The Great Commentary of Cornelius a Lapide: the First Epistle of S. John
“ O strange union, O wondrous interblending ! He who exists is made, the uncreated is created ; He who is unconfined is (by the medium of an intellectual soul) contained within the compass of a gross body of flesh ; He who enriches others suffers poverty, for He takes my poor and humble flesh that I might attain to the riches of His Divinity. He who is full is made empty, emptied of His glory for a short time, that I might be made partaker of His fulness. What riches of His goodness ! What a mystery encircles me : He becomes partaker of my flesh, in order to save man who is His image, and to confer immortality on our flesh.”
That which we have heard, which we have seen. Lyra refers this to the preaching of John the Baptist, and what he pronounced Christ to be. Didymus and others to the prophecies respecting Christ, and to the several appearances of God to Adam, and the Patriarchs in the Old Testament. For though the whole three Persons were manifested, yet it was specially a manifestation of the Word of God, signifying and anticipating His real appearance, at His own due time, in the flesh. (See Clement, Constit. v. 22 ; Justin, contr. Trypho ; Origen, Horn. i. in Isa. vi., &c.) For though in all these appearances, and especially in that noblest of all, at the giving of the Law, there appeared, properly speaking, only the person of an Angel (see Gal. iii. 19), yet this Angel specially represented the Word or Son of God.
But these instances are not to the point, for the Patriarchs and Prophets heard and saw the Word only darkly and in type, and not as the Apostles and disciples of Christ did, which is what S. John here means (see Heb. i. 1 ; Matt. xvii. 5).
S. John puts hearing first, sight afterwards, ascending from that which is less certain to that which is more certain, for he adds lastly, and our hands have handled. As S. Augustine says (de Diversis lxi. [al. ccclxxi.]), “A man who could be seen was not to be followed, but God was to be followed Who could be seen. In order then that He might be made manifest, and be seen of men, and followed by men, He was made man.” And on Ps. xxxiii., “ That man might not disdain to follow a humble man, God humbled Himself, that the pride of man might not disdain to follow the footsteps of God.” See also S. Gregory, Mor. xxix. 1 ; and Hugh of S. Victor (lib. Sent.) gives as one reason for the Incarnation, “ that the inward eye might feast on His Godhead, the outward eye on His manhood.” This is what S. Paul speaks of (Tit. iii.) when he says that the love of God towards man appeared.
Which we have seen , and admired, as a most wonderful sight. It was with the mind only that the Apostles beheld Christ’s Godhead, gathering it from His doctrine, miracles, holiness, &c. The Word was both seen and heard through the flesh, as a king is seen by His people, as we look on anything through a cloud, as fire is seen through the heated metal, &c. And though the union of the Word with flesh resembled all these, yet it was more perfect than any of them, for all of them, save that of body and soul, are accidental, but the union of the Word with the manhood is substantial. It is not, however, essential, for the Divine Essence is clearly separate and distinct from the manhood. But yet the union is hypostatical or personal, the manhood and the Godhead existing in the same Person. As in the Eucharist, the Godhead and manhood are hid under the species of the Bread and Wine. As S. Chrysostom says, “ Behold, thou seest Christ, thou touchest, thou eatest Him ” (Horn. lx. ad pop.)
And our hands have handled , just as blind men do, touching everything by the hand, as S. Thomas did (John xx. 27), and also the other Apostles (Luke xxiv. 39). So S. Leontius (Epist. xcvii.), S. Athanasius (Orat. contr. Arian.), and many others ; though Euthymius thinks that Thomas alone touched His wounds. And in their daily intercourse with Christ the Apostles must have touched Him with love and veneration when they acknowledged Him as God. For as Oecum. says, “ He was both seen and not seen, tangible and intangible, — speaking as man, working miracles as God.” But we may fully believe that S. John did this with peculiar devotion and affection, when he rested on His breast. S. Clement Alex, seems to say that Christ’s wounds miraculously yielded to the touch of the disciples, so as to make them feel as though they were open. S. Augustine, Ambrose, and others believe that the wounds remained open. (See Suarez, par. iii. Disput . xlvii. sect. 2.)
S. John inculcates and enlarges upon the doctrine of the Incarnation , first against Basilides, who maintained that Christ assumed flesh in appearance only, and therefore did not really suffer and redeem us. So Epiphanius, Hær. xxiv.
