Глава первая

John 1:1. In the beginning was the Word What I said in the preface, I will repeat now, namely: while the other evangelists narrate at length about the earthly birth of the Lord, upbringing and growth, John omits these events, since enough has been said about them by his fellow disciples, and speaks about the Divinity of Him who became man for our sake. However, upon careful examination you will see that just as they were not silent about the Divinity of the Only Begotten, but mentioned, although not extensively, so neither John, fixing his gaze on the highest word, did not completely omit the economy of the Incarnation from attention. For one Spirit guided the souls of all. John tells us about the Son, and also mentions the Father. He points to the eternity of the Only Begotten when he says: “In the beginning was the Word,” that is, from the beginning. For what exists from the beginning, there is no doubt that there is no time when it did not exist. “Where,” another will say, “is it clear that the expression “in the beginning was” means the same thing as from the beginning?” Where? Both from the most general understanding, and especially from this evangelist himself. For in one of his epistles he says: “about that which was from the beginning, which we... saw” (1 John 1:1). Do you see how the beloved explains himself? So the questioner will say; but I understand this “in the beginning” in the same way as in Moses: “In the beginning God created” (Gen. 1:1). Just as there the expression “in the beginning” does not convey the idea that heaven is eternal, so here I will not understand the word “in the beginning” to mean that the Only Begotten is eternal. That's what the heretic will say. In response to this insane insistence, we will not say anything else except this: sage of malice! Why did you keep silent about what happened next? But we will say this even against your will. There Moses says that in the beginning God “created” the heavens and the earth, but here it says that in the beginning “was” the Word. What do “created” and “was” have in common? If it were written here, “In the beginning God created the Son,” then I would remain silent; but now, when it is said here “in the beginning it was,” I conclude from this that the Word has existed from eternity, and did not subsequently come into being, as you talk idle talk. Why didn’t John say “in the beginning was the Son,” but “the Word”? Listen. This is for the sake of the weakness of the listeners, so that we, from the very beginning, having heard about the Son, would not think about a passionate and carnal birth. For this reason he called Him “the Word” so that you would know that just as the word is born from the mind dispassionately, so He is born dispassionately from the Father. Also: He called Him “the Word” because He told us about the properties of the Father, just as every word announces the mood of the mind; and at the same time in order to show that He is co-eternal with the Father. For just as it cannot be said that the mind is sometimes without words, so neither the Father nor God was without the Son. John used this phrase because there are many other words of God, for example, prophecies, commandments, as it is said about the angels: “mighty in power, fulfilling His word” (Ps. 102:20), that is, His commands. But the Word itself is a personal being. Here the evangelist shows even more clearly that the Son is co-eternal with the Father. So that you do not think that the Father was once without the Son, he says that the Word was with God, that is, with God in the bosom of the Fathers. For you should understand the preposition “u” instead of “s”, as it was used elsewhere: aren’t His brothers and sisters “in us [essence],” that is, “live with us”? (Mark 6:3). So here, too, “with God” is understood instead: was with God, together with God, in His bosom. For it is impossible that God could ever be without Word or wisdom or power. Therefore, we believe that the Son, since He is the Word, wisdom and power of the Father (1 Cor. 1:24), was always with God, that is, was contemporary and together with the Father. “And how,” you say, “is the Son not after the Father?” How? Learn from real example. Doesn't the sun's radiance come from the sun itself? That's right. Is it really later than the sun, so that one can imagine a time when the sun was without radiance? It is forbidden. For how could it be the sun if it did not have radiance? If we think this way about the sun, then all the more should we think this way about the Father and the Son. We must believe that the Son, who is the radiance of the Father, as Paul says (Heb. 1:3), always shines with the Father, and not later than Him. Note also that this expression is also refuted by Sabellius the Libyan. He taught that the Father, the Son and the Spirit are one person, and that this one person appeared at one time as the Father, and at another as the Son, and at another as the Spirit. Thus the son of the father of lies, filled with the spirit of the evil one, spoke idle talk. But with these words: “and the Word was with God,” he is clearly convicted. The Evangelist here says in the clearest way that there is another Word and another God, that is, the Father. For if the Word was together with God, then, obviously, two persons are introduced, although they both have one nature. And what is one nature, listen. You see that the Word is God! This means that the Father and the Son have one nature, as well as one deity. So, let both Arius and Sabellius be ashamed. Let Arius, who calls the Son of God a creature and a creature, be put to shame by the fact that the Word in the beginning was and was God. And Sabellius, who does not accept the trinity of persons, but the singularity, be put to shame by the fact that the Word was with God. For here the great John clearly declares that there is another Word, and another Father, although not one and another. For one thing is said about persons, and another and another about natures. For example, to express the idea more clearly, Peter and Paul are one and the other, for they are two persons; but not one or the other, for they have one nature - humanity. The same should be taught about the Father and the Son: They, on the one hand, are one and the other, for they are two persons, and on the other hand, they are not one and the other, for one nature is divinity. John 1:2. It was in the beginning with God. This God the Word was never separated from God and the Father. Since John said that the Word was God, then, so that no one would be confused by such a satanic thought: if the Word is God, then did He not ever rebel against the Father, like the gods of the pagans in their fables, and if separated from Him, did He not become an adversary to God? - he says that although the Word is God, nevertheless, It is again with God and the Father, abides with Him and has never been separated from Him. It is no less fitting to say this to those who adhere to the Arius teaching: listen, you deaf ones, who call the Son of God His work and creation; You understand what name the evangelist attached to the Son of God: he called Him the Word. And you call Him work and creation. He is not a work or a creation, but the Word. A word of two kinds. One is internal, which we have even when we do not speak, that is, the ability to speak, for even the one who sleeps and does not speak, however, has the word put in him and has not lost the ability. So, one word is internal, and the other is pronounced, which we pronounce with our lips, bringing into action the ability to speak, the ability of the mental and internal words. Although, thus, the word is of two kinds, however, neither of them fits the Son of God, for the Word of God is neither spoken nor internal. Those words are natural and ours, and the Word of the Father, being above nature, is not subject to false tricks. Therefore, the cunning conclusion of Porfiry, a pagan, falls apart by itself. He, trying to overthrow the Gospel, used the following division: if the Son of God is a word, then it is either a spoken word or an internal word; but He is neither one nor the other; therefore He is not the Word. So, the evangelist resolved this conclusion ahead by saying that what is internal and pronounced is said about us and natural objects, but nothing of the kind is said about supernatural things. However, it must be said that the pagan’s doubt would have a basis if this name “Word” were completely worthy of God and was actually and essentially used about Him. But so far no one has yet found any name completely worthy of God; Neither this very “Word” is used actually and essentially about Him, but it only shows that the Son was born from the Father dispassionately, like a word from the mind, and that He became the messenger of the Father’s will. Why are you, unfortunate one, attached to the name and, hearing about the Father, Son and Spirit, fall into material relations and imagine in your mind carnal fathers and sons, and the air wind - perhaps the south or north, or some other - producing a storm? But if you want to know what kind of word God’s Word is, then listen to what follows. John 1:3. Everything came into being through Him, “Do not consider,” he says, “the Word to be spreading in the air and disappearing, but consider it the Creator of everything