Thomas Aquinas Commentary John 1:2

"The same was in the beginning with God." — John 1:2 (ASV)

38. Then he says, he was in the beginning with God.

This is the fourth clause and is introduced because of the preceding one. From the Evangelist’s statement that the Word was God, two false interpretations could arise among those who misunderstand. One of these is from the pagans, who acknowledge many different gods and say that their wills are in opposition. For example, those who advanced the fable of Jupiter fighting with Saturn, or the Manicheans, who have two contrary principles of nature.The Manicheans were an eclectic, Mesopotamian religious movement that emerged in the third century AD. The Manichaeans held a dualistic cosmology in which good and evil were represented by two more-or-less equal deities whose rivalry constituted the fundamental dynamism of history. The Lord said against this error: Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord (Deuteronomy 6:4).

Since the Evangelist had said, the Word was with God, and the Word was God, they could use this in support of their error. They might understand the God with whom the Word is as one God, and the Word as another God with a different or contrary will to the first; and this is against the law of the Gospel.

To exclude this, he says, he was in the beginning with God. It is as if to say, according to Hilary: I say that the Word is God, not as if he has a distinct divinity, but he is with God—that is, in the one same nature in which he is.Hilary of Poitiers, The Trinity (CPL 0433), bk. 2, ch. 16. Furthermore, lest his statement, and the Word was God, be taken to mean that the Word has an opposed will, he added that the Word was in the beginning with God, namely, the Father; not as divided from or opposed to him, but having an identity of nature and a harmony of will with him. This union comes about by the sharing of the divine nature among the three persons and by the bond of the natural love of the Father and the Son.

39. The Arians were able to draw another error from the above. They think that the Son is less than the Father because it says, the Father is greater than I (John 14:28). They say the Father is greater than the Son in both eternity and divinity of nature. To exclude this, the Evangelist added, he was in the beginning with God.

For Arius admits the first clause, in the beginning was the Word, but he will not admit that principium should be taken to mean the Father, but rather the beginning of creatures. So he says that the Word was in the beginning of creatures and, consequently, is in no way coeternal with the Father. But according to Chrysostom, this is excluded by the clause, he was in the beginning—not of creatures, but in the beginning with God, that is, whenever God existed.John Chrysostom, Commentary on Saint John, hom. 4, ch. 1. For the Father was never alone without the Son or Word; rather, he, the Word, was always with God.

40. Again, Arius admits that the Word was God, but nevertheless inferior to the Father. This is excluded by what follows.

There are two attributes proper to the great God which Arius attributed solely to God the Father: eternity and omnipotence. So in whomever these two attributes are found, he is the great God, than whom none is greater. But the Evangelist attributes these two to the Word. Therefore, the Word is the great God and not inferior.

He says the Word is eternal when he states, he was in the beginning with God—that is, the Word was with God from eternity, and not only in the beginning of creatures, as Arius held; but he was with God, receiving being and divinity from him. Furthermore, he attributes omnipotence to the Word when he adds, all things were made through him (John 1:3).

41. Origen gives a rather beautiful explanation of this clause, he was in the beginning with God, saying that it is not separate from the first three but is, in a certain sense, their epilogue.Origen, Commentary on Saint John, bk. 2, par. 64–69.

For the Evangelist, after indicating that truth was the Son’s and being about to describe his power, in a way gathers together in a summary, in this fourth clause, what he had said in the first three. In saying he, he refers to the third clause; by adding was in the beginning, he recalls the first clause; and by adding was with God, he recalls the second. This is so that we do not think that the Word which was in the beginning is different from the Word which was God, but that this Word which was God was in the beginning with God.

42. If one considers these four propositions well, he will find that they clearly destroy all the errors of the heretics and philosophers.

