and, being asked by another to describe the king he saw, he could, if he wanted to be brief, express the grandeur of his glory in one word, and say that he approached as a king—that is, as was fitting for a king.John Chrysostom, Commentary on Saint John, hom. 12, ch. 1. So too, here, the Evangelist, as though asked by someone to describe the glory of the Word which he had seen, and being unable to fully express it, said that it was as it were of the only begotten of the Father, that is, such as was fitting for the only-begotten of God.

8. It should be noted that the uniqueness of the glory of the Word is brought out in four ways.

   1. In the testimony which the Father gave of the Son. For John was one of the three who had seen Christ transfigured on the mountain and heard the voice of the Father saying: this is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased (Matthew 17:5). Of this glory it is said, he received honor and glory from God the Father: this voice coming down to him from excellent glory: ‘this is my beloved Son’ (2 Peter 1:17).

   2. By the service of the angels. For prior to the incarnation of Christ, men were subject to the angels. But after it, angels ministered to Christ as his subjects. Angels came and ministered to him (Matthew 4:11).

   3. By the submission of nature. For all nature obeyed Christ and heeded his slightest command as something established by him, because all things were made through him (John 1:3). This is something granted neither to angels nor to any creature, but to the incarnate Word alone. And this is what we read: what kind of man is this, for the winds and the sea obey him? (Matthew 8:27).

   4. In the way he taught and acted. For Moses and the other prophets gave commands to men and taught them not on their own authority, but on the authority of God. So they said: the Lord says this; and the Lord spoke to Moses. But Christ speaks as the Lord and as one having power, that is, by reason of his own power. Hence he says, I say to you (Matthew 5:22). This is the reason why, at the end of the Sermon on the Mountain, it is said that he taught as one having authority (Matthew 7:29). Furthermore, other holy men worked miracles, but not by their own power. But Christ worked them by his own power, hence it is said, what is this new doctrine? for with power he commands even the unclean spirits, and they obey him (Mark 1:27). In these ways, then, the glory of the Word is unique.

9. Note that sometimes in Scripture we call Christ the only-begotten, as here and elsewhere: the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, has made him known (John 1:18). At other times we call him the first-born: when he brings the firstborn into the world, he says, ‘let all the angels of God adore him’ (Hebrews 1:6).

   The reason for this is that just as it belongs to the whole Blessed Trinity to be God, so it belongs to the Word of God to be God Begotten. Sometimes he is called God according to what he is in himself; and in this way he alone is uniquely God by his own essence. It is in this way that we say there is but one God: hear, O Israel: the Lord your God is one (Deuteronomy 6:4). At other times, we even apply the name of deity to others, insofar as a certain likeness of the divinity is given to men; in this sense we speak of many gods: indeed, there are many gods and many lords (1 Corinthians 8:5).

   Along these lines, if we consider what is proper to the Son as begotten, and consider the way in which this sonship is attributed to him—that is, through nature—we say that he is the only-begotten of God. This is because, since he alone is naturally begotten by the Father, the begotten of the Father is one only. But if we consider the Son insofar as sonship is conferred on others through a likeness to him, then there are many sons of God through participation. And because they are called sons of God by a likeness to him, he is called the first-born of all. Those whom he foreknew, he predestined to become conformed to the image of his Son, so that he might be the first-born of many brothers (Romans 8:29).

   So, Christ is called the only-begotten of God by nature, but he is called the first-born insofar as from his natural sonship, by means of a certain likeness and participation, sonship is granted to many.

10. Then when he says, full of grace and truth, he defines the glory of the Word. It is as if to say: his glory is such that he is full of grace and divinity.

    Now these words can be applied to Christ in three ways.

    First, from the point of view of union. For grace is given to someone so that he might be united to God through it. So he who is most perfectly united to God is full of grace. Now some are joined to God by participating in a natural likeness: let us make man to our image and likeness (Genesis 1:26). Some are joined by faith: that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith (Ephesians 3:17). And others are united by charity, because he who abides in love abides in God (1 John 4:16). But all these ways are partial, because one is not perfectly united to God through the participation of a natural likeness; nor is God seen as he is by faith; nor is he loved to the extent that he is lovable by charity—for since he is the infinite Good, his lovableness is infinite, and the love of no creature is able to love this infinitely. And so these unions are not able to be full.

    But in Christ, in whom human nature is united to the divinity in the unity of a suppositum, we find a full and perfect union with God. The reason for this is that this union was such that all the acts not only of his divine but also of his human nature were acts of the person. So he was full of grace insofar as he did not receive any special gratuitous gift from God, but that he should be God himself. He gave him, i.e., God the Father gave to the Son, a name which is above every name (Philippians 2:9). He was foreordained to be the Son of God in power (Romans 1:4). He was also full of truth, because the human nature in Christ attained to the divine truth itself, that is, that this man should be the divine truth itself. In other men we find many participated truths, insofar as the first truth gleams back into their minds through many likenesses; but Christ is truth itself. Thus it is said: in whom all the treasures of wisdom are hidden (Colossians 2:3).

11. Second, these words can be applied in relation to the perfection of his soul. Then he is said to be full of grace and truth inasmuch as in his soul there was the fullness of all graces without measure: for God does not give the Spirit by measure (John 3:34). However, it was given in portions to all rational creatures, both angels and men. For according to Augustine, just as there is one sense common to all the parts of the body, namely, the sense of touch, while all the senses are found in the head, so in Christ, who is the head of every rational creature—and in a special way of the saints who are united to him by faith and charity—all virtues and graces and gifts are found superabundantly;Augustine, The Presence of God 13.40. but in others, i.e., the saints, we find participations of the graces and gifts, although there is a gift common to all the saints, and that is charity. We read about this fullness of Christ’s grace: there shall come forth a shoot out of the root of Jesse, and a flower shall spring up out of his root. And the spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him: the spirit of wisdom and of understanding, the spirit of counsel and of fortitude, the spirit of knowledge and of piety (Isaiah 11:1).

    Further, Christ was also full of truth because his precious and blessed soul knew every truth, human and divine, from the instant of his conception. And so Peter said to him, you know all things (John 21:17). And it is also said: my truth, i.e., the knowledge of every truth, and my mercy, i.e., the fullness of all graces, shall be with him (Psalms 88:25).

12. In a third way, these words can be explained in relation to his dignity as head, that is, insofar as Christ is the head of the Church. In this way it is his prerogative to communicate grace to others, both by producing virtue in the minds of men through the inpouring of grace and by meriting, through his teaching and works and the sufferings of his death, superabundant grace for an infinite number of worlds, if there were such. Therefore, he is full of grace insofar as he conferred perfect justice upon us. We could not acquire this perfect justice through the law, which was weak and could make no one just or bring anyone to perfection. As we read: the law was powerless because it was weakened by the flesh. God, sending his Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and in reparation for sin, condemned sin in his flesh (Romans 8:3).

    Again, he was full of truth insofar as he fulfilled the figures of the old law and the promises made to the fathers. Christ was a minister to the circumcised to confirm the promises made to the fathers (Romans 15:8); all the promises of God are fulfilled in him (2 Corinthians 1:20).

    Further, he is said to be full of grace because his teaching and manner of life were most gracious. Grace is poured out upon your lips (Psalms 44:3). And so it is said, all the people came to him early in the morning, i.e., in the morning they were eager to come (Luke 21:38). He was full of truth, because he did not teach in enigmas and figures, nor gloss over the vices of men, but preached the truth to all, openly and without deception. As it says below: now you speak plainly (John 16:29).