Mercurial > hg > Aquinas
diff john/english/John6.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/John6.html Tue Nov 24 20:16:17 2009 +0000 @@ -0,0 +1,1865 @@ +<html> +<head> +</head> +<body style=text-align:justify><blockquote> +<CENTER><p><span style="font-size: 60pt">6</span></p> +<p><span style="font-weight: bold">LECTURE 1</span></p></CENTER> +<BLOCKQUOTE><p>1 After this Jesus went across the Sea of Galilee, which is that of Tiberias. 2 And a great +multitude followed him because they saw the miracles he worked on those who were sick. 3 +Jesus therefore went up a mountain, and there sat down with his disciples. 4 Now the Passover +was near, a festival day of the Jews. 5 Then, when Jesus lifted his eyes and saw that a great +multitude had come to him, he said to Philip, +<DD>“Where shall we buy bread that these may eat?”<BR> +6 He said this, however, to test him, for he knew what he would do. 7 Philip replied, “Two +hundred denarii worth of bread would not suffice for each to have a little bit.” 8 One of his +disciples, Andrew, the brother of Simon Peter, said to him, 9 “There is a boy here who has five +barley loaves and two fishes, but what are these for so many?” 10 Jesus then said, +<DD>“Make the people recline.”<BR> +There was much grass in the place. Therefore the men reclined, in number about five thousand. +11 Jesus then took the bread, and when he had given thanks, he distributed it to those reclining; +he did likewise with the fish, as much as they wanted. 12 When they had their fill, he said to his +disciples, +<DD>“Gather up the fragments that are left over, +<DD>lest they be wasted.”<BR> +13 They therefore gathered and filled twelve baskets with the leftovers, from the five barley +loaves and the two fishes, that remained after all had eaten.</p></BLOCKQUOTE> +<p>838 The Evangelist has presented the teaching of Christ on the spiritual life, by which he gives +life to those who are born again. He now tells us of the spiritual food by which Christ sustains +those to whom he has given life. First, he describes a visible miracle, in which Christ furnished +bodily food. Secondly, he considers spiritual food (6:26). He does two things about the first. +First, he describes the visible miracle. Secondly, he shows the effect this miracle had (6:14). He +tells us two things about this miracle. First, its circumstances, secondly, about its actual +accomplishment (v 5). As to the first he does three things. First he describes the crowd that Jesus +fed, secondly, the place; thirdly, the time (v 4). As to the first he does three things. First, he +identifies the place where the crowd followed Jesus; secondly, the people who followed him; and +thirdly, he tells why they followed him.</p> +<p>839 The Evangelist describes the place to which the crowd followed our Lord when he says, +<span style="font-weight: bold">After this Jesus went across the Sea of Galilee, </span>i.e., after the mysterious words Jesus had +spoken concerning his power. This Sea of Galilee is mentioned frequently in various places in +Scripture. Luke calls it a lake (Lk 5:1) because its water is not salty, but was formed from the +waters flowing in from the Jordan. Yet it is still called a “Sea,” because in Hebrew all bodies of +water are called “seas”: “God called the waters ‘seas’” (Gn 1:10). It is also called Gennesaret +because of the character of its location: for this water is tossed about a great deal, being buffeted +by the winds that come from the vapors rising from its surface. Thus in Greek the word +“Gennesaret” means “wind forming.” It is called the Sea of Galilee from the province of Galilee +in which it is located. Again, it is called the Sea of Tiberias from the city of Tiberias: this city +was situated on one side of the sea, facing Capernaum on the opposite side. The city of Tiberias +was formerly called Chinnereth, but later, when it was rebuilt by Herod the Tetrarch, it was +renamed as Tiberias in honor of Tiberius Caesar.</p> +<p>840 The literal reason why Jesus crossed the sea is given by Chrysostom: to give ground to the +anger and agitation which the Jews felt against Christ because of the things he had said about +them. As Chrysostom says: just as darts strike a hard object with great force if they meet it, but +pass on and soon come to rest if nothing is in their way, so also the anger of defiant men +increases when they are resisted, but if we yield a little, it is easy to keep their fury within +bounds. So Christ, by going to the other side of the sea, was able to soften the anger of the Jews, +caused by what he had said. He thus gives us an example to act in the same way: “Do not be +provoked by one who speaks evil of you” (Sir 8:14).