Secondly, to confirm the faithful in their belief of the doctrine, and to convert unbelievers by an argument derived from the evidence of our senses. He maintains then that he himself had seen, heard, and touched Christ. So also S. Peter (Acts x. 40). For, as Tertullian (de Anim. ch. xvii.) says, “It would indeed be false testimony, if our very senses proved false.”
Thirdly, to show the condescension of the Word, and the dignity of the Apostles. For the Word deigned to come down from heaven, and to join together God and man in the closest personal union, so that all the attributes of God belong to man, and vice versa , and He accordingly, through the attributes of a man, manifests the attributes of God to the Apostles.
In this way the intangible became tangible (says Nazianzen, Orat. xxxviii.), for we cannot form in our minds any likeness of God, Who is a Spirit. In order then that we might conceive of Him, invoke Him, behold, address, and touch Him, He was made man. Whence Paulinus says (in his Epistle to Florentinus), “ He, our Lord and God, Who appeared on earth, and held converse with men, is our Sheep and our Shepherd. He is our Emmanuel, God with us, the Lord of Majesty, and the Son of the Handmaiden, being one of these by nature , and being made the other. The same Person being the Creator and the Redeemer of man, God of God, Man for man’s sake, the Son of God before all worlds, the Son of man for the sake of the world,” &c. He then, Who in His Godhead was our Father, became, as it were, a mother to mankind by the manhood He assumed (see notes on Acts xvii. 24 and 29), but also because God as Bridegroom took to Himself our mother — humanity — as His spouse, and joined it to Himself in everlasting wedlock. (This was prefigured by the marriage of Adam and Eve.) By His humanity then He wedded ourselves and our nature, to become our Mother, as He was before that our Father, in order that we might approach Him with boldness, as children who are afraid of their father approach their mother first of all, and obtain their request. (2.) We therefore invoke Christ’s manhood, when we end all our prayers ‘ through Jesus Christ our Lord.’ And as a mother bears a child in her womb, and then trains and fashions it, so did Christ, by His continual labours for us, especially on the cross, conceive us, bring us to the birth, nourish and fashion us. Thirdly, because the Incarnation was the work of the highest intelligence and wisdom, as well as of the highest goodness. This latter is ascribed to the Holy Spirit, as the former to the Word. But all of them are subordinate to the omnipotence of the Father. He conceived all things by His Word, as if in the womb, and by His goodness He pours forth His bowels of mercy on us, and especially through the
Incarnation He addresses His children (Isa. xlix. 15) as a mother. “ The Gentiles,” says S. Clement (Strom, lib . v.), “ used to call God μητροπάτορα.” (See S. Augustine, de Civ . vii. 9.)
In order that we may understand the boundless benefits of the Incarnation, S. John suggests four points for our consideration —Who? What? For Whom? and Why?
1. Who then assumed our flesh? The eternal Word, the King of kings and Lord of lords, Emmanuel, Wonderful, Counsellor, &c. See Isa. ix. 6. This is what the Church says in the Preface for Christmas Day, “ By the mystery of the Incarnate Word Thy new light has shone in the eyes of our mind, so that by visibly beholding our God we may thereby be enraptured with the love of invisible things.” The Divine Nature did not suffer change or loss by the Incarnation, but remained unaltered in Its own nature and impassible. S. Leontius (Serm. x. de Nativ.) says, “The same who took on Him the form of a servant, is in the form of God. The same is incorporeal, and yet assumed a body. The same Being is inviolate in His own might, and subject to suffering in our weakness. He was ever the same Being, never separated from His Father’s throne, and yet was by wicked men crucified on the tree.” S. Cyril (in John i. 1) compares the Word made man to a heated coal or iron. As the fire consumes not the iron, but both substances remain uninjured, in like manner the Godhead changed not the manhood, nor the manhood the Godhead : both remain unchanged. This was signified by the burning bush. See too the three Dialogues of Theodoret, where he maintains this against Eutyches. As Damascene says (Orat. i. de Nativ.), “Thy love, O Lord, towards me was so great, that Thou didst not carry out the work of my redemption by an angel or any created being, but as Thou didst create me at first, so didst Thou Thyself effect my redemption.”