Commentary on John, Book 2

Origen · a new plain-English translation from the Greek and Latin

Sufficiently, according to our present capacity, holy brother Ambrose, formed according to the gospel, we grasped in what preceded this what the gospel is, what the beginning is, in which was the Word, and what that Word was that existed within the beginning; we now consequently examine how “the Word was with God.” It is useful, then, to gather together for this purpose an account recorded as having occurred

toward certain persons, such as “The Lord's word, given to Hosea, son of Beeri,” and “The word given to Isaiah, son of Amoz, concerning Judea and concerning Jerusalem,” and “The word given to Jeremiah concerning the withholding of rain.” How then did the Lord's word come upon Hosea, and is it the same word given to Isaiah, son of Amoz, and

again “the word to Jeremiah concerning the withholding of rain” — this must be examined, so that it may be found lying alongside our text, how “the Word was with God.” Now the majority will take what is said about the prophets more simply, as the word of the Lord, or as the word that came to them. But perhaps, just as we say that a certain person comes to be with another, so also the one now theologically termed “Son,

Word,” came to be with Hosea, sent by the Father to him — according to the historical sense, to Beeri's son, Hosea the prophet; but according to the mystical sense, to the one being saved, for Hosea is interpreted “Saved,” son of Beeri, which is interpreted “Wells”; for since a spring wells up from a depth, the wisdom of God, each of those being saved becomes a son of it. And it is nothing to marvel at

that the holy one should thus be a son of wells, being named son in many ways from his noble deeds: from the fact that his “works shine before men,” he is son “of light”; and from possessing the “peace of God that surpasses all understanding,” he is son “of peace”; and further, because of the benefit received from wisdom, he is “child of wisdom,” for it says, “Wisdom is justified by her children.”

So then, the one who searches all things by the divine Spirit, even the depths of God, so as to cry out, “O depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God,” can be a “son of wells,” one upon whom the Lord's word comes to rest. In like manner the word comes also to Isaiah, teaching him what will befall Judea and Jerusalem in the last days; and likewise also to Jeremiah,

lifted up by divine exaltation, for it is interpreted “Exaltation of Yahweh.” But it is to men — who previously had no room for the sojourn of the Son of God, that is, for the Word — that the Word comes to be; but “with God” it does not “come to be,” as though it previously were not with him, but rather, because it is always together with the Father, this is what is stated: “the Word, and with God was that Word.” For it was not said,

“it came to be with God.” And the very same verb, “was,” is predicated of the Word both when it “was in the beginning” and when it “was with God,” neither separated from the beginning nor forsaking the Father, and again neither coming to be “in the beginning” from previously not being, nor coming to be “with God” from previously not being “with God.”

...coming to be; for before all time and age, "in origin was the Word," and "with God was that Word." Since, then, in order to find the meaning of the phrase, God's presence with the Word from the start — the Word abiding with God — we adduced prophetic sayings — how the word "came" to Hosea and Isaiah and Jeremiah — and observed that it is no ordinary difference between "was made" (egenethe) and "came to be" (egeneto), as against

"was," we shall add this: that in its coming to the prophets it enlightens the prophets with the light of knowledge, making them, as it were, see beforehand what they had not perceived before it; whereas toward God, [the Word] is "God" precisely by virtue of being with him. And perhaps it was because John saw some such order in the Word that he did not place

"the Word was God" before "the Word was with God" — since, so far as the propositions themselves are concerned, nothing would have prevented the sequence, for the purpose of seeing the force of each proposition in itself; for one proposition is "In the beginning was the Word," and a second is "the Word was with God," and next in order "and God was the

Word." But since it perhaps indicates a certain order that "In the beginning was the Word" is placed first, and then in this sequence "and the Word was with God," and third "and God was the Word" — for this reason, so that it might be possible to understand the Word as becoming God from being "with God," it says: "and

the Word was with God," and then, "and God was the Word." II. And it is with great precision, and not out of ignorance of Greek exactness, that John uses the articles in some places and omits them in others — in the case of "Word" adding the article "the," but in the case of the appellation "God" sometimes placing it and sometimes taking it away. For he places

the article when the name "God" is applied to the uncreated cause of all things, but is silent about it when the Word is named "God." And just as "the God" and "God" differ in these passages, so too, perhaps, "the Word" and "Word" may never differ in the same way. For just as the God over all is "the God" and not simply "God," so also the source

of the reason (word) present in each rational being is "the Word," whereas the word present in each individual would not properly be given, in a manner matching the first instance, the title "the Word." And as for what troubles many who wish to be devout, being wary of proclaiming two gods and thereby falling into false and impious opinions — either denying the Son any distinct identity apart from that of the Father, while confessing that the one

called "Son" among them is God only in name, or denying the deity of the Son while positing that his distinct identity and essence are, by circumscription, other than the Father's — this can be resolved from what has been said. For one must say to them that in the one sense God is God-in-himself (autotheos), which is exactly why the Savior, praying to his Father, declares: "that they may come to know that

of the divinity, not being deified as ‘the God’ but rather could more properly be called ‘God’ — he of whom without qualification ‘the firstborn of all creation’ is true, since, being first, by being with God, to have drawn divinity into himself, he is more honored than the rest of the gods beside him (of whom God is God, according to what is said: ‘God of gods, the Lord, has spoken, and has called the earth’), having ministered to their becoming gods,

drawing from God for their being deified, sharing it ungrudgingly with them too according to his own goodness. God, then, is the true God, while the ones shaped in his likeness are gods, as images of an archetype; but again, of the many images, the archetypal image is the Word who is with God, who ‘was in the beginning,’ remaining always ‘God’ by being ‘with God,’

and he would not have had this had he not been with God, nor would he have remained God had he not remained in the unceasing contemplation of the Father’s depth. III. But since it is likely that some will stumble at what has been said, one true God, the Father, being proclaimed, while alongside the true God several gods come to be by participation in God, being wary lest the glory of him who transcends all

creation be made equal with the rest who happen to receive the title ‘God,’ in addition to the distinction already given, according to which we said that the God Word is a minister of divinity to all the rest of the gods, this too must be set forth. For the word that is in each rational being has this relation to that Word, present with God at the very beginning, being God, the Word which the

God Word has before God; for as the Father, being very-God and true God, stands in relation to an image and to the images of that image (wherefore human beings, too, are called ‘made according to the image,’ not ‘images’ outright), so the Word-in-itself stands in relation to the word that is in each. For both hold the place of a spring: the Father, of divinity; the Son, of the word. As, then, there are many gods, but for

us there is ‘one God, the Father,’ and many lords, yet for us a single Lord exists, Jesus Christ; so likewise there are many words, yet we pray that there may be present to us the Word who was in the beginning, who was with God, the God Word. For whoever does not make room for this Word, the one in the beginning with God, will either attend to him who became flesh, or will partake of one of

those who have partaken of something wholly alien to the Word, or, having fallen away from partaking in one who has partaken, will be called by a word wholly alien to the Word. What has been said will become clear from the examples concerning God and the God Word and gods — those who either partake of God or are so called but are in no way gods — and again concerning the Word of God and the Word

that became flesh, and words that in some way partake of the Word, words second or third beside the one before all, reputed to be words but not truly words but, so to speak, altogether irrational words — just as, in the case of those who are called gods but are not, one might set in place of ‘irrational words’ the term ‘not-gods’

...of gods. The God of the universe, then, is God of the elect, and much more so God of the Savior of the elect; next he is God of those who are truly gods, and simply put is God of the living, not of the dead at all. But God the Word is perhaps God of those who set the whole in him and who consider him their Father. And the sun and moon and

the stars, as some of those before us have explained, were allotted to those not worthy to have it inscribed of them that the God of gods is their God. They arrived at this understanding, moved by the passage in Deuteronomy that runs thus: "Lest you lift your eyes to the sky and, catching sight of the sun, the moon, and the whole array filling the heavens, you go astray and worship them

and serve them, which the Lord your God allotted to all the nations. But to you the Lord your God has not given it so." For how did he allot the sun and moon to all the nations, but not to Israel? It was so that those unable to run up to the intelligible nature, being moved toward divinity through perceptible gods, might gladly at least stand firm even at this level

and not fall into idols and demons. So then, some still hold as god the Son of God, that is, his Christ; while a third group takes as gods the sun, the moon, and the entire array of heaven — having strayed from God, though with an error markedly different from, and better than, that of those who name as gods the works of human hands — gold and silver, mere products of craftsmanship. Last of all

are those devoted to so-called gods who are by no means gods at all. In this way, then, some share in that very Word who is "in the beginning" and the Word who is "with God" and the Word who is "God," as Hosea and Isaiah and Jeremiah did, and anyone else who presented himself as such, so that it was said of him, "the Lord's word came to be" or a "word" reached him; others

know nothing "except Jesus Christ, and him crucified," and having considered the Word who became flesh to be the whole of the Word, know Christ only according to the flesh; such is the multitude of those who are supposed to have believed. And a third group share in some measure of reason inasmuch as they have devoted themselves to whatever reason surpasses everything, and perhaps these are the ones who follow the sects held in esteem and

distinguished in philosophy among the Greeks. Fourth beyond these are those who have put their trust in reasonings wholly corrupt and godless, who do away with providence — a thing manifest and almost perceptible to the senses — and who accept some end other than the good. Even if we may seem to have digressed, I think it was fittingly done, for the sake of seeing clearly, that we have made four ranks with respect to the name "God" and four with respect to the

name "Word." For there was "the God" and "God," and then "gods" in two senses, one of whom is God over all things, ruling the universe entire. And again there was "the Word," and perhaps also "Word" without the article, in the same way as "the God" and "God," and "words" in two senses, both proper and human — the ones belonging to the Father, being portions of him; and those set alongside these, which the Word now more clearly

presents to us — those who have arrived at the savior and who fix the whole in him. And third are those already mentioned, who consider sun, moon, and stars to be gods and are fixed upon them. And beyond all these, in the lower region, are those devoted to lifeless and dead idols. We find the analogous thing also among those concerned with the word. Some

are adorned by the very word itself, while others are adorned by something set alongside it that seems to be the first word itself — those who know nothing "except Jesus Christ, and him crucified," those who see the word as flesh, and who seem to be those we mentioned a little before. But what need is there to speak of those who are supposed to be within the word, yet have fallen away not only from the

good itself but even from the traces that partake of it? Having taught us three ranks through the three propositions already stated, the evangelist sums up the three into one, saying, "He was with God, in the beginning." Now of the three we have learned, first, in what the word was — that it was "in the beginning" — and with whom this one was, that it was "with