</p> +<p>841 In the mystical sense, the sea signifies this present troubled world: “This great sea, stretching +wide” (Ps 103:25). Our Lord crossed over this sea when he assumed the sea of punishment and +death by being born, trod it under foot by dying, and then crossing over it by his rising, arrived +at the glory of his resurrection. We read of this crossing: “Jesus knew that his time had come to +leave this world for the Father” (below 13:1). A great crowd, composed of both peoples, has +followed him in this crossing, by believing in him and imitating him: “Your heart will be full of +wonder and joy, when the riches of the sea will be given to you” (Is 60:5); “Rise up, O Lord, you +who demand that justice be done; and the people will gather round you” (Ps 7:7).</p> +<p>842 The crowd that followed him is described as large, <span style="font-weight: bold">And a great multitude followed him.</span></p> +<p>843 The reason why they followed him is because he was performing miracles, hence he says, +<span style="font-weight: bold">because they saw the miracles he worked on those who were sick. </span>We should point out that +some followed Christ because of his teachings, that is, those who were better disposed. But there +were others, i.e., those who were less perfect and less perceptive, who followed him because they +were attracted by visible miracles; “Signs were given to unbelievers, not to believers” (1 Cor +14:22). Still others followed him out of devotion and faith, those, namely, whom he had cured +of some bodily defect: for our Lord had so healed their body that they were also completely +healed in soul: “The works of God are perfect” (Dt 32:4). This is clear, because he expressly said +to the paralytic, “Do not sin again” (above 5:14), and in Matthew (9:2) he says, “Son, your sins +are forgiven”; and these remarks concern the health of the soul rather than that of the body.</p> +<p>844 We might remark that although the Evangelist had mentioned only three miracles (the one +at the marriage reception, the son of the official, and the paralytic), he says here in a general way, +<span style="font-weight: bold">the miracles he worked. </span>He does this to indicate that Christ worked many other miracles that +are not mentioned in this book, as he will say below (21:25). For his main object was to present +the teaching of Christ.</p> +<p>845 Then he gives the location of the miracle, on a mountain; hence he says: <span style="font-weight: bold">Jesus therefore +went up a mountain, </span>i.e., privately, <span style="font-weight: bold">and there sat down with his disciples. </span>Now a mountain +is a place well suited for refreshment, for according to the Psalm a mountain signifies the +perfection of justice: “Your justice is like the mountains of God” (Ps 35:7). And so, because we +cannot be satisfied by earthly things—indeed, “Whoever drinks this water will be thirsty again” +(above 4:13)—but spiritual things will satisfy us, our Lord leads his disciples to a higher place +to show that full satisfaction and the perfection of justice are found in spiritual realities. We read +of this mountain: “The mountain of God is a rich mountain” (Ps 67:16). Thus he also exercised +his office of teacher there, sitting with his disciples; for he is the one who teaches every man.</p> +<p>846 The time is mentioned when he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">Now the Passover was near. </span>This time was also well +suited for their refreshment, for “Passover” means “passage”: “It is the Passover of the Lord, that +is, his passage” (Ex 12:11). We understand from this that anyone who desires to be refreshed by +the bread of the divine Word and by the body and blood of’ the Lord, must pass from vices to +virtues: “Our Passover, Christ, has been sacrificed, and so let us feast with the unleavened bread +of sincerity and truth” (1 Cor 5:7). And again, divine Wisdom says: “Pass over to me, all who +desire me” (Sir 24-26).</p> +<p>This is the second Passover the Evangelist has mentioned. However, our Lord did not go to +Jerusalem this time, as the law commanded. The reason for this being that Christ was both God +and man: as man he was subject to the law, but as God he was above the law. So, he observed +the law on certain occasions to show that he was a man, but he also disregarded the law at other +times to show that he was God. Further, by not going he indicated that the ceremonies of the law +would end gradually and in a short time.</p> +<p>847 Then he considers the miracle itself (v 5). First, why it was needed. Secondly, its +accomplishment. We can see the need for this miracle from our Lord’s question to his disciple, +and the disciple’s answer. First, our Lord’s question is given; and then the answer of his disciple +(v 7). He does three things about the first. First, the occasion for the question is given; secondly, +we have the-question itself (v 5b); thirdly, we are told why Christ asked this question (v 6).