'And the Word was with God, and the Word was God.' Sufficiently, according to the present capacity, O sacred brother Ambrose, formed according to the gospel, having grasped in what preceded this what the gospel is, and what the beginning is in which the Word was, and what the Word in the beginning is, we now consider in turn how the Word was with God.
It is useful, then, to gather together for this purpose the word that has been recorded as having come to certain persons, such as: 'The word of the Lord, which came to Hosea, son of Beeri'; and 'The word that came to Isaiah, son of Amoz, concerning Judea and concerning Jerusalem'; and 'The word that came to Jeremiah concerning the drought.'
How then the word of the Lord came to be with Hosea, and the word is that which came to be with Isaiah, son of Amoz, and again the word to Jeremiah concerning the drought — this must be examined, so that it may be found, as lying close at hand, how the Word was with God.
Now the majority will understand more simply what is said about the prophets as meaning 'a word of the Lord,' or 'the word' having come to be with them. But perhaps, as we have said that a certain 'this one' comes to be with a certain 'that one,' so also the Son, now being theologically discussed as the Word, came to be with Hosea, having been sent by the Father to him: according to the historical sense, to the son of Beeri, the prophet Hosea; but according to the mystical account, to the one who is being saved — for Hosea is interpreted 'Saved' — son of Beeri, which is interpreted 'Wells'; for since a spring gushes up from the depth, namely the Wisdom of God, each of those being saved becomes a son of the wells.
And it is nothing to be marveled at that the holy one should thus be a son of wells, being called 'son' in many places on account of noble deeds — on account of his works shining before men, a son of light; on account of his having the peace of God that surpasses all understanding, a son of peace; and further, on account of the benefit received from Wisdom, a child of Wisdom: 'was justified...'
'for,' it says, 'Wisdom was justified by her children.' Thus, then, the one who searches all things by the divine Spirit, even the depths of God, so that he cries out: 'O the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God!' — he can be a son of wells, to whom the word of the Lord comes.
Likewise the word comes also to Isaiah, teaching the things that will meet Judea and Jerusalem in the last days; and in the same way also to Jeremiah, who has been lifted up by a divine elevation — for he is interpreted 'The Elevation of Yahweh.'
But to men, who formerly could not make room for the coming of the Son of God, who is the Word, the word 'comes to be'; but with regard to God, it does not 'come to be,' as though he were not formerly with him; rather, on account of his always being together with the Father, it is said: 'And the Word was with God' — for he did not 'come to be' with God.
And the same verb, 'was,' is predicated of the Word both when he was 'in the beginning' and when he was 'with God' — neither being separated from the beginning nor being left behind by the Father, and again neither coming to be 'in the beginning' from a state of not being in the beginning, nor coming to be 'with God' from a state of not being with God. For before all time and age, the Word was in the beginning, and the Word was with God.
Since, then, for the discovery of 'And the Word was with God,' we set beside it prophetic sayings — how the word came to Hosea and Isaiah and Jeremiah — and we observed the difference, by no means insignificant, between 'was made,' 'came to be,' and 'was,' we shall add that in his 'coming to be' with the prophets he illumines the prophets with the light of knowledge, making them, as it were, see beforehand what they had not previously understood; but with regard to God, he is God, by virtue of his being with him.
And perhaps John, seeing some such order in the Word, did not place 'God was the Word' before 'The Word was with God' — as far as the propositions themselves are concerned, nothing would have prevented reversing the sequence, so as to see the force of each of the assertions in itself; for one assertion is 'In the beginning was the Word,' and a second is 'The Word was with God,' and next 'And the Word was God.'
But since perhaps a certain order is indicated by the fact that 'In the beginning was the Word' is placed first, and next in this way 'And the Word was with God,' and third 'and the Word was God' — for this reason, in order that the Word might be understood to become God from his being with God, it is said: 'And the Word was with God,' and then, 'and the Word was God.'
II. Very observantly, and not as one ignorant of Greek precision, John, in some places used the articles, and in others passed over them in silence — with respect to the Word, adding the article 'the,' but with respect to the appellation 'God,' in some places placing it and in others omitting it.
For he places the article when the name 'God' is applied to the uncreated cause of all things, but he passes over it in silence when the Word is named 'God.' And just as, in these passages, 'the God' differs from 'God,' so perhaps 'the Word' also differs from 'word.'
For in the manner in which he who is God over all is 'the God' and not simply 'God,' so also the source of the word that is in each of rational beings is 'the Word' — the word in each rational being not being properly named and called 'the Word' in the same way as the first.
