Mercurial > hg > Aquinas
diff john/english/John5.html @ 31:25a799388159
originals from http://www.josephkenny.joyeurs.com/CDtexts/SSJohn.htm
| author | ht |
|---|---|
| date | Tue, 24 Nov 2009 20:16:17 +0000 |
| parents | |
| children | 178aed5d2c3c |
line wrap: on
line diff
--- /dev/null Thu Jan 01 00:00:00 1970 +0000 +++ b/john/english/John5.html Tue Nov 24 20:16:17 2009 +0000 @@ -0,0 +1,1688 @@ +<html> +<head> +</head> +<body style=text-align:justify><blockquote> +<CENTER><p><span style="font-size: 60pt">5</span></p> +<p><span style="font-weight: bold">LECTURE 1</span></p></CENTER> +<BLOCKQUOTE><p>1 After this there was a Jewish festival, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem. 2 Now at Jerusalem +there is a Sheep Pool, called in Hebrew Bethsaida, having five porticoes. 3 In these porticoes lay +a great number of people: feeble, blind, lame and withered, waiting for the movement of the +water. 4 From time to time an angel of the Lord used to come down into the pool and the water +was stirred up, and the first one into the pool after it was stirred was healed of whatever ailment +he had. 5 There was one man lying there who had been sick for thirty-eight years with his +infirmity. 6 Jesus, seeing him lying there and knowing that he had been sick a long time, said to +him, “Do you wish to be healed?” 7 The sick man said, “Sir, I have no one to plunge me into the +pool once the water is stirred up. By the time I get there, someone else has gone in before me.” +8 Jesus said to him, “Stand up, pick up your mat and walk!” 9a The man was immediately cured; +he picked up his mat, and walked.</p></BLOCKQUOTE> +<p>699 Above, our Lord dealt with spiritual rebirth; here he deals with the benefits God gives to +those who are spiritually reborn. Now we see that parents give three things to those who are +physically born from them: life, nourishment, and instruction or discipline. And those who are +spiritually reborn receive these three from Christ: spiritual life, spiritual nourishment, and +spiritual teaching. And so these three things are considered here: first, the giving of spiritual life; +secondly, the giving of spiritual food (c 6); and thirdly, spiritual teaching (c 7).</p> +<p>About the first he does three things. First, he sets forth a visible sign in which he shows Christ’s +power to produce and to restore life. This is the usual practice in this Gospel: to always join to +the teaching of Christ some appropriate visible action, so that what is invisible can be made +known through the visible. Secondly, the occasion for this teaching is given (v 9b). Thirdly, the +teaching itself is given (v 19). As to the first he does three things. First, the place of the miracle +is given. Secondly, the illness involved. Thirdly, the restoration of the sick person to health (v +8).</p> +<p>700 The place of this miracle is described in two ways: in general and in particular. The general +place is Jerusalem; so he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">After this, </span>i.e., after the miracle performed in Galilee, <span style="font-weight: bold">there was +a Jewish festival, </span>that is Pentecost, according to Chrysostom. For above, when Christ went to +Jerusalem, it was the Passover that was mentioned; and now, on the following festival of +Pentecost, <span style="font-weight: bold">Jesus went up to Jerusalem </span>again. For as we read in Exodus (23:17), the Lord +commanded that all Jewish males be presented in the temple three times a year: on the festival +days of the Passover, Pentecost, and the Dedication.</p> +<p>There were two reasons why our Lord went up to Jerusalem for these festivals. First, so that he +would not seem to oppose the law, for he said himself: “I have not come to destroy the law, but +to complete it” (Mt 5:17); and in order to draw the many people gathered there on the feast days +to God by his signs and teaching: “I will praise him in the midst of the people” (Ps 108:30); and +again, “I have declared your justice in the great assembly” (Ps 39:10). So Christ himself says, as +we read below (18:20): “1 have spoken openly to the world.”</p> +<p>701 The specific place of the miracle was the pool called the Sheep Pool; so he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">Now at +Jerusalem there is a Sheep Pool. </span>This is described here in four ways: by its name, its structure, +from its occupants, and from its power.</p> +<p>702 First, it is described from its name when he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">there is a Sheep Pool </span>(<i>probatica piscina</i>),<i> +</i>for <i>probaton </i>is Greek for “sheep.” It was called the Sheep Pool for it was there that the priests +washed the sacrificial animals; especially the sheep, who were used more than the other animals. +And so in Hebrew it was called <span style="font-weight: bold">Bethsaida, </span>that is, the “house of sheep.” This pool was located +near the temple, and formed from collected rain water.</p> +<p>703 In its mystical sense, this pool, according to Chrysostom, has prefigured Baptism. For the +Lord, wishing to prefigure the grace of baptsim in different ways, first of all chose water: for this +washes the body from the uncleanness which came from contact with what was legally unclean +(Nm 19). Secondly, he gave this pool a power that expresses even more vividly than water the +power of Baptism: for it not only cleansed the body from its uncleanness, but also healed it from +its illness; for symbols are more expressive, the closer they approach the reality. Thus it signified +the power of Baptism: for as this water when applied to the body had the power (not by its own +nature, but from an angel) to heal its illness, so the water of Baptism has the power to heal and +cleanse the soul from sins: “He loved us, and washed us from our sins” (Rv 1:5). This is the +reason why the passion of Christ, prefigured by the sacrifices of the Old Law, is represented in +Baptism: “All of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus, have been baptized into his death” +(Rom 6:3).</p> +<p>According to Augustine, the water in this pool signified the condition of the Jewish people, +according to: “The waters are the peoples” (Rv 17:15). The Gentiles were not confined within +the limits of the divine law, but each of them lived according to the vanity of his heart (Eph +4:17). But the Jews were confined under the worship of the one God: “We were kept under the +law, confined, until the faith was revealed” (Gal 3:23). So this water, confined to the pool, +signified the Jewish people. And it was called the Sheep Pool, for the Jews were the special +sheep of God: “We are his people, his sheep” (Ps 94:7).</p> +<p>704 The pool is described in its structure as <span style="font-weight: bold">having five porticoes, </span>i.e., round about, so that a +number of the priests could stand and wash the animals without inconvenience. In the mystical +sense these five porticoes, according to Chrysostom, signify the five wounds in the body of +Christ; about which we read: “Put your hand into my side, and do not be unbelieving, but +believe” (below 20:27). But according to Augustine, these five porticoes signify the five books +of Moses.</p> +<p>705 The pool is also described from its occupants, for <span style="font-weight: bold">in these porticoes lay a great number +of people: feeble, blind, lame and withered. </span>The literal explanation of this is that since all the +afflicted persons gathered because of the curative power of the water, which did not always cure +nor cure many at the same time, it was inevitable that there be many hanging around waiting to +be cured. The mystical meaning of this, for Augustine, was that the law was incapable of healing +sins: “It is impossible that sins be taken away by the blood of bulls and goats” (Heb 10:4). The +law merely shed light on them, for “The knowledge of sin comes from the law” (Rom 3:20).</p> +<p>706 And so, subject to various illnesses, these people lay there, unable to be cured. They are +described in four ways. First, by their posture: for there they lay, i.e., clinging to earthly things +by their sins; for one who is lying down is in direct contact with the earth: “He had compassion +on them, for they were suffering, and lying like sheep without a shepherd” (Mt 9:36). But the just +do not lie down, but stand upright, toward the things of heaven: “They,” i.e., sinners, “are bound, +and have fallen down; but we,” the just, “have stood and are erect” (Ps 19:9).</p> +<p>Secondly, they are described as to their number, for there was a <span style="font-weight: bold">great number </span>of them: “The evil +are hard to correct, and the iiurnber of fools is infinite” (Ecc 1:15); and in Matthew (7:13): “The +road that leads to destruction is wide, and many go this way.”</p> +<p>Thirdly, these sick people are described as to their condition. And he mentions four things which +a person brings on himself through sin. First, a person who is ruled by sinful passions is made +listless or feeble: and so he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">feeble</span>. So it is that Cicero calls certain passions of the soul, +such as anger and concupiscence and the like, illnesses of the soul. And the Psalm says: “Have +mercy on me, O Lord, for I am week” (Ps 6:3).</p> +<p>Secondly, due to the rule and victory of a man’s passions, his reason is blinded by consent; and +he says as to this, <span style="font-weight: bold">blind, </span>that is, through sins. According to Wisdom (2:21): “Their own evil +blinded them”; and in the Psalm (57:9): “Fire,” that is the fire of anger and concupiscence, “fell +on them, and they did not see the sun.”</p> +<p>Thirdly, a person who is feeble and blind is inconstant in his works and is, in a way, lame. So we +read in Proverbs (11:18): “The work of the wicked is unsteady.” With respect to this the +Evangelist says, lame. “How long will you be lame?” (1 Kgs 18:2 1).</p> +<p>Fourthly, a man who is thus feeble, blind in understanding, and lame in his exterior actions, +becomes dry in his affections, in the sense that all the fatness of devotion withers within him. +This devotion is sought in the Psalm (62:6): “May my soul be filled with fat and marrow.” With +respect to this the Evangelist says, withered. “My strength is dried up like baked clay” (Ps 21:16).</p> +<p>But there are some so afflicted by the lassitude of sin, who do not wait for the motion of the +water, wallowing in their sins, according to Wisdom (14:22): “They live in a great strife of +ignorance, and they call so many and great evils peace.” We read of such people: “They are glad +when they do evil, and rejoice in the worst of things” (Prv 2:14). The reason for this is that they +do not hate their sins: they do not sin from ignorance or weakness, but from malice. But others, +who do not sin from malice, do not wallow in their sins, but wait by desire for the motion of the +water. So he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">waiting. </span>“Every day of my service I wait for my relief to come” (Jb 14:14). +This is the ‘way those in the Old Testament waited for Christ: “I will wait for your salvation, O +Lord” (Gn 49:18).</p> +<p>707 Finally, the power of the pool is described, for it healed all physical illnesses in virtue of an +angel who came to it; so he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">From time to time an angel of the Lord used to come down +into the pool. </span>In certain ways, the power of this pool is like that of Baptism. It is like it, first, in +the fact that its power was unperceived: for the power of the water in this pool did not come from +its very nature, otherwise it would have healed at all times; its power was unseen, being from an +angel. So he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">From time to time an angel of the Lord used to come down into the pool. +</span>The water of Baptism is like this in that precisely as water it does not have the power to cleanse +souls, but this comes from the unseen power of the Holy Spirit, according to: “Unless one is born +again ofwater and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God” (above 3:5). It is like it, +in a second way, in its effect: for as the water of Baptism heals, so also the water of that pool +healed. So he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">the first one into the pool was healed. </span>Further, God gave to that water the +power to heal so that men by washing might learn through their bodily health to seek their +spiritual health.</p> +<p>Yet the water of this pool differs from the water of Baptism in three ways. First, in the source of +its power: for the water in the pool produced health because of an angel, but the water of Baptism +produces its effect by the uncreated power not only of the Holy Spirit, but of the entire Trinity. +Thus the entire Trinity was present at the baptism of Christ: the Father in the voice, the Son in +person, and the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove. This is why we invoke the Trinity in our +baptism.</p> +<p>Secondly, this water differs in its power: for the water in the pool did not have a continuous +power to cure, but only <span style="font-weight: bold">from time to time; </span>while the water of Baptism has a permanent power +to cleanse, according to: “On that day a fountain will be open to the house of David, and to the +inhabitants of Jerusalem, to cleanse the sinner and the unclean” (Zee 13:1).</p> +<p>Thirdly, this water differs as regards the number of people healed: for only one person was cured +when the water of this pool was moved; but all are healed when the water of Baptism is moved. +And no wonder: for the power of the water in the pool, since it is created, is finite and has a finite +effect; but in the water of Baptism there is an infinite power capable of cleansing an infinite +number of souls, if there were such: “I will pour clean water upon you, and you will be cleansed +from all your uncleanness” (Ez 36:25).</p> +<p>708 According to Augustine, however, the angel signifies Christ, according to this reading of +Isaiah (9:6): “He will be called great counsel.” Just as the angel descended at certain times into +the pool, so Christ descended into the world at a time fixed by the Father: “The time is near” (Is +14:1); “When the fulness of time had come God sent his Son, made from a woman, inade under +the law” (Gal 4:4). Again, just as the angel was not seen except by the motion of the water, so +Christ was not known as to his divinity, for “If they had known, they would never have crucified +the Lord of glory” (1 Cor 2:8). For as Isaiah (45:15) says: “Truly, you are a hidden God.” And +so the motion of the water was seen, but not the one who set it in motion, because, seeing the +weakness of Christ, the people did not know of his divinity. And just as the one who went into +the pool was healed, so a person who humbly believes in God is healed by his passion: “Justified +by faith, through the redemption which is in Christ, whoin God put forward as an expiation” +(Rom 3:24). Only one was healed, because no one can be healed except in the oneness or unity +of the Church: “One Lord, one faith, one baptism” (Eph 4:5). Therefore, woe to those who hate +unity, and divide men into sects.</p> +<p>709 Then (v 5), the Evangelist mentions the disability of a man who lay by the pool. First, we are +told how long he was disabled; and secondly, why it was so long (v 7).</p> +<p>7 10 He was disabled for a long time, for <span style="font-weight: bold">There was one man lying there who had been sick +for thirty-eight years with his infirmity. </span>This episode is very aptly mentioned: the man who +could not be cured by the pool was to be cured by Christ, because those whom the law could not +heal, Christ heals perfectly, according to: “God did what the law, weakened by the flesh, could +not do: by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and as a sin-offering, he +condemned sin in his flesh” (Rom 8:3), and in Sirach (36:6): “Perform new signs and wonders.”</p> +<p>711 The number thirty-eight is well-suited to his infirmity, for we see it associated with sickness +rather than with health. For, as Augustine says, the number forty signifies the perfection of +justice, which consists in observing the law. But the law was given in ten precepts, and was to +be preached to the four corners of the world, or be completed by the four Gospels, according to: +“The end of the law is Christ” (Rom 10:4). So since ten times four is forty, this appropriately +signifies perfect justice. Now if two is subtracted from forty, we get thirty-eight. This two is the +two precepts of charity, which effects perfect justice. And so this man was sick because he had +forty minus two, that is, his justice was imperfect, for “On these two commandments all the law +and the prophets depend” (Mt 22:40).</p> +<p>712 Now the reason for the length of the man’s illness is considered. First, we have the Lord’s +query; secondly, the sick man’s answer (v 7).</p> +<p>713 John says, Jesus, seeing him, the man, <span style="font-weight: bold">lying there. </span>Jesus saw him not only with his physical +eyes, but also with the eyes of his mercy; this is the way David begged to be seen, saying: +“Look.at me, O Lord, and have mercy on me” (Ps 85:16). And Jesus <span style="font-weight: bold">knowing that he had been +sick a long time</span>—which was repugnant to the heart of Christ as well as to the sick man himself: +“A long illness is a burden to the physician” (Sir 10:11)—said to him, <span style="font-weight: bold">Do you wish to be +healed? </span>He did not say this because he did not know the answer, for it was quite evident that the +man wanted to be healed, he said it to arouse the sick man’s desire, and to show his patience in +waiting so many years to be cured of his sickness. and in not giving up. We see from this that +he was all the worthier to be cured: “Act bravely, and let your heart be strengthened, all you who +hope in the Lord” (Ps 30:25). Jesus incites the man’s desires because we keep more securely what +we perceive with desire and more easily acquire. “Knock,” by your desire, “and it will be opened +to you,” as we read in Matthew (7:7).</p> +<p>Note that in other situations the Lord requires faith: “Do you believe that I can do this for you” +(Mt 9:28); but here he does not make any such demand. The reason is that the others had heard +of the miracles of Jesus, of which this man knew nothing. And so Jesus does not ask faith from +him until after the miracle has been performed.</p> +<p>714 Then (v 7), the answer of the sick man is given. Two reasons are given for the length of his +illness: his poverty and his weakness. As he was poor, he could not afford a man to plunge him +into the pool; so he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">Sir, I have no one to plunge me into the pool. </span>Perhaps he thought, as +Chrysostom says, that Christ might even help to put him into the water. Someone else always +reached the pool before him because he was weak and not able to move fast; so he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">By the +time I get there, someone else has gone in before me. </span>He could say with Job: “I cannot help +myself” (Jb 6:13). This signifies that no mere man could save the human race, for all had sinned +and needed the grace of God. Mankind had to wait for the coming of Christ, God and man, by +whom it would be healed.</p> +<p>715 Now we see the man restored to health, i.e., the working of the miracle. First, the Lord’s +command is given; secondly, the man’s obedience (v 9).