In the previous thread, a
selection from Aquinas' Commentary on the Gospel of John was provided,
wherein he argues for the divinity of the Son of God with an appeal to the
doctrine of deification. In that same selection, Aquinas states: The word "God" is also used in three senses. [Personally,
I think that the word "God" is used in more than just "three
senses"—more on this in an upcoming thread.]
In this thread, I am going
to provide another selection from Aquinas' Commentary on the Gospel of John,
wherein he delves into John 1:1, expounding on how the word "God" is
to be understood. This verse has played a huge role in the understanding and
development of the doctrine of the Trinity. From the pen of Aquinas we read:
44 At the outset, we
should note that the name “God” signifies the divinity concretely and as
inherent in a subject, while the name “deity” signifies the divinity in the
abstract and absolutely. Thus the name “deity” cannot naturally and by its mode
of signifying stand for a [divine] person, but only for the [divine] nature.
But the name “God” can, by its natural mode of signifying, stand for any one of
the [divine] persons, just as the name “man” stands for any individual (suppositum)
possessing humanity. Therefore, whenever the truth of a statement or its
predicate requires that the name “God” stand for the person, then it stands for
the person, as when we say, “God begets God.” Thus, when it says here that the
Word was with God, it is necessary that God stand for the person of the
Father, because the preposition with signifies the distinction of the
Word, which is said to be with God. And although this preposition
signifies a distinction in person, it does not signify a distinction in nature,
since the nature of the Father and of the Son is the same. Consequently, the
Evangelist wished to signify the person of the Father when he said God.
45 Here we should note
that the preposition with signifies a certain union of the thing
signified by its grammatical antecedent to the thing signified by its
grammatical object, just as the preposition “in” does. However, there is a
difference, because the preposition “in” signifies a certain intrinsic union,
whereas the preposition with implies in a certain way an extrinsic
union. And we state both in divine matters, namely, that the Son is in the
Father and with the Father. Here the intrinsic union pertains to
consubstantiality, but the extrinsic union (if we may use such an expression,
since “extrinsic” is improperly employed in divine matters) refers only to a
personal distinction, because the Son is distinguished from the Father by
origin alone. And so these two words designate both a consubstantiality in
nature and distinction in person: consubstantiality inasmuch as a certain union
is implied; but distinction, inasmuch as a certain otherness is signified as
was said above.
The preposition “in,” as
was said, principally signifies consubstantiality, as implying an intrinsic
union and, by way of consequence, a distinction of persons, inasmuch as every
preposition is transitive. The preposition “with” principally signifies a
personal distinction, but also a consubstantiality inasmuch as it signifies a
certain extrinsic, so to speak, union. For these reasons the Evangelist
specifically used here the preposition “with” in order to express the
distinction of the person of the Son from the Father, saying, and the Word
was with God, that is, the Son was with the Father as one person with
another.
46 We should note further
that this preposition with has four meanings, and these eliminate four
objections. First, the preposition with signifies the subsistence of its
antecedent, because things that do not subsist of themselves are not properly
said to be “with” another; thus we do not say that a color is with a body, and
the same applies to other things that do not subsist of themselves. But things
that do subsist of themselves are properly said to be “with” another; thus we
say that a man is with a man, and a stone with a stone.
Secondly, it signifies
authority in its grammatical object. For we do not, properly speaking, say that
a king is with a soldier, but that the soldier is with the king. Thirdly, it
asserts a distinction. For it is not proper to say that a person is with
himself but rather that one man is with another. Fourthly, it signifies a
certain union and fellowship. For when some person is said to be with another,
it suggests to us that there is some social union between them.
Considering these four
conditions implied in the meaning of this preposition with, the
Evangelist quite appropriately joins to the first clause, In the beginning
was the Word, this second clause, and the Word was with God. For if
we omit one of the three explanations of, In the beginning was the Word
(namely, the one in which principium was understood as the Son), certain
heretics make a twofold objection against each of the other explanations
(namely, the one in which principium means the same as “before all
things,” and the one in which it is understood as the Father). Thus there are
four objections, and we can answer these by the four conditions indicated by
this preposition with.
47 The first of these
objections is this. You say that the Word was in the beginning, i.e., before
all things. But before all things there was nothing. So if before all things
there was nothing, where then was the Word? This objection arises due to the
imaginings of those who think that whatever exists is somewhere and in some
place. But this is rejected by John when he says, with God, which
indicates the union mentioned in the last four conditions. So, according to
Basil, the meaning is this: Where was the Word? The answer is: with God;
not in some place, since he is unsurroundable, but he is with the Father, who
is not enclosed by any place.