intelligible and sensible.” But the Arians again insistently say: “just as we say that the door was made with a saw, although here it is a tool, and another moved the tool, the master, so everything received its existence by the Son, not as if He Himself was the Creator, but a tool, just like there was a saw there, and the Creator is God and the Father, and He uses the Son as a tool. Therefore, the Son is a creation, created for the purpose that by Him all things might come into being, just as a saw is constructed in order to perform carpentry work with it.” So says the evil host of Arius. What should we tell them simply and directly? If the Father, as you say, created the Son for this purpose, in order to have Him as an instrument for the perfection of creation, then the Son will be lower in honor than creation. For as in the case when a saw is a tool, what it makes is more honest than it, since the saw is made for the products, and not they for the saw; so the creation will be more honorable than the Only Begotten, for for it, as they say, the Father created Him, as if God had not created the Only Begotten from Himself if He had not intended to create everything. What is crazier than these speeches? “Why,” they say, “the evangelist did not say “this Word created everything,” but used such a preposition “through”?” So that you do not think that the Son is unborn, without beginning and contrary to God, for this reason he said that the Father created everything with the Word. For imagine that some king, having a son and intending to build a city, entrusted its construction to his son. Just as the one who says that the city was built by the son of the king, does not reduce the king’s son to a slave, but shows that this son has a father, and not only one, so here the evangelist, having said that everything was created by the Son, showed that the Father, so to speak, used Him as a mediator for creation, not as lesser, but, on the contrary, as equal and as able to fulfill such a great commission. I will also tell you that if you are confused by the preposition “through”, and you want to find some place in Scripture that says that the Word Himself created everything, then listen to David: “In the beginning You [Lord] founded the earth, and the heavens are the work of Your hands” (Ps. 101:26). You see, he did not say “through You the heavens were created and the earth was founded,” but You founded, and the work of Your hands is the heavens. And that David says this about the Only Begotten, and not about the Father, you can also learn from the Apostle, who uses these words in the Epistle to the Hebrews (Heb. 1: 8-10), you can also learn from the psalm itself. For, having said that the Lord looked upon the earth - to hear the groaning, to loose the slain and to proclaim the name of the Lord in Zion - to whom else does David point, if not to the Son of God? For He looked upon the earth; Do we mean by it the one along which we move, or our earthed nature, or our flesh, according to what was said: you are the earth (Gen. 3:19), which He took upon Himself; He also freed us, bound by the shackles of our own sins, the sons of the slain Adam and Eve, and proclaimed the name of the Lord in Zion. For standing in the church, He taught about His Father, as He Himself says: “I have revealed Your name to men” (John 17:6). To whom are these actions appropriate, the Father or the Son? All to the Son, for He proclaimed the name of the Father in teaching. Having said this, blessed David also adds this: “in the beginning You, O Lord, founded the earth, and the heavens are the work of Your hands.” Isn't it obvious that he presents the Son as the Creator, and not as an instrument? If, again, the preposition “through,” in your opinion, introduces some reduction, then what do you say when Paul uses it about the Father? For “God is faithful,” he says, “to whom He quickly called His Son into fellowship” (1 Cor. 1:9). Is he really making the Father a tool here? And again, Paul is the apostle “by the will of God” (1 Cor. 1:1). But this is enough, but we need to return again to the same place where we started. “All things came into being through Him.” Moses, speaking about the visible creation, did not explain anything to us about the intelligible creatures. And the evangelist, embracing everything in one word, says: “everything was that” 1, visible and intelligible. and without Him nothing began to be that began to be. Since the Evangelist said that the Word created everything, so that no one would think that It also created the Holy Spirit, he adds: “all things were.” What's all this? - created. No matter how he said, whatever is in created nature, all of it received its existence from the Word. But the Spirit does not belong to created nature; therefore He did not receive existence from Him. So, without the power of the Word, nothing came into being, that is, nothing that was in created nature. John 1:4. In Him was life, and life was the light of men. The Doukhobors read the present passage as follows: “and without Him nothing began to be”; then, putting a punctuation mark here, they read, as if from a different beginning: “what began to be, in Him was life” and interpret this place according to their own thoughts, saying that here the evangelist is talking about the Spirit, that is, that the Holy Spirit was life. This is what the Macedonians say, trying to prove that the Holy Spirit is created and to classify Him among the creatures. But we do not do this, but by placing a punctuation mark after the words “what began to be,” we read from a different beginning: “In Him was life.” Having said about creation that everything came into being through the Word, the evangelist goes on to say about providence that the Word not only created, but It also preserves the life of what was created. For in Him was life. I know from one of the saints this reading of this passage: “and without Him nothing began to be that began to be in Him.” Then, putting a punctuation mark here, he began further: “there was life.” I think that this reading does not contain an error, but contains the same correct thought. For this saint also correctly understood that without the Word nothing came into being, whatever came into being in Him, since everything that came into being and was created was created by the Word Himself, and, therefore, did not exist without Him. Then he began again: “there was life, and life was the light of men.” The Evangelist calls the Lord “life” both because He supports the life of everything, and because He gives spiritual life to all rational beings, and “light,” not so much sensual as intelligent, enlightening the very soul. He did not say that He is the light of the Jews only, but of all “men.” For we are all human beings, since we have received mind and understanding from the Word who created us, and therefore we are called enlightened by Him. For the reason given to us, by which we are called rational, is the light that guides us in what we should and should not do. John 1:5. And the light shines in the darkness, “Light,” that is, the Word of God, shines “in darkness,” that is, in death and error. For He, having submitted to death, so overcame it that He forced it to vomit those whom it had previously swallowed up. And in pagan error the sermon shines. Neither death overcame Him nor delusion. For this light, that is, the Word of God, is irresistible. Some considered the flesh and earthly life to be “darkness.” The Word shone even then, as it became in the flesh and was in this life, and darkness, that is, the opposite force, tempted and pursued the Light, but found Him invincible and invincible. The flesh is called darkness not because it is such by nature (let it not be!), but because of sin. For the flesh, as long as it is governed by the law of nature, has absolutely no evil, but when it moves beyond the limits of nature and serves sin, it becomes and is called darkness. John 1:6. There was a man sent from God; his name is John. Having told us about the eternal existence of God the Word and intending to talk about the incarnation of the Word, the evangelist inserts a speech about the Forerunner. And about what else, if not about the birth of John the Baptist, can there be a word before the speech about the birth of the Lord in the flesh? The Evangelist says about the Forerunner that he was “sent” by God, that is, sent from God. For false prophets are not from God. When you hear that he was sent from God, then know that he did not say anything from himself or from people, but everything was from God. That is why he is called an angel (Mal. 3:1), and the advantage of an angel is not to say anything on his own. When you hear about the angel, do not think that John was an angel by nature or came down from heaven; he is called an angel for his work and service. Since he served as a sermon and foretold the Lord, for this he was called an angel. Therefore, the evangelist, in refuting the assumption of many who perhaps thought that John was an angel by nature, says: “he was a man” sent from God. John 1:7. He came as a witness, to testify about the Light, so that through him all might believe. “This one,” he says, “was sent from God to testify about the light.” Then, lest anyone think that his testimony was truly needed for the Only Begotten, as if he needed something, the