</p> +<p>716 The Lord commanded both the nature of the man and his will, for both are under the Lord’s +power. He commanded his nature when he said, Stand up. This command was not directed to the +man’s will, for this was not within the power of his will. But it was within the power of his +nature, to which the Lord gave the power to stand by his command. He gave two commands to +the man’s will: <span style="font-weight: bold">pick up your mat and walk! </span>The literal meaning for this is that these two things +were commanded in order to show that the man had been restored to perfect health. For in all his +miracles the Lord produced a perfect work, according to what was best in the nature of each case: +“The works of God are perfect” (Dt 32:4). Now this man was lacking two things: first, his own +energy, since he could not stand up by himself, thus our Lord found him lying by the pool. +Secondly, he lacked the help of others; so he said, <span style="font-weight: bold">I have no one. </span>So our Lord, in order that this +man might recognize his perfect health, ordered him who could not help himself to pick up his +mat, and him who could not walk to walk.</p> +<p>717 These are the three things which the Lord commands in the justification of a sinner. First, +he should <span style="font-weight: bold">stand up, </span>by leaving his sinful ways: “Rise up, you who sleep, and arise from the +dead” (Eph 5:14). Secondly, he is commanded to <span style="font-weight: bold">pick up your mat</span>, by making satisfaction for +the sins he has committed. For the mat on which a man rests signifies his sins. And so a man +takes up his mat when he begins to do the penance given to him for his sins. “I will bear the anger +of God, because I have sinned against him” (Mi 7:9). Thirdly, he is commanded to <span style="font-weight: bold">walk</span>, by +advancing in what is good, according to: “They will go from strength to strength” (Ps 83:8).</p> +<p>718 According to Augustine, this sick man was lacking two things: the two precepts of charity. +And so our Lord gives two commands to his will, which is perfected by charity: to take up his +mat, and to walk. The first concerns the love of neighbor, which is first in the order of doing; the +second concerns the love of God, which is first in the order of precept. Christ says, with respect +to the first, <span style="font-weight: bold">pick up you mat. </span>As if to say: When you are weak, your neighbor bears with you +and, like a mat, patiently supports you: “We who are stronger ought to bear with the infirmities +of the weak, and not seek to please ourselves” (Rom 15:1). Thus, after you have been cured, <span style="font-weight: bold">pick +up your mat, </span>i.e., bear and support your neighbor, who carried you when you were weak: “Carry +each other’s burdens” (Gal 6:2). About the second he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">walk, </span>by drawing near God; so we +read: “They will go from strength to strength” (Ps 83:8); “Walk while you have the light” (below +12:35).</p> +<p>719 Next we see the man’s obedience. First, the obedience of his nature, because, <span style="font-weight: bold">The man was +immediately cured. </span>And no wonder, because Christ is the Word through whom heaven and earth +were made: “He commanded and they were created” (Ps 148:5); “By the Word of the Lord the +heavens were made” (Ps 32:6). Secondly, we see the obedience of the man’s will: first, because +<span style="font-weight: bold">he picked up his mat, </span>and secondly, because he <span style="font-weight: bold">walked. </span>“We will do everything that the Lord +commands, and obey him” (Ex 24:7).</p> +<p style="margin-bottom: 0.125in; margin-bottom: 0.125in"> </p> +<p style="text-align: center"><span style="font-weight: bold">LECTURE 2</span></p> +<BLOCKQUOTE><p>9b That day, however, was a Sabbath. 10 Therefore the Jews told the man who had been cured, +“It is the Sabbath; it is not permitted for you to carry your mat.” 11 He replied to them, “He who +cured me said to me: ‘Pick up your mat and walk.’” 12 They then asked him, “Who is this man +who told you to pick up your mat and walk?” 13 But he who was cured had no idea who it was, +for Jesus had slipped away from the crowd that had gathered in that place. 14 Later, Jesus found +the man in the temple and said to him, “Remember, you have been made well; now do not sin +again lest something worse happen to you.” 15 The man went off and related to the Jews that it +was Jesus who had cured him. 16 For reasons like this the Jews began to persecute Jesus, because +he performed such works on the Sabbath. 17 But Jesus had a reply for them: “My Father works +even until now, and so do I.” 18 Consequently, the Jews tried all the harder to kill him, because +he not only broke the Sabbath rest, but even called God his own Father, making himself equal +to God.</p></BLOCKQUOTE> +<p>720 Having seen a visible miracle which shows the power of Christ to restore spiritual life, we +now see an opportunity given to him to teach. This opportunity was the persecution launched +against him by the Jews. These Jews, who were envious of Christ, persecuted him for two +reasons: first, the above act of his mercy; secondly, his teaching of the truth (v 17). As to the first, +the Evangelist does three things. First, he gives the occasion for their persecution. Secondly, the +false accusation against the man who was just cured (v 10). And thirdly, their attempt to belittle +Christ (v 12).</p> +<p>721 Their opportunity to persecute Christ was the fact that he cured the man on the Sabbath; +accordingly, the Evangelist says, <span style="font-weight: bold">That day, however, was a Sabbath, </span>when Christ performed +the miracle ofcommanding the man to pick up his mat.</p> +<p>Three reasons are given why our Lord began to work on the Sabbath. The first is given by +Ambrose, in his commentary, <i>On Luke. </i>He says that Christ came to renovate the work of +creation, that is, man, who had become deformed. And so he should have begun where the +Creator had left off the work of creation, that is, on a Sabbath, as mentioned in Genesis (c 1). +Thus Christ began to work on the Sabbath to show that he was the renovator of the whole +creature.</p> +<p>Another reason was that the Sabbath day was celebrated by the Jews in memory of the first +creation. But Christ came to make, in a way, a new creature, according to Galatians (6:15): “In +Christ Jesus, neither circumcision nor the lack of circumcision is a benefit; what counts is a new +creation,” i.e., through grace, which comes through the Holy Spirit: “You will send forth your +Spirit, and they will be created ; and you will renew the face of the earth” (Ps 103:30). And so +Christ worked on the Sabbath to show that a new creation, a re-creation, was taking place through +him: “that we might be the first fruits of his creatures” (Jas 1:18).</p> +<p>The third reason was to show that he was about to do what the law could not do: “God did what +the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do: by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful +flesh, he condemned sin in his flesh, in order that the requirements of the law might be +accomplished in us” (Rom 8:3).</p> +<p>The Jews, however, did not do any work on the Sabbath, as a symbol that there were certain +things pertaining to the Sabbath which were to be accomplished, but which the law could not do. +This is clear in the four things which God ordained for the Sabbath: for he sanctified the Sabbath +day, blessed it, completed his work on it, and then rested. These things the law was not able to +do. It could not sanctify; so we read: “Save me, O Lord, for there are no holy people left” (Ps +11:1). Nor could it bless; rather, “Those who rely on the works of the law are under a curse” (Gal +3:10). Neither could it, complete and perfect, because “the law brought nothing to perfection” +(Heb 7:19). Nor could it bring perfect rest: “If Joshua had given them rest, God would not be +speaking after of another day” (Heb 4:8).</p> +<p>These things, which the law could not do, Christ did. For he sanctified the people by his passion: +“Jesus, in order to sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered outside the gate” (Heb 13:12). +He blessed them by an inpouring of grace: “Blessed be God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, +who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing of heaven, in Christ” (Eph 1:3). He brought the +people to perfection by instructing them in the ways of perfect justice: “Be perfect, as your +heavenly Father is perfect” (Mt 5:48). He also led them to true rest: “We who have believed will +find rest,” as is said in Hebrews (4:3). Therefore, it is proper for him to work on the Sabbath, who +is able to make perfect those things that pertain to the Sabbath, from which an impotent law +rested.</p> +<p>722 Then (v 10), the Evangelist gives the accusation brought against the man who was healed. +First, we have the accusation; and secondly, the explanation given by the man who was healed +(v 11).</p> +<p>723 The man was accused for carrying his mat on the Sabbath, and not for being healed; so they +say: <span style="font-weight: bold">It is the Sabbath; it is not permitted for you to carry your mat. </span>There are several reasons +foi this. One is that the Jews, although frequently charging Christ with healing on the Sabbath, +had been embarrassed by him on the ground that they themselves used to pull their cattle from +ditches on the Sabbath in order to save them. For this reason the Jews did not mention his +healing, as it was useful and necessary; but they charge him with carrying his mat, which did not +seem to be necessary. As if to say: Although your cure need not have been postponed, there was +no need for you to carry your mat, or for the order to carry it. Another reason was that the Lord +had shown, contrary to their opinion, that it was lawful to do good on the Sabbath. And so, +because being healed is not the same as doing good, but being done a good, they attack the one +healed rather than the one healing. The third reason was that the Jews thought that they were +forbidden by the law to do any work on the Sabbath; and it was the carrying of burdens that was +especially forbidden on the Sabbath: “Do not carry a burden on the Sabbath” (Jer 17:2 1). +Accordingly, they made a special point of being against the carrying of anything on the Sabbath, +as being opposed to the teaching of the prophet. But this command of the prophet was mystical: +for when he forbade them to carry burdens, he wanted to encourage them to rest from the burdens +of their sins on the Sabbath. Of these sins it is said: “My iniquities are a heavy burden and have +weighed me down” (Ps 37.5). Therefore, since the time had come to explain the meaning of +obscure symbols, Christ commanded him to take up his mat, i.e, to help his neighbors in their +weaknesses: “Bear one another’s burdens, and so you will fulfil the law of Christ” (Gal 6:2).</p> +<p>724 Then (v 11), we see the man who was healed defending himself. His defense is wisely taken: +for a doctrine is never so well proved to be divinely inspired as by miracles which can be +accomplished only by divine power: “Going out, they preached everywhere, and the Lord worked +with them and confirmed the word by the signs that followed” (Mk 16:20). Thus he argued with +those who were defaming the one who healed him, saying: <span style="font-weight: bold">He who cured me said to me. </span>As if +to say: You say that I am forbidden to carry a burden on the Sabbath, and this on divine authority; +but I was commanded by the same authority to pick up my mat. For, <span style="font-weight: bold">he who cured me, </span>and by +restoring my health showed that he had divine power, said to me, <span style="font-weight: bold">Pick up your mat and walk. +</span>Therefore, I was duty bound to obey the commands of one who has such power and who had +done me such a favor. “I will never forget your precepts because you have brought me to life by +them” (Ps 118:93).</p> +<p>725 Then, since they could not very well charge the man who was cured, they try to belittle +Christ’s cure, for this man defended himself through Christ. But since he did not indicate +precisely who he was, they maliciously ask him who it was. With respect to this, first, the search +for Christ is set down. Secondly, his discovery. And thirdly, his persecution (v 16).</p> +<p>726 Three things are mentioned about the first: the Jews’ interrogation; the ignorance of the man +who was cured, and the cause of that ignorance.</p> +<p>As to the first, we read: <span style="font-weight: bold">They then asked him, </span>not with the good intention of making progress, +but for the evil purpose of persecuting and destroying Christ: “You will seek me, and you will +die in your sin” (below 8:21), Their very words show their malice: for while our Lord had +commanded the man who was sick to become healed and to pick up his mat, they ignored the +first, which is an undeniable sign of divine power, and harped on the second, which seemed to +be against the law, saying, <span style="font-weight: bold">Who is this man who told you to pick up you mat and walk? </span>“He +lies in wait, and turns good into evil, and he will put blame,” i.e., attempt to put blame, “on the +elect” (Sir 11:33).</p> +<p>727 As to the second, the Evangelist says, <span style="font-weight: bold">But he who was cured had no idea who it was. </span>This +cured man signifies those who believe and have been healed by the grace of Christ: “You are +saved by grace” (Eph 2:8). Indeed, they do not know who Christ is, but they know only his +effects: “While we are in the body, we are absent from the Lord: for we walk by faith, and not +by sight” (2 Cor 5:6). We will know who Christ is when “we shall see him as he is,” as said in +1 John (3:2).</p> +<p>728 Next, the Evangelist gives the reason for the man’s ignorance, saying, <span style="font-weight: bold">for Jesus had slipped +away from the crowd that had gathered in that place. </span>There are both literal and mystical +reasons why Christ left. Of the two literal reasons, the first is to give us the example of +concealing our good deeds and of not using them to seek the applause of men: “Take care not to +perform your good actions in the sight of men, in order to be seen by them” (Mt 6:1). The second +literal reason is to show us that, in all ouractions, we should leave and avoid those who are +envious, so as not to feed and increase their envy: “Do not be provoked by one who speaks evil +of you, so he will not trap you by your own words” (Sir 8:14).</p> +<p>There are also two mystical reasons why Christ slipped away. First, it teaches us that Christ is +not easy to find in the midst of men, or in the whirlwind of temporal cares; rather, he is found in +spiritual seclusion: “I will lead her into the wilderness, and there I will speak to her heart” (Hos +2:14); and in Ecclesiastes (9.17): “The words of the wise are heard in silence.” Secondly, this +suggests to us that Christ was to leave the Jews for the Gentiles: “He hid his face for a while from +the house of Jacob” (Is 8:17), i.e., he withdrew the knowledge of his truth from the Jewish +people.</p> +<p>729 Then (v 14), the Evangelist tells us how Jesus was found. First, he says that he was found. +Secondly, that after having been found, he taught. Thirdly, that after having taught, his identity +was reported to the Jews.</p> +<p>730 The Evangelist tells us both where and the way in which Christ was found. The way in which +he was found was remarkable, for Christ is not found unless he first finds; hence he says, Later, +after the above events, <span style="font-weight: bold">Jesus found the man. </span>For we cannot find Jesus by our own power unless +Christ first presents himself to us; so we read: “Seek your servant” (Ps 118:176); and, “She +[wisdom] goes to meet those who desire her” (Wis 6:14).</p> +<p>The place Christ was found was holy, <span style="font-weight: bold">in the temple, </span>according to: “The Lord is in his holy +temple” (Ps 10:5). For his mother had also found him in the temple (Lk 2:46); and he was there +for he had to be concerned with his Father’s affairs. We see from this that this man was not cured +in vain, but having been converted to a religious way of life, he visited the temple and found +Christ: because if we desire to come to a knowledge of the Creator, we must run from the tumult +of sinful affections, leave the company of evil men, and flee to the temple of our heart, where +God condescends to visit and live.</p> +<p>731 After Christ was found, he began to teach (v 14). First, Christ reminded the man of the gift +he was given. Secondly, he offered him sound advice. And thirdly, he pointed out an imminent +danger.</p> +<p>732 The gift was remarkable, for it was a sudden restoration to health; so he says, Remember, +you have been made well. Therefore, you should always keep this in mind, according to: “I will +remember the tender mercies of the Lord” (Is 63:7).</p> +<p>733 His advice, too, was useful, that is, <span style="font-weight: bold">do not sin again. </span>“My son, you have sinned. Do not sin +again” (Sir 21:1).</p> +<p>Why did our Lord mention sin to this paralytic and to certain others that he cured, and not to the +rest? He did this to show that illness comes to certain people as a result of their previous sins, +according to: “For this reason many of you are weak and sick, and many have died” (1 Cor +11:30). In this way he even showed himself to be God, pointing out sins and the hidden secrets +of the heart: “Hell and destruction are open to the Lord; how much more the hearts of the +children of men” (Prv 15:11). And so Christ mentioned sin only to some he cured and not to all, +for not all infirmities are due to previous sins: some come from one’s natural disposition, and +some are permitted as a trial, as with Job. Or, Christ might have brought up sin to some because +they were better prepared for his correction: “Do not rebuke one who mocks, lest he hate you; +rebuke a wise man, and he will love you” (Prv 9:8). Or, we could say, in telling some not to sin, +he intended his words for all the others.</p> +<p>734 The imminent danger was great, so he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">lest something worse happen to you. </span>This can +be understood in two ways, according to the two events that preceded. For this man was first +punished with a troublesome infirmity, and then received a marvelous favor. Accordingly, +Christ’s statement can refer to each. To the first, for when anyone is punished for his sin, and the +punishment does not check him from sinning, it is just for him to be punished more severely. So +Christ says, <span style="font-weight: bold">do not sin again, </span>because if you do sin, something worse will happen to you: “I have +struck your children in vain” (Jer 2:30). It can refer to the second, for one who falls into sin after +receiving favors deserves a more severe punishment because of his ingratitude, as we see in 2 +Peter (2:20): “It would be better for them not to know the way of truth, than to turn back after +knowing it.” Also, because after a man has once returned to sin, he sins more easily, according +to Matthew (12:45): “The last state of that man becomes worse than the first”; and in Jeremiah +(2:20): “You broke your yoke a long time ago, and snapped off your chains, and said: I will not +serve.’”</p> +<p>735 Then when he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">The man went off and related to the Jews, </span>we see Jesus identified. +Some think, as Chrysostom reports, that this man identified Jesus out of malice. But this does +not seem probable: that he would be so ungrateful after receiving such a favor. He <span style="font-weight: bold">related to the +Jews that it was Jesus who had cured him, </span>in order to make it clear that Christ had the power +to heal: “Come ... and I will tell you what great things the Lord has done for me,” as we read in +the Psalm (65:16). This is obvious, for they had asked him who commanded him to pick up his +mat, but he told them that <span style="font-weight: bold">it was Jesus who had cured him.</span></p> +<p>736 Next (v 16), we have the persecution of Christ, begun because he performed a work of mercy +on the Sabbath. Thus the Evangelist says, <span style="font-weight: bold">For reasons like this the Jews began to persecute +Jesus, because he performed such works on the Sabbath. </span>“Princes have persecuted me +without cause” (Ps 118:16 1).