God," and what the word was, that it was "God." As though, then, pointing to the God-word already spoken of by means of "This one," and gathering into a fourth proposition both "The word existed in the beginning" and "With God was the word, and the word was divine, was God," he says: "With God, this one existed in the beginning." It is possible, however,

for the name "beginning" to be taken also of the beginning of the world, as we learn through the statement that in age the word preceded the things that came into being from that beginning. For if it was "in the beginning" that God fashioned the heaven and the earth, then "He existed in the beginning" is plainly earlier than what was fashioned at that starting point — not only of the firmament and the dry land, but of heaven

and earth too the word is older. And perhaps one might not unreasonably ask why nowhere do we read: "At the origin the word" of God "existed, and the word" of God "was present with" — the word is. And perhaps one might not unreasonably ask why nowhere do we read: "with God, and God was the word" of

God. And it follows that one who asks why nowhere is it written, "At the origin was found the word belonging to God," and who asks why nowhere is it written, "At the origin was found the word belonging to God," [should consider] whether there is on the one hand a word of God, and on the other, say, a word of angels, and another of men, and likewise for the remaining words. And if word, then perhaps also "wisdom" and

"righteousness." But it is absurd to say that several things properly bear the name "word," and "wisdom," and "righteousness." And we shall be driven to see that one must not seek several words and wisdoms and righteousnesses, properly so named, apart from the truth. For anyone whatsoever would admit that truth is one; for not even concerning it would anyone dare to speak of another

...is the truth of God, and another is the truth of others, and yet another is the truth of human beings; for in the nature of things there is one truth about each thing. And if truth is one, it is clear that its formulation and its demonstration would reasonably be thought to be one wisdom as well, since no so-called wisdom that fails to grasp the truth could properly be called wisdom either.

If, then, truth is one and wisdom is one, the word that declares the truth and the wisdom plainly and openly to those capable of receiving it would likewise be one. And we do not say this by denying that truth and wisdom and the word belong to God, but by showing the usefulness of the fact that "of God" was passed over in silence, and was not written: "At the origin the word already existed, belonging to God."

John himself, however, in the Revelation, and with the addition, names him "of God," saying: "Then I beheld heaven standing open; and there, a white horse, and its rider was called faithful and

true, and he judges and wages war in righteousness; his eyes flashed like fire's flame, and upon his head sat many diadems; he bears a name inscribed that none but he himself has known, and he was arrayed in a robe drenched with blood, and he was called by the name 'The Word of God.' And the armies stationed in heaven were following him upon

white horses, clothed in fine linen, clean. And out of his mouth goes forth a sharp sword, so that with it he might strike the nations, and with a rod of iron he will shepherd them; and he himself treads the winepress of the wine of the wrath of the anger of God the Almighty. And he has on his

robe and upon his thigh a written name: 'King of kings and Lord of lords.'" It was necessary, and it is stated absolutely, both "word" and, with the addition, "word of God"; for if either of the two had been passed over in silence, we would have had occasion to misunderstand and to fall away from the truth concerning the word. For if "word" had been written but "word of God" had not been said, we would not clearly have learned that this

word is "the word of God." And again, on the other hand, if "word of God" had been supplied, but "word" had not been said absolutely, then, fashioning many words for ourselves according to our relation to each rational being, we would in vain have taken up many things properly named in this way. But the apostle and evangelist, describing well the matters concerning the word of God in the Revelation—

and he is now also the prophet of the Revelation—says that he has seen the word of God riding on a white horse in the opened heaven. What, then, is signified by the fact that heaven was opened, and the white horse, and the fact that the one called the word of God sits upon it, in addition to being the word of God, both faithful and true, and judging in righteousness—

and said to be waging war, must be considered, so that we may be advanced still further by grasping the things concerning "the word of God." I hold that heaven is closed to the ungodly, to those carrying the likeness of the earthly man, yet stands open to the righteous, adorned with the likeness of the heavenly man; because the former, being still below and dwelling in flesh, are barred from apprehending the greater things

its beauty either, since they are unwilling to consider it, bending down and not giving themselves over to looking up; but to those who excel, since they have their citizenship in the heavens, the heavenly things have been opened to be seen by David's key, the divine word opening them and making them clear by riding a horse, with voices that report the things signified, a white horse because of the

manifest and white and luminous quality of knowledge. And seated upon the white horse is the one called "faithful," established more firmly and, if I may put it so, more royally, upon voices that cannot be turned back, running swifter and faster than any horse and surpassing in its course every rival who is reckoned a word only in mimicry and a supposed truth only in appearance. And he is called "faithful," the one

who sits upon the white horse, not so much because he believes as because he is to be believed, that is, worthy of being trusted; for according to Moses, the Lord is faithful and true. And ‘true’ marks him off from shadow, from type, from image — that is his character, the Word dwelling in the heaven now opened; whereas the Word upon earth is not of the same kind as the one in heaven, since he became

flesh and spoke through shadows and types and images. But the multitudes of those who are supposed to have believed are made disciples of the shadow of the Word and not of the true Word of God who exists in the opened heaven. For this reason Jeremiah declares: "Christ the Lord is the breath before our face, concerning whom we said, 'We shall live under his shadow among the nations.'" This, then, is the Word of

God who is called faithful and is also called true, and judges and makes war in righteousness, having received from God the ability to assign and judge what is due to each of the things that are, by his own self-righteousness and self-judgment. For none of those who share in righteousness and in the power of judging a people will be able to impress upon his own soul so completely the forms of righteousness and of judging,

that in nothing he falls short of self-righteousness and self-judgment, just as one who paints an image will not be able to convey to the painting all the properties of the thing painted. It is for this reason, I hold, that David says, "No one living shall be justified before you"; for he did not simply say "every man" or "every angel," but "everyone living," because even if someone

partakes of life and shakes off deadness entirely, not even so will he be able to be justified before you in a manner equal to Life itself, nor is it possible for one who partakes of life, and is on this account called living, to become Life itself, nor for one who partakes of righteousness, and is on this account called righteous, to be made wholly equal to Righteousness itself. Now the work of the Word is, just as to judge in righteousness, so also

to war in righteousness, so that, from the irrational enemies and injustice being thus destroyed and put to death by reason and by warring so in righteousness, he may come to dwell within and to render righteous, casting out the things contrary to the soul of the one who, so to speak, has been taken captive for salvation by Christ. Still more can one see the war which the Word wages, when he himself pleads on behalf of truth,

while the one that pretends to be reason, not being reason, and the one that proclaims itself truth, though it is not truth but falsehood, asserts itself to be truth itself. For then, having armed himself against the falsehood, the Word 'destroys it by the spirit issuing from his mouth, and renders it powerless through the manifestation of his presence.' And see whether these things can be shown, in their spiritual sense, from

what is set forth by the apostle in his letter to the Thessalonians. For what is destroyed by the spirit issuing from Christ's mouth, Christ being reason and truth and wisdom itself, other than falsehood? And what is that which loses its force through the manifestation of Christ's presence, Christ being understood as wisdom and reason, other than everything that professes to be wisdom while actually being one of those things which

God catches 'in their craftiness'? Further, John, most admirably, in speaking of the one borne upon the white horse, says also this: 'his eyes were like a flame of fire.' For just as flame has both brightness and illuminating power, and also fieriness and a power to consume the more material things, so too the eyes, so to speak, of the

Word, by which everyone who partakes of him also sees, besides apprehending, through the intelligible realities subsisting within him, they also consume and make vanish the more material and coarser of thoughts; for all things that are in any way false altogether escape the fineness and subtlety of the truth. And very fittingly, after 'judging in righteousness' and warring in accordance with judging in righteousness, and next after

warring, illuminating, there is added the statement that upon his head are many diadems. For if the falsehood were one and of a single form, the crown of which the defeated one lost when the 'faithful and true' Word conquered, then it would reasonably have been recorded that one diadem was set upon the Word of God who had prevailed over the opposing power. But as it is, since the falsehoods professing to be the truth are many,

against which the Word has made war and is crowned, many diadems come to be set upon the head of the one who conquers all things; and prevailing over each rebellious activity, he sets upon himself many diadems through his conquering. Next after the diadems it is recorded that he has 'a name written which no one knows except himself'; for this living Word alone knows certain things, because of the inferiority in

subsequent created beings, none of whom is able to comprehend all that that one grasps in contemplation. And perhaps too those who partake of that Word, alone among those who do not partake, know the things that do not reach the others. But the Word of God is not seen by John, riding upon the horse, unclothed; for he is wrapped in a garment † stained with blood, since there cling to him the traces of the one who became—

...the Word is flesh, and because he became flesh he died, so that his blood too was poured out on the ground when the soldier pierced his side - that suffering belongs to him. For perhaps even if we should somehow attain to the loftiest and highest contemplation of the Word and of the truth, we will not entirely forget the introduction that came to us, through him, while we were in the body. To this

word of God all the armies in heaven follow, all of them, following the Word as their leader and imitating him in everything, and especially in this, that they too are mounted, like him, on white horses; for all things are visible to those who understand. And just as "grief and sorrow and sighing fled away" at the end of all things, so too, I think, obscurity and perplexity flee away, once all the mysteries of God's wisdom fall carefully and

clearly before us. Consider too the white horses of those who follow the Word, clothed in "fine linen, white and clean" - unless, since linen comes from the earth, the linen garments happen to be types of the earthly languages in which the voices that signify things clearly are clothed. These matters have been

discussed at greater length on the basis of what the Revelation teaches about the Word of God, so that we might understand what concerns him more precisely. I,2. He was in the beginning with God. IX. To those who do not attend closely to the different clauses in what is being reported, the evangelist will seem to be repeating himself, saying nothing more in "He was in the beginning with God" than in "And the Word was with God."