Evangelist adds that John came to testify about the Son of God, not because He needed his testimony, but so that everyone would believe through him. Did everyone really believe through him? No. How does the evangelist say: so that everyone may believe? How? - as much as it depended on him, he testified in order to attract everyone, and if some did not believe, then he does not deserve blame. And the sun then rises to illuminate everyone, but if someone, locked in a dark room, does not use its ray, then is it really the sun’s fault? So it is here. John was sent so that everyone would believe through him; if this did not happen, he is not to blame. John 1:8. He was not light, but was sent to testify to the Light. Since it often happens that a witness is higher than the one about whom he testifies, so that you do not think that John, who testifies about Christ, was higher than Him, the evangelist, in refuting this evil thought, says: “he was not light.” But perhaps someone will say: “Can’t we really call either John or any other saint light?” We can call each of the saints Light, but in this meaning we cannot call each of them Light. For example, if someone says to you: “John, is there light?” – agree. If he asks like this: “Is John really this Light?” - say no. For he himself is not light in the proper sense, but light by communion, having radiance from the true Light. John 1:9. There was the true Light, which enlightens every person coming into the world. The Evangelist intends to speak about the Economy of the Only Begotten in the flesh, that He came to His own, that He became flesh. So, lest anyone think that He did not exist before the Incarnation, for this purpose he raises the thought to being before any beginning and says that the true Light existed before the Incarnation. By this he overthrows both the heresy of Photinus and Paul of Samosata, who asserted that the Only Begotten then received existence when he was born of the Virgin, but before that he did not exist. And you, Arian, who does not recognize the Son of God as the true God, listen to what the evangelist says: “The true Light.” And you, Manichaean, who says that we were created by an evil creator, listen to the fact that the true Light enlightens every person. If the evil creator is darkness, then he cannot enlighten anyone. Therefore, we are creatures of true Light. “And how,” another will say, “enlightens every person, when we see some darkened?” As much as depends on Himself, He enlightens everyone. For tell me, perhaps, aren’t we all reasonable? Don't we all know by nature what is good and what is contrary to it? Do we not have the ability to know the Creator through thinking about creatures? Therefore, reason given to us and instructing us by nature, which is called natural law, can be called light given to us from God. If some have used their reason poorly, they have darkened themselves. Others resolve this objection as follows: “The Lord enlightens,” they say, “every person who comes “into the world” (in Greek - decoration, order), that is, into a better state, and who tries to decorate his soul, and not leave it disordered and ugly.” John 1:10. He was in the world, and the world came into being through Him, and the world did not know Him. He was in the world as an omnipresent God, and one can say that he was in the world in relation to industry and conservation. However, he says: “Why do I say that I was in the world, when there would have been no world if He had not created it?” He proves from all sides that He is the Creator, at the same time removing both the madness of Manes, who said that everything was created by an evil creator, and the madness of Arius, who called the Son of God a creature, and at the same time every person, leading to the confession of the Creator, teaching not to serve creatures, but to worship the Creator. But “the world,” he says, “did not know Him,” that is, bad people who were busy with worldly affairs. For the name “world” also means this universe, just as it is said here: “the world began to be through Him”; means also those who philosophize in the world, as it is said here: “the world did not know Him,” that is, people committed to the earth. But all the saints and prophets knew. John 1:11. Came to his Here the evangelist is obviously talking about the Economy of salvation in the flesh, and the whole order of thought is as follows: The Light was true in the world, without flesh and was not known, then it came to His own with the flesh. By “his own” you can mean either the whole world, or Judea, which He chose as a share of the inheritance, as His plot and property (Ps. 113:2). or the Jews, or other people created by Him. Thus, he mourns the madness of people and is amazed at the philanthropy of the Lord. “Being,” he says, “belonging to Him, not everyone accepted Him, for the Lord does not attract anyone by force, but leaves them to their own discretion and arbitrariness.” John 1:12. And to those who received Him, to those who believed in His name, He gave the power to become children of God, To those who received Him, whether they were slaves or free, youths or elders, barbarians or Greeks, He gave them all the power to become children of God. Who are they? Those who believe in His name, that is, those who accepted the Word and the true Light, and accepted it by faith, and embraced it. Why didn’t the evangelist say that He “made” them children of God, but “gave (them) power” to become children of God? Why? Listen. Because to maintain purity, it is not enough to be baptized, but a lot of effort is needed to keep the image of sonhood inscribed in baptism undefiled. Therefore, many, although they accepted the grace of sonship through baptism, through negligence did not remain completely children of God. Another, perhaps, will say that many accept Him through faith only, for example, the so-called catechumens, but have not yet become children of God, however, if they want to be baptized, they have the power to be worthy of this grace, that is, sonhood. Another will also say that although we receive the grace of adoption through baptism, we will receive perfection in the resurrection; then we hope to receive the most perfect adoption, just as Paul says: “We look forward to adoption as sons” (Rom. 8:23). Therefore, this evangelist did not say that He made those who accepted Him children of God, but gave them the power to become children of God, that is, to receive this grace in the next century. John 1:13. Who were born neither of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. In some way he makes a comparison between Divine and carnal birth, not without purpose reminding us of carnal birth, but so that we, through comparison, having learned the ignobility and baseness of carnal birth, strive towards Divine grace. He says “which were not born of blood,” that is, menstruation, for with them the child is nourished and grows in the womb. They also say that the seed first turns into blood, then forms into flesh and other devices. Because some could say that the birth of Isaac was the same as those who believe in Christ are born, since Isaac was not born of blood, for Sarah stopped menstruating (blood flow) (Gen. 18:11); Since some might think so, the evangelist adds: “neither from the will of the flesh, nor from the will of the husband.” The birth of Isaac was, although not from blood, but from the desire of the husband, since the husband definitely wanted a child to be born to him from Sarah (Gen. 21:8). And “from the will of the flesh,” for example, Samuel from Anna. So, you can say that Isaac was from the desire of a husband, and Samuel from the desire of the flesh, that is, Anna, for this barren woman greatly desired to receive a son (1 Sam. 1, 6), or maybe both were on both sides. If you want to learn something else, then listen. Carnal mixing occurs either from natural inflammation, for often someone gets a very hot constitution and is therefore very inclined to have intercourse. The evangelist called this the desire of the flesh. Or an uncontrollable desire for intercourse occurs from a bad habit and an immoderate lifestyle. He called this desire “the desire of a husband,” and since it is not a matter of natural constitution, but of the husband’s immoderation. Since a strong inclination to intercourse sometimes appears in the wife, sometimes in the husband, then perhaps the evangelist meant the husband’s voluptuousness by “the desire of the husband,” and the voluptuousness of the wife by “the desire of the flesh.” It is also true that by “the desire of the flesh” you can understand lust, which inflames the flesh to mix, and by “the desire of the husband” the consent of the lustful person to copulate, which consent is the beginning of the matter. The Evangelist put both because many lust, however, are not immediately carried away by the flesh, but overcome it and do not fall into the matter itself. And those whom it overcomes reach the point of desire to copulate, because initially they were inflamed by the flesh and the lust smoldering in it. So, the evangelist appropriately placed the desires of the flesh before the desires of the husband, because naturally lust precedes confusion; both desires necessarily flow together during copulation. All this is said for the sake of those who often ask unreasonable