Thomas Aquinas

Above, the Evangelist treated of the divinity of the Word; but in this part he begins to treat of the incarnation of the Word. And concerning this he does two things. First, he treats of the witness to the incarnate Word, that is, of the precursor; second, of the coming of the Word, at that place, "That was the true light." Concerning the first he does two things. First, he describes the precursor as coming for a testimony; second, he shows that he was insufficient for saving, at that place, "He was not the light." Now he describes the precursor in four ways. First, from the condition of his nature, when he says "There was a man"; second, from his authority, when he says "sent from God"; third, from his fitness for the office, when he says "whose name was John"; fourth, from the dignity of the office, at that place, "This man came." Now concerning the first it must be considered that, as soon as the Evangelist begins to speak of something temporal, he changes his manner of speaking. For when above he was speaking of eternal things, he used this verb "was" (erat), which is of the past imperfect tense, showing thereby that eternal things are without end; but now, when he speaks of temporal things, he uses this verb "was" (fuit), to show that temporal things have so passed that nevertheless they come to an end.

He says therefore "There was a man"; by which at the outset he excludes the perverse opinion of the heretics against the condition or nature of John, who, because of what the Lord says of John in Matthew 11:10, "This is he of whom it is written: Behold, I send my angel before my face," and because it is also said of him in Mark 1:2, supposed that John had been an angel by nature. Excluding this, the Evangelist says "There was a man," by nature, not an angel. Ecclesiastes 6:10: "It is known that he is a man, and that he cannot contend in judgment against one stronger than himself." Now it is fitting that a man be sent to men, by whom men are more drawn, as by one like themselves; whence it is said in Hebrews 7:28: "For the law makes men priests who have infirmity." For God could have governed men through angels; but he preferred to do so through men, that they might be more instructed by the example of these. And therefore John was a man, and not an angel.

He is described from his authority, indeed, when he says "sent from God." For, although John was not an angel by nature, he was one nevertheless by office, because he was "sent from God." For it is the proper office of angels that they be sent from God, and be messengers of God; Hebrews 1:14: "They are all ministering spirits, sent to minister"; whence "angel" is interpreted as "messenger." Men, therefore, who are sent from God to announce something, can be called angels, according to that of Aggeus 1:13: "Aggeus said, the messenger of the Lord among the messengers of the Lord." Now it is required, for someone to bear testimony of God, that he be sent from God, according to that of Romans 10:15: "How shall they preach unless they be sent?" And because, when they are sent from God, they do not seek their own things, but the things that are Jesus Christ's — 2 Corinthians 4:5: "For we do not preach ourselves, but Jesus Christ" — but he who is sent by himself, and not by God, seeks his own things, or the things that are of man, and not the things that are Christ's, therefore it is here said, "There was a man sent from God," that you may understand that he announced nothing but the divine, not the human.

Now note that we find some sent from God in three ways. Namely, by interior inspiration, as Isaiah 48:16: "And now the Lord has sent me, and his spirit"; as if to say: by the interior inspiration of the spirit I am sent from God. Likewise, by an express and open command, whether bodily or imaginary. And thus again Isaiah was sent; whence he says in the same place, Isaiah 6:8: "I heard the voice of the Lord saying: Whom shall I send, and who shall go for us? And I said: Behold, I am here, send me." Likewise, by the injunction of a prelate, who in this bears the person of God; 2 Corinthians 2:10: "For I also, if I have pardoned anything for your sakes, have done it in the person of Christ." And hence it is that those who are sent by a prelate are sent by God, as Barnabas and Timothy were sent by the Apostle. Now when it is here said, "There was a man sent from God," it is to be understood by interior inspiration; or also perhaps that he was sent by God by an exterior command. Below: "He who sent me, he said: Upon whom you shall see the Spirit descending and remaining upon him, this is he who baptizes in the Holy Spirit." Also, by this that he said, "There was a man sent from God," it is not to be understood, as certain heretics held — believing that the souls of men had been created before the body together with the angels from the beginning, and that the soul of each one is sent to the body when he is born, and that John is sent to life, that is, his soul to the body — but that he was sent from God to the office of baptizing and preaching.

He is commended from his fitness, indeed, when he says "whose name was John." For fitness is required for the office of testimony; for unless a witness be fit, however he may be sent by another, his testimony is not sufficient. Now a man is made fit by the grace of God; 1 Corinthians 15:10: "By the grace of God I am what I am"; 2 Corinthians 3:6: "Who has made us fit ministers of the new testament." Fittingly enough, therefore, the Evangelist intimates the fitness of the precursor from his name, saying "whose name was John," which is interpreted "in whom is grace." And indeed this name was not imposed upon him in vain, but from divine preordination, and before he was born, as is clear from Luke 1:13: "And you shall call his name John," the angel said to Zachariah. Whence he can say that of Isaiah 49:1: "The Lord has called me from the womb"; and Ecclesiastes 6:10: "He who is to be, his name is already called." This also the Evangelist shows from his manner of speaking, when he says "was" (erat), as regards God's preordination.