But it must be observed that in "The Word was with God" we do not learn the when, or in what, he "was with God," according to the fourth proposition added; for there are four propositions here, which some call clauses, of which the fourth reads that this one existed with God from the very beginning. And "The Word was

with God" is not the same as "He was" - not simply "with God," but when or in what he was with God. For the text states that this one existed with God from the very beginning. But also "He," expressed as a demonstrative, will be thought to refer either to the Word or to God by someone who does not examine the matter more closely, so that he might also find the combination of the

earlier terms occurring in the designation "He," of both the concept "Word" and that of "God," so that the demonstrative might gather into one the things that differ in concept; for "God" does not lie within the concept "Word," nor does "Word" lie within "God." Perhaps, though, it is a summing-up of the three propositions into one, namely, "He was in the beginning with

God"; for insofar as "the Word was in the beginning," we had not yet learned that he existed alongside God; and insofar as the Word was "with God," we did not clearly know that from the very start he was already with God; and insofar as "the Word was God," it was not shown either that he existed "in the beginning" or that he happened to be "with God." But in

In the report "With God was this one in the beginning," with "this one" being understood of the Word and God, and "in the beginning" thus joined to it, and "with God" added, nothing is left out of what is contained in the three clauses that is not summed up when they are gathered into one. But see whether, given that "In the beginning" is used in a twofold sense, it is possible for us

to learn two things from it: one, that "in the beginning was the Word," as though he were also by himself and not entirely in relation to someone; the other, that "in the beginning" he "was with God." And I think it is not false to say of him that already in the beginning he existed, and already in the beginning he was found "with God," neither being merely "with God"

since he also "was in the beginning," nor being merely "in the beginning" and not "with God," since "with God was this one in the beginning." 10. The phrase "through whom" never occupies the first place, but always the second; for example, in the letter to the Romans: Paul, he says, a servant of Christ Jesus, "called an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God, which he promised beforehand

by means of his prophets, set down in the sacred writings, touching his Son -- who, according to the flesh, sprang from the offspring of David, and, according to the Spirit of holiness, was marked out as Son of God with power by rising from among the dead -- namely Jesus Christ our Lord, through whom favor and a mission to bring about faith's obedience among every nation came to us, for his name's sake. For

God promised his own gospel beforehand through the prophets, the prophets serving him and holding the position expressed by "through whom," and once more, it was through him that God bestowed favor and a mission for the obedience owed to faith among every nation, granting it to Paul and the rest, and gave it through Christ Jesus the savior, who holds the position expressed by "through whom." And in the letter to the Hebrews the same

Paul says: "Now at the end of these days, he has addressed us through a Son, whom he set as heir of all things, and through whom he also made the ages," teaching us that God made the ages through the Son, since in the coming-to-be of the ages it is the only-begotten who holds the position expressed by "through whom." So then here too, if all things came to be through the Word,

they did not come to be by the Word, but by one who is greater and superior to the Word. And who could this other one be, if not the Father? But it must be examined, since "All things came to be through him" is true, whether the Holy Spirit too came to be through him. For I think that for the one who asserts that it is a created thing and puts forward "All things came to be through him," it is necessary to grant

that the Holy Spirit too came to be through the Word, the Word being older than it. But for the one who does not want the Holy Spirit to have come to be through Christ, it follows that he must call it unbegotten, if he judges the statements in this gospel to be true. And there will also be a third position besides these two, one that admits the Spirit through the Word

...that it had come to be holy and supposing it to be unbegotten, holding it as doctrine that the Holy Spirit does not subsist as any distinct substance of its own apart from the Father and the Son, but is rather, perhaps, added to them. If he thinks the Son is other than the Father, in that he is not the very same as the Father, then admittedly a distinction of the Holy Spirit from the Son is shown in...

...the saying: ‘If anyone utters a word against the Son of Man, he will be pardoned for it; but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit shall find no pardon, neither in this present age nor in the age about to come.’ We, however, hold the conviction that there exist three hypostases — Father and Son and Holy Spirit — and believe that none besides the Father is unbegotten,

we accept as more reverent and true the view that, of all the things that came to be through the Word, the Holy Spirit is the most honored of all, and in rank the first of all the things brought into being by the Father through Christ. And perhaps this is the reason why it too is not styled a son of God, since only the only-begotten is by nature a son from the beginning, and of him the Holy Spirit appears to have need,

since he ministers to its subsistence — not only for it to exist, but also to be wise and rational and just and whatever else one must understand it to be — by participation in the aforementioned conceptions of Christ we have discussed. And I think that the Holy Spirit supplies, so to speak, the matter of the gifts that come from God to those who, on its account, are also called partakers of it,

the holy ones — the aforesaid matter of the gifts being activated by God, ministered by Christ, and subsisting according to the Holy Spirit. And what moves me to suppose that this is so is Paul, writing somewhere about the gifts as follows: ‘There are distinctions of gifts, but the same Spirit; and there are distinctions of ministries, but the same Lord; and there are distinctions

of activities, but it is the same God who works all things in all.’ But there is a difficulty here, both because of the text ‘All things came to be through him,’ and because it follows that the Spirit, being something that came to be, came to be through the Word — as to how it is, so to speak, given precedence over Christ in certain scriptures: in Isaiah, for instance, where Christ confesses that he was sent not by the Father alone, but

also by the Holy Spirit — for he says, ‘And now the Lord has sent me, and his Spirit’ — whereas in the Gospel he promises forgiveness for sin committed against himself, but declares concerning blasphemy against the Holy Spirit that there will be no forgiveness for the one who has spoken evil against it, not only ‘in this age,’ but not even ‘in the

age to come.’ And perhaps it is not at all because the Holy Spirit is more honored than Christ that there is no forgiveness for the one who has sinned against it, but because all rational beings partake of Christ, and to those of them who turn away from their sins pardon is given, whereas it is not reasonable that those who have been deemed worthy of the Holy Spirit should obtain any pardon, given so great and so intimate a communion of...

still falling away from the good and turning aside from the counsels of the Spirit dwelling within them. But if, according to Isaiah, our Lord says that he was dispatched by the Father together with his Spirit, here too it is possible to give an account concerning the Spirit who sent the Christ — not as differing from him in nature, but with reference to the economy that took place in the incarnation of the Son of God, who was made lesser

than the Savior himself. But if anyone stumbles at this, at saying that the Savior, having become incarnate, was made lesser than the Holy Spirit, he must be brought to the statements in the letter to the Hebrews, where Paul declares that Jesus was made lower than the angels because of the suffering of death. For he says: “But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels,”

“on account of his suffering unto death, wreathed with glory and honor.” Or perhaps one may also say this: that creation needed to be set free from the slavery of corruption, and likewise the human race needed a blessed and divine power to become incarnate, one that would also set right the things on earth; and this task fell, as it were, in some sense to the Holy Spirit,

a task that, being unable to bear it, he puts the Savior forward in his place, as the one alone able to carry so great a contest; and just as the Father, as leader, sends the Son, so the Holy Spirit is sent together with him and escorts him on his way, having promised that in due time he would come down upon the Son of God and cooperate in the salvation of mankind. And this he did when he flew down upon him in bodily form like a dove

after the washing, and having settled on him, does not pass by — perhaps having done this for the sake of the people who were not able to bear his glory without interruption. This is why John points to knowing who the Christ actually is not merely by the descent of the Spirit upon Jesus, but, in addition to that descent, by the Spirit's continuing to abide upon him. John himself is recorded as having spoken thus:

that “The one who sent me to baptize said: ‘On whomever you see the Spirit descending and remaining upon him, this is the one who baptizes in Holy Spirit and fire.’” For it is not said, “on whomever you see the Spirit descending” alone — since it may perhaps have descended on others too — but “descending and remaining upon him.” These matters have been examined at length, more clearly, for those who wish to see

how, if all things came to be through him, and the Spirit too came to be through the Word, then the Spirit, being one among all things, is understood to be lesser than the one through whom it came to be — even if certain expressions seem to draw us toward the opposite view. XII. But should anyone give credence to the Gospel entitled According to the Hebrews, in which the Savior himself declares: “Just now my mother, the

Holy Spirit, seized me by a single hair of mine and bore me off to the great mountain Tabor,” he will raise the difficulty of how the Holy Spirit, which came to be through the Word, can be the “mother” of Christ. But this too is not hard to explain: for if the one who does “the will of the Father who is in the heavens” is his “brother and sister and mother,”

And if the title ‘brother of Christ’ reaches beyond the human race alone to embrace also the more divine beings above it, it will be nothing absurd for the Holy Spirit to be ‘mother’ — more so than any woman who bears the title ‘mother of Christ’ by doing the will of the Father in the heavens. We must also inquire into the following points concerning ‘All things came into being through him.’ By

conception the Word is distinct from the Life, and ‘that which had come into being in the Word was Life, and this Life was mankind's light.’ Is it, then, the case that, just as all things came into being through him, so too Life came into being through him — that very light belonging to men — together with the Savior's other conceptions as well, or is it rather with the exception of those conceptions in him that we must

understand ‘All things came into being through him’? This latter seems to me the better view. For even if it be granted that, because Life came into being, it is the light of men, what must be said about the Wisdom that is conceived of prior to the Word? For surely what is beside the Word did not come into being through the Word. So then, apart from the conceptions ascribed to Christ, all things came into being through the Word of God,

the Father having made them in Wisdom; for it says, ‘You made all things in wisdom,’ not ‘through wisdom you made them.’ Let us also inquire why the phrase ‘and without him not one thing came into being’ has been added. To some it might seem that ‘without him not one thing came into being,’ following upon ‘all things came into being through him,’ turns out to be superfluous. For if absolutely everything whatsoever came into being ‘through the Word,’ then nothing

came into being ‘without the Word.’ Yet it does not follow, from the fact that nothing came into being without the Word, that all things came into being through the Word; for it is possible, while nothing has come into being without the Word, not only that all things came into being through the Word but also that some things came into being by the Word. We must therefore know how one ought to understand ‘All’ and how ‘Nothing.’ For it is possible

that, from not having clearly grasped both expressions, one might suppose that, if all things came into being through the Word, and evil and the whole outpouring of sin and wicked things belong among ‘all things,’ then these too came into being through the Word. But this is false; for it is not absurd to hold that all created things came into being through the Word—and indeed that through the

Word the noble deeds and all the right actions of the blessed must necessarily be understood to have been rightly accomplished—but not, however, sins and falls as well. Some have therefore taken it, since evil has no independent subsistence (for it neither existed from the beginning nor will exist forever), that these are the ‘nothing’; and just as certain of the Greeks say that there are genera and

species even of the ‘not-somethings,’ such as the animal and the man, so too they have supposed that ‘nothing’ is everything that has not received its apparent constitution from God nor through the Word. And let us take pains, if it is possible, to demonstrate these points most forcefully from the scriptures. As far, then, as concerns what is signified by ‘nothing’ and ‘non-being,’ it will seem that there is a synonymy, since ‘non-being’ would be called ‘nothing,’ and

Of “No one”, “Not being.” The apostle evidently names “the things that are not” not with reference to things that in no way whatsoever exist, but with reference to the wicked, regarding evil things as “not being.” For, he says, “God called the things that are not as though they were.” But Mordecai too, in the Esther according to the Seventy, calls the enemies of Israel “those who are not,”

saying, “Do not hand over your scepter, Lord, to those who are not.” And one can point out how, because of their wickedness, the wicked are addressed as “those who are not,” taking this from the name of God written down in the book of Exodus, where the Lord told Moses: “He Who Is—this is my name.” But as for us, who pray to belong to the church, the good

God says these things—he whom the Savior glorifies when he says, “No one is good but one, God the Father.” Therefore “the good” is the very same as “he who is.” But opposed to the good is evil or wickedness, and opposed to “he who is” is “that which is not”; from which it follows that the wicked and the evil are “not being.” And this is what showed

those who said that the devil is not a creation of God to be wrong. For insofar as he is a devil he is not a creation of God, but insofar as it has befallen him to be a devil—he being something that has come into being, and nothing that is created existing apart from our God—he is a creature of God; it is much like claiming that the murderer, too, is no creation of God, though this denies nothing of the fact that, insofar as he is a human being, he has been made by God. For while positing

that insofar as he is a human being he has indeed received his being from God, we do not posit that insofar as he is a murderer he has received this from God. All, then, who participate in “he who is”—and the saints do participate in him—might rightly be styled “those who are”; but those who have turned away from participation in “he who is,” by being deprived of “he who is,” have become “those who are not.”