questions, because, strictly speaking, all this expresses one thought, namely: the baseness of carnal birth is exposed. What more do we who believe in Christ have over the Israelites under the law? True, they were called sons of God, but there is a big difference between us and them. The Law in everything had a “shadow of the future” (Heb. 10:1) and did not communicate the birth of sons to the Israelites (in full), but as if in an image and mental representation. And we, through baptism in fact, having received the Spirit of God, cry out: “Abba, Father!” (Gal. 4:6). For them, just as baptism was a type and shadow, so their sonhood prefigured our adoption. Although they were called sons, they were in the shadow and did not have the very truth of sonhood, as we now have through baptism. John 1:14. And the Word became flesh Having said that we who believe in Christ, if we wish, are made children of God, the evangelist also adds the reason for such a great good. “Do you want,” he says, “to know what this sonhood brought us? That the Word became flesh." When you hear that the Word became flesh, do not think that It left His own Nature and turned into flesh (for It would not have been God if it had turned and changed), but that, remaining what it was, It became what it was not. But Apollinaris the Laodicean formed a heresy from this. He taught that our Lord and God did not take on the whole human nature, that is, a body with a verbal soul, but only flesh without a verbal and rational soul. What need did God have for a soul when His body was controlled by the Divine, just as our body is controlled by the soul? And I thought to see the basis for this in the present saying: “and the Word became flesh.” “The evangelist did not say,” says the evangelist, that the Word became man, but “flesh”; This means that It did not receive a rational and verbal soul, but irrational and dumb flesh.” It is true that he, unfortunate one, did not know that Scripture often calls the whole a part. For example, it wants to mention the whole person, but calls it a part, in the word “soul”. Every “soul” that is not circumcised will be destroyed (Gen. 17:14). So, instead of saying “every person,” a part is named, namely, “soul.” Scripture also calls the whole person flesh, when, for example, it says: “and all flesh will see the salvation of God” (Is. 40:5). One should say “every man,” but the name “flesh” is used. So the evangelist, instead of saying “The Word became man,” said “The Word became flesh,” calling man, consisting of soul and body, one part. And since the flesh is alien to the Divine nature, then perhaps the Evangelist mentioned the flesh with the intention of showing the extraordinary condescension of God, so that we would be amazed at His inexpressible love for mankind, according to which He, for our salvation, took upon Himself something different and completely alien to His own nature, namely the flesh. For the soul has some affinity with God, but the flesh has absolutely nothing in common. Therefore, I think that the evangelist here used the name only of the flesh, not because the soul is not involved in perception (incarnation), but in order to further show how wonderful and terrible the sacrament is. For if the Word incarnate did not accept the human soul, then our souls are not yet healed, for what He did not accept, He did not sanctify. And how funny! Whereas the first soul fell ill (for in paradise it surrendered to the words of the serpent and was deceived, and then after the soul, as mistress and mistress, the hand touched), the flesh, the servant, was received, sanctified and healed, and the mistress was left without reception and without healing. But let Apollinaris be mistaken. And we, when we hear that the Word became flesh, believe that He became a perfect Man, since it is the custom of Scripture to call man one part, flesh and soul. With this saying Nestorius is also overthrown. He said that it was not God the Word himself who became Man, conceived from the pure blood of the holy Virgin, but the Virgin gave birth to a man, and this man, blessed with every kind of virtue, began to have the Word of God, united with him and giving power over unclean spirits, and therefore he taught that there were two sons - one the son of the Virgin, Jesus a man, and the other the Son of God, united with this man and inseparable from him, but by grace, attitude and love, because this man was virtuous. So he is deaf to the truth. For if he had wanted, he himself would have heard what this blessed evangelist says, namely: “The Word became flesh.” Isn't this an obvious rebuke for him here? For the Word Himself became Man. The evangelist did not say, “The Word, having found man, united with him,” but “It Itself became Man.” This saying overthrows Eutyches, Valentinus, and Manes. They said that the Word of God appeared in ghosts. Let them hear that the Word “became” flesh; It is not said, “The Word was presented or appeared to be flesh,” but “became” it in truth and in essence, and not in appearance. For it is absurd and unreasonable to believe that the Son of God, in essence and by name Truth (John 14:6), lied in his incarnation. And a deceptive ghost would no doubt lead to this thought. Since the Evangelist said above that the Word became flesh, so that anyone would not think that Christ finally became one Nature, for this he adds: “dwelt with us” to show two Natures: one is ours, and the other is the Word. For just as the abode is of a different nature and the one who dwells in it is of a different nature, so the Word, when it is said of Him that It dwelt in us, that is, in our nature, must be of a different Nature than ours. Let the Armenians who revere one Nature be ashamed. So, with the words “The Word became flesh,” we learn that the Word Himself became Man and, being the Son of God, also became the son of a wife, who is truly called the Mother of God, as she gave birth to God in the flesh. With the words “he dwelt among us,” we learn to believe that in one Christ there are two Natures. For although He is one in Hypostasis, or in Person, He is two in Nature - God and Man, and the Divine nature and the human cannot be one, although they are contemplated in one Christ. full of grace and truth; and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten of the Father. Having said that the Word became flesh, the evangelist adds: “we saw the glory of “Him,” that is, of Him who was in the flesh.” For if the Israelites could not look at the face of Moses, enlightened by the conversation with God, then the apostles would still not have been able to bear the pure (unveiled) Divinity of the Only Begotten, if He had not appeared in the flesh. We saw the glory not such as that which Moses had or with which the cherubim and seraphim appeared to the prophet, but such glory as was fitting for the Only Begotten Son, which was inherent in Him by nature from God the Father. The particle “how” here does not mean likening, but affirmation and undoubted determination. Seeing a king coming with great glory, we say that he came as a king, instead of saying “truly like a king.” Likewise, here the words “as the only begotten” we must understand this way: the glory that we saw was the real glory of the true Son, full of grace and truth. The word “full of grace” because His teaching was, so to speak, blessed, as David says: “grace poured out from Your mouth” (Ps. 44:3), and the evangelist notes that “everything... they marveled at the words of grace coming from His mouth” (Luke 4:22), and because He gave healing to everyone who needed it. “Full of truth” because everything that the prophets and Moses himself said or did were images, and what Christ said and did was all full of truth, since He Himself is grace and truth, and distributes it to others. Where did they see this glory? One may think with some that the apostles saw this glory of Him on Mount Tabor, but it is also fair to understand that they saw it not only on this mountain, but in everything that He did and said. John 1:15. John testifies of Him and, exclaiming, says: This was He of whom I said that He who came after me stood before me, because He was before me. The Evangelist often refers to the testimony of John, not because the reliability of the Master depends on the slave, but since the people had a high concept of John, then as a testimony to Christ he refers to John, whom they regard as great and therefore more trustworthy than anyone else. The word “crying out” indicates John’s great boldness, for he cried out for Christ not in a corner, but with great boldness. What did he say? “This was the One of whom I spoke.” John testified about Christ before he saw Him. God so favored, of course, so that he, while testifying about Christ from a very good side, would not seem partial in relation to Him. This is why he says “about whom I spoke,” that is, before he saw Him. “Coming after me,” of course, of course, following the time of birth; for the Forerunner was six months older than Christ by birth in the flesh. “He became ahead of me,” that is, he became more honorable and more glorious than me. Why? Because He was before me, according to Divinity. And the Arians madly explained this saying. Wanting to prove that the Son of God was not born of the Father, but came into existence as one of the creations, they say: “here is John testifying about Him - he stood ahead of me, that is, he came before me, and was created by God as one of the creations.” But from the following they are convicted of a bad understanding of this saying. For what thought is expressed in the words: “This one (that is, Christ) became ahead of me (that is, created before me), because he was before me”? It is absolutely crazy to say that God created Him first because He was before me. On the contrary, it would be better to say, “He was before me, because he became or was created before me.” This is how the Arians think. And we, in the Orthodox way, understand it this way: “he who comes after me,” by birth from the Virgin in the flesh, “stood ahead of me,” became more glorious than me and more honorable by the miracles that were performed on Him, by Christmas, by upbringing, by wisdom. And this is true, “because He was before me,” by pre-eternal birth from the Father, although by appearing in the flesh He came for me. John 1:16. And from His fullness we have all received and grace upon grace, And these are the words of the Forerunner, who speaks of Christ, that all of us, the prophets, have received “Him” from the fullness. For He has grace, not such as spiritual people have, but, being the source of all good, all wisdom and prophecy, pours it out abundantly on all the worthy, and with such an outpouring remains full, and is never exhausted. And we accepted the “grace,” of course, of the New Testament, instead of the grace of the law. that Testament has become outdated and decrepit, then instead of it we accepted the New. Why, they will say, did the Old Testament be called grace? Because the Jews were adopted and adopted by grace. For it is said: “I chose you not for your multitude, but for your fathers.” John 1:17. For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. Explains to us how we accepted the greatest grace instead of the small grace. He says that the law was given through Moses, that is, God used a man as a mediator, namely Moses, and the New Testament was given through Jesus Christ. It is also called “grace” because God has granted us not only forgiveness of sins, but also sonship; It is also called “true” because He clearly preached what the Old Testament saw or spoke figuratively. This New Testament, called both grace and truth, had as its mediator not an ordinary man, but the Son of God. Consider also that he said “given” about the Old Law through Moses, for he was a subordinate and a servant, but about the New Law he did not say “given,” but “came forth,” to show that he came from our Lord Jesus Christ, as from a Master, and not from a slave, and in the end achieved grace and truth. The Law was “given” by God through Moses; grace was “produced,” not given, through Jesus Christ. “Happened” is a sign of independence, “given” is a sign of slavery. John 1:18. No one has ever seen God; The Only Begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has revealed. Having said that grace and truth came through Jesus Christ, and wanting to confirm this, the evangelist says: “I did not say anything incredible. For Moses, like no one else, neither saw God, nor could he communicate to us a clear and visual concept of Him, but, being a slave, he served only to write the law. And Christ, being the Only Begotten Son and being in the bosom of the Father, not only sees Him, but also clearly speaks about Him to all people. Thus, since He is the Son and sees the Father as existing in His bosom, He has justly given us grace and truth.” But perhaps someone will say, “We will learn here that no one has seen God”; How does the prophet say, “I saw the Lord” (Is. 6:1)? The Prophet saw, but not the essence itself, but some similarity and some mental representation, as far as he could see. Moreover, one saw it in that image, another saw it in another. And from here it is clear that they did not see the Truth itself, for It, essentially simple and ugly, would not have been contemplated in different forms. And angels do not see the essence of God, although it is said about them that they see the face of God (Matthew 18:10). This only indicates that they always imagine God in their minds. So, only the Son sees the Father and reveals Him to all people. When you hear about the bosom of the Father, do not imagine anything corporeal in God. The Evangelist used this name in order to show the means, inseparability and co-eternity of the Son with the Father. John 1:19. And this is the testimony of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him: who are you? John 1:20. He declared, and did not deny, and declared that I am not the Christ. Above, the evangelist said that John testifies about Him; then he inserted what John testified about Christ, namely: that He stood in front of me, and that all of us prophets received from His fullness; now he adds: “and this is the testimony of John.” Which? What I said above, namely: “ahead of me” and so on. But the following words “I am not Christ” also constitute the testimony of John. The Jews sent to John people who, in their opinion, were the best, namely: priests and Levites, and, moreover, Jerusalemites, so that they, as the smartest others, would kindly convince John to declare himself for Christ. Look at the evasiveness. They do not ask directly “Are you Christ?”, but “Who are you?” But he, seeing their wickedness, does not say who he is, but declares that I am not Christ, bearing in mind their goal and in every possible way attracting them to the belief that Christ is another, the One whom they consider to be the poor son of a poor carpenter father, coming from the poor fatherland of Nazareth, from whom they did not expect anything good. Meanwhile, they had a high opinion of the Forerunner himself, since he had a high priest as a father and led an angelic and almost ethereal life. Why is it surprising how they become entangled in what they thought to harm the glory of Christ. They ask John, as a reliable person, so that in his testimony they would have a pretext for unbelief in Christ in the event that he had not declared Him to be Christ. And this turned against them. For they find that the one whom they considered reliable testifies in favor of Christ and does not appropriate His honor to himself. John 1:21. And they asked him: what then? are you Elijah? He said no. Prophet? He answered: no. Based on ancient tradition, the coming of Elijah was expected. Therefore, they ask John if he is Elijah, since his life was similar to Elijah’s life? But he renounced this too. Are you that prophet? He renounces this too, although he was a prophet. How does one renounce? Why? Because they didn’t ask him: are you a prophet? But they asked the question: are you that prophet? The prophet who is expected, about whom Moses said that the Lord God will raise up a prophet for you (Deut. 18:15)? So, John denied not because he is a prophet, but because he is the prophet who is expected. And since they knew the words of Moses that a prophet would arise, they hoped that someday a prophet would appear. John 1:22. They said to him: who are you? so that we can give an answer to those who sent us: what can you say about yourself? John 1:23. He said: I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness: straighten the way of the Lord, as the prophet Isaiah said. Then again they persistently ask: tell us who you are? Then he answers them: I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness. “I,” he says, “are the one about whom it is written “the voice of one crying in the wilderness” (Is. 40:3). For if you do not add the words “about which it is written,” then the combination of words will seem strange. What's so outrageous? “Make straight the way of the Lord.” “I am,” he says, “a servant, and I am preparing your hearts for the Lord.” So, you are crafty and cunning, correct them and make them equal so that through you there will be a way for the Lord Christ. Then he brings Isaiah as a witness. Having said great things about Christ, that He is Lord, and about himself, that he is doing the work of a servant and herald, he resorts to the prophet. Perhaps someone will explain the words “I am the voice of one crying” this way: I am the voice of Christ “crying,” that is, clearly proclaiming the truth. For all the messengers of the law are not loud, since the time of the truth of the Gospel has not yet come, and the weak voice of Moses truly indicated the inarticulateness and obscurity of the law. And Christ, as the self-existent Truth and who announced the Father to all of us, is “crying out.” So John says: I am the voice of the Word crying, living in the wilderness. Then another beginning: “make straight the way of the Lord.” John, as the Forerunner of Christ, is rightly called the voice, because the voice precedes the word. I will say more clearly: the voice is inarticulate breathing coming out of the chest; when it is divided into members by the tongue, then there is a word. So, first the voice, then the Word, first John, then Christ - after appearing in the flesh. And the baptism of John is inarticulate, for it did not have the effect of the Spirit, but the baptism of Christ is articulate, has nothing shadowy or figurative, for it is accomplished by the Spirit (Matthew 3:11). John 1:24. And those who were sent were from the Pharisees; John 1:25. And