</p> +<p>737 Then (v 17), the second reason for his persecution is given: what he taught. First, we are +given the truth he taught; and secondly, the perversity of his persecutors (v 18).</p> +<p>73 8 Our Lord taught the truth while justifying his breaking of the Sabbath. Here we should note +that our Lord justified both himself and his disciples from breaking the Sabbath. He justified his +disciples, since they were men, by comparing them to other men: as the priests who, although +they worked in the temple on the Sabbath, did not break the Sabbath; and to David, who, while +Ahinielech was priest, took the consecrated bread from the temple oil the Sabbath when he was +running from Saul (1 Sm 21:1).</p> +<p>Our Lord, who was both God and man, sometimes justified himself in breaking the Sabbath by +comparing himself to men, as in Luke (14:5): “Which of you, if his donkey or ox falls into a pit, +will not take him out on the Sabbath?” And sometimes he justified himself by comparing himself +to God: particularly on this occasion, when he said: <span style="font-weight: bold">My Father works even until now, and so +do I. </span>As if to say: Do not think that my Father rested on the Sabbath in such a way that from that +time he does not work; rather, just as he is working even now without laboring, so I also am +working.</p> +<p>By saying this, Christ eliminated the misunderstanding of the Jews: for in their desire to imitate +God, they did not do any work on the Sabbath, as if God entirely ceased from work on that day. +In fact, although God rested on the Sabbath from producing new creatures, he is working always +and continuously even till now, conserving creatures in existence. Hence it is significant that +Moses used the word “rest,” after recounting the works of God from which he rested: for this +signifies, in its hidden meaning, the spiritual rest which God, by the example of his own rest, +promised to the faithful, after they have done their own good works. So we may say that this +command was a foreshadowing of something that lay in the future.</p> +<p>739 He expressly says, <span style="font-weight: bold">works even until now, </span>and not “has worked,” to indicate that God’s work +is continuous. For they might have thought that God is the cause of the world as a craftsman is +the cause of a house, i.e., the craftsman is responsible only for the making or coming into +existence of the house: in other words, just as the house continues in existence even when the +craftsman has ceased working, so the world would exist if God’s influence ceased. But according +to Augustine, God is the cause of all creatures in such a way as to be the cause of their existing: +for it his power were to cease even for a moment, all things in nature would at once cease to be, +just as we may say that the air is illuminated only as long as the light of the sun remains in it. The +reason for this is that things which depend on a cause only for their coming into existence, are +able to exist when that cause ceases; but things that depend on a cause not only for their coming +into existence but also to exist, need that cause for their continuous conservation in existence.</p> +<p>740 Further, in saying that <span style="font-weight: bold">My Father works even until now,</span> he rejects the opinion of those +who say that God creates through the instrumentality of secondary causes. This opinion conflicts +with Isaiah (26:12): “O Lord, you have accomplished all our works for LIS.” Therefore, just as +my <span style="font-weight: bold">Father, </span>who in the beginning created nature, <span style="font-weight: bold">works even until now, by </span>preserving and +conserving his creation by the same activity, so (to I work, because I am the Word of the Father, +through whom he accomplishes all things: “God said: ‘Let there be light’” (Gn 1:3). Thus, just +as he accomplished the first production of things through the Word, so also their conservation. +Consequently, if he <span style="font-weight: bold">works even until now, so do I, </span>because I am the Word of the Father, +through whom all things are made and conserved.</p> +<p>741 Then (v 18), the Evangelist mentions the persecution of Christ, which resulted from his +teaching: for it was because of his teaching that <span style="font-weight: bold">the Jews tried all the harder, </span>i.e., with greater +eagerness and a higher pitch of zeal, <span style="font-weight: bold">to kill him. </span>For in the law two crimes were punished by +death: the crime of breaking the Sabbath—thus anyone who gathered wood on the Sabbath was +stoned, as we see from Numbers (15:32); and the crime of blasphemy—so we read: “Bring the +blasphemer outside the camp ... and let all the children of Israel stone him” (Lv 24:14). Now they +thought it was blasphemy for a man to claim that he was God: “We are not stoning you for any +good work, but for blasphemy: because although you are a man, you make yourself God” (below +10:33). It was these two crimes they imputed to Christ: the first because he broke the Sabbath; +the second because he said he was equal to God. So the Evangelist says that <span style="font-weight: bold">the Jews tried all +the harder to kill him, because he not only broke the Sabbath rest, but even called God his +own Father.</span></p> +<p>Because other just man had also called God their Father, as in “You will call me ‘Father’” (Jer +3:19), they do not just say that he <span style="font-weight: bold">called God his own Father, </span>but added what made it +blasphemy, <span style="font-weight: bold">making himself equal to God, </span>which they understood from his statement: <span style="font-weight: bold">My +Father works even until now, and so do I. </span>He said that God was his Father so that we might +understand that God is his Father by nature, and the Father of others by adoption. He referred to +both of these when he said: “I am going to my Father,” by nature, “and to your Father,” by grace +(below 20:17). Again, he said that as the Father works, so he works. This answers the accusation +of the Jews about his breaking the Sabbath: for this would not be a valid excuse unless he had +equal authority with God in working. It was for this reason they said he made himself equal to +God.</p> +<p>742 How great then is the blindness of the Arians when they. say that Christ is less than God the +Father: for they cannot understand in our Lord’s words what the Jews were able to understand. +For the Arians say that Christ did not make himself equal to God, while the Jews saw this. There +is another way to settle this, from the very things mentioned in the text. For the Evangelist says +that the Jews persecuted Christ because he broke the Sabbath, because he said God is his Father, +and because he made hiniselfequal to God. But Christ is either a liar or equal to God. But if he +is equal to God, Christ is God by nature.</p> +<p>743 Finally, the Evangelist says, <span style="font-weight: bold">making himself equal to God, </span>not as though he was making +himself become equal to God, because he was equal to God through an eternal generation. +Rather, the Evangelist is speaking according to the understanding of the Jews who, not believing +that Christ was the Son of God by nature, understood him to say that he was the Son of God in +the sense of wishing to make himself equal to God; but they could not believe he was such: +“because although you are a man, you make yourself God” (below 10:33), i.e., you say that you +are God, understanding this as you wish to make yourself God.</p> +<p style="margin-bottom: 0.125in; margin-bottom: 0.125in"> </p> +<p style="text-align: center"><span style="font-weight: bold">LECTURE 3</span></p> +<BLOCKQUOTE><p>19 Jesus therefore replied and said to them:</p> +<p style="margin-left: 0.5in">“Amen, amen, I say to you, +<br>the Son cannot do anything of himself, +<br>but only what he sees the Father doing. +<br>For whatever the Father does, +<br>the Son does likewise. +<br>20a For the Father loves the Son, +<BR>and shows him everything that he does.”</p></BLOCKQUOTE> +<p>744 Here we have Christ’s teaching on his life-giving power. First, his teaching is presented. +Secondly, it is confirmed (v 3 1). Two things are done with the first. First, Christ’s teaching on +his life-giving power in general is given. Secondly, it is presented in particular (v 20b). As to the +first, three things are done. First, the origin of this power is mentioned. Secondly, the greatness +of this power, at (v 19b). Thirdly, the reason for each is given (v 20).</p> +<p>745 We should point out, with respect to the first, that the Arians use what Christ said here, <span style="font-weight: bold">the +Son cannot do anything of himself, </span>to support their error that the Son is less than the Father. +As the Evangelist said, the Jews persecuted Christ for making himself equal to God. But the +Arians say that when our Lord saw that this disturbed the Jews, he tried to correct this by stating +that he was not equal to the Father, saying, <span style="font-weight: bold">Amen, amen, I say to you, the Son cannot do +anything of himself, but only what he sees the Father doing. </span>As if to say: Do not interpret +what I said, “My Father works even until now, and so do I, as meaning that I work as though I +am equal to the Father. for I cannot do anything of myself. Therefore, they say, because the Son +can do only <span style="font-weight: bold">what he sees the Father doing</span>, he is less than the Father. But this interpretation is +false and erroneous. For if the Son were not equal to the Father, then the Son would not be the +same as the Father; and this is contrary to: “I and the Father are one” (below 10:30). For equality +is considered with respect to greatness, which in divine realities is the essence itself. Hence, if +the Son were not equal to the Father, he would be different from him in essence.</p> +<p>746 To get the true meaning of Christ’s statement, we should know that in those matters which +seem to imply inferiority in the Son, it could be said, as some do, that they apply to Christ +according to the nature he assumed; as when he said: “The Father is greater than I” (below +14:28). According to this, they would say that our Lord’s statement, <span style="font-weight: bold">the Son cannot do anything +of himself, </span>should be understood of the Son in his assumed nature. However, this does not stand +up, because then one would be forced to say that whatever the Son of God did in his assumed +nature, the Father had done before him. For example, that the Father had walked upon the water +as Christ did: otherwise, he would not have said, <span style="font-weight: bold">but only what he sees the Father doing.</span></p> +<p>And if we say that whatever Christ did in his flesh, God the Father also did in so far as the Father +works in him, as said below (14:10): “The Father, who lives in me, he accomplishes the works,” +then Christ would be saying that <span style="font-weight: bold">the Son cannot do anything of himself, but only what he sees +the Father doing </span>in him, i.e., in the Son. But this cannot stand either, because Christ’s next +statement, <span style="font-weight: bold">For whatever the Father, does, the Son does likewise, </span>could not, in this +interpretation, be applied to him, i.e., to Christ. For the Son, in his assumed nature, never created +the world, as the Father did. Consequently, what we read here must not be understood as +pertaining to Christ’s assumed nature.</p> +<p>747 According to Augustine, however, there is another way of understanding statements which +seem to, but do not, imply inferriority in the Son: namely, by referring them to the origin of the +Son coming or begotten from the Father. For although the Son is equal to the Father in all things, +he receives all these things from the Father in an eternal begetting. But the Father gets these from +no one, for he is unbegotten. According to this explanation, the continuity of thought is the +following: Why are you offended because I said that God is my Father, and because I made +myself equal to the Father? <span style="font-weight: bold">Amen, amen, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of himself. </span>As +if to say: I am equal to the Father, but in such a way as to be from him, and not he from me; and +whatever I may do, is in me from the Father.</p> +<p>748 According to this interpretation, mention is made of the power of the Son when he says, can, +and of his activity when he says, do. Both can be understood here, so that, first of all, the +derivation of the Son’s power from the Father is shown, and secondly, the conformity of the +Son’s activity to that of the Father.</p> +<p>749 As to the first, Hilary explains it this way: Shortly above our Lord said that he is equal to the +Father. Some heretics, basing themselves on certain scriptural texts which assert the unity and +equality of the Son to the Father, claim that the Son is unbegotten. For example, the Sabellians, +who say that the Son is identical in person with the Father. Therefore, so you do not understand +this teaching in this way, he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">the Son cannot do anything of himself, </span>for the Son’s power +is identical with his nature. Therefore the Son has his power from the same source as he has his +being (<i>esse</i>); but he has his being (<i>esse</i>)<i> </i>from the Father: “I came forth from the Father, and I +have come into the world” (Jn 16:28). He also has his nature from the Father, because he is God +from God; therefore, it is from him that the Son has his power (<i>posse</i>)<i>.</i></p> +<p>So his statement, <span style="font-weight: bold">the Son cannot do anything of himself, but only what he sees the Father +doing, </span>is the same as saying: The Son, just as he does not have his being (<i>esse</i>)<i> </i>except from the +Father, so he cannot do anything except from the Father. For in natural things, a thing receives +its power to act from the very thing from which it receives its being: for example, fire receives +its power to ascend from the very thing from which it receives its form and being. Further, in +saying, <span style="font-weight: bold">the Son cannot do anything of himself, </span>no inequality is implied, because this refers to +a relation; while equality and inequality refer to quantity.</p> +<p>750 Someone might misunderstand his saying, <span style="font-weight: bold">but only what he sees the Father doing, </span>and +take it to mean that the Son works or acts in the way he sees the Father acting, i.e., that the Father +acts first, and when the Son sees this, then the Son begins to act. It would be like two carpenters, +a master and his apprentice, with the apprentice making a cabinet in the way he saw the master +do. But this is not true for the Word, for it was said above (1:3): “All things were made through +him.” Therefore, the Father did not make something in such a way that the Son saw him doing +it and so learned from it.</p> +<p>But this is said so that the communication of paternity to the Son might be designated in terms +of begetting or generation, which is fittingly described by the verb sees, because knowledge is +conveyed to us by another through seeing and hearing. For we receive our knowledge from things +through seeing. and we receive knowledge from words through hearing, Now the Son is not other +than Wisdom, as we read: “I came forth out of the mouth of the Most High, the first-born before +all creatures” (Sir 24:5). Accordingly, the derivation of the Son from the Father is nothing other +than the derivation of divine Wisdom. And so, because the act of seeing indicates the derivation +of knowledge and wisdom from another, it is proper for the generation of the Son from the Father +to be indicated by an act of seeing; so that for the Son to see the Father doing something is +nothing other than to proceed by an intellectual procession from the acting Father.</p> +<p>Another possible explanation of this is given by Hilary. For him, the word sees eliminates all +imperfection from the generation of the Son or Word. For in physical generation, what is +generated changes little by little in the course of time from what is imperfect to what is perfect, +for such a thing is not perfect when it is first generated. But this is not so in eternal generation, +since this is the generation of what is perfect from what is perfect. And so he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">but only what +he sees the Father doing. </span>For since the act of seeing is the act of a perfect thing, it is plain that +the Son was begotten as perfect at once, as seeing at once, and not as coming to perfection over +a course of time.</p> +<p>751 Apropos of the second point, Chrysostom explains it as showing the conformity of the Father +to the Son in operation. So that the sense is: I say that it is lawful for me to work on the Sabbath, +because my Father, too, continues to work, and I cannot do anything opposed to him: and this is +because <span style="font-weight: bold">the Son cannot do anything of himself. </span>For one does something of himself when he +does not conform himself to another in his actions. But whoever is from another sins, if he is +opposed to him: “Whoever speaks on his own, seeks his own glory” (below 7:18). Therefore, +whoever exists from another, but acts of himself, sins. Now the Son is from the Father; thus, if +he acts of himself, he sins; and this is impossible. So by saying, <span style="font-weight: bold">the Son cannot do anything of +himself, </span>he means nothing more than that the Son cannot sin. As if to say: You are persecuting +me unjustly for breaking the Sabbath, because I cannot sin, since I do not act in a way opposed +to my Father.</p> +<p>Augustine makes use of both of these explanations, that of of Hilary and the one given by +Chrysostom, but in different places.</p> +<p>752 Then when he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">For whatever the Father does, the Son does likewise, </span>he affirms the +greatness of Christ’s power. He excludes three things in the power of Christ: limitation, +difference, and imperfection.</p> +<p>First, limitation is excluded. Since there are diverse agents in the world, and the first universal +agent has power over all other agents, but the other agents, which are from him, have a limited +power in proportion to their rank in the order of causality, some might think that since the Son +is not of himself, that he must have a power limited to certain existents, rather than a universal +power over all, as the Father has. And so to exclude this he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">whatever the Father does, </span>i.e., +to all the things to which the Father’s power extends, the Son’s power also extends: “All things +were made through him” (above 1:3).</p> +<p>Secondly, difference is excluded. For sometimes a thing that exists from another is able to do +whatever that from which it exists does. And yet the things the former does are not the same as +those done by that from which it is. For example, if one fire which exists from another can do +whatever that other does, i.e., cause combustion, the act of causing combustion would be +specifically the same in each, even though one fire ignites certain things and the other fire ignites +different things. And so that you do not think that the Son’s activity is different from the activity +of the Father in this way, he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">whatever</span> the Father does, the Son does, i.e., not different +things, but the very same.</p> +<p>Thirdly, imperfection is excluded. Sometimes one and the same thing comes from two agents: +from one as the principal and perfect agent, and from the other as an instrumental and imperfect +agent. But it does not come in the same way, because the principal agent acts in a different way +from the instrumental agent: for the instrumental agent acts imperfectly, and in virtue of the +other. And so that no one thinks that this is the way the Son does whatever the Father does, he +says that whatever the Father does, the Son does <span style="font-weight: bold">likewise</span>, i.e., with the same power by which +the Father acts, the Son also acts; because the same power and the same perfection are in the +Father and the Son: “I was with him, forming all things” (Prv 8:30).