We said earlier that “that which is not” and “nothing” are synonymous, and for this reason those who are not are “nothing,” and all wickedness is “nothing,” since it too happens to be “not being,” and being called “nothing,” it has come to be apart from the Word, not being counted together among “all things.” We, then, have set forth to the extent possible what are all the things that have come to be through the Word,

and what it is that has come to be apart from him, and yet never is, and is for this reason called “nothing.” But I think that Heracleon, said to be an acquaintance of Valentinus, in expounding the phrase “all things came to be through him,” has forcibly, and without any proof, taken “all things” to mean the world and what is in it, excluding from “all things,” so far as his hypothesis allows, the things of the world and of the

things that differ within it. For he says that the aeon, or the things within the aeon, did not come to be through the Word, things which he supposes to have come to be before the Word. But standing more shamelessly still against the text “and apart from him not even one thing came to be,” not heeding the warning “do not add to his words, lest he convict you and you be found a liar,” he adds to “not even one thing” the qualification “of the things

to the world and the creation. And since what is said by him is plainly very forced and reported contrary to what is evident, if the things he considers divine are excluded from ‘all things,’ while the things that, as he supposes, are wholly perishable are properly called ‘All,’ there is no need to linger over refuting things whose absurdity is evident of itself — such, indeed, as also what Scripture says: ‘Without

him ‘not one thing came to be’’; adding, without any support from Scripture, ‘of the things in the world and the creation’; and declaring this not even with plausibility, yet claiming to be believed just as the prophets or apostles, who with authority and unaccountably leave behind, for those of their own time and those after them, writings of salvation. Further, he has also understood in his own peculiar way the statement that ‘All things came to be through him,’ saying:

that the one who supplied the cause of the coming-to-be of the world to the craftsman, being the Word, is not the one ‘from whom,’ or ‘by whom,’ but the one ‘through whom’ — taking what is written contrary to its customary sense. For if it were as the truth of the matter holds, it would have had to be written that all things came to be, by the Word, through the craftsman, not

conversely, through the Word, by the craftsman. And we, in using ‘through whom’ in accordance with customary usage, have not left our interpretation without support; whereas he, besides not having drawn support for his own view from the divine writings, also appears to have suspected the truth and shamelessly looked it in the face; for he says: that it was not as though the Word, another acting through him, was himself making,

but that, while he himself was at work, another was making — so that ‘through him’ might be understood in this way. It is not the task of the present occasion to refute the claim that the craftsman did not become the Word’s servant in making the world, and to demonstrate that the Word, having become the servant of the craftsman, fashioned the world. This follows the prophet David’s witness: ‘God spoke, and they came to be; he commanded, and they were created.’

For the unbegotten God gave a ‘command’ to the firstborn of all creation, and by it everything ‘was brought into being’ — not merely the world and what lies within it, but everything else besides, ‘whether these be thrones, dominions, principalities, or powers’; since it is through him and unto him that all things have their creation, and he himself exists prior to everything. Further, as regards ‘Without him not one thing came to be,’ one must not

leave unexamined the argument concerning evil either; for even though it may seem very much out of place, it does not seem to me altogether to be despised. For one must inquire whether evil too came to be through the Word — the Word here being taken specifically as the word that is in each person, just as he himself has come to be in each from the Word that was ‘in the beginning.’ The apostle, accordingly, says: ‘Apart from law sin is dead,’

and adds: ‘but at the commandment’s coming, sin sprang to life’ — teaching a general truth about sin, namely that it had no single activity of its own before law and commandment; but how the Word could be law and commandment, [is unclear,] and there would be no sin if there were no law (‘for sin is not counted as such where no law exists’); and, once more, apart from law there could be no

sin, since there was no word ("For if I had not come and had not spoken to them, sin would not be theirs"). For every pretext is taken away from one who wishes to make a defense concerning his sin, whenever, though word is present within him and pointing out what must be done, someone does not obey it. Perhaps, then, everything up to and including the worse things has come to be through the word, and "apart from him," if we take "nothing" more simply,

"nothing came to be." And the word is not at all to be blamed, if "all things came to be through him" and "apart from him not one thing came to be," just as the teacher who has pointed out to the learner what is needful is not to be blamed, whenever, because of his teachings, no place is any longer left to the one who sins for a defense on the ground of ignorance — especially if we understand the teacher to be inseparable from the learner. For, as it were, inseparable from the one who

learns is the word inherent in the nature of rational beings, always suggesting what must be done, even if we disregard its commands, giving ourselves over to pleasures and dismissing its best counsels. And just as we make use of the eye, which has been given to us as a servant for better purposes, even for the things we do not see rightly, so too with hearing, whenever we give ourselves over to listening to useless

songs and to forbidden things heard, thus insulting the word within us and not using it for what is needful — through it we transgress the law to our own condemnation, since it is present in us, sinning, and for this reason it judges the one who has not honored it above all things. Hence he also says: "The word which I have spoken, that will judge you," teaching the equivalent of: I, the word, who always resound within you,

will myself condemn you, since you have absolutely no place left for a defense. This interpretation, however, will seem rather forced, if we take one word to be the "word in the beginning ... with God," the God-word, and understand it differently on another occasion, when we said that "all things came to be through him" is spoken not only of the primary created things, but also of everything

done by rational beings, apart from word we sin in nothing. And it must be inquired whether the word within us is to be called the same as the word "in the beginning" and "with God" and "God," especially since the apostle does not seem to teach that this is other than the word "in the beginning, with God," when he says: "Do not say in your

heart, 'Who will ascend into heaven?' that is, to bring Christ down; or 'Who will descend into the abyss?' that is, to raise Christ up again out of the dead. But what does the scripture say? 'Very near you is the word, in your mouth and in your heart.'" There are certain doctrines among the Greeks called paradoxes, to which they attach very many things

— very many things — together with some demonstration, or apparent demonstration, according to which they say that the wise man alone, and he alone among all men, is a priest, since he alone, and he alone among all men, possesses knowledge of the service of God; and that he alone, and he alone among all men, is free, having received from the divine law the authority of self-determination; and they define authority as lawful oversight. And

What need is there for us now to speak about the so-called paradoxes, since there is much labor involved in them, and they require a comparison with the intention of Scripture regarding what is reported by them concerning their paradoxes, so that we may be able to show on which points the reasoning of true piety agrees with them, and on which points it wishes to establish the opposite of what is said by them? Now a mention of these has

been made by us, in inquiring into the saying, 'What was made in him was life,' because it belongs, as it were, to the character of paradoxes and, if one must say so, is more paradoxical than what is said by those others; and one who follows Scripture would be able to show many further such things. For if we understand the Word who was in the beginning, who was with God, the God Word, we shall perhaps be able to say only of him, in so far as

he is such, that whoever partakes of him should be called 'rational,' so that one could even declare that only the holy one is rational. Again, if we grasp the life that came to be in the Word, the one who said, 'I am the life,' we shall say that no one outside the faith of Christ lives, but that all who do not live to God are dead, and that their living is a living in sin, and because of

this, if I may put it so, to attain life is to attain death. Consider whether the divine Scriptures do not establish this in many places: on the one hand, where the Savior says, 'Have you not read that which was said concerning the bush: I am Abraham's God, Isaac's God, and Jacob's God? He is God not of the dead but of the living'; and, 'No one living shall be justified before you.'

But what must we say about this—whether it belongs to God or to the Savior? For it is disputed to which of the two belongs the voice that speaks among the prophets: 'I live, says the Lord.' And let us first look at the phrase 'God not of the dead, but of the living,' which has the same force as 'not the God of sinners, but of the holy ones.' It counts as no small gift to the patriarchs, that God should attach

their name to his own title 'God,' in accordance with which Paul also says, 'For this reason God feels no shame at being called their God.' He is, then, the God of the fathers and of all the holy; and nowhere would one find it written down that any of the impious has God as his God. If, then, God belongs to the holy and is called the God of those who live,

then the holy are living and the living are holy, there being no holy one outside the living, nor any living one who is merely called so without, along with living, also happening to be holy. The same thing can be seen in the case of 'I will find favor with the Lord in the region of the living,' as though it said 'in the rank of the holy' or 'in the place of the holy,'

since being well-pleasing in the proper sense occurs either in the rank of the holy or in the place of the holy; and one who has not passed into the rank of the holy, or has not come to be in the place of the holy, is not yet perfectly well-pleasing—into which place everyone who has already taken up in this life what is, as it were, a shadow and image of the true being well-pleasing will need to pass.

And “no living being shall be justified before God” shows that, as regards God and the righteousness found in him, not one of even the most blessed will be justified—as if we were also to say something like this using another example: not every lamp gives light before the sun; for every lamp does give light, but only when it is not being outshone by the sun; and likewise every living being will be justified,

but not before God—when, that is, it is compared with those below, who are mastered by darkness, and among whom its light will shine. And see whether the saying in the gospel should also be understood along these lines: “Let your light shine before men.” It does not read, “Let your light shine before God”; had that been the command given, it would have been impossible

for him to give such a command, just as if he were giving a command to lamps, as though they were animate beings, to shine their light before the sun. So it is not only the ordinary among the living who will fail to be justified before God, but also those who, among the living, surpass the lesser; or rather—what is more to the point—the righteousness of all the living together will not be justified as measured against

the righteousness of God; just as if, having gathered together at once all the nocturnal lights upon the earth, I were to say that these could not give light when measured against the rays of this sun. And by an ascent from what has been said, one must also understand “I live, says the Lord”—since perhaps, from what has been said about living, living in the proper sense belongs above all to God alone.