And the thing that troubles many who wish to be God-loving, being cautious about proclaiming two gods, and on this account falling into false and impious doctrines — either denying that the Son has a distinct individuality apart from that of the Father, confessing as God the one who among them is called 'Son' merely in name; or denying the deity of the Son while positing that his individuality and essence, being circumscribed, are other than the Father's — this can be resolved from what has been said.
For it must be said to them that God-in-himself is God at that point, wherefore also the Savior says in his prayer to the Father: 'that they may know...'; and that they may know that the one who is deified from that One's deity would more properly be called not 'the God' but 'God' — the firstborn of all creation, who is assuredly more honored than the rest, the gods besides him (of whom God is God, according to what is said: 'The God of gods, the Lord, has spoken, and called the earth'), inasmuch as he was the first, by being with God, to draw deity into himself, having ministered to their becoming gods, drawing from God for their being deified, imparting it ungrudgingly also to them according to his own goodness.
'The God' therefore is the true God, while those who are formed after him are gods, as images of the 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 his being with God — he would not have had this, had he not been with God, nor would he have remained God, had he not continued in the unceasing contemplation of the depth of the Father.
III. But since it is likely that some will stumble at what has been said — one true God, the Father, being proclaimed, while beside the true God many gods come to be by participation in God — being cautious lest they equate the glory of him who surpasses all creation with the rest who happen to have the appellation 'God' — in addition to the distinction already given, according to which we affirmed that the God-Word is a minister of deity to all the rest of the gods, this further point too must be set forth.
For the word that is in each of rational beings has this relation to the Word who is in the beginning with God, being God the Word, that the God-Word has with God: for just as the Father, being God-in-himself and true God, stands in relation to the image, and to the images of the image (wherefore also human beings are said to be 'according to the image,' not 'images'), so the Word-in-himself stands in relation to the word that is in each. For both have the place of a source: the Father, of deity; the Son, of word.
Just as, then, there are many gods, but for us there is one God, the Father, and many lords, but for us there is one Lord, Jesus Christ, so also there are many words, but as for us, we pray that the Word who is in the beginning, who is with God, the God-Word, may exist for us.
For whoever does not make room for this Word, the one in the beginning with God, will either attend to him only as having become flesh, or will participate in some one of those who have partaken of the Word to some degree, something utterly alien to the Word, or, having fallen away from participating in the one who has partaken, will be called by a word utterly alien to the true Word.
What has been said will become clear from examples concerning God and the Word of God, and gods who either partake of God or are called gods but are in no way truly gods; and again concerning the Word of God and the Word who became flesh, and words which in some manner partake of the Word — words second or third in rank compared to the one before all — reckoned as words but not truly being words, but, so to speak, this whole class being 'irrational words'; just as, in the case of those said to be gods but not truly being gods, one might, instead of 'irrational words,' arrange the phrase 'not-gods of gods.'
The God of the universe, then, is God of the elect, and much more so of the Savior of the elect; furthermore, he is God of the truly-gods, and simply of the living and not of the dead is he God. But the God who is the Word is perhaps God of those who set the whole upon him, and of those who consider him to be the Father.
The sun, moon, and stars, as some before us have related, were allotted to those unworthy to have inscribed for them that the God of gods is their God. And they arrived at this understanding, moved by the words in Deuteronomy that read thus: 'Lest, looking up to heaven and seeing the sun and the moon and all the array of heaven, you be led astray to worship them and serve them, which the Lord your God has allotted to all the nations. But to you the Lord your God has not given [them] in this way.'
For how did he allot the sun and moon to all the nations, but not these to Israel? [The reason is] that for those unable to run up to the intelligible nature, who are moved toward divinity through sensible gods, it is a thing to be embraced at least to stand firm in these and not to fall into idols and demons.
So then, some still regard as God the Son of God, his Christ; and third are those who reverence the sun and the moon and the whole array of heaven — having strayed from God, yet in an error far different from, and better than, that of those who call gods the works of human hands, gold and silver, products of artistic craft. Last are those devoted to what are called gods, yet who are in no way gods.
Thus, then, some partake of that very Word which was in the beginning, and the Word who is with God, and the Word of God — as Hosea and Isaiah and Jeremiah, and anyone else who presented himself as such, so that the word of the Lord, or the Word, came to be with him.
Others, who know nothing except Jesus Christ, and him crucified, having supposed the Word made flesh to be the whole of the Word, know Christ only according to the flesh; and such is the multitude of those who are reputed to have believed.
