logo-small

John 1:14

And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
Read Chapter 1

Alcuin of York

AD 804
When we think how the incorporeal soul is joined to the body, so as that of two is made one man, we too shall the more easily receive the notion of the incorporeal Divine substance being joined to the soul in the body, in unity of person; so as that the Word is not turned into flesh, nor the flesh into the Word; just as the soul is not turned into body, nor the body into soul. Or, dwelt among us, means, lived amongst men. ...
< 1 min1/22

Augustine of Hippo

AD 430
Having said, Born of God; to prevent surprise and trepidation at so great, so apparently incredible a grace, that men should be born of God; to assure us, he says, And the Word was as made flesh. Why marvel you then that men are born of God? Know that God Himself was born of man. As our word becomes the bodily voice, by its assumption of that voice, as a means of developing itself externally, so the Word of God was made flesh, by assuming flesh, as a means of manifesting Itself to the world. And asour word is made voice, yet is not turned into voice; so the Word of God was made flesh, but never turned into flesh. It is by assuming another nature, not by consuming themselves in it, that our word is made voice, and the Word, flesh. If men are disturbed however by its being said that the Word was made flesh, without mention of a soul; let them know that the flesh is put for the whole man, the part forthe whole, by a figure of speech; as in the Psalms, Unto you shall all flesh come; and ag...

Clement Of Alexandria

AD 215
Let us then aim at the fulfilment of the commandments by the works of the Lord; for the Word Himself also, having openly become flesh. "Now the Word issuing forth was the cause of creation; then also he generated himself, "when the Word had become flesh"
< 1 min3/22

Cyril of Alexandria

AD 444
And the Word was made Flesh. He has now entered openly upon the declaration of the Incarnation. For he plainly sets forth that the Only-Begotten became and is called son of man; for this and nought else does his saying that the Word was made Flesh signify: for it is as though he said more nakedly The Word was made Man. And in thus speaking he introduces again to us nought strange or unwonted, seeing that the Divine Scripture ofttimes calls the whole creature by the name of flesh alone, as in the prophet Joel: I will pour out My Spirit upon all flesh. And we do not suppose that the Prophet says that that the Divine Spirit should be bestowed upon human flesh soul-less and alone (for this would be by no means free from absurdity): but comprehending the whole by the part, he names man from the flesh: for thus it was right and not otherwise. And why, it is needful I suppose to say. Man then is a creature rational, but composite, of soul that is and of this perishable and earthly flesh...

Cyril of Alexandria

AD 444
And we beheld His glory, the glory as of the Only-begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth. Having said that the Word was made Flesh, that is Man, and having brought Him down to brotherhood with things made and in bondage, he preserves even thus His Divine dignity intact and shews Him again full of the own Nature of the Father inherent to Him. For the Divine Nature has truly stability in Itself, not enduring to suffer change to ought else, but rather always unvarying and abiding in Its own Endowments. Hence even though the Evangelist says that the Word was made Flesh, he yet affirms that It was not overcome by the infirmities of the flesh, nor fell from Its pristine Might and Glory, when It clad Itself in our frail and inglorious body. For we saw, he says, His Glory surpassing that of others, and such as one may confess befits the Only-Begotten Son of God the Father: for full was He of grace and truth. For if one looks at the choir of the saints and measures the things that a...

Cyril of Alexandria

AD 444
The Word uniting to Himself a body of flesh animated with a rational soul, substantially, was ineffably and incomprehensibly made Man, and called the Son of man, and that not according to the will only, or good-pleasure, nor again by the assumption of the Person alone. The natures are different indeed which are brought into true union, but He Whois of both, Christ the Son, is One; the difference of the natures, on the other hand, not being destroyed in consequence of this coalition ...
< 1 min6/22

Cyril of Alexandria

AD 444
And dwelt among us. The Evangelist profitably goes over again what he has said, and brings the force of the thought to a clearer comprehension. For since he said that the Word of God was made Flesh, lest any out of much ignorance should imagine that He forsook His own Nature, and was in truth changed into flesh, and suffered, which were impossible (for the Godhead is far removed from all. variableness and change into ought else as to mode of being): the Divine exceeding well added straightway And dwelt among us, that considering that the things mentioned are two, the Dweller and that wherein is the dwelling, you might not suppose that He is transformed into flesh, but rather that He dwelt in Flesh, using His own Body, the Temple that is from the Holy Virgin. For in Him dwelt all the fulness of the Godhead bodily, as Paul saith. But profitably does he affirm that the Word dwelt in us, unveiling to us this deep Mystery also: for we were all in Christ, and the community of human nat...

George Leo Haydock

AD 1849
And the word was made flesh. This word, or Son of God, who was in the beginning, from all eternity, at the time appointed by the divine decrees, was made flesh, i.e. became man, by a true and physical union of his divine person, (from which the divine nature was inseparable) to our human nature, to a human soul, and a human body, in the womb, and of the substance, of his virgin Mother. From the moment of Christ's incarnation, as all Christians are taught to believe, he that was God from eternity, became also true man. In Jesus Christ, our blessed Redeemer, we believe one divine Person with two natures, and two wills; the one divine, the other human: by which substantial union, one and the same Person became truly both God and man; not two persons, or two sons, as Nestorius, the heretic, pretended. By this union, and a mutual communication of the proprieties of each nature, it is true to say, that the Son of God, remaining unchangeably God, was made man; and therefore that God was truly...