48 The second objection
against the same explanation is this. You say that the Word was in the
beginning, i.e., before all things. But whatever exists before all things
appears to proceed from no one, since that from which something proceeds seems
to be prior to that which proceeds from it. Therefore, the Word does not
proceed from another. This objection is rejected when he says, the Word was
with God, taking “with” according to its second condition, as implying
authority in what is causing. So the meaning, according to Hilary, is this:
From whom is the Word if he exists before all things? The Evangelist answers: the
Word was with God, i.e., although the Word has no beginning of duration,
still he does not lack a principium or author, for he was with God as
his author.
49 The third objection,
directed to the explanation in which principium is understood as the
Father, is this. You say that In the beginning was the Word, i.e., the
Son was in the Father. But that which is in something does not seem to be
subsistent, as a hypostasis; just as the whiteness in a body does not subsist.
This objection is solved by the statement, the Word was with God, taking
“with” in its first condition, as implying the subsistence of its grammatical
antecedent. So according to Chrysostom, the meaning is this: In the
beginning was the Word, not as an accident, but he was with God, as
subsisting, and a divine hypostasis.
50 The fourth objection,
against the same explanation, is this. You say that the Word was in the
beginning, i.e., in the Father. But whatever is in something is not distinct
from it. So the Son is not distinct from the Father. This objection is answered
by the statement, and the Word was with God, taking “with” in its third
condition, as indicating distinction. Thus the meaning, according to Alcuin and
Bede, is this: The Word was with God, and he was with the Father by a
consubstantiality of nature, while still being “with” him through a distinction
in person.
51 And so, and the Word
was with God, indicates: the union of the Word with the Father in nature,
according to Basil; their distinction in person, according to Alcuin and Bede;
the subsistence of the Word in the divine nature, according to Chrysostom; and
the authorship of the Father in relation to the Word, according to Hilary.
A bit later, we read:
56 The other question
comes from his saying, with God. For since “with” indicates a
distinction, it could be thought that the Word was with God, i.e., the
Father, as distinct from him in nature. So to exclude this he adds at once the
consubstantiality of the Word with the Father, saying, and the Word was God.
As if to say: the Word is not separated from the Father by a diversity of
nature, because the Word itself is God.
57 Note also the special
way of signifying, since he says, the Word was God, using “God”
absolutely to show that he is not God in the same way in which the name of the
deity is given to a creature in Sacred Scripture. For a creature sometimes
shares this name with some added qualification, as when it says, “I have
appointed you the God of Pharaoh” (Ex 7:1), in order to indicate that he was
not God absolutely or by nature, because he was appointed the god of someone in
a qualified sense. Again, it says in the Psalm (81:6): “I said, ‘You are
gods.’” —as if to say: in my opinion, but not in reality. Thus the Word is
called God absolutely because he is God by his own essence, and not by
participation, as men and angels are.
58 We should note that
Origen disgracefully misunderstood this clause, led astray by the Greek manner
of speaking. It is the custom among the Greeks to put the article before every
name in order to indicate a distinction. In the Greek version of John’s Gospel
the name “Word” in the statement, In the beginning was the Word, and
also the name “God” in the statement, and the Word was with God, are
prefixed by the article, so as to read “the Word” and “the God,” in order to
indicate the eminence and distinction of the Word from other words, and the
principality of the Father in the divinity. But in the statement, the Word
was God, the article is not prefixed to the noun “God,” which stands for
the person of the Son. Because of this Origen blasphemed that the Word,
although he was Word by essence, was not God by essence, but is called God by
participation; while the Father alone is God by essence. And so he held that
the Son is inferior to the Father.
59 Chrysostom proves that
this is not true, because if the article used with the name “God” implied the
superiority of the Father in respect to the Son, it would never be used with
the name “God” when it is used as a predicate of another, but only when it is
predicated of the Father. Further, whenever said of the Father, it would be
accompanied by the article. However, we find the opposite to be the case in two
statements of the Apostle, who calls Christ “God,” using the article. For in
Titus (2:13) he says, “the coming of the glory of the great God and our Savior
Jesus Christ,” where “God” stands for the Son, and in the Greek the article is
used. Therefore, Christ is the great God. Again he says (Rom 9:5): “Christ, who
is God over all things, blessed forever,” and again the article is used with
“God” in the Greek. Further, in 1 John (5:20) it says: “That we may be in his
true Son, Jesus Christ; he is the true God and eternal life.” Thus, Christ is
not God by participation, but truly God. And so the theory of Origen is clearly
false. (LINK)
Grace
and peace,
No comments:
Post a Comment