Theodore of Mopsuestia — Commentary on Scripture

John 1:1

Since he thought it necessary to speak about the divinity of the Only Begotten and to teach both who he is and the nature of his existence, the blessed John emulates this use of language, saying, “In the beginning was the Word.” You see, since Moses described the beginning of the things that were made—showing clearly in the account of creation that their maker preexisted—John judged it to be superfluous for himself also to recount the beginning of what was made and declares that the Son was the beginning of the things that exist; that is, he was in the beginning because he always was. So then, when making inquiry into issues of existence, one concerned with creation should not say that created things existed in the beginning, for they did not exist before they were made, because if they existed, they were not made. Rather, going beyond these—on the ground that at some time they did not exist—since we find something transcending them, we should say that it was this that was in the beginning.Therefore, if indeed the Word did not exist—as the crazed Arians say—but received his existence…

Since he thought it necessary to speak about the divinity of the Only Begotten and to teach both who he is and the nature of his existence, the blessed John emulates this use of language, saying, “In the beginning was the Word.” You see, since Moses described the beginning of the things that were made—showing clearly in the account of creation that their maker preexisted—John judged it to be superfluous for himself also to recount the beginning of what was made and declares that the Son was the beginning of the things that exist; that is, he was in the beginning because he always was. So then, when making inquiry into issues of existence, one concerned with creation should not say that created things existed in the beginning, for they did not exist before they were made, because if they existed, they were not made. Rather, going beyond these—on the ground that at some time they did not exist—since we find something transcending them, we should say that it was this that was in the beginning.Therefore, if indeed the Word did not exist—as the crazed Arians say—but received his existence at a later time, then he was not the one who was in the beginning, and [the title would belong to] the one who was when he was not. I shall not pass over the first and refer to the second as “the beginning.” This is, then, the meaning of the Word found in the Gospel of John, since he is the first terminus of the things that exist. If he is the first terminus, however, it was never when he was not, because he always was. Therefore, nothing will ever preexist him—inasmuch as the Father may be regarded as preceding any cause, for he himself exists in himself, so also the Son exists. For this reason he certainly did not mean for the phrase “he was in the beginning” to be taken in the same sense as the phrase “in the beginning God created.” Indeed, there the addition of the word created defined the beginning in regard to the created things, so as to signify only their beginning, whereas here he said simply and absolutely, “He was in the beginning.” And so it is apparent that the Word discussed here is the Word that is the first and principal beginning, to which nothing of what exists can be regarded as prior. And he added the word was to the phrase “in the beginning” to show that he was indicating without any qualification the “beginning” of the things that exist, which indeed is the “first being” and the “ever-being” and the “never not being.”

COMMENTARY ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN, FRAGMENT 2.1, 1-2

John 1:1

In a word, they have shown in their use of terms and exposition of their doctrines that they call “beginning” that which is before everything. Indeed, you will not find that the divine Scriptures say anything different. Even among common people the name “beginning” is used in a similar sense. Let me now give a suitable example: the blessed Moses, intending to instruct the Jewish nation both about God and created things—how God alone was the one who existed, while they were made—and wishing to explain to us the order of the creation of those things, said, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” He did not say “they were in the beginning,” because he believed that expression was not suitable for things that did not exist by themselves and were created. This is because he knew that the Creator, God, existed before them. Nor was he content only to say “in the beginning.” Rather, he said, “In the beginning God created,” thinking that it would be better to mention their creator first and then add what had been created in the beginning. He first mentioned God their creator…

In a word, they have shown in their use of terms and exposition of their doctrines that they call “beginning” that which is before everything. Indeed, you will not find that the divine Scriptures say anything different. Even among common people the name “beginning” is used in a similar sense. Let me now give a suitable example: the blessed Moses, intending to instruct the Jewish nation both about God and created things—how God alone was the one who existed, while they were made—and wishing to explain to us the order of the creation of those things, said, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” He did not say “they were in the beginning,” because he believed that expression was not suitable for things that did not exist by themselves and were created. This is because he knew that the Creator, God, existed before them. Nor was he content only to say “in the beginning.” Rather, he said, “In the beginning God created,” thinking that it would be better to mention their creator first and then add what had been created in the beginning. He first mentioned God their creator in order to raise the mind of his audience toward him, and then he related the things that were made.