</p> +<p>753 Then when he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">For the Father loves the Son, </span>he gives the reason for each, i.e., for the +origin of the Son’s power and for its greatness. This reason is the love of the Father, who loves +the Son. Thus he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">For the Father loves the Son.</span></p> +<p>In order to understand how the Father’s love for the Son is the reason for the origin or +communication of the Son’s power, we Should point out that a thing is loved in two ways. For +since the good alone is loveable, a good can be related to love in two ways: as the cause of love, +or as caused by love. Now in us, the good causes love: for the cause of our loving something is +its goodness, the goodness in it. Therefore, it is not good because we love it, but rather we love +it because it is good. Accordingly. in us, love is caused by what is good. But it is different with +God, because God’s love itself is the cause of the goodness in the things that are loved. For it is +because God loves us that we are good, since to love is nothing else than to will a good to +someone. Thus, since God’s will is the cause of things, for “whatever he willed he made” (Ps +113:3), it is clear that God’s love is the cause of the goodness in things. Hence Denis says in <i>The +Divine Names</i> (c. 4) that the divine love did not allow itself to be without issue. So, if we wish +to consider the origin of the Son, let us see whether the love with which the Father loves the Son, +is the principle of his origin, so that he proceeds from it.</p> +<p>In divine realities, love is taken in two ways: essentially, so far as the Father and the Son and the +Holy Spirit love; and notionally or personally, so far as the Holy Spirit proceeds as Love. But in +neither of these ways of taking love can it be the principle of origin of the Son. For if is is taken +essentially, it implies an act of the will; and if that were the sense in which it is the principle of +origin of the Son, it would follow that the Father generated the Son, not by nature, but by +will—and this is false. Again, love is not understood notionally, as pertaining to the Holy Spirit. +For it would then follow that the Holy Spirit would be the principle of the Son—which is also +false. Indeed, no heretic ever went so far as to say this. For although love, notionally taken, is the +principle of all the gifts given to us by God, it is nevertheless not the principle of the Son; rather +it proceeds from the Father and the Son.</p> +<p>Consequently, we must say that this explanation is not taken from love as from a principle (<i>ex +principio</i>), but as from a sign (<i>ex signo</i>)<i>. </i>For since likeness is a cause of love (for every animal +loves its like), wherever a perfect likeness of God is found, there also is found a perfect love of +God. But the perfect likeness of the Father is in the Son, as is said: “He is the image of the +invisible God” (1:15); and “He is the brightness of the Father’s glory, and the image of his +substance” (Heb 1:3). Therefore, the Son is loved perfectly by the Father, and because the Father +perfectly loves the Son, this is a sign that the Father has shown him everything and has +communicated to him his very own [the Father’s] power and nature. And it is of this love that +we read above (3:5): “The Father loves the Son, and has put everything into his hands”; and, +“This is my beloved. Son” (Mt 3:17).</p> +<p>754 With respect to what follows, <span style="font-weight: bold">and shows him everything that he does, </span>we should point out +that someone can show another his works in two ways: either by sight, as an artisan shows his +apprentice the things he has made, or by hearing, as when he verbally instructs him). In whatever +of these ways shows is understood, there can follow something which is not appropriate, that is, +something that is not present when the Father shows things to the Son. For if we say the Father +shows things to the Son by sight, then it follows, as with humans, that the Father first does +something which he then shows to the Son; and that he does this by himself, without the Son. But +the Father does not show the Son things which he did before, for the Son himself says: “The Lord +possessed me at the beginning of his ways, before he made anything” (Prv 8:22). Nor does the +Father show the Son things he has done without the Son, for the Father does all things through +the Son: “All things were made through him” (above 1:3). If <span style="font-weight: bold">shows </span>is understood as a kind of +hearing, two things seem to follow. For the one who teaches by word first points out something +to the one who is ignorant; again, the word is something intermediate between the one showing +and the one being shown. But it is in neither of these ways that the Father shows things to the +Son: for he does not do so to one who is ignorant, since the Son is the Wisdom of the Father: +“Christ is the power of God, and the wisdom of God” (1 Cor 1:24); nor does the Father use some +intermediate word, because the Son himself is the Word of the Father: “The Word was with God” +(above 1:1).</p> +<p>Therefore, it is said that the Father <span style="font-weight: bold">shows </span>all that he does to the Son, inasmuch as he gives the +Son a knowledge of all of his works. For it is in this way that a master is said to show something +to his disciple, inasmuch as he gives him a knowledge of the things he makes. Hence, according +to Augustine, for the Father to show anything to the Son is nothing more than for the Father to +beget or generate the Son. And for the Son to see what the Father does is nothing more than for +the Son to receive his being (<i>esse</i>)<i> </i>and nature from the Father.</p> +<p>Nevertheless, this showing can be considered similar to seeing insofar as the Son is the +brightness of the paternal vision, as we read in Hebrews (1:3): for the Father, seeing and +understanding himself, conceives the Son, who is the concept of this vision. Again, it can be +considered similar to hearing insofar as the Son proceeds from the Father as the Word. As if to +say: <span style="font-weight: bold">The Father shows him everything, </span>insofar he he generates him as the brightness and +concept of his own wisdom, and as the Word. Thus the words, <span style="font-weight: bold">The Father shows, </span>refer to what +was said before: <span style="font-weight: bold">the Son cannot do anything of himself, but only what he sees the Father +doing. </span>And the word, everything, refers to, <span style="font-weight: bold">For whatever the Father does, the Son does +likewise.</span></p> +<p style="margin-bottom: 0.125in; margin-bottom: 0.125in"> </p> +<p style="text-align: center; margin-bottom: 0.125in"><span style="font-weight: bold">LECTURE 4</span></p> +<BLOCKQUOTE><p>20b “Indeed, he will show him even greater works than these, such that you will be amazed. 21 +For just as the Father raises the dead and grants life, so the Son grants life to those to whom he +wishes. 22 The Father himself judges no one, but he has given all judgment to the Son, 23 so that +all men may honor the Son as they honor the Father. Whoever does not honor the Son does not +honor the Father who sent him. 24 Amen, amen, I say to you, that whoever hears my voice and +believes in him who sent me, possesses eternal life; and he will not encounter judgment, but has +passed from death to life. 25 Amen, amen, I say to you, the hour is coming, and is now here, +when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God; and those who hear it will live.”</p></BLOCKQUOTE> +<p>755 Having pointed out the power of the Son in general, he now shows it in more detail. First, +the Lord discloses his life-giving power. Secondly, he clarifies what seemed obscure in what was +said before (v 26). As to the first he does two things. First, he shows that the Son has life-giving +power. Secondly, he teaches how life is received from the Son (v 24). Concerning the first he +does three things. First, he presents the life-giving power of the Son. Secondly, he gives a reason +for what he says (v 22). Thirdly, he shows the effect of this (v 23). With respect to the first he +does two things. First, he sets forth this life-giving power in general. Secondly, he expands on +it (v 21).</p> +<p>756 He says, to the first, <span style="font-weight: bold">Indeed, he will show even greater works than these. </span>As if to say: You +are astonished and affected by the power of the Son in his healing of the sick man, but the Father +will show <span style="font-weight: bold">even greater works than these, </span>as in raising the dead, such that you will be amazed.</p> +<p>757 This passage gives rise to two difficulties. First, about his saying, <span style="font-weight: bold">he will show</span>. For the +earlier statement that the Father shows everything to the Son (5:20) refers to his eternal +generation. How, then, can he say here, <span style="font-weight: bold">he will show</span>, if the Son is coeternal with him and +eternity does not allow of a future? The second difficulty is over, <span style="font-weight: bold">such that you will be amazed</span>. +For if he intends to show something to amaze the Jews, then he will be showing it to the Son at +the same time as to them; for they could not be amazed unless they saw it. And yet the Son saw +all things from eternity with the Father.</p> +<p>758 We must say that this is explained in three ways. The first way is given by Augustine, and +in it this future showing is referred to the disciples. For it is Christ’s custom that now and then +he says that what happens to his members happens to himself, as in Matthew (25:40): “As long +as you did it to one of the least of my brethren, you did it to me.” And then the meaning is this: +You saw the Son do something great in healing the sick man, and you were amazed; but the +Father <span style="font-weight: bold">will show him even greater works than these, </span>in his members, that is, the disciples: “He +will do greater things than these,” as we read below (14:12). He then says, <span style="font-weight: bold">such that you will +be amazed, </span>for the miracles of the disciples so amazed the Jews that a great many of them were +converted to the faith, as we see in the Acts.</p> +<p>759 The second explanation, also by Augustine, refers this showing to Christ according to his +assumed nature. For in Christ there is both a divine nature and a human nature, and in each he +has life-giving power from the Father, although not in the same way. According to his divinity +he has the power to give life to souls; but according to his assumed nature, he gives life to bodies. +Hence Augustine says: “The Word gives life to souls; but the Word made flesh gives life to +bodies.” For the resurrection of Christ and the mysteries which Christ fulfilled in his flesh are +the cause of the future resurrection of bodies: “God, who is rich in mercy, has brought us to life +in Christ” (Eph 2:5); “If it is preached that Christ rose from the dead, how can some of you say +that there is no resurrection of the dead” (1 Cor 15:12). The first life-giving power he has from +eternity; and he indicated this when he said: “The ‘ Father shows him everything that he does” +(above 4:20), all of which he shows to his flesh.</p> +<p>The other life-giving power he has in time, and concerning this he says: <span style="font-weight: bold">he will show him even +greater works than these, </span>i.e., his power will be shown by the fact that he will do greater works, +by raising the dead. He will raise some of the dead here: as Lazarus, the young girl, and the +mother’s only son; and finally he will raise all on the day of judgment.</p> +<p>760 A third explanation refers this showing to Christ in his divine nature, according to the +custom of Scripture in sayfng that a thing is beginning to take place when it is beginning to be +known. For example: “All power has been given to me, in heaven and on earth” (Mt 28:18); for +although Christ had the complete fulness of power from eternity (because “whatever the Father +does, the Son does likewise”), he still speaks of this power as being given to him after the +resurrection, not because he was then receiving it for the first time, but because it was through +the glory of the resurrection that it became most known. In this interpretation, then, he says that +power is given to him insofar as he exercises it in some work. As if to say: <span style="font-weight: bold">he will show him +even greater works than these, </span>i.e., he will show by his works what has been given to him. And +this will come about when you are amazed, i.e., when the one who seems to you to be a mere +man is revealed to be a person of divine power and as God.</p> +<p>We could also take the word show as referring to an act of seeing, as was explained above [750].</p> +<p>761 Now he explains in more detail the life-giving power of the Son by indicating those greater +works which the Father will show the Son (v 21). Here we should point out that in the Old +Testament the divine power is particularly emphasized by the fact that God is the author of life: +“The Lord kills, and brings to life” (1 Sm 2:6); “1 will kill, and bring to life again” (Dt 32:39). +Now just as the Father has this power, so also does the Son; hence he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">For just as the +Father raises the dead and grants life, so the Son grants life to those to whom he wishes. </span>As +if to say: These are those greater works that the Father will show the Son, that is, he will give life +to the dead. Such works are obviously greater, for it is greater to raise the dead than for a sick +man to become well. Thus <span style="font-weight: bold">the Son grants life to those to whom he wishes, </span>i.e., by giving initial +life to the living, and by raising the dead.</p> +<p>We should not think that some are raised up by the Father and others by the Son. Rather, the +same ones who are raised and vivified by the Father, are raised and vivified by the Son also: +because just as the Father does all things through the Son, who is his power, so he also gives life +to all through the Son, who is life, as he says below: “I am the way, and the truth, and the life” +(14:6).</p> +<p>The Father does not raise up and give life through the Son as through an instrument, because then +the Son would not have freedom of power. And so to exclude this he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">the Son grants life +to those to whom he wishes, </span>i.e., it lies in the freedom of his power to grant life to whom he +wills. For the Son does not will anything different than the Father wills: for just as they are one +substance, so they have one will; hence Matthew (20:15) says: “Is it not lawful for me to do as +I will?”</p> +<p>762 Then when he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">The Father himself judges no one, </span>he gives the reason for what was +said above, and indicates his own power. It should be remarked that there are two expositions for +the present passages: one is given by Augustine, and the other by Hilary and Chrysostom.</p> +<p>Augustine’s explanation is this. The Lord had said that just as the Father raises the dead, so also +does the Son. But so that we do not think that this refers only to those miracles the Son performs +in raising the dead to this life, and not to the Son’s raising to eternal life, he leads them to the +deeper consideration of the resurrection to occur at the future judgment. Thus he refers explicitly +to the judgment, saying, <span style="font-weight: bold">The Father himself judges no one.</span></p> +<p>Another explanation by Augustine, in which the same meaning is maintained, is that the earlier +statement, <span style="font-weight: bold">just as the Father raises the dead and grants life, so the Son, </span>should be referred +to the resurrection of souls, which the Son causes inasmuch as he is the Word; but the text, <span style="font-weight: bold">The +Father himself judges no one, </span>should be referred to the resurrection of bodies, which the Son +causes inasmuch as he is the Word made flesh. For the resurrection of souls is accomplished +through the person of the Father and of the Son; and for this reason he mentions the Father and +Son together, saying, <span style="font-weight: bold">just as the Father raises the dead ... so the Son. </span>But the resurrection of +bodies is accomplished through the humanity of the Son, according to which he is not coeternal +with the Father. Consequently, he attributes judgment solely to the Son.</p> +<p>763 Note the wonderful variety of expressions. The Father is first presented as acting and the Son +as resting, when it says: “the Son cannot do anything of himself, but only what he sees the Father +doing” (5:19); but here, on the contrary, the Son is presented as acting and the Father as resting: +<span style="font-weight: bold">The Father himself judges no one, but he has given all judgment to the Son. </span>We can see +from this that he is speaking from different points of view at different times. At first, he was +speaking of an action which belongs to the Father and the Son; thus he says that “the Son cannot +do anything of himself, but only what he sees the Father doing”; but here he is speaking of an +action by which the Son, as man, judges, and the Father does not: thus he says that the Father <span style="font-weight: bold">has +given all judgment to the Son. </span>For the Father will not appear at the judgment because, in accord +with what is just, God cannot appear in his divine nature before all who are to be judged: for +since our happiness consists in the vision of God, if the wicked were to see God in his own +nature, they would be enjoying happiness. Therefore, only the Son will appear, who alone has +an assumed nature. Therefore, he alone will judge who alone will appear to all. Yet he will judge +with the authority of the Father: “He is the one appointed by God to be the judge of the living and +of the dead” (Acts 10:42); and in the Psalm (71:1) we read: “O Lord, give your judgment to the +king.”</p> +<p>764 Then when he says, so <span style="font-weight: bold">that all men may honor the Son, </span>he gives the effect which results +from the power of the Son. First, he gives the effect. Secondly, he excludes an objection (v 23b).</p> +<p>765 He says that the Father has given all judgment to the Son, according to his human nature, +because in the incarnation the Son emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, under which +form he was dishonored by men, as is said below (8:49): “I honor my Father, and you have +dishonored me.” Therefore, judgment was given to the Son in his assumed nature in order <span style="font-weight: bold">that +all men may honor the Son as they honor the Father. </span>For on that day “they will see the Son +of Man coming with great power and glory” (Lk 21:27); “They fell on their faces and +worshipped, saying: ‘Blessing and glory, and wisdom and thanks, and honor, power and strength, +to our God’” (Rv 7:11).</p> +<p>766 Someone might say: I am willing to honor the Father, but do not care about the Son. This +cannot be, because <span style="font-weight: bold">Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent +him. </span>For it is one thing to honor God precisely as God, and another to honor the Father. For +someone may well honor God as the omnipotent and immutable Creator without honoring the +Son. But no one can honor God as Father without honoring the Son; for he cannot be called +Father if he does not have a Son. But if you dishonor the Son by diminishing his power, this also +dishonors the Father; because where you give less to the Son, you are taking away from the +power of the Father.