And third are those who partake somewhat of the Word by means of words, insofar as they have devoted themselves to a reason that surpasses all things; and perhaps these are those who follow the sects held in esteem and distinguished in philosophy among the Greeks.
Fourth, besides these, are those who have believed words utterly corrupted and godless, who do away with providence — though it is evident and nearly perceptible to sense — and who accept some other end besides the good.
Even if we seem to have digressed, I think that we have done so appositely, for the sake of clearly seeing that there are four ranks with regard to the name 'God' and four with regard to this name 'Word.' For there was 'the God' and 'God'; then 'gods' in two senses, distinct from the God of the universe. And again there was 'the Word,' and perhaps also 'word,' similarly to 'the God' and 'God'; and 'words' in two senses, both proper [to God] and human — some belonging to the Father, being portions of him; and next to these, which the discourse now sets before us more clearly, are those who have arrived at the Savior and set the whole in him. And third are those aforementioned, who consider the sun and moon and stars to be gods and stand fixed in them. And beyond all these, also in the...
...the lower region, are those devoted to lifeless and dead idols. And we find the corresponding thing also among those classed according to the Word. For some are adorned by the Word himself; others by something adjacent to him and seeming to be that same primary Word — those who know nothing except Jesus Christ, and him crucified, who regard the Word as flesh; and [third are those devoted] to what seems to be reason, whom we mentioned a little before. But what need is there to speak of those who are merely supposed to partake of reason, yet have fallen away not only from the good itself but even from the traces of those who partake of it? 'He was in the beginning with God.'
Having taught us three ranks through the three aforementioned propositions, the evangelist recapitulates the three into one, saying, 'He was in the beginning with God.'
Now, as the first of the three we have learned in what the Word was, namely, 'in the beginning'; and with whom he was, namely, 'with God'; and who the Word was, namely, 'God.' So then, as it were showing the aforementioned God-Word through the word 'He,' and gathering into a fourth proposition both 'In the beginning was the Word' and 'The Word was with God' and 'the Word was God,' he says: 'He was in the beginning with God.'
Now, the name 'beginning' can also be understood with reference to the beginning of the world, as we learn from what is said, that the Word was older than the things that came to be from the beginning. For if 'in the beginning God made heaven and earth,' and 'In the beginning was' [the Word] is clearly older than what was made 'in the beginning' — not only [older than] the firmament and the dry land, but the Word is older than heaven and earth themselves.
Now perhaps someone might not unreasonably ask why it is not said, 'In the beginning was the Word of God, and the Word of God was with God, and the Word of God was God.' And it follows that one who asks why it is not written, 'In the beginning [was] the Word of God,' should also ask why not distinguish: one is, say, the word of God, another, say, the word of angels, and another the word of men, and so on for the rest of the words.
But if there are many 'words,' perhaps also many 'wisdoms' and 'righteousnesses.' Yet it is absurd to say that several things properly hold the appellation 'word,' and 'wisdom,' and 'righteousness.' And we shall be led [to see] that one must not seek many words and wisdoms and righteousnesses — properly so named — apart from the truth.
For anyone whatsoever would acknowledge that truth is one; for no one would dare to say, in this regard, that the truth of God is one thing, and the truth of angels another, and that of men yet another; for in the nature of existing things, the truth concerning each thing is one.
And if truth is one, it is clear that its structure and its demonstration, being wisdom, would reasonably be understood as one also, since no so-called wisdom that does not possess the truth would rightly be called wisdom either. And if truth is one and wisdom is one, then the Word that plainly and openly declares the truth and the wisdom to those capable [of receiving it] would also be one.
And we do not say these things denying that the truth and the wisdom and the Word belong to God, but showing the usefulness of the fact that 'of God' has been passed over in silence, and that it is not written, 'In the beginning was the Word of God.'
And John himself, in the Apocalypse, also names him with the addition 'of God,' saying: 'And I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse, and he who sat upon it was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he judges and makes war. His eyes were like a flame of fire, and on his head were many diadems; he had a name written which no one knows except himself, and he was clothed in a garment sprinkled with blood, and his name was called The Word of God. And the armies in heaven followed him on white horses, clothed in fine linen, ...... pure. And out of his mouth goes a sharp sword, that with it he should strike the nations; and he will shepherd them with a rod of iron, and he treads the winepress of the wine of the fury of the wrath of God the Almighty. And he has on his garment and on his thigh a name written: King of kings and Lord of lords.'