COMMENTARY ON JOHN 1.1.1

John 1:2

John wanted to persuade by using the name “Word,” as if by an analogy, that it was possible for something to be from something else without having to be separated from it by length of time.… Also, because he said “he was in the beginning,” he showed not that he was without a beginning but rather that he was coexistent from eternity with his beginning.

COMMENTARY ON JOHN 1.1.1

John 1:3

Intending to make the divinity of the Only Begotten clearer, [the Evangelist] wanted to show the difference [of the Son] not only by indicating his dignity but also by demonstrating that he has no participation with the created order. He says, “[The Word] was with God in the beginning,” and “All things were made through him.” By saying this, he has opposed himself to “all things made.” He was, he says, in the beginning with God, all creatures were made through him. And clearly he made a comparison with “in the beginning was,” and its opposite, “all things were made through him.” Therefore he was not made, because in the beginning he was; they were made because they did not exist before. He himself is the explanation of the precedents. He shows what he means through the words “In the beginning was,” clearly asserting his eternity.

COMMENTARY ON JOHN 1.1.2-3

John 1:12

For those, he says, who received him, their reception was not useless. He gave them something great and excellent; certainly, insofar as it is possible, he made them equal in honor by giving them the gift of sonship. They take advantage of that grace not by being reborn in the body according to the natural order of generation. Rather, they are given birth by divine power through a certain similarity and relationship with him.

COMMENTARY ON JOHN 1.1.12

John 1:14

We did not agree to believe in him lightheartedly, [John says,] but accepted him as a true, only begotten Son because of those things that we saw. And the things we saw demonstrated the greatness of the one who appeared—they could belong to no one else except the Only Begotten who possesses perfect identity with the Father. And it is also true that the works that were made through him were full of true grace. He called grace truth in comparison with that of the Jews, in order to accuse the unbelievers, and he reveals his intention with the words that follow.He indicates grace with the name of truth, that is, the true grace, because Christ took on the ancient transgressions and gave salvation through the remission of sins. In addition he destroyed death, which reigned because of sin, and gave us a sound hope in the resurrection through our adoption as sons. He gave us hope not only in the word, like the Jews, but also regenerated in us the hope of resurrection by the works [of Christ] through the power of the Spirit. The symbol of resurrection is baptism, which confirms that death its…

We did not agree to believe in him lightheartedly, [John says,] but accepted him as a true, only begotten Son because of those things that we saw. And the things we saw demonstrated the greatness of the one who appeared—they could belong to no one else except the Only Begotten who possesses perfect identity with the Father. And it is also true that the works that were made through him were full of true grace. He called grace truth in comparison with that of the Jews, in order to accuse the unbelievers, and he reveals his intention with the words that follow.He indicates grace with the name of truth, that is, the true grace, because Christ took on the ancient transgressions and gave salvation through the remission of sins. In addition he destroyed death, which reigned because of sin, and gave us a sound hope in the resurrection through our adoption as sons. He gave us hope not only in the word, like the Jews, but also regenerated in us the hope of resurrection by the works [of Christ] through the power of the Spirit. The symbol of resurrection is baptism, which confirms that death itself will never destroy us. For this reason he prepared for us the delights of the heavenly kingdom if we preserve pure in our actions the honor of the adoptive relationship given to us through baptism.

COMMENTARY ON JOHN 1.1.14

John 1:14

In order to explain the word was, the Evangelist added kai eskēnōsen en hēmin, and “tabernacled in us,” that is, in this sense he became flesh: he lived in our nature. Evidently the words stand for “lived among us,” as also the apostle said about us human beings, “We who are still in this tabernacle groan,” where he called our body a tabernacle. He also writes elsewhere, “We know that if the earthly tabernacle we live in is destroyed.” It is well known that in Scripture usually the whole person is indicated by “flesh,” as in, “To you all flesh shall come.”