</p> +<p>767 Another explanation, given by Augustine, is this. A twofold honor is due to Christ. One, +according to his divinity, in regard to which he is owed an honor equal to that given the Father; +and with respect to this he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">that all men may honor the Son as they honor the Father. +</span>Another honor is due the Son according to his humanity, but not one equal to that given the +Father; and with respect to this he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the +Father who sent him. </span>Thus in the first case he significantly used “as”; but now, the second time, +he does not say “as,” but states absolutely that the Son should be honored: “He who rejects you, +rejects me; and he who rejects me, rejects <span style="font-weight: bold">him who </span>sent me,” as we read in Luke (10:16).</p> +<p>768 Hilary and Chrysostom give a more literal explanation, but it is only slightly different. They +explain it this way. Our Lord said above, <span style="font-weight: bold">the Son grants life to those to whom he wishes. </span>Now +whoever does anything according to the free decision of his will acts because of his own +judgment. But it was stated above that “whatever the Father does, the Son does likewise” (5:19). +Therefore, the Son enjoys a free decision of his own will in all things, since he acts because of +his own judgment. Thus he immediately mentions judgment, saying that <span style="font-weight: bold">the Father himself +judges no one, </span>i.e., without or apart from the Son. Our Lord used this way of speaking below +(12:47): “I do not judge him,” i.e., I alone, “but the word that I have spoken will judge him on +the last day.” <span style="font-weight: bold">But he has given all judgment to the Son, </span>as he has given all things to him. For +as he has given him life and begotten him as living, so he has given him all judgment, i.e., +begotten him as judge: “I judge only as I hear it” (below 5:30), i.e., just as I have being (<i>esse</i>)<i> +</i>from the Father, so also judgment. The reason for this is that the Son is nothing other than the +conception of the paternal wisdom, as was said. But each one judges by the concept of his +wisdom. Hence, just as the Father does all things through the Son, so he judges all things through +him. And the fruit of this is <span style="font-weight: bold">that all men may honor the Son as they honor the Father, </span>i.e., that +they may render to him the cult of “latria” as they do the Father. The rest does not change.</p> +<p>769 Hilary calls our attention to the remarkable relationship of the passages so that the errors +concerning eternal generation can be refuted. Two heresies have arisen concerning this eternal +generation. One was that of Arius, who said that the Son is less than the Father; and this is +contrary to their equality and unity. The other was that of Sabellius, who said that that there is +no distinction of persons in the divinity; and this is contrary to their origin.</p> +<p>So, whenever he mentions the unity and equality [of the Father and Son] , he immediately also +adds their distinction as persons according to origin, and conversely. Thus, because he mentions +the origin of the persons when he says, “the Son cannot do anything of himself, but only what +he sees the Father doing” (5:19), then, so we do not think this involves inequality, he at once +adds: “for whatever the Father does, the Son does likewise.” Conversely, when he states their +equality by saying: <span style="font-weight: bold">For just as the Father raises the dead and grants life, so the Son grants +life to those to whom he wishes, </span>then, so that we do not deny that the Son has an origin and is +begotten, he adds, <span style="font-weight: bold">the Father himself judges no one, but he has given all judgment to the +Son. </span>Similarly, when he mentions the equality of the persons by saying. <span style="font-weight: bold">so that all men may +honor the Son as they honor the Father.</span> he immediately adds something about a “mission,” +which indicates an origin, saying: <span style="font-weight: bold">Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father +who sent him, </span>but not in such a way that involves a separation. Christ mentions such mission +below (8:29) in saying: “He who sent me is with me, and he has not left me alone.”</p> +<p>770 Above, our Lord showed that he had life-giving power; here he shows how someone can +share in this life coming from him. First, he tells how one can share in this life through him. +Secondly, he predicts its fulfillment (v 25).</p> +<p>771 With respect to the first, we should point out that there are four grades of life. One is found +in plants, which take nourishment, grow, reproduce, and are reproduced. Another is in animals +which only sense. Another in living things that move, that is, the perfect animals. Finally, there +is another form of life which is present in those who understand. Now among those grades of life +that exist, it is impossible that the foremost life be that found in plants, or in those with sensation, +or even in those with motion. For the first and foremost life must be that which is <i>per se, </i>not that +which is participated. This can be none other than intellectual life, for the other three forms are +common to a corporal and spiritual creature [as man]. Indeed, a body that lives is not life itself, +but one participating in life. Hence intellectual life is the first and foremost life, which is the +spiritual life, that is immediately received from the first principle of life, whence it is called the +life of wisdom. For this reason in the Scriptures life is attributed to wisdom: “He who finds me +finds life, and has salvation from the Lord” (Prv 8:35). Therefore we share life from Christ, who +is the Wisdom of God, insofar as our soul receives wisdom from him.</p> +<p>Now this intellectual life is made perfect by the true knowledge of divine Wisdom, which is +eternal life: “This is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, +whom you have sent” (below 17:3). But no one can arrive at any wisdom except by faith. Hence +it is that in the sciences, no one acquires wisdom unless he first believes what is said by his +teacher. Therefore, if we wish to acquire this life of wisdom, we must believe through faith the +things that are proposed to us by it. “He who comes to God must believe that he is and rewards +those who seek him” (Heb 11:6); “If you do not believe, you will not understand,” as we read in +another version of Isaiah (28:16).</p> +<p>772 Thus, our Lord fittingly shows that the way of obtaining life is through faith, saying, +<span style="font-weight: bold">whoever hears my voice and believes in him who sent me, possesses eternal life. </span>First, he +mentions the merit of faith. Secondly, the reward of’ faith, <span style="font-weight: bold">eternal life.</span></p> +<p>773 Concerning the merit of faith, he first indicates how faith is brought to us; and secondly, the +foundation of faith, that on which it rests.</p> +<p>Faith comes to us through the words of men: “Faith comes through hearing, and hearing through +the word of Christ” (Rom 10:17). But faith does not rest on man’s word, but on God himself: +“Abram believed God, who counted this as his justification” (Gn 15:6); “You who fear the Lord, +believe in him” (Sir 2:8). Thus we are lead to believe through the words of men, not in the man +himself who speaks, but in God, whose words he speaks: “When you heard the word we brought +you as God’s word, you did not receive it as the word of men, but, as what it really is, the word +of God” (1 Thes 2:13). Our Lord mentions these two things. First, how faith is brought to us, +when he says, whoever hears my voice [literally, word], which leads to faith. Secondly, he +mentions that on which faith rests, saying, <span style="font-weight: bold">and believes in him who sent me, </span>i.e., not in me, but +in him in virtue of whom I speak.</p> +<p>This text can apply to Christ, as man, insofar as it is through Christ’s human words that men were +converted to the faith. And it can apply to Christ, as God, insofar as Christ is the Word of God. +For since Christ is the Word of God, it is clear that those who heard Christ were hearing the +Word of God, and as a consequence, were believing in God. And this is what he says: whoever +hears my word, i.e., me, the Word of God, and believes in him, i.e., the Father, whose Word I am.</p> +<p>774 Then when he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">possesses eternal life, </span>he mentions the reward of faith, and states three +things we will possess in the state of glory; but they are mentioned in reverse order. First, there +will be the resurrection from the dead. Secondly, we will have freedom from the future judgment. +Thirdly, we will enjoy everlasting life, for as we read in Matthew (c 25), the just will enter into +everlasting life. He mentions these three as belonging to the reward of faith; and the third was +mentioned first since it is desired more than the others.</p> +<p>775 So he says, whoever believes, i.e., through faith, <span style="font-weight: bold">possesses eternal life, </span>which consists in +the full vision of God. And it is fitting that one who believes on account of God certain things +that he does not see, should be brought to the full vision of these things: “These things are written +that you may believe ... and that believing you may have life in his name” (below 20:31).</p> +<p>776 He mentions the second when he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">and he will not encounter judgment. </span>But the +Apostle says something which contradicts this: “We must all appear before the judgment seat of +Christ” (2 Cor 5:10), even the apostles. Therefore, even one who does believe will encounter +judgment. I answer that there are two kinds of judgment. One is a judgment of condemnation, +and no one encounters that judgment if he believes in God with a faith that is united with love +[ a “formed faith”]. We read about this judgment: “Do not enter into judgment with your servant, +for no living man is just in your sight”; and it was said above (3:18): “Whoever believes is not +judged.” There is also a judgment of separation and examination; and, as the Apostle says, all +must present themselves before the tribunal of Christ for this judgment. Of this judgment we +read: “Judge me, O God, and distinguish my cause from those people who are not holy” (Ps +42:1).</p> +<p>777 Thirdly, he mentions a reward when he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">but has passed from death to life, </span>or “will +pass,” as another version says. This statement can be explained in two ways. First, it can refer +to the resurrection of the soul. In this case the obvious meaning is that he is saying: Through faith +we attain not only to eternal life and freedom from judgment, but also to the forgiveness of our +sins as well. Hence he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">but has passed, </span>from unbelief to belief, from injustice to justice: +“We know that we have passed from death to life” (1 Jn 3:14).</p> +<p>Secondly, this statement can be explained as referring to the resurrection of the body. Then it is +an elaboration of the phrase, <span style="font-weight: bold">possesses eternal life</span>. For some might think from what was said, +that whoever believes in God will never die, but live forever. But this is impossible, because all +men must pay the debt incurred by the. first sin, according to: “Where is the man who lives, and +will not see death?” (Ps 88:49). Consequently, we should not think that one who believes has +eternal life in such a way as never to die; rather, he will pass from thi’s life, through death, to life, +i.e., through the death of the body he will be revived to eternal life.</p> +<p>Or, “will pass,” might refer to the cause [of one’s resurrection] for when a person believes, he +already has the merit for a glorious resurrection: “Your dead will live, your slain will rise” (Is +26:19). And then, once released from the death of the old man, we will receive the life of the new +man, that is, Christ.</p> +<p>778 <span style="font-weight: bold">Amen, amen, I say to you... </span>Since some might doubt if any would pass from death to life, +our Lord predicts that this will happen, saying: I say that he [who believes] “will pass from death +to life”; and I say it before it actually occurs. And this is what he states, saying: <span style="font-weight: bold">Amen, amen, +I say to you, the hour is coming, </span>not determined by a necessity of fate, but by God’s decree: “It +is the last hour” (1 Jn 2:18). And so that we do not think that it is far off, he adds, <span style="font-weight: bold">and is now +here </span>“it is now the time for us to rise froin sleep” (Rom 13:11)—i.e., the hour is now here <span style="font-weight: bold">when +the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God; and those who hear it will live.</span></p> +<p>779 This can be explained in two ways. In one way as referring to the resurrection of the body, +and so it is said that <span style="font-weight: bold">the hour is coming, and is now here, </span>as if he had said: It is true that +eventually all will rise, but even now is the hour when some, whom the Lord was about to +resuscitate, <span style="font-weight: bold">shall hear the voice of the Son of God. </span>This is the way Lazarus heard it when it was +said to him, “Come forth,” as we read below (11:43); and in this way the daughter of the leader +of the synagogue heard it (Mt 9:18); and the widow’s son (Lk 7:12). Therefore, he says +significantly, <span style="font-weight: bold">and is now here, </span>because through me the dead already are beginning to be raised.</p> +<p>Another explanation is given by Augustine, according to which <span style="font-weight: bold">and is now here </span>refers to the +resurrection of the soul. For as was said above, resurrection is of two kinds: the resurrection of +bodies, which will happen in the future; this does not take place now, but will occur at the future +judgment. The other is the resurrection of souls from the death of unbelief to the life of faith, and +from the life of injustice to that of justice; and this is now here. Hence he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">the hour is +coming, and is now here, when the dead, </span>i.e., unbelievers and sinners, <span style="font-weight: bold">shall hear the voice of +the Son of God; and those who hear it will live, </span>according to the true faith.</p> +<p>780 This passage seems to imply two strange occurrences. One, when he says that the dead will +hear. The other, when he adds that it is through hearing that they will come to life again, as +though hearing comes before life, whereas hearing is a certain function of life. However, if we +refer this to the resurrection, it is true that the dead will hear, i.e., obey the voice of the Son of +God. For the voice expresses the interior concept. Now all nature obeys the slightest command +of the divine will: “He calls into existence what does not exist” (Rom 4:17). According to this, +then, wood, stones, all things, not just the dry bones but also the dust of dead bodies, <span style="font-weight: bold">shall hear +the voice of the Son of God </span>so far as they obey his slightest will. And this belongs to Christ, not +insofar as he is the Son of Man, but insofar as he is the Son of God, because all things obey the +Word of God. And so he significantly says, <span style="font-weight: bold">of the Son of God; </span>“What kind of man is this, for +the sea and winds obey him?” (Mt 8:27).</p> +<p>If this statement (25b) is understood as referring to the resurrection of souls, then the reason for +it is this: the voice of the Son of God has a life-giving power, that voice by which he moves the +hearts of the faithful interiorly by inspiration, or exteriorly by his preaching and that of others: +“The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life” (below 6:64). And so he gives life to the +dead when he justifies the wicked. And since hearing is the way to life, either of nature through +obedience, namely, by repairing nature, or the hearing of faith by repairing life and justice, he +therefore says, <span style="font-weight: bold">and those who hear it, </span>by obedience as to the resurrection of the body, or by faith +as to the resurrection of souls, will live, in the body in eternal life, and injustice in the life of +grace.</p> +<p style="margin-bottom: 0.125in; margin-bottom: 0.125in"> </p> +<p style="text-align: center; margin-bottom: 0.125in"><span style="font-weight: bold">LECTURE 5</span></p> +<BLOCKQUOTE><p>26 “Indeed, just as the Father possesses life in himself, so he has given it to the Son to have life +in himself. 27 And he [the Father] gave him the power to pass judgment, because he is the Son +of Man. 28 Do not be surprised at this, since the hour is coming when all those burried in tombs +will hear the voice of the Son of God. 29 And those who have done well will come forth to a +resurrection of life; those who have done evil will come forth to a resurrection of judgment [i.e., +condemnation]. 30 I cannot do anything of myself, but I judge only as I hear it; and my judgment +is just, because I am not seeking my own will, but the will of him who sent me.”</p></BLOCKQUOTE> +<p>781 Above, our Lord showed that he had the power to give life and to judge; and he explained +each by its effect. Here he shows how each of these powers belongs to him. First, he shows this +with respect to his life-giving power. Secondly, with respect to his power to judge (v 27).</p> +<p>782 So he says, first: I say that as the Father raises the dead, so I do also; and anyone who hears +my word has eternal life. And I possess this because, <span style="font-weight: bold">just as the Father possesses life in +himself, so he has given it to the Son to have life in himself.</span></p> +<p>Apropos of this, we should note that some who live do not have life in themselves: as Paul, “I +am living by faith in the Son of God” (Gal 2:20); and again in the same place: “it is not I who +now live, but Christ lives in me.” Thus he lived, yet not in himself, but in another through whom +he lived: as a body lives, although it does not have life in itself, but in a soul through which it +lives. So that has life in itself which has an essential, non-participated life, i.e., that which is itself +life. Now in every genus of things, that which is something through its essence is the cause of +those things that are it by participation, as fire is the cause of all things afire. And so, that which +is life through its essence, is the cause and principle of all life in living things. Accordingly, if +something is to be a principle of life, it must be life through its essence. And so our Lord fittingly +shows that he is the principle of all life by saying that he has life in himself, i.e., through his +essence, when he says: <span style="font-weight: bold">just as the Father possesses life in himself, </span>i.e., as he is living through +his essence, so does the Son. Therefore, as the Father is the cause of life, so also is his Son.</p> +<p>Further, he shows the equality of the Son to the Father when he says, as <span style="font-weight: bold">the Father possesses +life in himself; </span>and he shows their distinction when he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">he has given it to the Son</span>. For the +Father and the Son are equal in life; but they are distinct, because the Father gives, and the Son +receives. However, we should not understand this to mean that the Son receives life from the +Father as if the Son first existed without having life, as in lower things a first matter, already +existing, receives a form, and as a subject receives accidents: because in the Son there is nothing +that exists prior to the reception of life. For as Hilary says: “the Son has nothing unless it is +begotten,” i.e., nothing but what he receives through his birth. And since the Father is life itself, +the meaning of, <span style="font-weight: bold">he has given it to the Son to have life in himself, </span>is that the Father produced +the Son as living. As if one were to say: the mind gives life to the word, not as though the word +existed and then receives life, but because the mind produces the word in the same life by which +it lives.