Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary: John
Ver. 29. Behold the Lamb of God. John the Baptist let the Jews know who Jesus was, by divers testimonies. 1st, By telling them he was the Lamb of God who taketh away the sin, or sins of the world, who was come to be their Redeemer, and to free mankind from the slavery of sin; 2ndly, that he was greater than he, and before him, though born after him; 3rdly, that God had revealed to him that Jesus was to baptize in the Holy Ghost; 4thly, that he saw the Spirit descending upon him from heaven, and remaining upon him; 5thly, that he was the Son of God, ver. 34. (Witham) --- Who taketh away. It was only a being like Christ, in whose person the divine and human natures were united, that could effectually take away the sins of the world. As man, he was enabled to suffer; and as God, his sufferings obtained a value equal to the infinite atonement required. (Haydock)
Ver. 39. Staid with him that day. Yet they did not continually remain with him, as his disciples, till he called them, as they were fishing. See the annotations, Matthew iv. 18. (Witham)
Ver. 42. Thou art Simon, the son of Jona, or of John. Jesus, who knew all things, knew his name, and at the first meeting told him he should hereafter be called Cephas, or Petrus, a rock, designing to make him the chief or head of his whole Church. See Matthew xvi. 18. (Witham) --- Cephas is a Syriac word, its import is the same as rock or stone. And St. Paul commonly calleth him by this name: whereas others, both Greeks and Latins, call him by the Greek appellation, Peter; which signifies exactly the same thing. Hence St. Cyril saith, that our Saviour, by foretelling that his name should be now no more Simon, but Peter, did by the word itself aptly signify, that on him, as on a rock most firm, he would build his Church. (Lib. ii. chap. 12. in Joan.)
Ver. 46. Can any thing of good come from Nazareth? Nathanael did not think it consistent with the predictions of the prophets, that the Messias, who was to be the Son of David, and to be born at Bethlehem, should be of the town of Nazareth; which he did not imagine could be the place of Jesus's birth. But when he came to Jesus, and found that he knew the truth of things done in private, and in his absence, he professed his belief in Jesus in these words: Rabbi, thou art the Son of God, thou art the king of Israel. We may here take notice, with Dr. Pearson, on the second article of the Creed, that the Jews, before the coming of Christ, were convinced that he was to be the Son of God; (though they have denied it since that time) for they interpreted, as foretold of their Messias, these words: (Psalm ii. 7.) The Lord said to me, thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee: and this is what Nathanael here confessed. The same is confirmed by the famous confession of St. Peter, (Matthew xvi. 16.) Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God; by the words of Martha, (John xi. 27.) I have believed that thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God, who art come into the world: In fine, by the question which the Jewish priest put to our Saviour, (Matthew xxvi. 63.) I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ the Son of God. See also John vi. 70. and John xx. 31. (Witham)
Ver. 50. Greater things than these. Greater miracles and proofs that I am the Messias, and the true Son of God. (Witham)
Ver. 51. You shall see the heaven open, &c. It is not certain when this was to be fulfilled: St. Chrysostom thinks at Christ's ascension; others refer it to the day of judgment. (Witham)
____________________
[1] Ver. 1. Et Deus erat Verbum, kai theos en o logos. Logos was a word very proper to give all that should believe a right notion of the Messias, and of the true Son of God. Logos, according to St. Jerome, (Ep. ad Paulinum. tom. iv. part 2, p. 570. Ed. Ben.) signifies divers things; as, the wisdom of the Father, his internal word or conception; and, as it were, the express image of the invisible God. Here it is not taken for any absolute divine attribute or perfection; but for the divine Son, or the second Person, as really distinct from the other two divine Persons. And that by logos, was to be understood him that was truly God, the Maker and Creator of all things; the Jews might easily understand, by what they read and frequently heard in the Chaldaic Paraphrase, or Targum of Jonathan, which was read to them in the time of our Saviour, Christ, and at the time when St. John wrote his gospel. In this Paraphrase they were accustomed to hear that the Hebrew word Memreth, to which corresponded in Greek, logos, was put for him that was God: as Isaias xlv. 12, I made the earth; in this Targum, I, by my word, made the earth: Isaias xlviii. 13, My hand also hath founded the earth; in this Paraphrase, in my word I founded the earth: Genesis iii. 8, They heard the voice of the Lord God; in the Paraphrase, the voice of the word of God. See Walton, prolog. xii, num. 18, p. 86.; Maldonatus on this place; Petavius, lib. vi. de Trin. chap. 1.; Dr. Pearson on the Creed, p. 11.; Dr. Hammond's note on St. Luke, chap. i, p. 203, &c. However, St. John shews us that he meant him who was the true God, by telling us that the world, and every thing that was made, was made by this word, or logos; that in this word was life; that he was in the world, and was the light of the world; that he had glory, as the glory of the only begotten of the Father, &c.