And see whether it is for this reason that the apostle, having grasped the surpassing pre-eminence of the life of God and understood in a manner worthy of God the words “I live, says the Lord,” could be said to have spoken concerning God: “he who alone has immortality”—since none among those who live apart from God has the wholly unchangeable and unalterable life. And why do we hesitate concerning the rest, when not even

Christ possessed the immortality of the Father? For he tasted death on behalf of everyone. But in examining together the matters concerning the living God, and concerning life, which is Christ, and concerning those living beings who happen to occupy their own proper realm, and those living beings not justified before God, we shall, consistently with these points, when we set beside them the phrase “he who alone has immortality,” take up together the implications concerning every rational being whatsoever,

namely that it does not possess blessedness essentially, as an inseparable accident. For if it possessed blessedness and primary life as inseparable, how then would the statement made about God still be true: “he who alone has immortality”? One must know, however, that the savior is certain things not for himself but for others, and certain things both for himself and for others; and one must inquire whether there is anything he is for himself and

for no one else. For clearly he is for others a “shepherd,” not receiving benefit for himself from his shepherding, as human shepherds do—unless indeed one should reckon that the benefit of those he shepherds is, through his own love of humanity, his own benefit. But he is likewise “way” for others, and equally “door,” and admittedly also “rod”; and for himself and for others he is “wisdom,” and perhaps also “word.” One must inquire further

if, there being in him a system of contemplations according to which he is "wisdom," there are certain contemplations that cannot be contained by the rest of the nature begotten alongside him, which he knows to himself. And the argument should not be left unexamined, out of reverence concerning the Holy Spirit. For that it too is discipled to him is plain from the statement made regarding the Paraclete, that is, regarding the Holy Spirit: "For he will take from what is mine

and will announce it to you." But if, being discipled, it contains all that the Son knows as he gazes upon the Father from the beginning, this must be sought out more carefully. If then the Savior gives certain things to others, but perhaps certain things to himself alone, and either to no one or to one or to a few, according to what he is as "life," which came to be in the Word, it must be examined whether he is life for himself and for others as well,

or for others, and if for others, for which of them. If indeed "life" and "the life of men" are the same thing — for it says, "What has come to be in him was life; and that life was the light of mankind" — and the light of men is the light of certain men, and this not of all rational beings, so far as concerns the placement of the word "men,"

but it is the light "of men," then it would also be the life of men, of whom it is also the light. And insofar as he is life, the Savior would be said to be life not for himself but for others, of whom he is also the light. This life, indeed, supervenes upon the Word, becoming bound to him inseparably once it has come upon him. For the Word must have pre-existed as that which purifies the soul, in the soul,

one and the same as this, and the purification that comes from him, so that when all deadness and weakness has been removed, unblemished life may come to be present in everyone who has made himself capable of receiving the Word insofar as he is God. And the two occurrences of "in" must be observed, and their difference examined; for the first occurs where it says the Word existed in the beginning, and the second in "life was in the

Word." But the Word "was in the beginning" — it did not come to be; for it was not the case that there was a time when the beginning was wordless, and this is why it says: "In the beginning was the Word"; but life was not in the Word — rather, life came to be, since "the light of men is life." Given that no man yet existed, neither was the light "of men" yet present, that light being understood as belonging to men.

Let no one press hard upon us, supposing that we are reporting these things in a temporal sense, since the order requires a first and a second and so on in sequence, even if no time can be found when the third and fourth things put forward by the Word did not yet exist at all. In the manner, then, that "all things came to be through him," and yet not all things were of him,

and "without him not even one thing came to be," yet it is not the case that without him not even one thing existed, so too what came to be in him — which was distinct from what already existed in him — was life. And again, the Word was not identified with what came to be in the beginning, but rather what already existed in the beginning was the Word. Some copies, however, have — and perhaps not implausibly — "What has come to be in

life is «in him«. Yet granting that life amounts to the same reality as the light of men, it follows that no one dwelling in darkness lives, nor is anyone among the living found in darkness; rather, everyone who lives likewise exists in light, and everyone who exists in light lives. Hence it is the one who lives who alone, in every respect, counts as a son of light — and a son of light is one whose works shine

before men. Again, since what has been left unsaid about a pair of opposites can be understood from what has been said about that pair, and since what was said concerned the life and light of men, while death is opposite to life and the darkness of men opposite to the light of men, one can see that whoever dwells among men in darkness has death as his portion, and whoever does the deeds of death is nowhere else

than in darkness. But the one who remembers God — if indeed we understand what it means to remember him — is not in death, according to what is said: «There is no one who remembers you in death.« But whether it be the darkness of men or death, these are not such by nature — [gap: another argument] — «We were once darkness, but now are light in the Lord,« even if

we are now most especially reckoned as holy and spiritual. But just as Paul, being receptive though he was darkness, came to be light in the Lord, so likewise whoever is darkness, whoever he may be. But according to those who suppose there exist spiritual natures, as with Paul and the holy apostles, I do not know whether one can still maintain that a spiritual man had once been darkness before subsequently becoming light. For if

the spiritual person was once darkness, what then is the earthly person? And if it is true that darkness came to be light, what is the ground for allotting that not all darkness can become light? For if it were not said in reference to Paul that «we were once in darkness, but are now luminous in the Lord,« but rather in reference to those natures they suppose to be perishing — that they were darkness, or are

darkness — then the hypothesis about natures would have some standing. But as it is, Paul says that they were «darkness formerly, yet now light in the Lord«, as though it were possible for darkness to change into light. And it is not difficult, from what has been said, to see carefully the things concerning all the darkness of men and concerning death, which is the very same thing as the darkness of men, once one perceives what is possible

in the way each thing may change for the worse and for the better. XXI. But Heracleon, treating this passage with great violence, has taken «What came to be in him was life« to mean, instead of «in himself,« «in the spiritual men,« as though he supposed the Word and the spiritual men to be the same thing — even though he has not said this plainly — and, as though giving the reason, he says: He himself

gave them their first shaping, the one at their birth, taking what another had sown and bringing it into shape, into light, and into a boundary of its own, and displaying it. But he failed to note what is said about the spiritual in Paul — that Paul passed over in silence the fact that they are human beings: «A soulish man does not welcome what belongs to the Spirit of God; to him such things are folly«

is; but the spiritual person examines all things. For it is not without reason that we say he did not add ‘man’ in the case of the spiritual person; for the spiritual person is better than ‘man,’ since man is marked out by soul, or by body, or by the two together, yet not also by the more divine spirit beyond these, in accordance with a predominant participation in which the spiritual person is so called. And at the same time

he sets forth the claims of such a hypothesis without even an apparent proof, since he was unable to attain even to the ordinary degree of plausibility in the argument concerning these matters. So much, then, concerning that man. But come, let us also inquire into this: whether it was only men whose light the life had been, and not that of anyone at all who reaches blessedness. For supposing ‘life’ and ‘men's light’ turn out to be one and the same thing,

and the light of Christ belongs to men alone, then the life too belongs to men alone. But to suppose this is both foolish and impious, given that the other scriptures speak against such a reading, if indeed, when we make progress, we shall be equal to angels. The difficulty must be resolved thus: it is not the case that, if something is said of certain beings, what is said belongs to those alone. So then, it is not the case that if

it is called the light of men, it is the light of men alone; for it could have been added, ‘the life was the light belonging to men.’ Nothing, however, prevents the light of men from belonging equally to beings other than men, just as these animals and these plants, though serving men as food, may likewise serve as food for creatures besides men. This, then, is the example taken from ordinary usage;

but it is worth setting beside it a similar example drawn from the God-inspired words. Here, then, we are inquiring whether there is nothing to stop the light of men from belonging also to others, and we say that it is not the case that, because it is called the light of men, it is thereby already shut off from being the light also of others besides men who are greater than or unlike men. Now it is recorded that God is God of ‘Abraham and

God of Isaac and God of Jacob’; the one who wishes, since it has been said, ‘The life was the light of men,’ to hold that the light belongs to none other than men, will, on the same reasoning, suppose that the one styled God of Abraham, God of Isaac, and God of Jacob is God of none but these three fathers alone. But he is also God of Elijah, and, as

Judith says, of Symeon her father, and God of the Hebrews. In the same way, if there is nothing to stop him from being God of others as well, there is likewise nothing to stop the light of men from belonging also, besides men, to others. And someone else, further making use of the passage where God says, ‘Let us fashion man according to our image and after our likeness,’ will say that everything that comes to be ‘according to the image and

likeness’ of God is man, employing countless examples to this end, arguing that it makes no difference for scripture to say ‘man’ or ‘angel’; for upon the same subject lie both the designation ‘angel’ and ‘man,’ just as with the three who were entertained as guests by Abraham, of whom two came to be in Sodom; and throughout the whole sequence of scripture, at one point they are called men, at another

...are said to be angels. Yet the one who holds this view will say that, just as among acknowledged human beings there are angels, as Zechariah says: "Angel of God, I am with you, says the Lord Almighty," and John, concerning whom the text reads, "See, I am sending my messenger ahead of you," so also the angels of God are designated by this term on account of this work,

and are not called "men" by nature. And he will find further support in this: that in the case of the superior powers the names are not names of natures of living beings but of ranks, to which this or that rational nature has been assigned by God. For "throne" is not the form of a living being, nor is "dominion," nor is "authority," but they are names of functions, over which were appointed those

so designated, whose underlying subject is nothing other than a human being, and it has befallen that subject to bear the name throne, dominion, principality, or authority. And in the book of Joshua son of Nun it stands written: "A man appeared to Joshua in Jericho," who says, "I have now come as commander-in-chief of the power of the Lord." On this reasoning, then, as capable of equal application,

he will take "the light of men" also as the light of every rational being, since every rational being is a human being by virtue of bearing God's image and likeness. It is, however, the same thing named in three ways: "light of men," and simply "light," and "true light." "Light of men," then — either, as has been shown above, nothing preventing it, one is to understand "light" as belonging also to others besides man,

or as belonging to all rational beings, called "men" because they have come to be "according to the image of God." Now since "light" simply, here, refers to the Savior, while that same John, in his catholic letter, says that God is light, one person thinks that from this too it can be established that the Father is not separated in substance from the Son; another,

observing more carefully — and speaking more soundly — will say that the light shining in darkness, never mastered by it, differs from the light in which darkness has no place whatsoever. For the light that shines in the darkness comes upon the darkness, as it were, and being pursued by it and, so to speak, plotted against, is not overtaken; whereas the light

where darkness has no place whatsoever neither shines in darkness nor is pursued by it at all, so that it may also be recorded as victor by not being overtaken by the darkness that pursues it. The third thing said of this light was "true light"; and by the reasoning by which the Father, the God of truth, surpasses truth in greatness, and, being the Father of wisdom,

is better than and different from wisdom, by this same reasoning he surpasses being called "true light." We shall know still more plainly from what follows, on the authority of David, that the Father and the Son are a pair of lights: he says as much in the thirty-fifth psalm, "In your light we shall see light." And this very thing — the light of men, the light shining in the darkness, the true light — in