they asked him: why are you baptizing if you are not Christ, nor Elijah, nor a prophet? After they could not entice him (John) with flattery, so that he would say what they wanted and declare himself Christ, they intimidate him with very strict and menacing speeches, saying: “Why are you baptizing? Who gave you such power? From this same speech it is clear that they considered Christ to be different, and the expected prophet to be different. For they say “if you are not Christ, neither is that prophet (obviously),” meaning that one is Christ, and another is that prophet. They know bad. For that prophet is Christ Himself and our God. They said all this, as I said, in order to force John to declare himself Christ. And closer to the truth we can say that they ask him as if out of envy of his fame. They do not ask “Is he Christ,” but “Who are you?” As if to say: “Who are you that you take on such an important task - baptizing and cleansing those who confess?” And it seems to me that the Jews, wishing that John would not be mistaken for Christ by the majority, out of envy and ill will ask him “Who are you?” So, cursed are those who receive the Baptist, but after baptism do not recognize him: truly the Jews are the offspring of vipers. John 1:26. John answered and said to them, “I baptize with water; but there is Someone standing among you whom you do not know. Notice the saint's meekness and truthfulness. The meekness is that he does not answer them with anything harsh, despite their arrogance; the truth is that he testifies to the glory of Christ with great boldness and does not hide the glory of the Lord in order to earn a good name for himself, but declares that I baptize with a baptism that is not perfect (for I baptize in water alone, which has no forgiveness of sins), but preparatory to receiving spiritual baptism, which grants forgiveness of sins. “There is Someone standing among you whom you do not know.” The Lord united with the people, and therefore they did not know who He was and where He came from. Perhaps someone will say that in another sense the Lord stood among the Pharisees, but they did not know Him. Since they apparently diligently studied the Scriptures, and the Lord was proclaimed in them, He was “among” them, that is, in their hearts, but they did not know Him, because they did not understand the Scriptures, although they had them in their hearts. Perhaps in the sense that the Lord was a mediator between God and people, He stood “among” the Pharisees, wanting to reconcile them with God, but they did not know Him. John 1:27. He is the one who comes after me, but who stands in front of me. I am not worthy to untie the thong of His sandals. He constantly adds “He who comes after me” to show that his baptism is not perfect, but preparatory to spiritual baptism. “He became ahead of me,” that is, more honorable, more glorious than me, and so much so that I do not consider myself among the last of His servants. For untying shoes is the work of the last ministry. I know and read the following explanation from one of the saints: “shoes” are everywhere understood to mean the flesh of sinners, subject to decay, and the “belt” or bandage is meant to mean the bonds of sin. So, John could untie the belt of sins from others who came to him and confessed, for they came to him bound by the bonds of their own sins; and, convincing them to repentance, he showed them the way to completely throwing off this belt and sinful shoes; on Christ, not finding the belt or bonds of sin, he naturally could not untie it. Why didn't you find him? Because He committed no sin, and no lie was found in His mouth (1 Pet. 2:22). “Shoes” also signify the appearance of the Lord to us, and “thong” means the way of incarnation and how the Word of God was united with the body. This method cannot be resolved. For who can explain how God was united with the body? John 1:28. This happened in Bethabara (Bethany) near the Jordan, where John baptized. Why did the evangelist say that this happened in Bethany? In order to show the courage of the great preacher, that he preached about Christ in this way, not in a house, not in a corner, but by the Jordan, among a multitude of people. However, you need to know what is on the most correct lists: in Bethavara. For Bethany is not on the other side of the Jordan, but near Jerusalem. John 1:29. The next day John sees Jesus coming to him and says: Behold the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world. The Lord often comes to the Forerunner. What is this for? Since the Lord was baptized by John, as one of many, he often comes to him so that, without a doubt, some would not think that He, along with others, was baptized as guilty of sins. The Baptist, wanting to correct this assumption, says: “Behold the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world.” The One who is so pure that He takes upon Himself and destroys the sins of others, obviously could not accept the baptism of confession (repentance) on an equal basis with others. Examine, I ask you, this expression: “behold the Lamb of God.” This word refers to those who desire to see the Lamb, which Isaiah proclaims (Is. 53:7-8). “Here,” he says, “is the Lamb for whom they are looking; That Lamb is right here." For it is natural that many who carefully studied the prophetic book of Isaiah were occupied with the question of who that Lamb would be. So John points Him out. He did not simply say Lamb, but “That Lamb,” since there are many lambs, just as there are many Christs; but He is the Lamb whose type is indicated by Moses (Exodus 12) and about whom Isaiah proclaims (Isaiah 53:7–8). Christ is called the “Lamb of God” either because God gave Him to die for us, or because God accepted the death of Christ for our salvation. As we usually say “this sacrifice is so-and-so,” instead of saying “this sacrifice was made by so-and-so”; so the Lord is called the Lamb of God because God and the Father, out of love for us, gave Him to be slaughtered for us. John did not say “took” sin, but “takes”, because He takes our sins upon Himself every day, some through baptism, others through repentance. The lambs that were slain in the Old Testament did not completely destroy any sin; but this Lamb takes upon Himself the sin of the whole world, that is, it destroys, blots out. Why didn’t John say “sins”, but “sin”? It may also be because, having said “sin,” he spoke generally about all sins; just as we usually say “man” fell away from God, instead of “all mankind,” so here he, by saying “sin,” designated all sins. Or maybe because the sin of the world consisted of disobedience, since man fell into passion through disobedience to God, and the Lord made amends for this disobedience, being obedient to death and healing the opposite with the opposite. John 1:30. This is the one of whom I said: A man comes after me, who stood before me, because He was before me. Above, John said to those who came from the Pharisees: “There is someone standing among you, whom you do not know, but who is superior to me” (John 1:26-27), and now he points to Him with his finger and declares to those who do not know, saying: “This is the One about whom I testified before the Pharisees, that He is superior to me, that is, superior to me in dignity and honor.” Why? Because He was before me. Listen to Arius. John did not say about Christ “created before me,” but “was.” Listen, you too, sect of Samosatyan. The Lord did not begin being from Mary, but was before the Forerunner in pre-eternal existence. For if the Lord, as you say idle talk, received the beginning of being from Mary, then how would He have been before the Forerunner? And the Forerunner, everyone knows, was born six months before the birth of the Lord in the flesh. The Lord is called “Husband,” perhaps because He was of perfect age, for He was baptized at the age of thirty, or perhaps in the sense that He is the Husband of every soul and the Bridegroom of the Church. For the Apostle Paul says: “I have betrothed you to present you to one husband, namely Christ” (2 Cor. 11:2). So the Forerunner says: “I am only a friend of the Suitors and a mediator, and the Husband follows me; I draw souls to faith in Christ, and He is the Husband who will unite with them.” John 1:31. I didn't know Him; but for this reason he came to baptize in water, so that He might be revealed to Israel. Since the Forerunner was a relative of the Lord (for the angel says to the Virgin: “Behold, Elizabeth your “relative” conceived” (Luke 1:36), so that no one would think that the Forerunner favors the Lord and gives such a high testimony about Him by kinship with Him, he often says: “I did not know Him” and thereby removes suspicion. “But for this reason I came to baptize in water, so that He might be revealed to Israel,” that is, so that everyone could come to faith in Him and He would be revealed to the people, for this reason I baptize; for when I baptize, the people flock, and when the people gather, then I announce Christ to them in my preaching, and He Himself, being in sight, is present. For if people had not come for baptism, how could John have revealed the Lord to them? He would not have gone from house to house and, leading Christ by the hand, pointed to Him to everyone. That is why he says: “I came to baptize in water so that He would be revealed by