He is also described from the dignity of the office, when he says "This man came for a testimony"; where first is set down the office; second, the reason for the office, at that place, "that he might bear witness of the light." Now the office of this man is that of testifying; whence he says, "This man came for a testimony." Here it must be noted that God works both men, and all the things that he makes, for himself; Proverbs 16:4: "The Lord has wrought all things for himself"; not indeed that anything may accrue to him, since he has no need of our goods, but that his goodness may be manifested in all things made by him, inasmuch as through the things that are made, being understood they are seen; his eternal power, and divinity; Romans 1:20. Therefore every creature comes to be as a testimony of God, inasmuch as every creature is a certain testimony of the divine goodness. And indeed the magnitude of a creature is a certain testimony of the divine power and omnipotence; but its beauty, of the divine wisdom. But in a special way certain men are ordained by God; and they bear testimony to God not only naturally, inasmuch as they are, but also spiritually, through their good works. Whence all holy men are witnesses of God, inasmuch as through their good works God is rendered glorious among men; Matthew 5:16: "So let your light shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven." But nevertheless those who not only share the gifts of God in themselves by working well through the grace of God, but also pour them out to others by speaking, moving, and exhorting, are more specially witnesses of God. Isaiah 43:7: "Everyone who calls upon my name, I have created him for my praise." John therefore came for a testimony to this end, that he might pour out to others the gifts of God, and announce his praise.

Now this office of John, namely of testifying, is very great, because no one can testify concerning something except in the measure in which he shares in it; below, John 3:11: "What we know we speak, and what we have seen we testify." Whence to bear testimony to the divine truth is a sign of the knowledge of that truth itself. And hence it is that Christ too had this office; below, John 18:37: "For this I came, and for this I was born, that I might bear witness to the truth." But Christ in one way, and John in another. For Christ as comprehending the light itself, indeed as being the light itself; but John, as only sharing in the light itself. And therefore Christ perfectly bears testimony, and perfectly manifests the truth, but John and the other saints inasmuch as they share in the divine truth itself. Great, therefore, is the office of John, both from his participation in the divine light and from his likeness to Christ, who made use of this office. Isaiah 55:4: "Behold, I have given him for a witness to the peoples, a leader and a master to the nations."

Now the reason for this office is set down when he says "that he might bear witness of the light." Here it must be known that testimony is borne to a thing for a twofold cause. One cause can be on the part of the thing to which testimony is applied, for instance if it is doubtful or uncertain; the other cause is on the part of the hearers, if they are hard and slow of heart to believe. But John indeed came for a testimony not on account of the thing itself to which he bore testimony, because it was light. Whence he says "that he might bear witness of the light," not of an obscure thing but of a manifest one. He came therefore for a testimony on account of those very ones to whom he was testifying, "that all might believe through him," namely through John. For just as light is not only visible in itself and through itself, but also all other things can be seen through it, so the Word of God is not only light in itself, but is also that which manifests all things that are manifested. For since each thing is manifested through its own form and is known, and all forms are through the Word, which is the art full of living reasons: it is therefore light, not only in itself, but manifesting all things; Ephesians 5:13: "All that is manifested is light." Now fittingly does the Evangelist call the Son "light," because he came as a "light for the revelation of the nations," Luke 2:32. But above he called the Son of God the Word, by which the Father utters himself and every creature. Whence, since he is properly the light of men, and here the Evangelist treats of him according as he came to procure the salvation of men, he fittingly leaves off this name "Word," when he speaks of the Son, and calls him "light."

But if this light is sufficient of itself to manifest all things, not only itself, why then was there need that testimony be borne to it? Therefore the testimonies of John and of the prophets concerning Christ are not necessary. I answer that it must be said that this objection is that of the Manichees, who wish to destroy the Old Testament. Whence by the saints against these a manifold reason is assigned why Christ willed to have the testimony of the prophets. Origen indeed assigns three reasons for this. First, indeed, that God wills to have certain witnesses, not that he himself has need of their testimony, but that he may ennoble those whom he appoints as witnesses; just as we see also in the order of the universe, that God produces certain effects through intermediate causes, not because he himself is powerless to produce them immediately, but because, in order to ennoble those same intermediate causes, he deigns to communicate to them the dignity of causality. So therefore, even though God could have illuminated all men by himself and led them to knowledge of himself, yet, that a due order might be preserved in things, and that he might ennoble certain men, he willed that divine knowledge should come to men through certain men. Isaiah 43:10: "Truly you are my witnesses, says the Lord."