COMMENTARY ON JOHN 1.1.14

John 1:16

“From his fullness,” he says, “we have all received,” that is, the grace of the Spirit, which is given to us as a gift, we received from his abundance. About his human nature he says that every grace is in it; but at the same time this shows the dignity of the nature that is in him. Through the union with the divine Word, by means of the Spirit, he was made participant in the true relationship. We have taken a part from his spiritual grace, and through it we are made participant together with him in this adoptive affiliation, even though we are very far away from that dignity. And he fortunately added, “grace for grace,” indicating with the name of grace the law as well. He says, instead of that grace [of the law] this grace is given.

COMMENTARY ON JOHN 1.1.16

John 1:29

As appears from the narrative of the Evangelist, John the Baptist said his previous words as if the Lord had come already and walked among crowds who still ignored him. Now, since he is coming to be baptized, he is described with the words “this is the Lamb of God.” Let us consider how Scripture likes to place words in the appropriate context of facts. By saying in this passage, “This is the one who takes away the sin of the world,” he did not say “the only begotten Son,” or the “Son of God” or “the one who is close to the father’s bosom,” which appear in what he said above. Although now it would have seemed right to express the greatness of his nature, in order to confirm the promise of the things he was going to give. But this is not what he said. Instead, he called him “lamb,” and with this name he signifies his passion. In fact, he was called lamb and sheep to signify his death when he washed away sin. Since the sin reigned in our mortality, and death was gaining strength in us because of sin, Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior came and remitted all these things to us. And after d…

As appears from the narrative of the Evangelist, John the Baptist said his previous words as if the Lord had come already and walked among crowds who still ignored him. Now, since he is coming to be baptized, he is described with the words “this is the Lamb of God.” Let us consider how Scripture likes to place words in the appropriate context of facts. By saying in this passage, “This is the one who takes away the sin of the world,” he did not say “the only begotten Son,” or the “Son of God” or “the one who is close to the father’s bosom,” which appear in what he said above. Although now it would have seemed right to express the greatness of his nature, in order to confirm the promise of the things he was going to give. But this is not what he said. Instead, he called him “lamb,” and with this name he signifies his passion. In fact, he was called lamb and sheep to signify his death when he washed away sin. Since the sin reigned in our mortality, and death was gaining strength in us because of sin, Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior came and remitted all these things to us. And after destroying death through his death, he also destroyed the sin rooted in our nature because of mortality. Through his promise he made us immortal, and he will render us so in reality when he defeats sin with the gift of immortality.

COMMENTARY ON JOHN 1.1.29

John 1:32

Here it is evident that the Spirit descending like a dove on the baptized Lord was not seen by all those present, but by John only in a sort of spiritual vision. Similarly, the prophets amid many people were used to seeing those things that were invisible to all the others. It would have been useless to say that John testified and said, “I saw the Spirit,” if all those present had been participants in that vision as well.

COMMENTARY ON JOHN 1.1.32

John 1:33

He revealed why he lived in the wilderness. This certainly happened through a special providence of God, in order that he might not have any relationship with the Messiah. And John certainly would have had such a relationship if he had lived in town, since they were of the same age and they were related. The suspicion would have easily arisen that he had testified those words because of that previous relationship and because of their friendship and the fact that they were related. In order to remove this suspicion, John was segregated from adolescence onward and grew up in the wilderness. Therefore, with good reason he said, “I myself did not know him.” I had no familiarity or friendship with him, but I was sent to baptize with water for him so that I might reveal him whom I did not know. He clearly showed that he baptized so that all the Jews who came because of the baptism might have an occasion to hear his doctrine and to see him to whom he testified.