</p> +<p>848 The occasion for Christ’s question was his sight of the crowd coming to him. Hence he says, +<span style="font-weight: bold">Then, when Jesus, </span>on the mountain with his disciples, i.e., with those who were more perfect, +<span style="font-weight: bold">lifted his eyes and saw that a great multitude had come to him. </span>Here we should note two +things about Christ. First, his maturity: for he is not distracted by what does not concern him, but +is appropriately concerned with his disciples. He is not like those spoken of in Proverbs (30:13): +“A generation whose eyes are proud.” And, “A man’s dress, and laughter, and his walk, show +what he is” (Sir 19:27). Secondly, we should note that Christ did not sit there with his disciples +out of laziness; he was looking right at them, teaching them carefully and attracting their hearts +to himself: “Then he lifted his eyes to his disciples” (Lk 6:20). Thus we read: <span style="font-weight: bold">Then, when Jesus +lifted his </span>eyes. In the mystical sense, our Lord’s eyes are his spiritual gifts; and he lifts his eyes +on the elect, i.e., looks at them with compassion, when he mercifully grants these gifts to them: +This is what the Psalm asks for: “Look upon me, O Lord, and have mercy on me” (Ps 85:16).</p> +<p>849 Our Lord’s question concerns the feeding of the crowd; so he said to Philip: <span style="font-weight: bold">Where shall +we buy bread that these may eat? </span>He assumes one thing and asks about another. He assumes +their poverty, because they did not have food to offer this great crowd; and he asks how they +might obtain it, saying, <span style="font-weight: bold">Where shall we buy bread that these may eat?</span></p> +<p>Here we should note that every teacher is obliged to possess the means of feeding spiritually the +people who come to him. And since no man possesses of himself the resources to feed them, he +must acquire them elsewhere by his labor, study, and persistent p rayer: “Hurry, you who have +no money, and acquire without cost wine and milk” (Is 55:1). And there follows: “Why do you +spend your money,” i.e., your eloquence, “for what is not bread,” i.e., not the true wisdom which +refreshes—“Wisdom will feed him with the bread of life and understanding” (Si 15:5)—“and +why do you work for what does not satisfy you,” i.e., by learning things that drain you instead +of filling you?</p> +<p>850 Our Lord’s intention is given when he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">He said this, however, to test him. </span>Here the +Evangelist raises one difficutly in answering another. For we could wonder,why our Lord asked +Philip what to do, as though our Lord himself did not know. The Evangelist settles this when he +says, <span style="font-weight: bold">for he knew what he would do. </span>But it seems that the Evangelist raises another difficulty +when he says, to test him. For to test is to try out; and this seems to imply ignorance.</p> +<p>I answer that one can test another in various ways in order to try him out. One man tests another +in order to learn; the devil tests a man in order to ensnare him: “Your enemy, the devil, as a +roaring lion, goes about seeking whom he can devour” (1 Pt 5:8). But Christ (and God) does not +test us in order to learn, because he sees into our hearts; nor in order to ensnare us, for as we read +in James (1:13): “God does not test [i.e., tempt] anyone.” But he does test us that others might +learn something from the one tested. This is the way God tested Abraham: “God tested Abraham” +(Gn 22:1); and then it says (v 12): “Now I know that you fear God,” i.e., I have made it known +that you fear the Lord. He tests Philip in the same way: so that those who hear his answer might +be very certain about the miracle to come.</p> +<p>851 Now we have the answer of the disciples. First, the answer of Philip; then that of Andrew +(v 8).</p> +<p>852 With respect to the first, note that Philip was slower in learning than the others, and so he +asks our Lord more questions: “Lord, show us the Father, and that will be enough for us” (below +14:8). Here, according to the literal sense, Andrew is better disposed than Philip, for Philip does +not seem to have any understanding or anticipation of the corning miracle. And so he suggests +that money is the way by which they could feed all the people, saying: <span style="font-weight: bold">Two hundred denarii +worth of bread would not suffice for each to have a little bit. </span>And since we do not have that +much, we cannot feed them. Here we see the poverty of Christ, for he did not even have two +hundred denarii.