</p> +<p>783 According to Hilary, this passage destroys three heresies. First, that of the Arians, who said +that the Son is inferior to the Father. They were forced by what was stated earlier, that is, “For +whatever the Father does, the Son does likewise” (5:19), to say that the Son is equal to the Father +in power; but they still denied that the Son is equal to the Father in nature. But now, this too is +refuted by this statement, namely, <span style="font-weight: bold">just as the Father possesses life in himself, so he has given +it to the Son to have life in himself. </span>For since life pertains to the nature, if the Son has life in +himself as does the Father, it is clear that he has in himself, by his very origin, a nature indivisible +froin and equal to that ofthe Father.</p> +<p>The second error is also Arian: their denial that the Son is coeternal with the Father, when they +say that the Son began to exist in time. This is destroyed when he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">the Son has life in +himself. </span>For in all living things whose generation occurs in time, it is always possible to find +something that at some time or other was not living. But in the Son, whatever is, is life itself. +Consequently, he so received life itself that he has life in himself, so as always to have been +living.</p> +<p>Thirdly, by saying, <span style="font-weight: bold">he has given, </span>he destroys the error of Sabellius, who denied the distinction +of persons. For if the Father gave life to the Son, it is obvious that the Father, who gave it, is +other than the Son, who received it.</p> +<p>784 Then (v 27), he makes it clear that he has the power to judge. First, he reveals his judiciary +power. Secondly, he gives a reason for what he has said (v 30). As to the first he does two things. +First, he indicates the origin of his judiciary power. Secondly, he shows that his judgment is just +(v 29).</p> +<p>785 With regard to the first, we should note that his statement, <span style="font-weight: bold">he [the Father] gave him the +power, </span>can be understood in two ways. One way is that of Augustine; the other is that of +Chrysostom.</p> +<p>786 If we understand it as Chrysostom does, then this section is divided into two parts. First, he +reveals the origin of his judiciary power. Secondly, he settles a difficulty (v 27b).</p> +<p>Chrysostom punctuates this section in the following way. <span style="font-weight: bold">He gave him the power to pass +judgment. </span>And then a new sentence begins: <span style="font-weight: bold">Because he is the Son of Man, do not be +surprised at this. </span>The reason for this punctuation is that Paul of Samosata, an early heretic, who +like Photius said that Christ was only a man and took his origin from the Virgin, punctuated it +as: <span style="font-weight: bold">He gave him the power to pass judghnent because he is the Son of Man. </span>And then he +began a new sentence: <span style="font-weight: bold">Do not be surprised at this, since the hour is coming. </span>It was as if he +thought that it was necessary for judiciary power to be given to Christ because he is the Son of +Man, that is, a mere man, who, of himself, cannot judge men. And so, if Christ is to judge others, +he must be given the power to judge.</p> +<p>But this, according to Chrysostom, cannot stand, because it is not at all in agreement with what +is stated. For if it is because he is a man that he receives judiciary power, then for the same +reason, since it would belong to every man to have judiciary power in virtue of his human nature, +it would not belong to Christ any more than to other men. So we should not understand it this +way. Rather, we should say that because Christ is the ineffable Son of God, he is on that account +also judge. And this is what he says: The Father not only give him the power to give life, but <span style="font-weight: bold">also +he gave him the power, </span>through eternal <span style="font-weight: bold">generation, to pass judgment, </span>just as he gave him, +through eternal generation, to have life in himself: “He is the one appointed by God to be the +judge of the living and of the dead,” as we read in Acts (10:42).</p> +<p>He settles a difficulty when he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">Do not be surprised at this. </span>First, he mentions the +difficulty. Secondly, he clears it up.</p> +<p>787 The difficulty arose in the minds of the Jews and they were surprised because while they +thought that Christ was no more than a man, he was saying things about himself that surpassed +man and even the angels. So he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">Do not be surprised at this, </span>that is, that I have said that +the Son gives life to the dead and has the power to judge precisely <span style="font-weight: bold">because he is the Son of +Man. </span>They were surprised because, although they thought he was only a man, they saw that he +accomplished divine effects: “What kind of man is this, for the sea and winds obey him?” (Mt +8:27). And he gives a reason why they should not be surprised, which is, because he who is the +Son of Man is the Son of God. Although, as Chrysostom says, is it not said explicitly that the Son +of Man is the Son of God, our Lord lays down the premises from which this statement necessarily +follows: just as we notice that those who use syllogisms in their teaching do not express their +main conclusion, but only that from which it follows with necessity. So our Lord does not say +that he is the Son of God, but that the Son of Man is such that at his voice all the dead will rise. +From this it necessarily follows that he is the Son of God: for it is a proper effect of God to raise +the dead. Thus he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">Do not be surprised at this, since the hour is coming when all those +burried in tombs will hear the voice of the Son of God. </span>But he does not say of this hour, as +he said above, “and is now here” (5:25). Again, here he says, all, which he did not say above: +because at the first resurrection he raised only some, as Lazarus, the widow’s son and the young +girl; but at the future resurrection, at the time of judgment, <span style="font-weight: bold">all will hear the voice of the Son of +God, </span>and will rise. “I will open your graves, and lead you out of your tombs” (Ez 37:12).</p> +<p>788 Augustine punctuates this passage in the following way. <span style="font-weight: bold">And he gave him the power to +pass judgment because he is the Son of Man. </span>And then a new sentence follows: <span style="font-weight: bold">Do not be +surprised at this. </span>In this interpretation there are two parts. The first concerns the power to judge +granted to the Son of Man. In the second, the granting of an even greater power is made clear, +at <span style="font-weight: bold">Do not be surprised at this.</span></p> +<p>789 As to the first we should note that, according to the mind of Augustine, he spoke above of +the resurrection of souls, which is accomplished through the Son of God, but here he is speaking +of the resurrection of bodies, which is accomplished through the Son of Man. And because the +general resurrection of bodies will take place at the time of judgment, he mentions the judgment +first, in saying, <span style="font-weight: bold">And he [the Father] gave him, </span>i.e., Christ, <span style="font-weight: bold">the power to pass Judgment, </span>and +this, <span style="font-weight: bold">because he is the Son of Man, </span>i.e., according to his human nature. Thus it is also after the +resurrection that he says in Matthew (28:18): “All power has been given to me, in heaven and +on earth.”</p> +<p>There are three reasons why judiciary power has been given to Christ as man. First, in order that +he might be seen by all: for it is necessary that a judge be seen by all who are to be judged. Now +both the good and the wicked will be judged. And the good will see Christ in his divinity and in +his humanity; while the wicked will not be able to see him in his divinity, because this vision is +the happiness of the saints and is seedonly by the pure in heart: “Happy are the pure in heart, for +they will see God” (Mt 5:8). And so, in order that Christ can be seen at the judgment not only by +the good, but also by the wicked, he will judge in human form: “Every eye will see him, and all +who pierced him” (Rv 1:7).</p> +<p>Secondly, the power to judge was given to Christ as man because by the self-abasement of his +passion he merited the glory of an exaltation. Thus, just as he who died arose, so that [human] +form which was judged, will judge, and he who stood before a human judge will preside at the +judgment of men. He who was falsely found guilty will condemn the truly guilty, as Augustine +remarks in his work, <i>The Sayings of the Lord. </i>“Your cause has been judged as that of the wicked; +but cause and judgment you will recover” (Jb 3 6.17).</p> +<p>Thirdly, Christas man was given judiciary power to suggest the compassion of the judge. For it +is very terrifying for a man to be judged by God: “It is a terrible thing to fall into the hands of the +living God” (Heb 10:31); but it produces confidence for a man to have another man as his judge. +Accordingly, so you can experience the compassion of your judge, you will have a man as judge: +“We do not have a high priest who cannot have compassion on our weakness” (Heb 4:15).</p> +<p>Thus, <span style="font-weight: bold">he gave him</span>, Christ, <span style="font-weight: bold">the power to pass judgment because he is the Son of Man.</span></p> +<p>790 <span style="font-weight: bold">Do not be surprised at this, </span>for he has given him a greater power, that is, the power to raise +the dead. Thus he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">since the hour is coming, </span>that is, the last hour at the end of the world: +“The time has come, the day of slaughter is near” (Ez 7:7), <span style="font-weight: bold">when all those burried in tombs will +hear the voice of the Son of God. </span>Above he did not say “all,” because there he was speaking +of the spiritual resurrection, in which all did not rise at his first coming, for we read: “All do not +have faith” (2 Thes 3:2). But here he is speaking of the resurrection of the body, and all will rise +in this way, as we read in 1 Corinthians (15:20). He adds, <span style="font-weight: bold">those burried in tombs, </span>which he had +not mentioned above, because only bodies, not souls, are in tombs, and it is the resurrection of +bodies that will then take place.</p> +<p><span style="font-weight: bold">All those burried in tombs will hear the voice of the Son of God. </span>This voice will be a sense +perceptible sign of the Son of God, at whose sound all will be raised: “The Lord will come with +the cry of the archangel and with the trumpet of God” (1 Thes 4:15); we find the same in 1 +Corinthians (15:52) and in Matthew (25:6): “There was a cry at midnight.” This voice will derive +its power from the divinity of Christ: “He will make his voice a powerful voice,” as the Psalm +(67:34) says.</p> +<p>791 As we saw, Augustine says that the resurrection of the body will be accomplished through +the Word made flesh, but the resurrection of the soul is accomplished through the Word. One +may wonder how to understand this: whether we are talking about a first cause or a meritorious +cause. If we are referring to a first cause, then it is clear that the divinity of Christ is the cause of +the corporal and spiritual resurrection, i.e., of the resurrection of bodies and of souls, according +to: “I will kill, and I will bring to life again” (Dt 32:39). But if we are referring to a meritorious +cause, then it is the humanity of Christ which is the cause of both resurrections: because through +the mysteries accomplished in the flesh of Christ we are restored not only to an incorruptible life +in our bodies, but also to a spiritual life in our souls: “He was put to death on account of our sins, +and he rose for our justification” (Rom 4:25). Accordingly, what Augustine says does not seem +to be true.</p> +<p>I answer that Augustine is speaking of the exemplary cause and of that cause by which that which +is brought to life is made conformable to that which brings it to life: for everything that lives +through another is conformed to that through which it lives. Now the resurrection of souls does +not consist in souls being conformed to the humanity of Christ, but to the Word, because the life +of the soul is through the Word alone; and so he says that the resurrection of souls takes place +through the Word. But the resurrection of the body will consist in our bodies being conformed +to the body of Christ through the life of glory, that is, through the glory of our bodies, according +to: “He will change our lowly body so it is like his glorious body” (Phil 3:2 1). And it is from this +point of view that he says that the resurrection of the body will take place through the Word made +flesh.</p> +<p>792 Then (v 29), he shows the justness of his judgment: because the good will be rewarded, and +so he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">And those who have done well will come forth to a resurrection of life, </span>i.e., to +living in eternal glory; but the wicked will be damned, and so he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">those who have done evil +will come forth to a resurrection of judgment [i.e., condemnation], </span>i.e., they will rise for +condemnation: “These,” the wicked, “will go into everlasting punishment; but the just will go +to eternal life” (Mt 25:46); “Many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some +to an everlasting life, and others to everlasting shame” (Dn 12:2).</p> +<p>793 Note than when he was speaking above of the resurrection of souls, he said, “those who hear +it,” the voice of the Son of God, “will live” (5:25); but here he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">will come forth. </span>He says +this because of the wicked, who will be condemned: for their life should not be called a life, but +rather an eternal death. Again, above he mentioned only faith, saying, “Whoever hears my voice +and believes in him who sent me, possesses eternal life; and he will not encounter judgment” +(5:24). But here he mentions works, so that we do not think that faith alone, without works, is +sufficient for salvation, saying: <span style="font-weight: bold">And those who have done well will come forth to a +resurrection of life. </span>As if to say: <span style="font-weight: bold">Those will come forth to a resurrection of life </span>who do not +just believe, but who have accomplished good works along with their faith: “Faith without works +is dead,” as we see from James (2:26).</p> +<p>794 Then when he says, I cannot do anything of myself, he gives the reason for what he has just +said. Now he had spoken of two things: the origin of his power, and the justness of his judgment. +Consequently, he mentions the reason for each.</p> +<p>795 The first point, when he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">I cannot do anything of myself, </span>can be understood in two +ways, even according to Augustine. First, as referring to the Son of Man in this manner: You say +that you have the power to raise the dead because you are the Son of Man. But do you have this +power precisely because you are the Son of Man? No, because <span style="font-weight: bold">I cannot do anything of myself, +but I judge only as I hear it. </span>He does not say, “as I see,” as he said above; “The Son cannot do +anything of himself, but only what he sees the Father doing” (5:19). But he does say, <span style="font-weight: bold">as I hear +it: </span>for in this context “to hear” is the same as “to obey.” Now to obey belongs to one who +receives a command, while to command pertains to one who is superior. Accordingly, because +Christ, as man, is inferior to the Father, he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">as I hear it, </span>i.e., as infused into my soul by God. +We read of this kind of hearing in Psalm 84 (v 9): “1 will hear what the Lord God says in me.” +But above he said “sees,” because he was then speaking of himself as the Word of God.</p> +<p>796 Then when he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">and my judgment is just, </span>he shows the justness of his judgment. For +he had said: “Those who have done well will come forth to a resurrection of life.” But some +might say: Will he be partial and uneven when he punishes and rewards? So he answers: No, +saying: <span style="font-weight: bold">my judgment is just; </span>and the reason is <span style="font-weight: bold">because I am not seeking my own will, but the +will of him who sent me. </span>For there are two wills in our Lord Jesus Christ: one is a divine will, +which is the same as the will of the Father; the other is a human will, which is proper to himself, +just as it is proper to him to be a man. A human will is borne to its own good; but in Christ it was +ruled and regulated by right reason, so that it would always be conformed in all things to the +divine will. Accordingly he says: <span style="font-weight: bold">I am not seeking my own will, </span>which as such is inclined to +its own good, <span style="font-weight: bold">but the will of him who sent me, </span>that is, the Father: “I have desired to do your +will, my God” (Ps 39:9); “Not as I will, but as you will” (Mt 26:39).</p> +<p>If this is carefully considered, the Lord is assigning the true nature of a just judgment, saying: +<span style="font-weight: bold">because I am not seeking my own will. </span>For one’s judgment is just when it is passed according +to the norm of law. But the divine will is the norm and the law of the created will. And so, the +created will, and the reason, which is regulated according to the norm of the divine will, is just, +and its judgment is just.</p> +<p>797 Secondly, it is explained as referring to the Son of God; and then the aforesaid division still +remains the same. Thus Christ, as the Divine Word showing the origin of his power, says: <span style="font-weight: bold">I +cannot do anything of myself, </span>in the way he said above, “the Son cannot do anything of +himself” (5:19). For his very doing and his power are his being (<i>esse</i>); but being (<i>esse</i>)<i> </i>in him +is from another, that is, from his Father. And so, just as he is not of himself (a <i>se</i>), so of himself +he cannot do anything: “I do nothing of myself” (below 8:28).</p> +<p>His statement, <span style="font-weight: bold">I judge only as I hear it, </span>is explained as his previous statement, “only what he +sees the Father doing” (above 5:19). For we acquire science or any knowledge through sight and +hearing (for these two senses are those most used in learning). But because sight and hearing are +different is us, we acquire knowledge in one way through sight, that is, by discovering things, and +in a different way through hearing, that is, by being taught. But in the Son of God, sight and +hearing are the same; thus, when he says either “sees” or “hears,” the meaning is the same so far +as the acquisition of knowledge is concerned. And because judgment in any intelletual nature +comes from knowledge, he says significantly, <span style="font-weight: bold">I judge only as I hear it, </span>i.e., as I have acquired +knowledge together with heing from the Father, so I judge: “Everything I have heard from my +Father I have made known to you” (below 15:15).