It is necessarily, and also absolutely, said both 'Word' [simply] and, with the addition, 'Word of God'; for if the one of these had been passed over in silence, we would have had occasions to misapprehend and 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 have clearly learned that this Word is the Word of God.
Again, on the other hand, if only 'Word of God' had been used, but 'Word' had not been said absolutely, then, fashioning many words according to the relation to each rational being, we would in vain have admitted many properly so-called [words].
Rightly indeed, then, does the apostle and evangelist — and now also, in the Apocalypse, prophet — describe the things concerning the Word of God, saying that he saw the Word of God, in the heaven that had been opened, riding upon a white horse.
But what the opening of heaven signifies, and the white horse, and the one called the Word of God sitting upon it, being not only the Word of God but also being called Faithful and True and one who judges and makes war in righteousness — this must be considered, so that we may be led forward still further in grasping the things concerning the Word of God.
I think that heaven is shut to the impious and to those who bear the image of the earthy [man], but opened to the righteous and to those adorned with the image of the heavenly [man]. For to the former, since they are situated below and still exist in the flesh, the better things are shut off, they being unable to comprehend it, nor able [to perceive] their beauty, since they are unwilling to understand, being bent 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, contemplated by the key of David, have been opened — the divine Word opening them and making them plain, by riding upon a horse, with voices proclaiming what is signified — a white [horse], on account of the manifest, white, and luminous character of knowledge.
And the one called Faithful sits upon the white horse, established more firmly, and, so to speak, more royally, amid voices that cannot be overturned, running more swiftly and more quickly than any horse, and outdoing in the race every rival deemed to be a mere pretender to reason, and a would-be truth that only seems to be truth.
And he who sits upon the white horse is called 'faithful' not so much on account of believing, as on account of being trustworthy — that is, worthy to be believed. For 'the Lord,' according to Moses, is 'faithful and true.' And he is called 'true' in contradistinction to shadow, and type, and image, since such is the Word in the heaven that has been opened; for the one on earth is not such as the one in heaven, inasmuch as he became flesh and is spoken of through shadows and types and images.
But the multitudes of those who are reputed to have believed are discipled to the shadow of the Word, and not to the true Word of God who is in the heaven that has been opened. For this reason Jeremiah says: 'The breath of our face, the Lord's anointed, of whom we said, In his shadow we shall live among the nations.'
This, then, is the Word of God who is called faithful and is called true, and judges and makes war in righteousness — having received from God, by his very own righteousness itself and his very own judgment itself, the ability to render to each of the beings what is according to its worth, and to judge.
For none of those who partake of righteousness and of the power of judging the people will be able so entirely to impress upon his own soul the types of righteousness and of judgment, that he falls short in nothing of righteousness-itself and judgment-itself — just as not even one who paints an image will be able to impart to the painting all the peculiar features of the one being painted.
For this reason, then, I think David says, 'No one living shall be justified before you'; for he did not say simply 'every man' or 'every angel,' but 'everyone living,' because even if someone partakes of life and shakes off deadness entirely, he will not thereby be able to be justified before you in the same measure as life [itself]; nor is it possible for one who partakes of life, and is on this account called living, himself to become life; nor for one who partakes of righteousness, and is on this account called righteous, to be made wholly equal to righteousness [itself].
It is the work of the Word, just as to judge in righteousness, so also to make war in righteousness, so that, by his warring in this way with word and righteousness against the enemies — the irrational and the [words] of injustice being destroyed — he may come to dwell within and bring to righteousness, casting out the contrary things from the soul of the one who has been, so to speak, taken captive by Christ unto salvation.
One can see the war of the Word still more, when he himself pleads on behalf of the truth, while [his opponent] — pretending to be a word without being a word, and having proclaimed itself truth, though it is not truth but falsehood — asserts itself to be the truth. For then the Word, having armed himself against the falsehood, destroys it with the breath of his mouth, and brings it to nothing by the appearance of his coming.
And see whether these things can be set forth, according to the intelligible sense, by the apostle in the letter to the Thessalonians. For what is that which is being destroyed by the breath of the mouth of Christ — Christ being Word and Truth and Wisdom — if not falsehood? And what is that which is brought to nothing by the appearance of the coming of Christ, understood as Wisdom and Word, if not everything that professes to be wisdom, but which is [in fact] one of those things which God catches in their craftiness? Furthermore, John, most marvelously, in speaking of the Word who rides upon the white horse, also says: 'And his eyes were like a flame of fire.'