</p> +<p>853 Andrew, however, seems to sense that a miracle is going to take place. Perhaps he recalled +the miracle performed by Elisha with the barley loaves, when he fed a hundred men with twenty +loaves (2 Kgs 4:42). And so he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">There is a boy here who has five barley loaves. </span>Still, he +did not suspect that Christ was going to perform a greater miracle than Elisha: for he thought that +fewer loaves would be miraculously produced from fewer, and more from a larger number. But +in truth, he who does not need any material to work with could feed a crowd as easily with few +or many loaves. So Andrew continues: <span style="font-weight: bold">but what are these for so many? </span>As if to say: Even if +you increased them in the measure that Elisha did, it still would not be enough.</p> +<p>854 In the mystical sense, widsom is a symbol for spiritual refreshment. One kind of wisdom was +taught by Christ, the true wisdom: “Christ is the power of God, and the wisdom of God” (1 Cor +1:24). Before Christ came, there were two other teachings or doctrines: one was the human +teachings of the philosophers; the other was the teachings found in the written law. Philip +mentions the first of these when he speaks of buying: <span style="font-weight: bold">Two hundred denarii worth of bread +would not suffice, </span>for human wisdom must be acquired. Now the number one hundred implies +perfection. Thus two hundred suggests the twofold perfection necessary for this wisdom: for +there Ire two ways one arrives at the perfection of human wisdom, by experience and by +contemplation. So he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">Two hundred denarii worth of bread would not suffice, </span>because +no matter what human reason can experience and contemplate of the truth, it is not enough to +completely satisfy our desire for wisdom: “Let not the wise man glory in his wisdom, nor the +strong man in his strength, nor the rich man in his riches. But let him who glories glory in this: +that he knows and understands me” (Jer 9:23). For the wisdom of no philosopher has been so +great that it could keep men from error; rather, the philosophers have led many into error.</p> +<p>It is Andrew who mentions the second kind of teaching [thai of the law] . He does not want to +buy other bread, but to feed the crowd with the loaves of bread they had, that is, those contained +in the law. And so he was better disposed than Philip. So he says: <span style="font-weight: bold">There is a boy here who has +five barley loaves. </span>This boy can symbolize Moses, because of the imperfection found in the state +of the law: “The law brought nothing to perfection” (Heb 7:19); or the Jewish people, who were +serving under the elements of this world (Gal 4:3).</p> +<p>This boy had five loaves, that is, the teaching of the law: either because this teaching was +contained in the five books of Moses, “The law was given through Moses” (above 1:17); or +because it was given to men absorbed in sensible things, which are made known through the five +senses. These loaves were of barley because the law was given in such a way that what was life-giving in it was concealed under physical signs: for the kernel in barley is covered with a very +firm husk. Or, the loaves were of barley because the Jewish people had not yet been rubbed free +of carnal desire, but it still covered their hearts like a husk: for in the Old Testament they +outwardly experienced hardships because of their ceremonial observances: “A yoke, which +neither our fathers nor we were able to bear” (Acts 15:10). Further, the Jews were engrossed in +material things and did not understand the spiritual meaning of the law: “A veil is over their +hearts” (2 Cor 3:15).</p> +<p>The two fishes, which gave a pleasant flavor to the bread, indicate the teachings of the Psalms +and the prophets. Thus the old law not only had five loaves, i.e., the five books of Moses, but also +two fishes, that is, the Psalms and the prophets. So the Old Testament writings are divided into +these three: “The things written about me in the law of Moses, and in the prophets and in the +Psalms” (Lk 24:44). Or, according to Augustine, the two fishes signify the priests and kings who +ruled the Jews; and they prefigured Christ, who was the true king and priest.</p> +<p><span style="font-weight: bold">But what are these for so many? </span>for they could not bring man to a complete knowledge of the +truth: for although God was known in Judea, the Gentiles did not know him.</p> +<p>855 Next (v 10), the miracle is presented. First, we see the people arranged; secondly, the miracle +itself; and thirdly, the gathering of the leftovers. He does two things about the first. First, he +shows Christ directing the disciples to have the people recline; secondly, why this was +appropriate; and thirdly, he tells us the number of people present.