[2] Ver. 3. Omnia per ipsum facta sunt: panta di autou egeneto: all things were made by him. Let not any one pretend that di autou, in this verse signifies no more than, that all creatures were made by the Word, or Son of God, ministerially, as if he was only the instrument of the eternal Father, and in a manner inferior to that by which they were created by the Father, the chief and principal cause of all things; of whom the apostle says, ex ou ta panta, ex ipso omnia. --- Origen, unless perhaps his writings were corrupted by the Arians, seems to have given occasion to this leptologia, as St. Basil calls it, to groundless quibbling and squabbling about the sense of the prepositions; when he tells us, (tom. ii, in Joan. p. 55. Ed. Huetii.) the di ou never has the first place, but always the second place, meaning as to dignity: oudepote ten proten choran echei to di ou, deuteran de aei. It is like many other false and unwarrantable assertions in Origen; as when we find in the same commentary on St. John, that he says only God the Father is called o Theos. Origen may perhaps be excused as to what he writes about di ou and ex ou, as if he spoke only with a regard to the divine processions in God, in which the Father is the first person, from whom proceeds even the eternal Son, the second person. But whatever Origen thought, or meant, whom St. Epiphanius calls the father of Arius, whose works, as then extant, were condemned in the fifth General Council; it appears that the Arians, in particular Aetius, of the Eunomian sect, pretended that ex ou had always a more eminent signification, and was only applied to the Father; the Father, said he, being the true God, the only principal efficient cause of all things; and di ou was applied to the word, or Son of God, who was not the same true God, to signify his interior and ministerial production, as he was the instrument of the Father. Aetius, without regard to other places in the Scripture, as we read in St. Basil, (lib. de Sp. S. chap. ii. p. 293. Ed. Morelli. an. 1637) produced these words of the apostle: (1 Corinthians viii. 6.) eis Theos, pater, ex ou ta panta ... kai eis kurios, Iesous Christos; di ou panta: unus Deus, Pater, ex quo omnia, ... et unus Dominus Jesus Christus; per quem omnia. He concluded from hence, that as the prepositions were different, so were the natures and substance of the Father and of the Son.
--- But that no settled and certain rule can be built on these prepositions, and that di ou, in this third verse of the first chapter of St. John, has no diminishing signification, so that the Son was equally the proper and principal efficient cause of all things that were made and created, we have the authority of the greatest doctors, and the most learned and exact writers of the Greek Church, who knew both the doctrine of the Catholic Church, and the rules and use of the Greek tongue. --- St. Basil (lib. de Spir. S. chap. iii. et seq.) ridicules this leptologian, which, he says, had its origin from the vain and profane philosophy of the heathen writers, about the difference of causes. He denies that there is any fixed rule; and brings examples, in which di ou is applied to the Father, and ex ou to the Son. --- St. Gregory of Nazianzus denies this difference, (Orat. xxxvii, p. 604. Ed. Morelli. Parisiis, ann. 1630) and affirms that ex ou, and di ou, in the Scripture, are said of all the three divine Persons. --- St. Chrysostom says the same; and brings examples, to shew it on this verse of St. John; and tells us expressly that di ou, in this verse, has no diminishing nor inferior signification: ei de to di ou nomizeis elattoseos einai, &c. --- St. Cyril of Alexandria, (lib. i. in Joan. p. 48.) makes the very same remark, and with the like examples. His words are: Quod si existiment (Ariani) per quem, di ou, substantiam ejus (Filii) de æqualitate cum Patre dejicere, ita ut minister sit potius quam Creator, ad se redeant insani, &c. --- St. Ambrose, a doctor of the Latin Church, (lib. ii. de Sp. S. 10. p. 212. 213. Ed. Par. an. 1586.) confutes, with St. Basil, the groundless and pretended differences of ex quo and per quem. --- I shall only here produce that one passage in Romans, (Chap. xi. 36.) which St. Basil and St. Ambrose make use of, where we read: ex ipso, et per ipsum, et in ipso sunt omnia, (ex autou, kai di autou, kai eis auton ta panta) et in ipsum omnia. Now either we expound all the three parts of this sentence, as spoken of the Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, (as both St. Basil and St. Ambrose understand them) and then ex ou is applied to the Son; or we understand them of the Father, and di ou is applied to the first Person: or, in fine, as St. Augustine observes, (lib. i. de Trin. chap. 6.)