COMMENTARY ON JOHN 1.1.33

John 1:33

He who sent me so that I might reveal before everybody that he had come—and therefore he gave me the power to baptize with water—predicted to me that the Spirit would descend on him. These words were said to the Baptist while he was in the wilderness, and immediately he who indeed did [preach and baptize] came. As the Lord then came to John, he immediately received the vision so that he might recognize the Lord. This is why he preached so publicly about his greatness. When he, while administering the baptism, saw in a spiritual vision the Spirit descending, as had been predicted to him, then he was sure that he was seeing the expected result of the prophecy.

COMMENTARY ON JOHN 1.1.33

John 1:38

At once his disciples, who were present, after hearing his words, left John and hurried to go to Jesus about whom John testified. “When Jesus turned and saw them following, he said to them, ‘What are you looking for?’ ” He did not say this out of ignorance but rather in order to give them an occasion to trust him. They immediately called him “Rabbi” and showed their profound intention, that is, that they had been led to Jesus for no other reason but the desire to obey him as a teacher. And at the same time they asked him where he lived, as if they wanted to come to him often. He did not point out a house but told them to come along with him and see, by giving them the space for greater familiarity and trust toward him.

COMMENTARY ON JOHN 1.1.38

John 1:39-41

He says that one of those who followed him was Andrew, brother of Simon, without mentioning the other. Evidently this is the blessed John himself. He always appears to pass in silence over those things that concern him. And also whenever he relates something concerning himself, he avoids subscribing his name. If those who received the gospel had not indicated the writer with the prefixed title, we would not have known about whom the text is speaking.

COMMENTARY ON JOHN 1.1.39-41

John 1:46

This is not exactly the way this sentence appears, but rather it should be understood in a different and more doubtful sense, as in “How is it possible that anything good comes out of Nazareth?” In fact, among the Jews the name of that village was much despised, because a great number of its inhabitants were pagans, and it seemed impossible that anything good might come out from there. Therefore also the Pharisees said to Nicodemus, “Search and you will see that no prophet is to arise from Galilee.” And so it is only right that Philip says to Nathanael, “Come and see.” Since there is now a contrast to that old opinion, [he seems to be saying], I promise to show you the real facts. This was superfluous, otherwise, for someone who had once believed in the truth.

COMMENTARY ON JOHN 1.1.46

John 1:49

Therefore Nathanael, convinced by those deeds, said to him, “Rabbi, you are the Son of God. You are the king of Israel,” that is, you are the Messiah who was already announced. The Messiah was certainly expected by them as God to appear before everybody, as a king of Israel, even though they conceived him in a more obscure and material way. It was not possible then that the Jews knew how he was the Son of God or the king of Israel. Evidently also Nathanael did not say he was the Son of God by divine generation but by familiarity, as those people who came to God through his virtue were called sons of God. It was not possible that Nathanael immediately knew what we see and that the apostles themselves came to know after a long time. Those things that were said to him by the Lord could not be sufficient to demonstrate his other nature.

COMMENTARY ON JOHN 1.1.49

John 1:50-51

The Lord shows that nothing he had said was so great or sufficient enough to demonstrate all of what he really was. So then he declares what the greater things are that Nathanael would have seen.… He spoke of angels ascending and descending on him, because they assist him in dealing with the whole of creation.

COMMENTARY ON JOHN 1.1.50-51

John 2:1

It is evident that this third day should be calculated as the third day after the baptism. He said that the first day was that in which Andrew and his companion followed him and then passed the night with him. The second day relates the events concerning Philip and Nathanael. The third day points to the events of this wedding party. Clearly all these events took place in Galilee. Immediately after his baptism he left and lived there.

COMMENTARY ON JOHN 1.2.1

John 2:3

Perhaps his mother, as mothers do, incited him to perform a miracle, wishing that the greatness of her son would be revealed—and thinking that the lack of wine offered the right occasion for the miracle.

COMMENTARY ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 1.2, 3

John 2:8

According to the will of the one who gave the command, the water was changed into wine, slaking the thirst of those who drank but also providing wine more abundantly for the couple’s future.

COMMENTARY ON JOHN 1.2.6-7