THEOSISJohn Chrysostom
After the word “nothing” we shall not place a full stop, as the heretics do. Wishing to prove that the Holy Spirit is a creature, they read it thus: “What came to be, in Him was life” (Jn 1:3-4). But there is no sense in such a reading.
First of all, it would be out of place to mention the Spirit here. If the Evangelist had wished to mention Him, why did he use such an obscure expression about Him? And from what is it evident that this is said of the Spirit?
Otherwise, on the basis of such an arrangement of the words, we could conclude that not the Spirit, but the Son came into being through Himself. But stop at this saying, so that it may not pass you by. Let us read as they do. In this way the absurdity will become still more evident to us: “What came to be, in Him was life.”
Read more (1579 words)
They say that “life” here names the Spirit. But it appears that this same “life” is also “light,” because the Evangelist adds: “And the life was the light of men.” Therefore, according to them, “the light of men” in the Evangelist also means the Spirit.
What then? When the Evangelist continues, “There was a man sent from God ... to bear witness to the Light” (Jn 1:6-7), they must necessarily admit that here too he speaks of the Spirit. He who was above called the Word is afterward named God, life, and light.
The Evangelist says that life was the Word, and this same life was light. Therefore, if the Word was “life” and the Word “became flesh” (Jn 1:14), then life also “became flesh.” And we beheld His glory, glory as of the Only-begotten from the Father.
Consequently, as soon as they say that “life” here names the Spirit, see what absurdities follow. It follows that not the Son, but the Spirit, became incarnate, and that the Spirit is the Only-begotten Son.
If they do not say this, then by avoiding this absurdity they may, with their reading, fall into one still greater. If they agree that this is said of the Son, while not placing our punctuation and not reading as we do, they will have to say that the Son came into being from Himself.
For if the Word is “life,” and “what came to be, in Him was life,” then according to their reading the Word came into being from Himself and through Himself.
Further on, among other things, the Evangelist adds: “And we beheld His glory, glory as of the Only-begotten from the Father” (Jn 1:14). See how, according to their reading, the Holy Spirit also becomes the Only-begotten Son, because this whole narrative refers to one and the same person.
Do you see how thought is distorted when it departs from the truth, and how many absurdities arise from this? What then? Is the Spirit not light, you say? Certainly He is light. But this is not said of Him here.
Thus God is called spirit, that is, bodiless. Yet not everywhere that spirit is mentioned is God meant. Why are you surprised if we say this about the Father? Concerning the Comforter also we shall not assert that wherever spirit is mentioned, the Comforter is necessarily meant.
Although this is His most distinctive name, still not everywhere the word “spirit” occurs must the Comforter be understood. Likewise Christ is called “the power of God” and “the wisdom of God.” Yet not everywhere that the power and wisdom of God are mentioned is Christ meant.
So it is here. Although the Spirit also illumines, the Evangelist is not now speaking of the Spirit. Yet even when we bring them to such absurdities, they again try to resist the truth. Still holding to their reading, “What came to be, in Him was life,” they explain this by saying that everything created was life.
What then? Are the punishment of the Sodomites, the flood, Gehenna, and all such things also life? But we mean creation, they say. Yet what we have just indicated also certainly belongs to creation.
Still, to expose them completely, let us ask them: tell me, is a tree life? Is a stone life? Are these soulless and motionless objects life? And is man perfect life? Who would say this? Man is not self-existent life, but only a being that participates in life.
But see here again what absurdities arise. Let us draw conclusions in the same order, so that we may learn the whole senselessness. In this way they ascribe to the Spirit something never in any way fitting to Him. Once they begin with this, they ascribe to men what, in their view, is really said of the Spirit.
Let us examine this reading again. The creature is here called life. Therefore it is also light, and John came to bear witness concerning it. Why then is he himself not light? It is said: “He was not the light” (Jn 1:8). But he belonged to the number of creatures. Why then is he not light?
How is it said, “He was in the world, and the world was made through Him”? Was the creature in the creature, and did the creature come into being through the creature? How then, “and the world did not know Him” (Jn 1:10)? Did the creature not know the creature?
“But to those who received Him ... He gave power to become children of God” (Jn 1:12). But enough of this laughter. I leave it to you to pursue all these monstrous thoughts, lest anyone think that I said this merely in jest, or that I waste time in vain.
If those words are not said of the Spirit, as indeed they are not, and as I have already shown, and if they are not said of the creature, yet they still hold to their reading, then at last the most absurd consequence must follow. As we said before, the Son came into being through Himself.
If the “true Light” (Jn 1:9) is the Son, and this light is also “life,” and life was in Him, then according to their reading this conclusion necessarily follows. Therefore let us leave it and turn to the proper reading and explanation.
What then is the correct reading? With the words “that was made,” the previous thought must be completed. Then the following words must begin: “In Him was life.” These words mean the same as the previous ones: “Without Him nothing was made that was made.”
Having said of creation, “All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made,” John also adds to this the teaching about providence in the following words: “In Him was life.”
He added these words, “In Him was life,” so that no one would doubt how all things came into being through Him. As in a bottomless spring, however much water you draw, you do not diminish the spring, so also the creative power of the Only-begotten is in no way diminished by however much it creates or produces.
Or rather, I shall use a comparison more proper to this power and call it light, as the Evangelist himself does when he says next: “And the life was the light of men.” As light. Though it illumines countless objects, is not diminished in its brightness, so in God, both before and after creation, the power is not at all exhausted.
It is not in the least lessened or weakened by the multitude of creatures. Even if another thousand such worlds had to come into being, or even an infinite multitude of them, His power is sufficient for all, not only to produce them, but also to preserve them after creation.
The name “life” used here refers not only to creation, but also to providential care for the preservation of what has been created. Moreover, by speaking of life, the Evangelist lays the foundation for the teaching on the resurrection.
He begins beforehand that wondrous good tidings: with life’s coming to us, the dominion of death has been destroyed. Since the light has illumined us, there is no longer darkness. Life always abides in us, and death can no longer overcome it.
Therefore what is said of the Father can also be said fully of the Son: “In Him we live and move and have our being” (Acts 17:28). Paul also expresses this in the following words: “For by Him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible. He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together” (Col 1:16-17).
Elsewhere it is said that “God is light” (1 Jn 1:5), and also that He “dwells in unapproachable light” (1 Tim 6:16). All this is said not to give us an idea of composition, but to raise us little by little to the height of dogmas.
Indeed, since it was not easy for the people to understand how He has life in Himself, He first spoke of what was not so lofty. Then, having taught them, He raises them to more exalted truths.
He who said that the Father “gave Him to have life” later says Himself: “I am the life,” and again: “God is light.” And what light is this? Not sensible light, but spiritual light, illumining the soul.
Since Christ said, “No one can come to Me unless the Father draws him” (Jn 6:44), the Evangelist anticipates these words and says that He is the One who illumines. Thus, when you hear anything similar about the Father, you may not ascribe it to the Father alone, but also to the Son. For He says, “All that the Father has is Mine” (Jn 16:15).
Therefore the Evangelist first teaches us about creation. Then he speaks also of the spiritual blessings granted to us with the coming of the Savior, and he denotes them in one phrase: “The life was the light of men.”
He did not say, “It was the light of the Jews,” but “of all men,” because not only the Jews but also the Gentiles received knowledge of Him, and this light is offered in communion to all.
But why did the Evangelist not join the Angels here, saying only “men”? Because the Evangelist is now speaking about the human race, and because the Savior came to it to preach good tidings.