For just as the flame has, at the same time, the qualities of brightness and illumination, and also of fieriness and the capacity to consume more material things, so also the, so to speak, eyes of the Word — by which everyone who partakes of him also sees — besides apprehending intelligible things by means of the [faculties] inherent in him, also consume and cause to vanish the more material and grosser of thoughts; and all things that in any way whatsoever are false escape the fineness and subtlety of the truth.
Very fittingly indeed, after [describing him as] the one who judges in righteousness, and, in accordance with judging in righteousness, makes war, and next, following the making of war, gives light, it is added that upon his head are many diadems. For if the falsehood were one and of a single form — the falsehood over which, once defeated, the victorious Faithful and True Word took the crown — it would reasonably have been written that the God-Word, having prevailed over the opposing things, wore a single diadem.
But now, since there are many falsehoods that claim to be the truth, against which the Word has gone to war and is crowned, many diadems come to encircle the head of him who has conquered all things; and by prevailing over every power that has revolted, he sets upon himself many diadems through conquering.
Next, after the diadems, it is written that he has a name written which no one knows except himself; for this living Word alone knows certain things, because none of the subsequent created beings, being inferior in nature to him, is able to contain all the things which he grasps in contemplation. And perhaps also those who partake of that Word alone, in contrast to those who do not partake, know the things that do not reach the latter.
The Word of God is not seen by John riding the horse unclothed; for he is clothed with a garment dipped in blood, since traces still cling to him of the Word that became flesh — and, because he became flesh, died, so that his blood too was poured out upon the earth when the soldier pierced his side — traces of that suffering. For perhaps, even if at some point we come to be in the loftiest and highest contemplation of the Word and of the truth, we shall not entirely forget the introduction that came to be for us in the body through him.
All the armies in heaven follow this Word of God, following the Word as their leader and imitating him in all things, and especially by riding, like him, on white horses; for all things are manifest to those who understand. And just as pain and grief and groaning have fled away at the end of things, so too, I think, obscurity and perplexity have fled away, all the mysteries of the wisdom of God falling forth carefully and clearly.
But observe the white horses of those who follow the Word, clothed in fine linen, white and pure — unless, since linen comes from the earth, these linen garments are types of the languages of the earth, with which the voices that clearly signify things are clothed. These things, then, have been said at some length from the Apocalypse, which teaches concerning the Word of God, so that we may understand the things concerning him more precisely. [IX.] ‘This one was in the beginning with God.’
IX. To those who do not examine precisely the various propositions among what is stated, the evangelist will seem to be repeating himself, saying nothing more in ‘This one 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 the ‘in what state’ he was with God, according to the fourth axiom that is added; for there are four axioms here, which some call propositions, of which the fourth is ‘This one was in the beginning with God.’
But ‘The Word was with God’ and ‘This one was’ are not the same thing: not simply ‘with God,’ but ‘when’ or ‘in what state’ with God. For ‘This one,’ he says, ‘was in the beginning with God.’ But also ‘this one,’ uttered by way of pointing, will be thought by one who does not investigate more carefully to have been assigned either to the Word or to God, so that he might find a summing-up of the earlier propositions occurring in the designation ‘this one’ — of both the concept ‘Word’ and the concept ‘God’ — so that the demonstrative might gather into one the things that differ in concept. For the Word is not, in concept, God, nor is God, in concept, the Word.
Perhaps this is a recapitulation of the three propositions into one, namely ‘This one was in the beginning with God.’ For insofar as the Word was ‘in the beginning,’ we had not yet learned that he was ‘with God’; and insofar as the Word was ‘with God,’ we did not clearly know that he was ‘in the beginning with God’; and insofar as the Word was ‘God,’ neither was it made clear that he was ‘in the beginning,’ nor that he happened to be ‘with God.’
But in the statement ‘This one was in the beginning with God,’ since ‘this one’ is understood in reference to both the Word and God, and ‘in the beginning’ is thus joined to it, and ‘with God’ is added, nothing of what is contained in the three propositions is omitted that is not recapitulated when they are gathered into one.
But observe whether, in accordance with the twofold way in which ‘in the beginning’ may be understood, it is possible for us to learn two things: one, that the Word was ‘in the beginning’ as if he also existed in himself and not entirely in relation to something; the other, that he was ‘in the beginning with God.’ And I think it is not false to say of him that he was ‘in the beginning’ and ‘in the beginning with God’ — neither existing only ‘with God’ (since he was also ‘in the beginning’), nor existing only ‘in the beginning’ and not ‘with God’ (since ‘This one was in the beginning with God’). [Next lemma:] ‘All things came to be through him.’