In what follows in the gospel he is proclaimed "the light of the world," Jesus saying, "I am the light of the world." Let us not leave this unremarked either: although it was possible to have written, "What came to be in him was light of men, and that light belonging to men was life," he has done the opposite; for he sets life ahead of the light belonging to men, even though "life"

and "light of men" are the same thing, because he is meeting us in advance in the case of those who share in life -- life which also happens to be the light of men -- with the point that their living the aforesaid divine life comes before their being enlightened. For living must underlie it, so that the one who lives may become enlightened; it would not have followed for one not yet conceived of as living to be enlightened, and for living to come upon the one enlightened afterward. For even if

life and the light of men amount to the very same thing, still the concepts are taken according to one aspect and another. This same light of men is also called "light of the nations" by the prophet Isaiah, according to the text, "Behold, I have set you for a covenant of the race, for a light of the nations." And trusting in this light David declares in the twenty-sixth psalm, "The Lord

is my light and my savior; whom shall I fear?" As for those who have fashioned the myth about the aeons in their pairings, and who suppose that reason and life -- not implausibly -- have been put forth by mind and truth, let them also be at a loss over this. For how, according to them, does life, the consort of reason, receive the fact of having come to be in its consort? For it says, "What came to be in it" -- namely, in the

aforesaid reason -- "was life." Let them tell us, then, how life, the consort of reason, came to be in reason, and how it is rather the life of reason, and not reason itself, that is the light of men. It is likely that the more reasonable among them, overturned in their inquiries and stung by this difficulty, will turn the question back on us, and that they too will be hard pressed if we cannot find the reason why it was not "reason" that was said to be the

light of men, but the "life" that came to be in reason. To these we will answer as follows: that "life" here is not meant in the common sense shared by rational and irrational beings, but the life that comes upon the reason completed in us, its participation being received from the primary Reason. And insofar as we turn away from the life that seems to be, but is not truly, life, and long to make room for

the true life, we first share in it; and this life, having come to be in us, becomes also the substance of the light of knowledge. And perhaps this life is, in some, light in potentiality and not in actuality -- namely, in those who do not make it their ambition to examine the things of knowledge -- while in others it becomes light in actuality as well; and it is light wherever what Paul enjoined is accomplished: "Be zealous for

the greater gifts" -- and greater than the gifts is that which is set before all of them, namely, "the word of wisdom," and that which follows it, "the word of knowledge." As for the difference between them, since the meanings of "wisdom" and "knowledge" lie close to one another, it is not for the present occasion to say. Further, concerning the light of men, since it has been placed first, we inquire -- and I think also concerning its opposite, which is called "darkness."

...but if, tested in this way — I mean 'of men' — because perhaps "the light of men" is a general term for two particular things, and likewise also their darkness. For it is possible for the one who has acquired the light of men and shares in its rays to accomplish "works of light" and, being illuminated, to know the light of knowledge; and the corresponding thing must also be understood from the

opposites — both the practice of wicked deeds and the so-called knowledge that is not true according to reality, which have the character of darkness. And that the sacred word knows the commandments as light, Isaiah says: "For your commandments are light upon the earth," and David in the eighteenth psalm: "The commandment of the LORD is radiant, enlightening the eyes." And that...

besides the commandments and the precepts there is also a light that belongs to knowledge, we found in one of the Twelve: "Sow for yourselves unto righteousness, reap unto the fruit of life, kindle for yourselves the light of knowledge." For as though there were also another light besides the commandments, the text says of knowledge, "Kindle for yourselves a light" — not simply "light," but a particular kind of light, namely "of knowledge." For if...

every light that a person kindles for oneself counted as "light of knowledge," the addition "kindle for yourselves a light of knowledge" would have been pointless. Again, that darkness applies to wicked deeds is taught by this same John in his epistle, where he states: "Should we claim to have fellowship with him while going about in the dark, we would be lying and not doing the truth," and again:

"The one who says he is in the light, and hates his brother, is in darkness until now," and further: "But the one who hates his brother is in darkness, and walks in darkness, and does not know where he is going, because the darkness has blinded his eyes." For to walk in darkness signifies

blameworthy conduct; and hating one's brother is a falling-away, though not from what is properly called knowledge. And that the one who is ignorant of divine things, by that very ignorance, walks about in darkness, David says: "They did not know nor understand; they walk about in darkness." Now consider the statement, "God is light, and darkness has no place in him whatsoever" —

unless this is said because darkness is not one, but either because the general term is two, or because, according to each of the particulars, there are many wicked deeds and many false doctrines, and so there are many darknesses, none of which is in God — something that could not be said of the holy one, to whom the Savior says, "You are the

light of the world," that the holy one belongs to the world as "light," "and no darkness whatsoever dwells in him." But someone will ask: if the statement "no darkness whatsoever dwells in him" is set down concerning the Father, how shall we say that this is something exceptional belonging to him — given that we also understand the Savior to be wholly without sin, so that it could be said of him too, "He is light and

"no darkness whatsoever dwells in him." We have, then, in part above set out the distinction; but we shall now add, even more boldly than before, that if God "made the one who never knew sin to become sin for our sake" — that is, the Christ, if God made him to be sin on our behalf — it could not be said of him, "No darkness whatsoever dwells in him."

For if Jesus, having condemned sin "in the likeness of sinful flesh," does so precisely by having taken on the likeness of sinful flesh, then the statement made about him, "There is no darkness in him at all," will no longer hold in every respect without qualification. We shall add further that "he himself took our weaknesses and bore our sicknesses" — both the weaknesses of the soul and the sicknesses

of the hidden man of our heart. Because of these weaknesses and sicknesses, having borne them away from us, he confesses that his soul is deeply grieved and troubled, and it is recorded in Zechariah that he was clothed in filthy garments — which, when they were about to be stripped from him, are said to be sins. He adds there, indeed: "Behold, I have taken away your sins." For it was by taking upon himself the sins belonging to the people of those who trust

in him, he says in many places: "My salvation lies far off, on account of the words of my transgressions," and, "You know my folly, and my offenses are not hidden from you." Let no one suppose that in saying these things we speak impiously against the Christ of God. For in the sense in which the Father alone possesses immortality, since the Lord, out of love for humanity,

has taken upon himself death on our behalf, in that same sense it is the Father alone who possesses the statement "No darkness whatsoever dwells in him" — since the Christ, on account of his benefaction toward men, has taken upon himself our darknesses, so that through his power our death would be brought to nothing and the darkness within our soul would be wiped away, so that what is said in Isaiah might be fulfilled: "The people who

sitting in darkness beheld a great light." This same light, having come to be within the Word and being in truth also life, "gives light amid the darkness" that fills our souls, and it has taken up residence there where the world-rulers of this darkness reside — those who, wrestling against humankind, labor to drag under darkness's sway those unwilling in every respect to hold their ground, so as to keep them from being counted, once enlightened,

sons of the light. And this light, shining in the darkness, is indeed pursued by it, but is not overtaken. But if anyone should think that we are adding something not written — namely, that the light is pursued by the darkness — let him hear that the statement "the darkness did not overtake it" is said in vain if the darkness nowhere pursued the light. But as one with a mind able

to grasp, consistent with what stands written, matters supposed to have gone unmentioned, John set down: "the darkness laid no hold upon it" — for if it "laid no hold" upon it, then having given chase, still "it laid no hold." And that darkness gave chase to the light is evident both from what the Savior endured and from what those who took up his teachings, his very own children, likewise endured, since darkness was at work against the sons of light and

wished to chase the light away from humankind. Yet since, granted that "God stands on our side," no one — however much he might wish it — will have power "to stand against us," the more they abased themselves, the more their numbers swelled and their strength grew ever mightier. Now darkness has failed to grasp the light in a twofold sense: either it lags far behind the light and, owing to its own sluggishness, cannot match the swiftness of the light's course, not even to some degree,

or, if the light ever wished to lie in wait for the darkness and, by way of dispensation, allowed it to go on approaching, then the darkness, on drawing near the light, vanished. In either case, then, the darkness did not overtake the light. But having come to this point, we must note that it is not always the case that, wherever “darkness” is named, it is taken in the worse sense; sometimes it is recorded also of

the better one — a distinction the heterodox failed to make, and so, having accepted most blasphemous doctrines about the Demiurge, fell away from him, giving themselves over to fabricated myths. How then, and when, the name of darkness is applied also to the better sense must now be shown. Darkness, gloom, and storm are said in Exodus to surround God, and likewise in Psalm 16: “God made darkness

his hiding place, round about him is his tent, dark water in clouds of the air.” For if one considers the multitude of contemplations concerning God, and how his knowledge is ungraspable by human nature — and perhaps even by other begotten beings besides Christ and the Holy Spirit — he will understand how there is darkness surrounding God, in the sense that the account of him that is worthy and rich is unknown.

in that darkness “he made his hiding place,” having done this because the matters concerning him, being incapable of being contained, are unknown. But if anyone stumbles at interpretations of this kind, let him be led on from the dark sayings and from the treasures given by God to Christ that are dark, hidden, unseen; for I think the dark treasures revealed in Christ are nothing other than the “Darkness

God made his hiding place,” or “the holy one will understand a parable and a dark saying.” It may be for this reason that the Savior says to the disciples: “What you have heard in the darkness, say in the light.” For as to the mysteries handed down to them in secret, not heard by many, hard to know and unclear, he commands them — since they are being enlightened and are for this reason said to be

in the light — to declare them to everyone who is coming to be in the light. But I would say something even more paradoxical about the darkness that is praised: that it hastens toward the light and overtakes it, and it happens at times that, because it is unrecognized as darkness, it so changes for the one who does not perceive its power that the one who has come to learn declares that what was once known to him as darkness has become light. Anyone who hears more precisely the word