Gregory The Dialogist

AD 604
In Scripture language as, and as it were, are sometimes put not for likeness but reality; whence the expression, As of the Only-Begotten of the Father.
< 1 min9/22

Hilary of Poitiers

AD 368
Some, however, who think God the Only-Begotten, God the Word, Who was in the beginning with God, not to be God substantially, but a Word sent forth, the Son being to God the Father, what a word is to one who utters it, these men, in order to disprove that the Word, being substantially God, and abiding in the form of God, was born the Man Christ, argue subtilely, that, whereas that Man (they say) derived His life rather from human origin than from the mystery of a spiritual conception, God the Word did not make Himself Man of the womb of the Virgin; but that the Word of God was in Jesus, as the spirit of prophecy in the Prophets. And they are accustomed to charge us with holding, that Christ was born a Man, not of our body and soul; whereas we preach the Word made flesh, and after our likeness born Man, so that He Who is truly Son of God, was truly born Son of man; and that, as by His own act He took upon Him a body of the Virgin, so of Himself He took a soul also, which in no case is d...

Hippolytus of Rome

AD 235
, His nature in the flesh derived from the Virgin, even as he (John) hath said beforetime, "The Word became flesh, and dwelt among us."
< 1 min11/22

Ignatius of Antioch

AD 108
But who afterwards became also man, of Mary the virgin. For "the Word was made flesh.". Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who was descended from David, and was also of Mary; who was truly begotten of God and of the Virgin, but not after the same manner. For indeed God and man are not the same. He truly assumed a body; for "the Word was made flesh". But not, as some of the unbelievers, who are ashamed of the formation of man, and the cross, and death itself, affirm, that in appearance only, and not in truth, He took a body of the Virgin, and suffered only in appearance, forgetting, as they do, Him who said, "The Word was made flesh; ". And concerning the incarnation: "The Word "says. For there is but One that became incarnate, and that neither the Father nor the Paraclete, but the Son only, . who is by nature unchangeable? Why dost thou say that it is unlawful to declare of the Lawgiver who possesses a human soul, "The Word was made flesh" ...

Irenaeus of Lyons

AD 202
He also styles Him Son, and Aletheia, and Zoe, and the "Word made flesh, whose glory "he says, "we beheld; and His glory was as that of the Only-begotten (given to Him by the Father), full of grace and truth.". But salvation, as being flesh: for "the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us.". For they say that he, the Lord and Creator of the plan of creation, by whom they hold that this world was made, was produced from the Mother; while the Gospel affirms plainly, that by the Word, which was in the beginning with God, all things were made, which Word, he says, "was made flesh, and dwelt among us.". Therefore the Lord's disciple, pointing them all out as false witnesses, says, "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us.". For to him all things are consistent: he has a full faith in one God Almighty, of whom are all things; and in the Son of God, Jesus Christ our Lord, by whom are all things, and in the dispensations connected with Him, by means of which the Son of God became man;...

John Chrysostom

AD 407
Or thus, After saying that they were born of God, who received Him, he sets forth the cause of this honor, viz. the Word being made flesh, God’s own Son was made the son of man, that he might make the sons of men the sons of God. Now when you hear that the Word was made flesh, be not disturbed, for He did not change His substance into flesh, which it were indeed impious to suppose; but remaining what He was, took upon Him the form of a servant. But as there are some who say, that the whole of the incarnation was only in appearance, to refute such a blasphemy, he used the expression, was made, meaning to represent not a conversion of substance, but an assumption of real flesh. But if they say, God is omnipotent; why then could He not be changed into flesh? we reply, that a change from an unchangeable nature is a contradiction. Lest from it being said, however, that the Word was made flesh, you should infer improperly a change of His incorruptible nature, he subjoins, And dwelt among us....
3 mins14/22

John Chrysostom

AD 407
1. I desire to ask one favor of you all, before I touch on the words of the Gospel; do not you refuse my request, for I ask nothing heavy or burdensome, nor, if granted, will it be useful only to me who receive, but also to you who grant it, and perhaps far more so to you. What then is it that I require of you? That each of you take in hand that section of the Gospels which is to be read among you on the first day of the week, or even on the Sabbath, and before the day arrive, that he sit down at home and read it through, and often carefully consider its contents, and examine all its parts well, what is clear, what obscure, what seems to make for the adversaries, but does not really so; and when you have tried, in a word every point, so go to hear it read. For from zeal like this will be no small gain both to you and to us. We shall not need much labor to render clear the meaning of what is said, because your minds will be already made familiar with the sense of the words, and you...
10 mins15/22