</p> +<p>798 Showing the justness of his judgment he says: <span style="font-weight: bold">and my judgment is just: </span>the reason being, +<span style="font-weight: bold">because I am not seeking my own will</span>. But do not the Father and the Son have the same will? +I answer that the Father and the Son do have the same will, but the Father does not have his will +from another, whereas the Son does have his will from another, i.e., from the Father. Thus the +Son accomplishes his own will as from another, i.e., as having it from another; but the Father +accomplishes his will as his own, i.e., not having it from another. Thus he says: <span style="font-weight: bold">I am not seeking +my own will</span>, that is, such as would be mine if it originated from myself, but my will, as being +from another, that is from the Father.</p> +<p style="margin-bottom: 0.125in; margin-bottom: 0.125in"> </p> +<p style="text-align: center; margin-bottom: 0.125in"><span style="font-weight: bold">LECTURE 6</span></p> +<BLOCKQUOTE><p style=margin-left:0.5in>31 “If I were to bear witness to myself, +<br>my testimony would not be valid. +<br>32 But there is someone else who testifies +<br>on my behalf, and I know that the witness +<br>he bears on my behalf is true. +<br>33 You sent [messengers] to John; +<br>and he bore witness to the truth. +<br>34 I myself do not need proof from men; +<br>but I say this in order that you may be saved. +<br>35 He was a lamp, blazing and burning brightly. +<br>And for a while you yourselves exulted in his light. +<br>36 But I have testimony that is greater than that of John. +<br>The very works which my Father has given me +<br>to perform—those works that I myself perform— +<br>they bear witness to me that the Father sent me. +<br>37 Moreover, the Father who sent me has himself +<br>given testimony on my behalf, +<br>but you have neither heard his voice, +<br>nor seen his image; +<br>38 and you do not have his word abiding in your hearts, +<br>for you do not believe in him whom he has sent. +<br>39 Search the Scriptures, +<br>since you think you have eternal life in them; +<br>they too bear witness to me. +<br>40 Yet you are unwilling to come to me +<BR>in order to possess that life.”</p></BLOCKQUOTE> +<p>799 Having given us the teaching on the life-giving power of the Son, he now confirms it. First, +he confirms, with several testimonies, what he had said about the excellence of his power. In the +second place, he reproves them because of their slowness to believe (v 41). He does two things +about the first. First, he states why there was a need to resort to such testimonies. Secondly, he +invokes the testimonies (v 32).</p> +<p>800 The need to appeal to testimony arose because the Jews did not believe in him; for this +reason he says: <span style="font-weight: bold">If I were to bear witness to myself, my testimony would not be valid </span>(<i>verum</i>, +valid, true). Some may find this statement puzzling: for if our Lord says of himself, “I am the +truth” (below 14:6), how can his testimony not be valid? If he is the truth, in whom shall one +believe if the truth itself is not believed in? We may answer, according to Chrysostom, that our +Lord is speaking here of himself from the point of view of the opinion of others, so that his +meaning is: <span style="font-weight: bold">If I were to bear witness to myself, my testimony would not be valid </span>so far as +your outlook is concerned, because you do not accept what I say about myself unless it is +confirmed by other testimony: “You are bearing witness to yourself; your testimony is not valid” +(below 8:13).</p> +<p>801 Next, he presents these testimonies: first, a human testimony; secondly, a divine testimony. +He does two things about the first. First, he mentions the testimony of John; secondly, he tells +why this testimony was given (v 34). With respect to the first he does two things. First, he brings +in the testimony; secondly, he commends it (v 32).</p> +<p>802 He brings on the witness when he says: <span style="font-weight: bold">But there is someone else who testifies on my +behalf. </span>This is, in the opinion of Chrysostom, John the Baptist, of whom we read above: “There +was a man sent by God, whose name was John. He came as a witness, that he might bear witness +to the light” (1:6).</p> +<p>803 He commends John’s testimony on two grounds: first, because of its truth; secondly, because +of its authority, for the Jews had sought it (v 33).</p> +<p>804 He commends his testimony because of its truth, saying: <span style="font-weight: bold">And I know, </span>from certain +experience, that the witness he, that is, John, <span style="font-weight: bold">bears on my behalf is true. </span>His father, Zechariah, +had prophesied this of him: “You will go before the face of the Lord to prepare his way, to give +his people a knowledge of salvation” (Lk 1:76). Now it is obvious that false testimony is not a +testimony that saves, because lying is a cause of death: “A lying mouth kills the soul” (Wis 1:11). +Therefore, if John’s testimony was for the purpose of giving knowledge of salvation to his +people, his testimony is true.</p> +<p>805 The Gloss has a different explanation of this: <span style="font-weight: bold">If I were to bear witness to myself, my +testimony would not be valid. </span>For above, Christ was referring to himself as God, but here he +is referring to himself as a man. And the meaning is: If I, namely, a man, were to bear witness +to myself, i.e., apart from God, that is, which God the Father does not certify, then it follows that +<span style="font-weight: bold">my testimony would not be valid, </span>for human speech has no truth unless it is supported by God, +according to: “God is true, but every man is a liar” (Rom 3:4). Thus, if we take Christ as a man +separated from the Deity and not in conformity with it, we find a lie both in his essence and in +his words: “Although I bear witness to myself, my testimony is true” (below 8:14); “I am not +alone, because the Father is with me” (below 16:32). And so, because he was not alone but with +the Father, his testimony is true.</p> +<p>Accordingly, to show that his testimony is true, not in virute of his humanity considered in itself, +but in so far as it is united to his divinity and to the Word of God, he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">But there is someone +else who testifies on my behalf</span>: not John, but the Father, according to this explanation. Because +if the testimony of Christ as man is not of itself true and productive, much less is the testimony +of John. Therefore, the testimony of Christ is not verified by the testimony of John, but by the +testimony of the Father. So this someone else who testifies is understood to be the Father. <span style="font-weight: bold">And +I know that the witness he bears on my behalf is true</span>, for he is truth: “God is light, “‘ i.e., +truth, “and in him there is no darkness,” i.e., lie (1 Jn 1:5).</p> +<p>The first explanation, which is that given by Chrysostom, is nearer to the letter of the text.</p> +<p>806 He also commends the testimony of John by reason of its authority, because it was sought +after by the Jews, saying: <span style="font-weight: bold">You sent [messengers] to John. </span>As if to say: I know that his testimony +is true and you should not reject it, because the great authority John enjoyed among you led you +to seek his testimony about me; and you would not have done this if you did not think that he was +worthy of belief: “The Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to him” (above 1:19). And +on this occasion, John bore witness, not to himself, but <span style="font-weight: bold">to the truth</span>, i.e., to me. As a friend of +the truth, he bore testimony to the truth, which is Christ: “He declared openly, and did not deny, +and stated clearly, ‘I am not the Messiah’” (above 1:20).</p> +<p>807 Then (v 34), he gives the reason why an appeal was made to the testimony of John. First, he +excludes a supposed reason. Next, he presents the true reason (v 34b).</p> +<p>808 Someone might think that John’s testimony was brought in to assure them about Christ, on +the ground that Christ’s own testimony was not sufficient. He excludes this reason when he says, +<span style="font-weight: bold">I myself do not need proof from men</span>. Here we should note that sometimes in the sciences a +thing is proved by something else which is more evident to us, but which is less evident in itself; +and at other times a thing is proved by something else which is more evident in itself and +absolutely. Now, in this case, the issue is to prove that Christ is God. And, although the truth of +Christ is, in itself and absolutely, more evident, yet it is proved by the testimony of John, which +was better known to the Jews. So Christ, of himself, did not have any need of John’s testimony; +and this is what he says: <span style="font-weight: bold">I myself do not need proof from men</span>.</p> +<p>809 But this seems to conflict with: “You are my witnesses, said the Lord” (Is 40:10); and with +“You will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all of Judea and Samaria, and to the remotest part +of the world” (Acts 1:8). So how can he say: <span style="font-weight: bold">I myself do not need proof from men</span>.</p> +<p>This can be understood in two ways. In the first way, the sense is: <span style="font-weight: bold">I myself do not need proof +from men</span>, as relying on it alone; but I have stronger testimony, that is, divine testimony: “For +me, it does not matter much if I am judged by you” (1 Cor 4:3); “You know that I have not +desired the day of man,” i.e., human glory (Jer 17:16).</p> +<p>Another interpretation is: <span style="font-weight: bold">I myself do not need proof from men</span>, insofar as the one giving +witness is a man, but insofar as he is enlightened by God in order to testify: “There was a man +sent by God, whose name was John” (above 1:6); “We did not seek glory from men” (1 Thes +2:6); “1 do not seek my own glory” (below 8:50). And so I receive the testimony of John not just +as a man, but insofar as he was sent and enlightened by God in order to testify.</p> +<p>A third explanation, and a better one, is: <span style="font-weight: bold">I myself do not need proof from men</span>, i.e., human +testimony. As far as I am concerned, I receive my authority from no one but God, who proves +that I am great.</p> +<p>810 Next (v 34b), he gives the real reason for appealing to John’s testimony. First, he states the +reason. Secondly, he explains it. The reason for appealing to this testimony was so that the Jews +might be saved by believing in Christ, and this because of John’s testimony. Thus he says: I do +not need John’s testimony for my sake, <span style="font-weight: bold">but I say this in order that you may be saved: </span>“He +desires the salvation of’ all men” (1 Tim 2:4). “Christ came into this world to save sinners” (1 +Tim 1:15).</p> +<p>811 He explains his statement, in order that you may be saved: that is, because I am appealing +to testimony you have accepted. And so he mentions that John was accepted by them: <span style="font-weight: bold">He was +a lamp, blazing and burning brightly. </span>First, he states that John was a witness accepted on his +own merits. Secondly, he mentions to what degree he was accepted by them (v 35b).</p> +<p>812 Three things perfected John and show that he was a witness accepted in his own right. The +first concerns the condition of his nature, and he refers to this when he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">He was a lamp</span>. The +second concerns the perfection of his love, because he was a <span style="font-weight: bold">blazing </span>lamp. The third is related +to the perfection of his understanding, because he was a lamp that was <span style="font-weight: bold">burning brightly.</span></p> +<p>John was perfect in his nature because he was a lamp, i.e., enriched by grace and illumined by +the light of the Word of God. Now a lamp differs from a light: for a light radiates light of itself, +but a lamp does not give light of itself, but by participating in the light. Now the true light is +Christ: “He was the true light, which enlightens every man coming into this world” (above 1:9). +John, however, was not a light, as we read in the same place, but a lamp, because he was +enlightened “in order to bear witness to the light” (above 1:8), by leading men to Christ. We read +of this lamp: “I have prepared a lamp for my anointed” (Ps 131:17).</p> +<p>Further, he was blazing and impassioned in his affections, so he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">blazing</span>. For some people +are lamps only as to their office or rank, but they are snuffed out in their affections: for as a lamp +cannot give light unless there is a fire blazing within it, so a spiritual lamp does not give any light +unless it is first set ablaze and burns with the fire of love. Therefore, to be ablaze comes first, and +the giving of light depends on it, because knowledge of the truth is given due to the blazing of +love: “If any one loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will +come to him, and make our home with him” (below 14:23); and “I have called you friends, +because everything I have heard from my Father I have made known to you” (below 15:15); +“You who fear the Lord, love him, and your hearts will be enlightened” (Sir 2:20).</p> +<p>The two characteristics of fire are that it both blazes and shines. Its blazing signifies love for +three reasons. First, because fire is the most active of all bodies; so too is the warmth of love +(charity), so much so that nothing can withstand its force: “The love of Christ spurs us on” (2 Cor +5:14). Secondly, because just as fire, because it is very volatile, causes great unrest, so also this +love of charity makes a person restless until he achieves his objective: “Its light is fire and flame” +(Sg 8:6). Thirdly, just as fire is inclined to move upward, so too is charity; so much so that it +joins us to God: “He who abides in love abides in God, and God in him” (1Jn 4:16).</p> +<p>Finally, John had an intellect that was <span style="font-weight: bold">burning brightly. </span>First, it was bright within, because of +his knowledge of the truth: “The Lord will fill your soul with brightness,” i.e., he will make it +shine (Is 58:11). Secondly, it was bright without, because of his preaching: “You will shine in +the world among them like stars, containing the word of life” (Phil 2:15). Thirdly, it was bright +because it manifested good works: “Let your light so shine before men that they may see your +good works” (Mt 5:16).</p> +<p>813 And so, because John was of himself so acceptable—for he was a lamp, not smothered out +but blazing, not dark but burning brightly—he deserved to be accepted by you, as indeed he was, +because <span style="font-weight: bold">for a time you yourselves exulted in his light. </span>He fittingly links their exulting or +rejoicing with light; because a man rejoices most is that which most pleases him. And among +physical things nothing is more pleasant than light, according to: “It is a delight for the eyes to +see the sun” (Sir 11:7). He says, <span style="font-weight: bold">you yourselves exulted in his light, </span>i.e., you rested in John and +put your end in him, thinking that he was the Messiah. But you did this only <span style="font-weight: bold">for a time, </span>because +you wavered on this; for when you saw that John was leading men to another, and not to himself, +you turned away from him. Thus we read in Matthew (21:32) that the Jews did not believe in +John. They belonged to that group referred to by Matthew (13:21 ) as believing “for a while.”</p> +<p>814 Then (v 36), he presents the divine testimony. First, he mentions its greatness; and then he +continues on to describe it.</p> +<p>815 He says: I do not need proof from men for my sake, but for your sake, for <span style="font-weight: bold">I have testimony +that is greater than that of John, </span>that is, the testimony of God, which is greater than the +testimony of John: “If we receive the testimony of men, the testimony of God is greater” (1 Jn +5:9), It is greater, I say, because of its greater authority, greater knowledge, and infallible truth, +for God cannot deceive: “God is not like man, a liar” (Nm 23:19).</p> +<p>816 God bore witness to Christ in three ways: by works, by himself, and by the Scriptures. First, +he mentions his witness as given by the working of miracles; secondly, the way God gave witness +by himself (v 37); thirdly, the witness given through the Scriptures (v 39).</p> +<p>817 He says first: <span style="font-weight: bold">I have testimony that is greater than that of John, </span>that is, my works, i.e., +the working of miracles, <span style="font-weight: bold">the very works which my Father has given me to perform. </span>We +should point out that it is natural for man to learn of the power and natures of things from their +actions, and therefore our Lord fittingly says that the sort of person he is can be learned through +the works he does. So, since he performed divine works by his own power, we should believe +that he has divine power within him: “If I had not done among them the works which no one else +did, they would not have sin,” that is, the sin of unbelief (below 15:24). And so he leads them +to a knowledge of himself by appealing to his works, saying, <span style="font-weight: bold">the very works which my Father +has given me </span>in the Word, through an eternal generation, by giving me a power equal to his own. +Or we could say, <span style="font-weight: bold">the very works which my Father has given me, </span>in my conception, by making +me one person who is both God and man, <span style="font-weight: bold">to perform, </span>i.e., to perform them by my own power. +He says this to distinguish himself from those who do not perforrn miracles by their own power +but have to obtain it as a favor from God; thus Peter says: “In the name of Jesus Christ of +Nazareth: stand up” (Acts 3:6). Thus it was God, and not themselves, who accomplished these +works; but Christ accomplished them by his own power: “Lazarus, come forth,” as John reports +below (11:43). Accordingly, <span style="font-weight: bold">those works that I myself perform—they bear witness to me; +</span>“If you do not believe me, at least believe my works” (below 10:38). We see from Mark (16:20) +that God bears witness by the working of miracles: “The Lord worked with them and confirmed +the word by the signs that followed.”</p> +<p>818 Then (v 37), he presents the second way God bore witness to Christ, namely, by himself. +First, he mentions the way; secondly, he shows that they were not able to receive this testimony.</p> +<p>819 He says: It is not only the works which my Father has given me to perform that bear witness +to me, but <span style="font-weight: bold">the Father who sent me has himself given testimony on my behalf: </span>in the Jordan, +when Christ was baptized (Mt 3:17); and on the mountain, when Christ was transfigured (Mt +17:5). For on both these occasions the voice of the Father was heard: “This is my beloved Son.” +And so they should believe in Christ, as the true and natural Son of God: “This is the testimony +of God: he has borne witness to his Son” ( 1 Jn 5:9). Consequently, anyone who does not believe +that he is the Son of God, does not believe in the testimony of God.</p> +<p>820 Someone could say that God also gave testimony to others by himself: for example, to +Moses, on the mountain, with whom God spoke while others were present. We, however, never +heard his testimony, as the Lord says: <span style="font-weight: bold">you have neither heard his voice. </span>On the other hand, we +read in Deuteronomy (4:33): Did it ever happen before that the people heard the voice of God +speaking from the midst of fire, as you heard, and have lived?” Then how can Christ say: <span style="font-weight: bold">you +have neither heard his voice?