For some heretics, like Ebion and Cerinthus, said that Christ did not exist before the Blessed Virgin but received from her the beginning of his existence and duration. They held that he was a mere man who had merited divinity by his good works.Cerinthus was a first-century gnostic figure associated with the Gospel of Cerinthus and the view that Jesus was the natural-born son of Joseph and Mary who received the spirit of Christ during his baptism. Ebion, who Tertullian identifies as the successor of Cerinthus, held a similar "adoptionist" view of Jesus that essentially denies the Incarnation. Photinus and Paul of Samosata, following them, said the same thing.Photinus, a bishop from the region of modern-day Serbia, was deposed in 336 for denying the incarnation and, more generally, the divinity of Jesus Christ. Following Socrates Scholasticus, theologians have typically associated him with Paul of Samosata and Marcellus (see Sozomen, Ecclesiastical History bk. 4, ch. 6). Paul of Samosata was an especially wealthy bishop of Antioch in 260–268 who was deposed in 272 for his "adoptionist" view that Christ was initially merely human and was subsequently "adopted" and indwelt by the Logos (see Eusebius, Church History bk. 7, ch. 27–30). But the Evangelist excludes their errors, saying, in the beginning was the Word—that is, before all things, and in the Father from eternity. Thus, he did not derive his beginning from the Virgin.

Sabellius, on the other hand, admitted that the God who took on flesh did not receive his beginning from the Virgin but existed from eternity. Still, he said that the person of the Father, who existed from eternity, was not distinct from the person of the Son, who took on flesh from the Virgin.Sabellius, a third-century priest, advanced a position that is sometimes called "modalism," according to which the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not three distinct persons but three modes or manifestations of one divine Person. He maintained that the Father and Son were the same person, thereby confusing the trinity of divine persons. The Evangelist argues against this error, saying, and the Word was with God—that is, the Son was with the Father, as one person with another.

Eunomius declared that the Son is entirely unlike the Father.Eunomius, a fourth-century bishop of Cyzicus (in the northwestern coast of modern-day Turkey) and intellectual heir of Arius, argued the unbegottenness and begottenness of the Father and Son respectively must constitute an essential difference between them such that they cannot even be said to be similar to one another in essence. The Evangelist rejects this when he says, and the Word was God.

Finally, Arius said that the Son was less than the Father. The Evangelist excludes this by saying, he was in the beginning with God, as was explained above.

43. These words also exclude the errors of the philosophers.

Some of the ancient philosophers, namely, the natural philosophers, maintained that the world did not come from any intellect or with any purpose, but by chance. Consequently, they did not place a reason or intellect at the beginning as the cause of things, but only matter in flux—for example, atoms, as Democritus thought, or other such material principles as different philosophers maintained. Against these, the Evangelist says, in the beginning was the Word, from whom, and not from chance, things derive their beginning.

Plato, however, thought that the ideas of all things that were made were subsistent—that is, existing separately in their own natures—and that material things exist by participating in them. For example, he thought men existed through the separated idea of man, which he called man per se. So, lest you suppose, as Plato did, that this idea through which all things were made is an idea separated from God, the Evangelist adds, and the Word was with God.

Other Platonists, as Chrysostom relates, maintained that God the Father was most eminent and first, but under him they placed a certain mind in which there were the likenesses and ideas of all things.John Chrysostom, Commentary on Saint John, hom. 2, ch. 4. So, lest you think that the Word was with the Father in such a way as to be under him and less than him, the Evangelist adds, and the Word was God.

Aristotle, however, thought that the ideas of all things are in God, and that in God, the intellect, the one understanding, and what is understood are the same.See Aristotle, Physics 8; Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on the Metaphysics of Aristotle 2536–2551, 2600–2663. Nevertheless, he thought that the world is coeternal with God. Against this, the Evangelist says, He—the Word alone—was in the beginning with God, in such a way that he does not exclude another person, but only another coeternal nature.

44. Note the difference between what John has said and the other Evangelists, and how he began his Gospel on a loftier plane than they did. They announced Christ the Son of God born in time: when Jesus was born in Bethlehem (Matthew 2:1); but John presents him existing from eternity: in the beginning was the Word. They show him suddenly appearing among men: now you dismiss your servant, O Lord, in peace, according to your word; because my eyes have seen your salvation, which you have prepared in the sight of all people, a light to reveal you to the nations and the glory of your people Israel (Luke 2:29); but John says that he always existed with the Father: and the Word was with God. The others show him as a man: they gave glory to God who had given such authority to men (Matthew 9:8); but John says only that he is God: and the Word was God. The others say he lives with men: while living in Galilee, Jesus said to them (Matthew 17:21); but John says that he has always been with the Father: he was in the beginning with God.

45. Note also how the Evangelist deliberately uses the word was to show that the Word of God transcends all time: present, past, and future. It is as though he were saying that the Word was beyond time—present, past, and future—as the Gloss says.