John Chrysostom

AD 407
1. Perhaps we seemed to you the other day needlessly hard upon you and burdensome, using too sharp language, and extending too far our reproaches against the sluggishness of the many. Now if we had done this merely from a desire to vex you, each of you would with cause have been angry; but if, looking to your advantage, we neglected in our speech what might gratify you, if you will not give us credit for our forethought, you should at least pardon us on account of such tender love. For in truth we greatly fear, lest, if we are taking pains, and you are not willing to manifest the same diligence in listening your future reckoning may be the more severe. Wherefore we are compelled continually to arouse and waken you, that nothing of what is said may escape you. For so you will be enabled to live for the present with much confidence, and to exhibit it at that Day before the judgment-seat of Christ. Since then we have lately sufficiently touched you, let us today at the outset enter on...
15 mins16/22

Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite

AD 550
"The one says: "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us; and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the Only-begotten of the Father."
< 1 min17/22

Tertullian of Carthage

AD 220
None other body can be understood than that of the flesh. became flesh was not the very same as He from whom the Word came. "His glory was beheld-the glory as of the only-begotten of the Father". Word. For just as, when John says, "The Word was made flesh". Of a virgin, why should He not have received of the virgin the body which He bore from the virgin? Because, (forsooth) it is something else which He took from God, for "the Word "say they, "was made flesh.". "he not only confirmed the statement, "The Word was made flesh". Constituting, therefore, His word as the life-giving principle, because that word is spirit and life, He likewise called His flesh by the same appellation; because, too, the Word had become flesh. But when the Word of God descended into flesh,-(flesh) not unsealed even by marriage,-and "the Word was made flesh". "The Lord for the body: "yes; for "the Word was made flesh." ...

Theophilus of Antioch

AD 184
Apollinarius of Laodicea raised a heresy upon this text; saying, that Christ had flesh only, not a rational soul; in the place of which His divinity directed and controlled His body. The Evangelist intends by making mention of the flesh, to show the unspeakable condescension of God, and lead us to admire His compassion, in assuming for our salvation, what was so opposite and in congenial to His nature, as the flesh: for the soul has some propinquity to God. If the Word, however, was made flesh, and assumed not at the same time a human soul, our souls, it would follow, would not be yet restored: for what He did not assume, He could not sanctify. What a mockery then, when the soul first sinned, to assume and sanctify the flesh only, leaving the weakest part untouched! This text overthrows Nestorius, who asserted that it was not the very Word, even God, Who the Self-same was made man, being conceived of the sacred blood of the Virgin: but that the Virgin brought forth a man endowed with e...
2 mins19/22

Theophylact of Ochrid

AD 1107
And dwelt in us: He had said above that the Word became flesh. Now, lest anyone imagine that Christ became one nature, he adds the words, and dwelt in us, to show us two natures: our own and that of the Word. A tent has a certain nature; he who dwells in a tent has another. (5) In the same way, the Word dwells in us, that is to say, in our nature, though His nature is different than ours. Let the Armenians [i.e. Monophysites] be put to shame who claim that Christ has one nature. From the words, The Word became flesh, we learn that the Word Himself became man, and, while being the Son of God, also became the Son of a woman who is called the Theotokos, God’s Birthgiver, precisely because she gave birth to God in the flesh. From the words, He dwelt in us, we learn to believe the two natures in one Christ. Though He is one in hypostasis, that is to say, in person, He is two in nature, both God and man. The divine and human natures could not have become one unless they had appeared in On...

Theophylact of Ochrid

AD 1107
And we beheld His glory, the glory as of the Only-begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth: Because he had said, The Word became flesh, here he adds, and we beheld His glory, that is to say, "While He was in the flesh, we beheld His glory." The Israelites had been unable to look upon the face of Moses when it shone with glory after he spoke with God. [See Ex. 34:29-35.] Could the Apostles possibly have been able to endure the full divinity of the Only-begotten, had it not been revealed to them through the veil of the flesh? We beheld His glory, but not such glory as Moses’ face reflected, nor as the glory in which the cherubim and seraphim appeared to the prophet [Ezek. 10:4], but such glory as befits the Only-begotten Son of the Father, and belonging to Him by nature. Here, the word as does not express similarity [i.e. glory similar to that of the Only-begotten], but, instead, certain and unambiguous identity. When we see a king approaching in great glory, we say, "He approa...
2 mins21/22

Theophylact of Ochrid

AD 1107
And the Word was made flesh: Having said that we may become sons of God, if we so desire, by believing in Christ, here he adds the cause of such a great gift. The Evangelist is saying, "Do wish to learn what enabled us to be adopted as sons of God? It is this—that the Word was made flesh." When you hear He was made flesh, do not think that He abandoned His divine nature and was changed into flesh. He would not be God if He had been changed and altered. Instead, remaining what He was, He became what He was not. Here is where Apollinarius of Laodicea formed his heresy. He taught that our Lord and God did not assume the whole nature of a man, that is, a body and a rational soul, but took on flesh only, and not the rational and spiritual soul of a man. Christ God had no need of a human soul, he said, since His divine nature governed His human body, in the same manner as we have a soul which governs and moves our body. To support his argument, so he imagined, Appolinarius used these very...
4 mins22/22

Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. - 2 Peter 1:20

App Store LogoPlay Store Logo