me to people coming for baptism.” From here we learn that the miracles attributed to Christ in adolescence are false and created by those who wanted to ridicule the sacrament. For if they were true, how would they not know the Lord who did them? At least, it is not natural that such a Wonderworker should not be publicized everywhere. But it’s not like that, no. For before baptism, the Lord neither performed miracles nor enjoyed fame. John 1:32. And John testified, saying, “I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and remaining on Him.” John 1:33. I didn't know Him; but He who sent me to baptize in water said to me: On whom you see the Spirit descending and remaining on Him, He is the one who baptizes with the Holy Spirit. “But He who sent me to baptize in water said to me, “He on whom you see the Spirit descending and remaining on Him is the one who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.” John, rejecting, as I said, suspicion from his testimony about Christ, raises this testimony to God and the Father. “I,” he says, “did not know Him, but the Father revealed Him to me in baptism.” “But,” another will ask, “if John did not know Him, how does the Evangelist Matthew (Matthew 3:14) say that he restrained Him and said, “I need to be baptized by You”? The answer to this can also be that the words “did not know Him” should be understood in such a way that long before and before baptism, John did not know Him, but then, during baptism, he recognized Him. Or you can answer differently: although John knew about Jesus that He was the Christ, but that He would baptize with the Holy Spirit, he knew this when he saw the Spirit descending on Him. So, with the words: “I did not know Him,” John makes it clear that although he did not know that He would baptize with the Holy Spirit, he knew that He was superior to many. Why, probably knowing that He was greater than everyone else, John, according to the Evangelist Matthew, restrained Him. But when the Spirit descended, he recognized Him even more clearly and preached about Him to others. And the Spirit appeared to everyone present, and not just to John. “Why,” another will say, “didn’t they believe?” Because their foolish hearts were so darkened that, seeing Him working miracles, they did not believe. Some say that not everyone saw the Spirit, but only the most reverent. For although the Spirit descended sensually, it is fitting for Him to appear not to everyone, but to the worthy, since the prophets, for example, Daniel, Ezekiel, although they saw many things in a sensual form, however, no one else saw it. John 1:34. And I saw and testified that this is the Son of God. Where did John testify about Jesus that He is the Son of God? This is not written anywhere. He calls him the Lamb, but nowhere else the Son of God. From this it is natural to assume that very much else was left unwritten by the apostles, for not everything was written down. John 1:35. The next day John and two of his disciples stood again. Due to the frivolity of his listeners, John is forced to repeat the same thing in order to at least produce something by continuous testimony. And he was not deceived; but led two disciples to Christ. Being a true bridegroom, he did everything to bring human nature to her groom. Therefore, Christ, as the bridegroom, is silent, but the mediator proclaims everything. And the Lord, like a bridegroom, comes to the people. At marriages, it is usually not the bride who comes to the groom, but the groom to the bride, even if he is the king’s son. So the Lord, wanting to discredit our nature to Himself, He Himself descended to her on earth and, when the marriage was completed, took her with Him when He ascended to His Father’s house. John 1:36. And when he saw Jesus coming, he said, Behold the Lamb of God. “Having seen,” it is said, “Jesus,” that is, having before his eyes the joy of Jesus and the miracle, John said: “Behold that Lamb.” John 1:37. Having heard these words from him, both disciples followed Jesus. The disciples, prepared by constant witness, followed Jesus not out of contempt for John, but most of all out of obedience to him, who testified about Christ from the best side. John 1:38. Jesus turned and saw them coming and said to them, “What do you need?” They said to Him: Rabbi - what does it mean: teacher - where do you live? The evangelist Matthew, having told about the baptism of the Lord, immediately takes Him to the mountain for temptation, and the real evangelist, omitting what Matthew said, narrates what happened after the Lord’s descent from the mountain. So, John's disciples follow Christ and go to Him after He came down from the mountain and endured temptation. In my opinion, this combination of events shows that no one needs to assume the title of teacher before he has ascended to the heights of virtue (for this is signified by the mountain), has conquered every temptation and has a sign of triumph over the tempter. These disciples first follow Jesus, and then ask Him where He lives. For they needed to talk with Him not openly, in the presence of many, but in private, as about a necessary subject. They are not even the first to ask, but Christ Himself leads them to the question. “What do you need?” - He tells them. He asks not because He does not know (He who knows human hearts), but in order to force them with a question to express their desire. They were probably ashamed and afraid of Jesus after John's testimony that He was greater than man. And you, I ask you, marvel at their prudence. They not only followed Jesus, but also called him “Rabbi,” which means “Teacher,” and, moreover, when they had not yet heard anything from Him. However, wanting to learn something from Him in private, they ask Him: where do you live? For in silence it is more convenient to speak and to hear. John 1:39. He says to them: go and see. They went and saw where He lived; and they stayed with Him that day. It was about ten o'clock. The Lord does not tell them the signs of the house, but says: “Come and see.” He does this in order to attract them even more to follow, and at the same time to reveal the strength of their desire if they do not have difficulty on the road. For if they had followed Jesus with a cold feeling, they would not have dared to go home. How can we agree that Christ here appears to have a house, but in another place it is said that the Son of Man has no place to lay his head (Luke 9:58)? One does not contradict the other. For when he says that he has no place to lay his head, he does not say that he has absolutely no refuge, but that he does not have his own. So, if He lived in a house, then He lived not in His own house, but in someone else’s. The Evangelist notes about the time that “it was about the tenth hour,” not without a purpose, but in order to teach both teachers and students not to put off their work until another time; the teacher should not put it off and say: it’s too late today, you’ll learn tomorrow; and the student must recognize the time as fit for study at all times, and not postpone hearings until tomorrow. And then we learn that the disciples were so moderate and sober that they spent the time on listening that others spend in calming the body, being burdened with food and becoming incapable of doing important work. True disciples of John the faster! Consider, perhaps, that Jesus turns to those who follow Him and shows them His face. For if you do not follow Jesus with your good activities, then you will not achieve contemplation of the face of the Lord, that is, you will not achieve enlightenment with divine knowledge. For light is the house of Christ, as it is said: “he dwells in unapproachable light” (1 Tim. 6:16). And how can one be enlightened by knowledge who has not purified himself and does not follow the path of purification? John 1:40. One of the two who heard from John about Jesus and followed Him was Andrew, the brother of Simon Peter. The Evangelist tells us about the name of Andrei, but is silent about the name of the other. Some say that the other was John himself, who wrote this, and others say that he was one of the ignorant. Moreover, there would be no benefit from knowing the name. Andrew is mentioned in this way because he was one of the nobles, and because he brought his brother. John 1:41. He first finds his brother Simon and says to him: we have found the Messiah, which means: Christ; Look, perhaps, at his love for his brother, how he did not hide this good from his brother, but informs him about the treasure and with great joy says: we have found (probably they strongly desired and were busy looking for the Messiah), and not just says “Messiah,” but with a member of “it” the Messiah, the one who is truly Christ. For although many were called anointed and sons of God, yet the one they were waiting for was one. John 1:42. And he brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, “You are Simon, the son of Jonah; you will be called Cephas, which means stone (Peter). Andrew brought Simon to Jesus, not because Simon was frivolous and carried away by every speech, but because he was very quick and ardent, and conveniently accepted the speeches that his brother conveyed to him about Christ. For, probably, Andrei expressed a lot to Simon and announced about Christ thoroughly, since he stayed with Christ for quite