The second reason is that Christ enlightened the world through miracles: which indeed, because they were done in time, passed away in time, nor did they reach all. But the words of the prophets, committed to Scripture, could reach not only those present, but also those who came after. The Lord therefore willed that men should come to the knowledge of the Word through the testimonies of the prophets, so that not only those present, but also those to come might be illuminated concerning him; and therefore he significantly says "that all might believe through him," not only those present, but also those to come.

The third reason is that men are of diverse condition, and are led and disposed to the knowledge of truth in diverse ways. For certain ones are led more to the knowledge of truth through signs and miracles; but certain ones more through wisdom; whence 1 Corinthians 1:22: "The Jews ask for signs, and the Greeks seek wisdom." Therefore, that the Lord might show to all the way of salvation, he willed to open up both ways, namely of signs and of wisdom, so that those who were not led to the way of salvation through the miracles done in the Old and New Testament might, at least through the way of wisdom, as in the prophets and other books of Sacred Scripture, arrive at the knowledge of truth.

The fourth reason is that of Chrysostom, namely because men of weak intellect cannot grasp the truth and knowledge of God in itself; whence God willed to condescend to them and to illuminate certain men concerning divine things above others, so that from them they might receive in a human manner knowledge concerning divine things, the knowledge of which in themselves they were not able to attain. And therefore he says "that all might believe through him." As if to say: he came for a testimony, not on account of the light itself, but on account of the men themselves, namely that they might believe through him. So therefore it is clear that the testimonies of the prophets are fit and fitting, and therefore to be received as necessary to us for the knowledge of truth.

Now he says "might believe" because there is a twofold participation in the divine light. One, namely, perfect, which is in glory, Psalm 35:10: "In your light we shall see light"; the other is imperfect, which namely is had through faith, because he came "for a testimony." Of these two modes it is said in 1 Corinthians 13:12: "We see now through a glass in a dark manner; but then face to face"; and in the same place it is said: "Now I know in part; but then I shall know even as I am known." Now of these modes the prior is the mode of participation through faith; because through it one arrives at sight. Whence Isaiah 7:9, according to another reading: "Unless you believe, you shall not understand"; where our version has: "If you will not believe, you shall not continue." 2 Corinthians 3:18: "But we all, beholding the glory of the Lord with unveiled face, are transformed into the same image" — namely which we lost — "from brightness to brightness"; the Gloss: "from the brightness of faith, to the brightness of sight." He says therefore "that all might believe through him"; not that all might see him perfectly at once, but that first, by believing through faith, and afterward, by enjoying through sight in the fatherland. Now he says "through him," to show his difference from Christ. For Christ came that all might believe in him; below, John 7:38: "He who believes in me, as the Scripture says, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water." But John came that all might believe, not indeed in him, but in Christ through him.

But on the contrary. Not all believed through him. If therefore he came that all might believe through him, he came in vain. I answer that it must be said that, as far as pertains to the part of God who sends, and to the part of John who comes, a sufficient means was applied to all for arriving at the end; but on the part of those who "set their eyes to decline to the earth," and were unwilling to see the light itself, there was a defect, because not all believed.

Now although John, of whom so many things are said, and that he was sent from God, is great, nevertheless his coming is not sufficient for men unto salvation; because the salvation of man consists in this, that he share in the light itself. Whence, even if John had been the light, his coming would have sufficed for men unto salvation; but he himself was not the light; whence he says "He was not the light." And therefore a light was necessary that would suffice for men unto salvation. Or in another way. John came that he might bear witness of the light. Now it is customary that the one testifying be of greater authority than the one to whom he bears testimony. Lest therefore it be believed that John is of greater authority than Christ, the Evangelist says "He was not the light, but that he might bear witness of the light." For he testifies not because greater, but because better known, even though he be lesser.

But the question is raised concerning this that he says "He was not the light." Against it is said in Ephesians 5:8: "You were at one time darkness, but now light in the Lord"; and Matthew 5:14: "You are the light of the world." John, therefore, and the apostles, and all the good, are light. I answer. Some say that John was not "the light" with the article, because this is proper to God alone; but if "light" is put without the article, John and all the saints were made light. Which is to say: the Son of God is light by essence, but John and all the saints by participation. And therefore, because John shared in the true light, he fittingly bore witness of the light: for fire is more suitably manifested through something ignited than through anything else, and color through what is colored.