</span></p> +<p>I reply, according to Chrysostom, that the Lord wishes to show those established in a +philosophical frame of mind that God gives testimony to someone in two ways, namely, sensibly +and intelligibly. Sensibly, as by a sensible voice only; and in this way he gave witness to Moses +on Mount Sinai: “You heard his voice, and saw no form at all” (Dt 4:12). Likewise, he gives +testimony by a sensible form, as he appeared to Abraham (Gn 26), and to Isaiah: “I saw the Lord +seated on a high and lofty throne” (Is 6:1). However, in these visions, neither the audible voice +nor the visible figure were like anything in the animal kingdom, except efficiently, in the sense +that these were formed by God. For since God is a spirit, he neither emits audible sounds nor can +he be portrayed as a figure. But he does bear testimony in an intelligible manner by inspiring in +the hearts of certain persons what they ought to believe and to hold: “I will hear what the Lord +God will speak within me” (Ps 84:9); “I will lead her into the wilderness and there I will speak +to her heart,” as we read in Hosea (2:14).</p> +<p>Now you were able to receive the testimony given in the first of these ways; and this is not +surprising, because they were the words and image of God only efficiently, as was said. But they +were not able to receive the testimony given in that intelligible voice; so he says: <span style="font-weight: bold">you have +neither heard his voice, </span>i.e., you were not among those who shared in it. “Everyone who has +heard the Father and has learned, comes to me” (below 6:45). But you do not come to me. +Therefore, <span style="font-weight: bold">you have neither heard his voice nor seen his image, </span>i.e., you do not have his +intelligible testimony. Hence he adds: <span style="font-weight: bold">and you do not have his word abiding in your hearts, +</span>i.e., you do not have his word that is inwardly inspired. And the reason is, <span style="font-weight: bold">for you do not believe +in him whom he, </span>the Father, <span style="font-weight: bold">has sent</span>. For the word of God leads to Christ, since Christ himself +is the natural Word of God. But every word inspired by God is a certain participated likeness of +that Word. Therefore, since every participated likeness leads to its original, it is clear that every +word inspired by God leads to Christ. And so, because you are not led to me, <span style="font-weight: bold">you do not have +his word, </span>i.e., the inspired word of God, <span style="font-weight: bold">abiding in your hearts. </span>“He who does not believe in +the Son of God does not have life abiding in him,” as it says below (sic). He says <span style="font-weight: bold">abiding, +</span>because although there is no one who does not have some truth from God, they alone have the +truth and the word abiding in them whose knowledge has progressed to the point where they have +reached a knowledge of the true and natural Word.</p> +<p>821 Or we could say that, <span style="font-weight: bold">you have neither heard his voice, </span>can be taken as showing the three +ways in which God reveals things. This is done either by a sensible voice, as he bore witness to +Christ in the Jordan and on the mountain, as in 2 Peter (1:16): “We were eyewitnesses of his +greatness. For he received honor and glory from God the Father, when a voice came from the +heavens.” And the Jews did not hear this. Or, God reveals things through a vision of his essence, +which he reveals to the blessed. And they did not see this, because “while we are in the body, we +are absent from the Lord” (2 Cor 5:6). Thirdly, it is accomplished by an interior word through +an inspiration; and the Jews did not have this either.</p> +<p>822 Then when he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">Search the Scriptures, </span>he gives the third way in which God bore +witness to Christ, through the Scriptures. First, he mentions the testimony of the Scriptures. +Secondly, he shows that they were not able to gather the fruit of this testimony (v 40).</p> +<p>823 He says: <span style="font-weight: bold">Search the Scriptures. </span>As if to say: You do not have the word of God in your +hearts, but in the Scriptures; therefore, you must seek for it elsewhere than in your hearts. Hence, +<span style="font-weight: bold">Search the Scriptures, </span>that is, the Old Testament, for the faith of Christ was contained in the +Old Testament, but not on the surface, for it lay hidden in its depths, under shadowy symbols: +“Even to this day, when Moses is read, a veil is over their hearts” (2 Cor 3:15). Thus he +significantly says, Search, probe into the depths: “If you search for her [wisdom] like money, and +dig for her like a treasure, you will understand the fear of the Lord and will find the knowledge +of God” (Prv 2:4); “Give me understanding and I will search your commandments” (Ps 118:34).</p> +<p>The reason why you should search them I take from your own opinion, because <span style="font-weight: bold">you think you +have eternal life in them, </span>since we read in Ezekiel (18:19): “He who has kept my commands +will live.” But you are mistaken; because although the precepts of the old law are living, they do +not contain life in themselves. They are said to be living only to the extent that they lead to me, +the Christ. Yet you use them as though they contained life in themselves, and in this you are +mistaken, for they bear witness to me, i.e., they are living to the extent that they lead to a +knowledge of me. And they lead to a knowledge of me either by plain prophecies, as in Isaiah +(7:14): “A virgin will conceive.” or in Deuteronomy (18:15): “The Lord your God will raise up +a prophet for you.”; and so Acts (10:43) says: “All the prophets bear witness to him.” The +Scriptures also lead to a knowledge of Christ through the symbolic actions of the prophets; thus +we read: “I have used resemblences in the ministry of the prophets” (Hos 12:10). Knowledge of +Christ is also given in their sacraments and figures, as in the immolation of’ the lamb, and other +symbolic sacraments of the law: “The law has only a shadow of the good things to come” (Heb +10:1). And so, because “the Scriptures of the Old Testament gave much testimony about Christ, +the Apostle says: “He promised the Good News before, through his prophets in the holy +Scriptures; the Good News of his Son, a descendant of David in his human nature” (Rom 1:2).</p> +<p>824 The fruit which you think you have in the Scriptures, that is, eternal life, you will not be able +to obtain, because in not believing the testimonies of the Scriptures about me, <span style="font-weight: bold">you are unwilling +to come to me, </span>i.e., you do not wish to believe in me, in whom the fruit of these Scriptures +exists, <span style="font-weight: bold">in order to possess that life </span>in me, the life which I give to those who believe in me: “I +give them eternal life” (below 10:28); “Wisdom infuses life into her children” (Sir 4:12); “He +who finds me will find life, and will have salvation from the Lord” (Prv 8:35).</p> +<p style="margin-bottom: 0.125in; margin-bottom: 0.125in"> </p> +<p style="text-align: center"><span style="font-weight: bold">LECTURE 7</span></p> +<BLOCKQUOTE><p style="margin-left: 0.5in">41 “Praise from men I do not need, +<br>42 but I know you, +<br>and you do not have the love of God in your hearts. +<br>43 I have come in my Father’s name, +<br>and yet you do not accept me. +<br>If someone else came in his own name, +<br>you would be accepting him. +<br>44 How can people like you believe, +<br>when you crave praise from each other, +<br>and yet not even ask for that one praise +<br>which is from God alone? +<br>45 Do not think that I will accuse you +<br>before my Father. +<br>The one who accuses you is Moses, +<br>in whom you place your trust. +<br>46 If you believed Moses, +<br>you would perhaps believe me as well, +<br>for it was about me that he wrote. +<br>47 But if you do not believe in his written statements, +<BR>how will you believe in my spoken words?”</p></BLOCKQUOTE> +<p>825 After God confirmed the greatness of his power by the testimonies of men, of’God, and of’ +the Scriptures, he here rebukes the Jews for being slow to believe. Now the Jews persecuted +Christ on two grounds: for breaking the Sabbath, by which he seemed to go against the law, and +for saying that he is the Son of God, by which he seemed to go against God. Thus they persecuted +him on account of their reverence for God and their zeal for the law. And so our Lord wishes to +show that their persecution of him was really inspired not by these motives, but by contrary +reasons.</p> +<p>He first shows that the cause of their unbelief was their lack of reverence for God. Secondly, that +another cause of their unbelief was their lack of reverence for Moses (v 45). As to the first he +does two things. First, he shows their irreverence for God. Secondly, he shows that this is the +cause of their unbelief (v 44). Concerning the first he does two things. First, he mentions their +lack of reverence for God. Secondly, he makes this obvious by a sign (v 43). With respect to the +first he does two things. First, he rejects what they might have assumed to be his intention, from +what he had said before. Secondly, he presents his real intention (v 42).</p> +<p>826 The Jews might have assumed that Christ was seeking some kind of praise from men, since +he had reminded them of so many witnesses to himself, as John, God, his own works, and the +testimony of the Scriptures. Against this thought he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">Praise from men I do not need, </span>i.e., +I do not seek praise from men; for I have not come to be an example of one seeking human glory: +“We did not seek glory from men” (1 Thes 2:6). Or, <span style="font-weight: bold">Praise from men I do not need</span>, i.e., I do +not need human praise, because from eternity I have glory with the Father: “Glorify me, Father, +with the glory I had before the world was made” (below 17:5). For I have not come to be +glorified by men, but rather to glorify them, since all glory proceeds from me (Wis 7:25) +[“Wisdom is a pure emanation of the glory of the almighty God.”] It is through this wisdom that +I have glory. God is said to be praised and glorified by men—“Glorify the Lord as much as you +are able; he will still surpass even that” (Sir 43:30)—not that he might become by this more +glorious, but so that he might appear glorious among us.</p> +<p>827 Thus Christ presented the various testimonies to himself not for the reason they thought, but +for another one: because <span style="font-weight: bold">I know you, </span>i.e., I have made known about you, that <span style="font-weight: bold">you do not have +the love of God in your hearts, </span>although you pretend to have it. And so you are not persecuting +me because of your love for God. You would be persecuting me for the love of God if God and +the Scriptures did not bear witness to me; but God himself bears. witness to me by himself, his +works and in the Scriptures, as has been said. Consequently, if you truly loved God, then so far +from rejecting me, you would come to me. You, therefore, do not love God.</p> +<p>Another interpretation would be this. It is as though he were saying: I have not brought in these +witnesses because I wanted your praise; but I know you do not love God and your waywardness +makes me sad, and I want to lead you back to the way of truth: “Now they have seen and hated +both me and my Father” (below 15:24); “The pride of those who hate you continuously rises,” +as the Psalm (73:23) says.</p> +<p>828 Here we should point out that God cannot be hated in himself by anyone, nor can he be hated +with respect to all his effects, since every good in things comes from God, and it is impossible +for anyone to hate all good, for he will at least love existence and life. But someone may hate +some effect of God, insofar as this is opposed to what he desires: for example, he might hate +punishment, and things of that sort. It is from this point of view that God is said to be hated.</p> +<p>829 Then (v 43), he gives a sign that they do not love God. First, a present sign; secondly, a +future sign (v 43b).</p> +<p>830 The present sign concerns his own coming; so he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">I have come in my Father’s name. +</span>As if to say: What I say is obvious, for if one loves his Lord, it is clear that he will honor and +receive one who comes from him, and seek to honor him. But <span style="font-weight: bold">I have come in my Father’s +name, </span>and I make his name known to the world: “I have made your name known to those you +have given me” (below 17:6), <span style="font-weight: bold">and yet you do not accept me. </span>Therefore, you do not love him. +The Son is said to make his Father known to men because, although the Father, as God, was +known—“God is known in Judah” (Ps 75:1)—yet he was not known as the natural Father of the +Son before Christ came. Thus Solomon asked: “What is his name? And what is the name of his +son?” Prv 30:4).</p> +<p>831 The future sign concerns the coming of the Antichrist. For the Jews could say: Although you +come in his name, we have not accepted you, because we will not accept anyone but God the +Father. The Lord speaks against this, and says that it cannot be, because you will accept another, +who will come, not in the Father’s name, but in his own name; and what is more, he will come, +not in the name of the Father, but <span style="font-weight: bold">in his own name, </span>precisely because he will not seek the glory +of the Father but his own. And whatever he does, he will attribute it, not to the Father, but to +himself: “who opposes and is exalted above all that is called God, or is worshipped” (2 Thes 2:4). +<span style="font-weight: bold">You would be accepting him; </span>and so the Apostle continues in the same letter: “God will send +them a misleading influence so that they might believe what is false” (2 Thes 2:11). And this, +because they did not accept the true teaching, that they might be saved. So the Gloss says: +“Because the Jews were unwilling to accept Christ, the penalty for this sin will be, fittingly +enough, that they will receive the Antichrist; with the result that those who were unwilling to +believe the truth, will believe a lie.”</p> +<p>According to Augustine, however, we can understand this text as applying to heretics and false +teachers: who spread a teaching that comes from their own hearts and not from the mouth of +God, and who praise themselves and despise the name of God. Of such persons it is written: +“You have heard that the Antichrist is coming; and now many antichrists have appeared” (1 Jn +2:18). So it is clear that your persecution of me does not spring from your love for God, but from +your hatred and envy of him. And this was the reason why they did not believe.</p> +<p>832 He concludes: <span style="font-weight: bold">How can people like you believe, when you crave praise from each other, +</span>i.e., human praise, <span style="font-weight: bold">and yet not even ask for that one praise which is from God alone? </span>which +is true glory. The reason they could not believe in Christ was that, since their proud minds were +craving their own glory and praise, they considered themselves superior to others in glory, and +regarded it as a disgrace to believe in Christ, who seemed common and poor. And this was why +they could not believe in him. The one who can believe in Christ is the person of humble heart, +who seeks the glory of God alone, and who strives to please him. And so we read: “Many of the +leaders believed in him; but they did not admit it because of the Pharisees, so that they would not +be expelled from the synagogue” (below 12:42). We can see from this just how dangerous +vainglory is. For this reason Cicero says: “Let a man beware of that glory that robs him of all +freedom; that freedom for which a man of great spirit should risk everything.” And the Gloss +says: “It is a great vice to boast and to strive for human praise: to desire that others think you +have what you really do not have.”</p> +<p>833 Then (v 45), he shows that they do not have zeal for Moses. First, how Moses was against +them. Secondly, he gives the reason for this opposition (v 46). As to the first he does two things +First, he rejects their false zeal; secondly, he shows them true zeal, <span style="font-weight: bold">The one who accuses you +is Moses.</span></p> +<p>834 As to the first he says: <span style="font-weight: bold">Do not think that I will accuse you before my Father. </span>There are +three reasons for his saying this. First, the Son of God did not come into the world to condemn +the world, but to save it. So he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">Do not think </span>that I have come to condemn, I have come to +free: “God did not send his Son into the world to judge the world,” that is, to condemn the world, +“but that the world might be saved through him” (above 3:17). And so the blood of Christ cries +out, not to accuse, but to forgive: “We have the blood of Christ, crying out better than that of +Abel” (Heb 12:24), whose blood cried out to accuse; “Who will accuse God’s elect? It is Christ +who justifies. Who is it, then, who will condemn?” (Rom 8:33). As to his second reason for +saying this, he says: <span style="font-weight: bold">Do not think that I will accuse you before my Father, </span>because I will not +be the one to accuse you, but to judge you: “The Father has given all judgment to the Son” (above +5:22). The third reason is: <span style="font-weight: bold">Do not think that I, </span>i.e., I alone, <span style="font-weight: bold">will accuse you before my Father +</span>for what you are doing to me; for even Moses will accuse you for not believing him in the things +he said of me.</p> +<p>835 Consequently he adds: <span style="font-weight: bold">The one who accuses you is Moses, in whom you place your trust, +</span>because you believe you are saved through his precepts. Moses accuses them in two ways. +Materially, because they deserved to be accused for transgressing his commands: “Those who +have sinned under the law, will be judged by the law” (Rom 2:12). Again, Moses accuses them +because he and the other saints will have authority in the judgment: “The two-edged swords will +be in their hands” (Ps 149:6).</p> +<p>836 He presents the reason for this opposition when he says: <span style="font-weight: bold">If you believed Moses, you would +perhaps believe me as well, </span>as is clear from “The Lord your God will raise up a prophet for you, +from your nation and your brothers; he will be like me: you will listen to him” (Dt 18:15), and +from all the sacrifices, which were a symbol of Christ. He says, perhaps, to indicate that their will +acts from a free judgment, and not to imply that there is any doubt on the part of God.</p> +<p>837 Then when he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">But if you do not believe in his written statements, how will you +believe in my spoken words? </span>he gives a sign of this opposition. He does this by comparing two +things, and then denying of the lesser of them what is denied of the greater. First, there is a +comparison between Moses and Christ: for although Christ, absolutely speaking, is greater than +Moses, Moses was the greater in reputation among the Jews. Thus he says: If you do not believe +Moses, you will not believe me either. Secondly, he compares the way in which they presented +their teaching: Moses gave his precepts in a written form; and so they can be studied for a long +time, and are not easily forgotten. Hence they impose a stronger obligation to believe. But Christ +presented his teachings in spoken words. Thus he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">But if you do not believe in his written +statements, </span>which you have preserved in your <span style="font-weight: bold">books, how will you believe in my spoken +words?</span></p> +</body> + +</html>