some time and learned something most mysterious. If anyone continues to condemn Peter for frivolity, then let him know that it is not written that he immediately believed Andrew, but that Andrew led him to Jesus; and this is a matter of a mind that is more solid than one that gets carried away. For Simon not only accepted the words of Andrew, but also wished to see Christ, so that if he found in Him something worth speaking about, he would follow Him, and if he did not find it, he would retreat back, so that bringing Simon to Jesus is a sign not of his frivolity, but of his thoroughness. What about the Lord? He begins to reveal Himself to him with a prophecy about him. Since prophecies convince people no less than miracles, if not more, then the Lord prophesies about Peter. “You,” he says, “are Simon, the Son of Jonah.” Then he reveals the future: “You will call yourself Cephas.” Having expressed the present, it also confirms in the future. However, he did not say “I will rename you Peter,” but “you will call yourself”; for at first He did not want to reveal all His power, since they did not yet have firm faith in Him. Why does the Lord call Simon Peter, and the sons of Zebedee the Thunderers? In order to show that the Old Testament was given by the same One who even now changes names, as he then called Abram - Abraham and Sarah - Sarah (Gen. 17: 5, 15). Know also that “Simon” means obedience, and “Jonah” means dove. So, obedience is born from meekness, which is symbolized by a dove. And whoever has obedience becomes Peter, through obedience achieving steadfastness in goodness. John 1:43. The next day Jesus wanted to go to Galilee, and he found Philip and said to him: follow me. Andrew, having heard from the Forerunner, and Peter, having heard from Andrew, followed Jesus; and Philip, it seems, did not hear anything and, however, followed the Lord immediately, as He said to him: “Follow Me.” What did Philip become convinced of so quickly? It seems, firstly, that the voice of the Lord caused some stinging of love in his soul. For the Lord’s speech was not just spoken, but immediately inflamed the hearts of the worthy with love for Him, just as Cleopas and his companion say: “Didn’t our heart burn within us when He spoke to us on the road?” (Luke 24:32). Secondly, since Philip had a troubled heart, was constantly occupied with the writings of Moses and was always waiting for Christ, when he saw Him, he was immediately convinced and said: “we have “found” Jesus,” and this shows that he was looking for Him. John 1:44. Philip was from Bethsaida, from the same city as Andrew and Peter. Then, didn’t Philip learn anything about Christ from Andrew and Peter? Probably, talking with him as a compatriot, they also told him about the Lord. It seems that the evangelist hints at this when he says that Philip was from the city of Andreev and Petrov. This city was small and could more decently be called a village. Therefore, one must be amazed at the power of Christ that He chose the best disciples from among those who did not bear any fruit. John 1:45. Philip finds Nathanael and says to him: We have found the One about whom Moses in the law and the prophets wrote, Jesus, the Son of Joseph, of Nazareth. Philip also does not keep the good for himself, but transfers it to Nathanael, and since Nathanael was versed in the law, Philip sends him to the law and the prophets, because he diligently practiced the law. He calls the Lord the Son of Joseph, because at that time he was still considered the Son of Joseph. He calls Him “Nazarene,” although He was actually a Bethlehemite, because He was born in Bethlehem and raised in Nazareth. But since His birth was unknown to many, and His upbringing is known, they call Him a Nazarene, as He was raised in Nazareth. John 1:46. But Nathanael said to him: Can anything good come from Nazareth? Philip says to him: come and see. Philip said that Christ was from Nazareth, and Nathanael, being more knowledgeable in the law, knew from the Scriptures that Christ must come from Bethlehem, and therefore says: “Can anything good come from Nazareth?” Philip says: “Come and see,” knowing that Nathanael will not leave Christ if he listens to His speeches. John 1:47. Jesus, seeing Nathanael coming to Him, said of him: Behold, truly an Israelite, in whom there is no guile. Christ praises Nathanael as a true Israelite, because he said nothing either for or against Him; for his words did not come from unbelief, but from prudence and from a mind that knew from the law that Christ would come not from Nazareth, but from Bethlehem. John 1:48. Nathanael says to Him: Why do You know me? Jesus answered and said to him, “Before Philip called you, when you were under the fig tree, I saw you.” What about Nathanael? Have you gotten carried away with praise? No, he wants to know something more clearly and precisely, and therefore asks: “Why do you know me?” The Lord tells him what no one knew except himself and Philip, what was said and done in private, and thus reveals His Divinity. Philip talked with Nathanael alone when no one was under the fig tree, however, Christ, even without being there, knew everything, which is why he says: “I saw you as you were under the fig tree.” The Lord spoke about Nathanael before Philip approached, so that no one would think that Philip had told Him about the fig tree and other things that He had talked about with Nathanael. From this Nathanael recognized the Lord and confessed Him as the Son of God. For listen to what he says next. John 1:49. Nathanael answers Him: Rabbi! You are the Son of God, You are the King of Israel. John 1:50. Jesus answered and said to him, “You believe because I said to you: I saw you under the fig tree; you will see more of this. Prophecy has the greatest power to bring some to faith, and its power is greater than the power of miracles. For miracles can be presented ghostly and by demons, but no one has accurate foreknowledge and prediction of the future, neither angels, nor especially demons. Why did the Lord attract Nathanael, telling him both the place and the fact that Philip had called him, and that he was truly an Israelite. Nathanael, having heard this, felt the greatness of the Lord as much as possible, and confessed Him as the Son of God. However, although he confesses to be the Son of God, it is not in the same sense as Peter. Peter confessed Him as the Son of God as the true God, and for this the Lord pleases him and entrusts the church to him (Matthew 16:16-19). Nathanael confessed Him as a simple man, adopted by grace to God for virtue. And this is clear from the addition: You are the King of Israel. You see, he has not yet achieved perfect knowledge of the true Divinity of the Only Begotten. He only believes that Jesus is a God-loving man and the King of Israel. If he had confessed Him as the true God, he would not have called Him the King of Israel, but the King of the whole world. For this he is not pleased, like Peter. John 1:51. And he said to him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, from now on you will see heaven open and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man.” Therefore, the Lord, correcting him and raising him to an understanding worthy of His Divinity, says: You will see the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man. “Take me,” he says, “not for an ordinary person, but for the Lord of angels.” For Whom the angels serve cannot be a mere man, but the true God. This came true at the crucifixion and ascension. For, as Luke narrates, even before His suffering an angel from heaven strengthened Him, and an angel appeared at the tomb, and at the Ascension (Luke 22:43; Luke 24:4, 23; Acts 1:10). Some by “fig tree” meant the law, since it had fruit that was sweet for a time, and was covered, as it were, with leaves by the severity of legal regulations and the inability to fulfill the commandments. The Lord “saw” Nathanael. To this they say that He mercifully looked upon and understood his understanding, although he was still under the law. I ask you, if you enjoy such things, to pay attention to the fact that the Lord saw Nathanael under the fig tree, or under the law, that is, inside the law, exploring the depths of it. If he had not explored the depths of the law, the Lord would not have seen him. Know also that “Galilee” means overthrown. So, the Lord came to the overthrown country of the whole world or to human nature and, as a Lover of mankind, looked at us who were under the fig tree, that is, under sin, delightful for a while, but with which there was also no small severity due to repentance and future executions there, and He chose for Himself those who recognize Him as the Son of God and the King of Israel, seeing God. If we continue our efforts, then He will honor us with greater contemplations, and we will see angels “ascending to the height of His divine knowledge and again “descending” because they do not achieve complete knowledge of the incomprehensible Being. And in another way: someone “ascends” when he meditates on the Divinity of the Only Begotten; “descends” when he willingly engages in thoughts about the incarnation and descent into hell. Erroneous translation of the beginning of John 1:3, the correct literal translation is “all things became (through Him).” – Editorial staff of “ABC of Faith”