"One sent forth," since whoever is sent forth is dispatched from some place to some place, will inquire whence John was sent and whither. The "whither" being plain — according to the historical sense, that it was toward Israel and those wishing to give him a hearing while he lingered in the desert of Judea and administered baptism beside the river Jordan — but according to a more searching account, that it was into the world, "world" being understood as

the region below the heavens, where humans dwell), he will inquire how the term "whence" ought to be understood. Probing the wording still further, he perhaps also declares that, just as it stands written concerning Adam: "And the Lord God sent him forth out of the garden of delight to till the ground from which he had been taken," in like manner John too was sent, whether out of heaven or out of

paradise, or from wherever else besides this place on earth, and he was sent so that he might testify concerning the “light.” But the argument admits of a rejoinder not to be despised, since Isaiah too has this passage: “Whom shall I send — who will go to this people?” to which the prophet, in reply, says: “Here am I; send me.” For the one who presses the deeper

sense implied here will say that just as Isaiah was sent, not from some other place besides this world, but after he had seen “the Lord seated on a high and exalted throne” toward the people, so that he might say, “You will hear by hearing and will not understand,” and so on, so also John, the beginning of whose mission is passed over in silence though it bears an analogy to the mission

of Isaiah, is sent to baptize and to prepare “for the Lord a people made ready,” and to testify “concerning the light.” Now when these things have been stated in this way in reply to the first argument, such resolutions are brought forward as draw one toward agreement with the deeper meaning supposed concerning John. From this very point it is added: “This man came for a testimony, that he might testify concerning the light”; for if he came, he came from somewhere. And one must say, in answer to

the one who has trouble accepting what John says further on about having seen the Holy Spirit descending upon the Savior like a dove — for he says, “He who sent me to baptize in water, he said to me: The one on whom you see the Spirit descending and remaining, this is the one who baptizes in the Holy Spirit” — and then, when

did the one who sent him give him this instruction? But it is reasonable to answer this question by saying that whenever it was that he sent him to begin baptizing, it was then that the one who commissioned him spoke this word to him. Still more strikingly in support of John’s having been sent from somewhere else and taken on a body, having no other purpose for his sojourn in life than the testimony concerning the light, is the fact that he

was filled with the Holy Spirit while still in his mother’s womb, as Gabriel said in bringing the good news, announcing to Zechariah the birth of John, and to Mary announcing the sojourn among human beings of our Savior, and: “Behold, as the sound of your greeting came into my ears, the infant leapt for joy in my womb.” For to one who holds fast

to the principle that nothing is done unjustly, nor by chance or by lot, it is necessary to accept that John’s soul was older than his body and had existed beforehand, and had been sent for the service of testifying concerning the light. In addition to this, one must not disregard “He himself is Elijah who is to come.” But if the general doctrine about the soul prevails, that it is not sown together with the body,

But since he exists before it and, for various causes, is clothed with flesh and blood, "sent by God" will no longer seem to be something exceptional said about John. At any rate the worst of all beings, “that man of sin, that son of destruction,” is described by Paul as sent by God: "for this reason," he says, "God sends them a working of error, leading

them to believe the lie, so that all may be judged who did not believe the truth but took pleasure in wickedness." But observe whether we will be able to resolve the question raised in this way: that just as, more simply, every man is a man of God by having been created by God, but not every man is properly called a "man of God"—rather only the one devoted to God, in the way Elijah and those

recorded in the scriptures are called "men of God"—so too, in the more general sense every man can be said to have been sent from God, but properly said to have been sent by God is no one other than the one who, for divine service and for the ministry of the salvation of the human race, comes to sojourn in this life. At any rate we have not found "to be sent from God" applied to anyone other than the saints—in the case of

Isaiah, as we set out before; and in the case of Jeremiah: "to all to whom I send you, you shall go"; and in the case of Ezekiel: "behold, I send you to the nations that have revolted and rebelled against me." It will seem, however, that these examples of sending do not bear on the question before us—namely the sending into life that we are inquiring about—since they speak of a sending that is not, in the plain sense, a sending from outside life into

life. Nevertheless, even so it is not implausible to transfer the argument to the matter under inquiry, by saying that just as God is said to send only the saints, in whose case we have set out the examples, so too the same must be understood in the case of those sent into life. And since we are, generally speaking, engaged in the discussion concerning John, inquiring into his sending, this is a fitting moment to add our own

conjecture, which we hold concerning him. For since we have read the prophecy concerning him: "behold, I send my messenger before your face, who will prepare your way before you," we raise the question whether he, being one of the holy angels, is sent down for a ministry as forerunner of our Savior. And it is nothing to marvel at that, when the firstborn of all creation became embodied out of love for humanity, certain zealous ones should have become imitators of Christ,

loving to serve, through a like body, his kindness toward mankind. And who would not be moved by the one who leapt in exultation while still in the womb, as one surpassing the common nature of men? And if someone also accepts, among the apocryphal writings current among the Hebrews, the one entitled the Prayer of Joseph, he will find this very doctrine stated there plainly and clearly,

namely that those who from the beginning possessed something exceptional beyond other men, being far superior to the rest of souls, have descended into human nature from being angels. At any rate Jacob says: "For I who speak to you, Jacob and Israel, am an angel of God and a governing spirit; Abraham and Isaac, moreover, were brought into being before every work; but I, Jacob,

"the one whom men called Jacob. Yet my name is Israel, the one whom God called Israel, a man beholding God, for I am firstborn of every creature to whom God gives life." And he adds: "As I journeyed from the Mesopotamia of Syria, the angel of God Uriel came forth and declared that he had descended upon the earth and made his dwelling among men, and

that I was called by the name Jacob; he was jealous and fought with me, and he wrestled against me, saying that his name would come before my name and before that of every angel. And I made known to him his own name and his rank among the sons of God: 'Are you not Uriel, eighth after me, whereas I am Israel, an archangel of power belonging to the Lord and hold rank as chief captain amid God's sons? Am not

I, Israel, the first minister before the face of God, and have I not called upon my God by an unquenchable name?" For it is likely that, since these things were truly spoken by Jacob and for that reason recorded, the words "In the womb he supplanted his brother" were also spoken with understanding. Consider whether an answer can be found to the well-known problem concerning Jacob and Esau,

since "though they were not yet born and had done nothing good or bad, in order that God's electing purpose might remain fixed, not from works but from him who calls, it was said, 'The elder shall serve the younger,' just as it is written: 'Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.' What then shall we say? Is there injustice with God? May it never be." Though they were not yet born

and had done nothing good or bad, in order that God's electing purpose might remain fixed, not from works but from him who calls, it was said.] Since, then, we are not running ahead to the deeds prior to this life, how is it true that there is no injustice with God when the elder serves the lesser and is hated before doing the things worthy of servitude and

the things worthy of being hated? But we have digressed rather too far by taking up the matter concerning Jacob and calling to witness on our behalf a scripture not to be despised, so that the argument concerning John might become more persuasive, establishing him, according to the voice of Isaiah, to have become an angel in a body so as to testify on the light's behalf. That, then, is what may be said of John the man. But I think that

just as among us voice and reason differ—since a voice signifying nothing can at times be uttered apart from reason, while reason too can be reported to the mind apart from voice, as when we reason things through within ourselves—so too, the Savior being in a certain sense reason, John differs from him in this way: in proportion to Christ, who is reason, John turns out to be a voice.

And to this very point John himself invites me, whoever he may be, when he answers those who inquire: "A voice am I, crying out in the desert: Prepare the Lord's road, straighten out the paths he will walk." And perhaps for this reason Zechariah, disbelieving at the coming-to-be of the voice that displays the Word of God, loses his voice, receiving it back when the forerunner is born

the voice of the word. For one must first take in a voice with the ear, so that afterward the mind may be able to receive the word that is pointed out by the voice. This is also why John is, as to his birth, somewhat older than Christ; for we apprehend a voice before a word. But John also points out Christ; for it is by a voice that the word is presented. But Christ is also baptized by John,

Christ, who confesses that he has need to be baptized by him; for in the case of human beings, the word is purified by a voice, though by its own nature the word purifies every voice that signifies it. And in short, when John points out Christ, a man points out God, and one who is incorporeal points out the Savior, and a voice points out the word. Now it would be useful, just as in many cases the clarity of names is useful, so also

in this passage, to see what John and Zacharias signify. For, as though there were something not to be despised in the giving of the name, the relatives wish him to be called Zacharias, being astonished that Elizabeth wants to name him John; but Zacharias, by writing "John shall be his name," is released

from his laborious silence. We have found, then, in the interpretation of names, that "John" is rendered as "Ioan" without the "-es," which we consider to be the same as "John"; since the New Testament has also Hellenized other Hebrew names, giving them a Greek form, just as instead of "Jacob" it gives "Jacobus," and instead of "Symeon," "Simon" ("Zacharias," for its part, is said to mean "memory,"

while "Elizabeth" means "the oath of my God" or "the sabbath-week of my God"). From God, then, comes "grace," out of the "memory" concerning God, according to the "oath" of our God made to the fathers; and so John was born, preparing "for the Lord a people made ready," having come into being at the end of the old covenant, which is the crowning point of sabbath-keeping; and for this reason he could not have been born apart from the "seventh" of "our

God" - the rest that comes after the sabbath, belonging to our Savior, who brings about his own rest in those who have become conformed to his death, and therefore also to his resurrection. Some of those holding heterodox opinions, while claiming to believe in Christ, and because they fashion another <god> alongside the Creator, consequently do not accept that his coming was

foretold beforehand by the prophets; they try to overturn the testimonies concerning Christ given through the prophets, claiming that God's Son requires no witnesses at all, since he possesses in himself what makes him worthy of belief, both in the saving words he proclaimed, which are filled with power, and in his marvelous works, which are of themselves able to astound anyone whatsoever. And they say: "If Moses was trusted because of his teaching and his mighty deeds, without needing witnesses

among those before him who had proclaimed him beforehand, and if each of the prophets too was accepted by the people as one sent from God, how is it not all the more possible that he, being superior to Moses and the prophets, can accomplish what he wills and benefit the human race without prophets bearing witness to what concerns him?" They think, therefore, that it is superfluous to hold that he was foretold beforehand by the prophets, having contrived this in order that,