</p> +<p>856 Our Lord told his disciples to arrange the people so that they could eat; thus Jesus says, +<span style="font-weight: bold">Make the people recline, </span>i.e, to eat. For as mentioned before, in former times people took their +meals lying on couches; consequently, it was the custom to say of those who sat down to eat that +they were reclining. In the mystical sense, this indicates that rest which is necessary for the +perfection of wisdom. Again, the people are prepared by the disciples because it is through the +disciples that the knowledge of the truth has come to us: “Let the mountains receive peace for +the people” (Ps 71:3).</p> +<p>857 The character of the place shows why it was convenient that they recline, for <span style="font-weight: bold">There was +much grass in the place. </span>This is the literal meaning. In the mystical sense, grass indicates the +flesh: “All flesh is grass” (Is 40:6). In this sense it can refer to two things. First, to the teachings +of the Old Testament, which were given to a people resting in things of the flesh and wise +according to the flesh: “If you are willing, and listen to me, you will eat the good things of the +land” (Is 1:19); “The posterity of Jacob dwells in a land of grain, wine and oil” (Dt 33:28). Or, +it can refer to one who perceives true wisdom, which cannot be attained without first abandoning +the things of the flesh: “Do not imitate this world” (Rom 12:2).</p> +<p>858 There was a. great number of people; thus he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">the men reclined, in number about five +thousand. </span>The Evangelist counted only the men, according to the custom in the law, for as +mentioned in Numbers (1:3), Moses counted the people who were twenty years and older, +without including the women. The Evangelist does the same, because only men can be +completely instructed: “We speak wisdom to those who are mature” (1 Cor 2:6); “Solid food is +for the mature” (Heb 5:14).</p> +<p>859 Then (v 11), the Evangelist presents the feeding of the crowd. First, we see the attitude of +Christ; secondly, the food used; thirldy, that the people were satisfied. As to the attitude of Jesus, +both his humility and his giving of thanks are mentioned.</p> +<p>860 We see his humility because he took the bread and gave it to the people. Now although in +this miracle Christ could have fed the people with bread created from nothing, he chose to do so +by multiplying bread that already existed. He did this, first, to show that sensible things do not +come from the devil, as the Manichean error maintains. For if this were so, our Lord would not +have used sensible things to praise God, especially since “The Son of God appeared to destroy +the works of the devil” (1 Jn 3:8). He did it, secondly, to show that they are also wrong in +claiming that the teachings of the Old Testament are not from God but from the devil. Thus, to +show that the doctrine of the New Testament is none other than that which was prefigured and +contained in the teachings of the Old Testament, he multiplied bread that already existed, +implying by this that he is the one who fulfills the law and brings it to perfection: “I have not +come to destroy the law, but to fulfill it,” as we read in Matthew (5:17).</p> +<p>861 We see that he gave <span style="font-weight: bold">thanks, when he had given thanks. </span>He did this to show that whatever +he had, he had from another, that is, from his Father. This is an example for us to do the same. +More particularly, he gave thanks to teach us that we should thank God when we begin a meal: +“Nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving” (1 Tim 4:4); “The poor will eat and +be satisfied; and they will praise the Lord” (Ps 21:27). Again, he gave thanks to teach us that he +was not praying for himself, but for the people who were there, for he had to convince them that +he had come from God. Accordingly, he prays before he works this miracle before them, in order +to show them that he is not acting against God, but according to God’s will.</p> +<p>We read in Mark (6:41) that Christ had the apostles distribute the bread to the people. It says here +that he distributed it because in a way he himself does what he does by means of others. In the +mystical sense, both statements are true: for Christ alone refreshes from within, and others, as +his ministers, refresh from without.</p> +<p>862 Their food was bread and fish, about which enough has been said above.</p> +<p>Finally, those who ate were completely satisfied, because they took <span style="font-weight: bold">as much as they wanted. +</span>For Christ is the only one who feeds an empty soul and fills a hungry soul with good things: “I +will be satisfied when your glory appears” (Ps 16:15). Others perform miracles through having +grace in a partial manner; Christ, on the other hand, does so with unlimited power, since he does +all things superabundantly. Hence it says that the people <span style="font-weight: bold">had their fill.