This is what those who do not wish believers in Christ to accept the novelty of a deity would say, but who instead insist that they arrive at the very same God whom, even before Jesus, Moses and the prophets taught. It must be said to them, then, that since many causes can arise that invite people to belief, sometimes certain persons are not struck by this proof but by another,

namely that God has more starting-points to offer human beings, so that it may be accepted that the God who is above all created things became human. Indeed, one can plainly see some people, coming from the prophetic predictions, arriving at wonder before Christ, astonished at the voice of so many prophets before him, which established the place and region of his birth, the power of his teaching, the working of marvelous deeds, and

his human suffering dissolved by the resurrection. And this too must be examined: that the miraculous powers were able to invite those who lived in the time of the Lord to belief, but did not preserve their persuasive force after many years had already passed and they had come to be suspected as myths. For the prophecies, examined together with the powers, have greater strength to persuade now than the powers that occurred then,

since they prevent even those powers from being disbelieved by those who examine them. Perhaps, too, the prophetic testimonies do not merely proclaim that Christ was to come, nor do they teach us this alone and nothing else, but teach us to learn a great theology, and the relation of Father to Son and of Son to Father, no less from the prophets, through whom they announce the things concerning him, than from the apostles narrating

the majesty of the Son of God. One may, indeed, even venture beyond this to say something like the following: that they are witnesses of Christ, adorned by their bearing witness concerning him, and not at all conferring some favor on him by bearing witness concerning the Son of God — as all would agree regarding those specifically called witnesses of Christ. What wonder is it, then, if just as

many of Christ's genuine disciples were adorned by being witnesses of Christ, so also the prophets, having understood that they were to proclaim Christ beforehand, received this as a gift from God, teaching not only those who lived after Christ's coming what one must think concerning the Son of God, but also those in the generations before them? For just as one who has not known the Son now does not have the Father either,

so it must be understood in the same way for the earlier time as well. That is why "Abraham rejoiced to look upon Christ's day, and he beheld it and rejoiced." Whoever wishes that the prophets need not bear witness concerning Christ thereby wishes to deprive the chorus of prophets of their greatest grace. For what would prophecy inspired by the Holy Spirit have of such magnitude, if the matters concerning the economy of our Lord had been withdrawn from it?

For just as piety toward God is adorned for those who approach the God of all through a mediator and high priest and advocate, and † in a knowing manner, and would go limping if one did not enter to the Father through the Gate, so too the piety of the ancients was sacred, through their understanding, faith, and expectation of Christ, and acceptable before God.

Since we have observed that God confesses to being a witness, and declares the same concerning Christ, calling everyone to become imitators of him and of Christ by bearing witness to the things to which they must bear witness — for he says, «Become my witnesses, and I too am a witness, says the Lord God, and the servant whom I have chosen» — and everyone who bears witness to the truth, whether

by words or by deeds or however else standing forth as a witness, might reasonably be so called. But by now, in the proper sense, as the custom of the brotherhood, struck with admiration at the disposition of those who contended even unto death for the truth or for courage, has come to name only those «witnesses» in the strict sense who testified to the mystery of true worship by the shedding of their own blood — the savior nonetheless calls «a witness» everyone who bears witness to the things

proclaimed concerning him. At any rate, being taken up, he says to the apostles: «You shall be witnesses to me, both throughout Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria and unto the farthest part of the earth.» Further, just as the leper, once cleansed, brings the offering prescribed by Moses, making this «a testimony» to those who have not believed in Christ, so too as a testimony to the unbelieving

the witnesses bear witness, and all the saints, whose works shine «before men.» For they conduct themselves boldly in the cross of Christ, bearing witness concerning the true light. And so John came, that he might bear witness concerning the light; he, bearing witness, «cried out, saying»: «He who comes after me has come before me, because he was before

me. Because from his fullness we have all received, and grace upon grace; because through Moses the law was given, but through Jesus Christ came grace and truth. God has no one ever seen; the only-begotten God, who exists in the Father's bosom — that one has made him known.» Now this entire discourse is spoken in the person of the Baptist bearing witness

to Christ — a point that escapes some who suppose that from «From his fullness we have all received» up to «He has made him known» is spoken in the person of John the apostle. Now in addition to the aforementioned testimony of the Baptist, beginning from «He who comes after me has come before me» and ending at «He has made him known,»

this is the testimony of John, second after that one, when, to those sent from Jerusalem — priests and Levites, sent by the Jews — he confesses, not denying the truth, that Christ he is not, nor Elijah, nor the prophet, but «a voice crying out in the desert: Straighten the Lord's road, just as Isaiah the prophet declared.»

After this there comes yet another testimony of that same Baptist concerning Christ, still further teaching his preeminent subsistence as extending to the whole world in respect of rational souls, when he says: «Among you stands one whom you do not know, coming after me, of whom I am not worthy to loose the strap of his sandal.» And consider whether through

That the heart is situated at the body's center, and within the heart the ruling faculty resides, can be understood, in keeping with the reasoning found in each case, as the sense of “In your midst stands one whom you do not know.” A fourth testimony of John concerning Christ, in addition to these, already outlining also his human suffering, is when he declares: “Behold, there is the Lamb of God, who takes away”

“the sin of the world. He is the one of whom I said, A man comes after me who came to be ahead of me, since he existed before I did; and I myself did not know him, but so that he might be revealed to Israel, it was for this that I came baptizing in water.” And a fifth testimony is recorded, according to: “I have beheld the Spirit descending like a dove from heaven,”

“and it remained upon him; and I did not know him, but he who sent me to baptize in water, that one said to me: Upon whomever you see the Spirit descending and remaining upon him, this is he who baptizes in Holy Spirit. I have seen this myself, and I have given testimony that he is God's own Son.” And sixth, John testifies to the Christ

before two disciples, when, having fixed his gaze on Jesus walking by, he says: “See there, the Lamb of God.” Following that testimony, once the two disciples of John had heard him and had followed Jesus, Jesus turned and, seeing the two following, answers, saying: “What are you seeking?” And perhaps it is not without purpose that, once he has testified six times, John ceases testifying, while Jesus,

for the seventh, puts forward: “What are you seeking?” And fitting for those who had been benefited by John's testimony is the utterance that proclaims the Christ as teacher and confesses a longing to see where God's own Son dwells; for it is to him they say: “Rabbi” (which, translated, means “Teacher”), “where are you staying?” And since “everyone who seeks finds,” to John's disciples, who had sought Jesus' dwelling,

he shows it, saying to them, “Come and you will see,” perhaps by the word “Come” summoning them to the practical life, and by the word “you will see” indicating that the contemplation which follows upon the successful accomplishment of deeds will certainly come to those who are willing, taking place in the dwelling of Jesus. And it lay before those who had sought where Jesus was staying, once they had followed the teacher and had seen, to remain with Jesus

and to spend that day together with the Son of God. And since the number ten is observed as holy, no few mysteries being recorded in connection with the decad, one must understand that it is not without purpose that in the Gospel the tenth hour is recorded for the lodging of John's disciples with Jesus, since Andrew, the brother of Simon Peter, was one who, having been benefited

by having remained with Jesus, upon finding Simon, his own brother—it seems he had not found him earlier—says that he has found the Messiah, which, translated, is Christ. For since “he who seeks finds,” and he had sought where Jesus was staying, and having followed, and having beheld his dwelling, remains with the Lord through the tenth hour and there finds God's own Son, the

word and wisdom, and comes under his rule, that for this reason he declares: "The Messiah is what we have found." Indeed anyone who has found the Word of God and stands ruled by his divinity might utter this very same cry. And he immediately brings his brother forward as fruit to the Christ - to Simon, to whom Jesus granted the gift of looking upon him, which is, through the

act of looking upon him, to oversee and to illuminate his governing faculty. And because Jesus had looked upon him, Simon was able to be made firm, so that he came to be named after the work of firmness and solidity, and to be called "Peter." But someone will say: why on earth, when the intention was to narrate "This man came for testimony, that he might testify concerning the light," have we gone through all these things? It must be said

that it was necessary to set forth John's testimonies concerning the light, and to lay out their order, as well as the benefit that followed for those to whom he testified - a benefit that came about from Jesus after John's testimony, so that the effectiveness of John's testimony might be shown. And even before the testimonies here, there was the leaping for joy of the Baptist in the womb of

Elizabeth at Mary's greeting - this was a testimony concerning Christ, testifying to the divinity of his conception and birth. For indeed, what else is John everywhere but a witness and forerunner of Jesus, anticipating his birth, and dying shortly before the Son of God himself met his death, so that not only for those in the process of being born but also for those

who were awaiting the freedom from death that comes through Christ, he might, by his sojourn before Christ, everywhere prepare for the Lord a people made ready? And John's testimony reaches even to the second and more divine coming of Christ: "For if you are willing to accept it," he says, "this is Elijah who is to come. Let the one who has ears to hear, hear." Now, there being a beginning in which the Word was (which we have shown from Proverbs to be wisdom),

and the Word existing, and life having come to be in him, and life being the light of men, I ask why on earth the man who came to be, sent from God, whose name was John, "came for testimony, that he might testify concerning the light." Why then not "that he might testify concerning life," or "that he might testify concerning the Word,"

or "concerning the beginning," or concerning any other of Christ's conceptions whatsoever? But consider whether it is not because "the people who dwelt in darkness beheld a great light," and because "the light shines in the darkness" without being grasped by it, that those who happen to be in darkness need light - that is, human beings. For if it is the light of men that shines in the

darkness, where there is in no way any activity of darkness, we shall have a share in the conceptions of Christ, though at present we do not properly and precisely partake of them. For how do we, who are still clothed with the body of death, partake of life, whose life "is concealed along with the Anointed One within God"? For once the Anointed is revealed - our very life - then along with him we too,

we shall be made manifest in glory, it was not possible, then, for the one who came to bear witness concerning the life that still lies hidden together with Christ within God; but neither did he come for witness, in order to bear witness concerning the Word, when we understand the Word as the one existing in the beginning face to face with God, God himself as Word; for on earth "the Word was made flesh." And there was

testimonies, even if it seemed to be concerning the Word, since the one that would properly be spoken as a testimony about the Word would be about the Word once it had become flesh, rather than about God as Word; and for this reason he did not come, in order to bear witness concerning the Word. But how could testimony be given concerning wisdom to those who, even if they seem to have come to know it, do not perceive the purely true reality but see through a mirror and in a riddle? It is likely, however,

that John or Elijah will come to testify concerning life before the second, more divine coming of Christ — shortly before our life, that is Christ, is revealed — and will then testify concerning the Word, and will offer testimony concerning wisdom. But it requires scrutiny whether it is possible that John's testimony is a forerunner to each of the conceptions of Christ. These matters, then,

pertain to “This man arrived as a witness, so as to testify about the light.” Next we must examine what is to be understood by “that all might believe through him.”

← All of Origen: Commentaries & Homilies