</span></p> +<p>863 Now we see the leftovers collected (v 12). First, Christ gives the order; secondly, his +disciples obey.</p> +<p>864 The Evangelist says that after the people had eaten their fill, Christ said to his disciples: +<span style="font-weight: bold">Gather up the fragments that are left over. </span>This was not pretentious display on our Lord’s +part; he did it to show that the miracle he accomplished was not imaginary, since the collected +leftovers kept for some time and provided food for others. Again, he wanted to impress this +miracle more firmly on the hearts of his disciples, whom he had carry the leftovers: for most of +all he wanted to teach his disciples, who were destined to be the teachers of the entire world.</p> +<p>865 His disciples obeyed him faithfully; hence he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">They therefore gathered and filled +twelve baskets with the leftovers. </span>Here we should note that the amount of food that remained +was not left to chance, but was according to plan: for as much as Christ willed was left over, no +more and no less. This is shown by the fact that the basket of each apostle was filled. Now a +basket is reserved for the work of peasants. Therefore, the twelve baskets signify the twelve +apostles and those who imitate them, who, although they are looked down upon in this present +life, are nevertheless filled with the riches of spiritual sacraments. There are twelve because they +were to preach the faith of the Holy Trinity to the four parts of the world.</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>14 Now when these people saw that Jesus had worked a miracle, they said: “This is truly the +Prophet who is to come into the world.” 15 So Jesus, knowing that they would come to seize him +and make him king, fled again into the mountains, alone. 16 When evening came, his disciples +went down to the sea. 17 After they got into the boat, they set out across the sea to Capernaum. +It was already dark, and Jesus had not yet come to them. 18 The sea became rough, agitated by +a great wind. 19 After they had rowed twenty-five or thirty stadia [three or four miles] , they saw +Jesus walking on the water, coming toward the boat, and they were afraid. 20 But he said to +them: +<DD>“It is I. Do not be afraid.”<BR> +21 They then wanted to take him into the boat; and suddenly the boat was on the land toward +which they were going.</p></BLOCKQUOTE> +<p>866 Above, the Evangelist told us of the miracle of the loaves and fishes. Now he shows the +threefold effect this miracle had on the people. First, its effect on their faith; secondly, on their +plans to honor Jesus; thirdly, how it led them (and the disciples) to search for Jesus.</p> +<p>867 With respect to the first, we should note that the Jews said in the Psalm: “We have not seen +our signs; there is now no prophet” (Ps 73:9). For it was customary in earlier days for the +prophets to work omany signs; so, when these signs were absent, prophecy se emed to have +ended. But when the Jews.see such signs, they believe that prophecy is returning. Accordingly, +the people were so impressed by this miracle they just saw that they called our Lord a prophet. +Thus we read, <span style="font-weight: bold">Now when these people, </span>who had been filled with the five <span style="font-weight: bold">loaves, saw that Jesus +had worked a miracle, they said: This is truly the Prophet. </span>However, they did not yet have +perfect faith, for they believed that Jesus was only a prophet, while he was also the Lord of the +prophets. Yet, they were not entirely wrong, because our Lord called himself a prophet.</p> +<p>868 Here we should remark that a prophet is called a seer: “He who is now called a prophet was +formerly called a seer” (I Sm 9:9). Further, seeing pertains to the cognitive power. Now in Christ +there were three kinds of knowledge. First of all, there was sense knowledge. And in this respect +he had some similarity to the prophets, insofar as sensible species could be formed in the +imagination of Christ to present future or hidden events. This was especially due to his +passibility, which was appropriate to his state as a “wayfarer.” Secondly, Christ had intellectual +knowledge; and in this he was not like the prophets, but was even superior to all the angels: for +he was a “comprehensor” in a more excellent way than any creature. Again, Christ had divine +knowledge, and in this way he was the one who inspired the prophets and the angels, since all +knowledge is caused by a participation in the divine Word.</p> +<p>Still, these people seemed to realize that Christ was a superior prophet, for they said: <span style="font-weight: bold">This is +truly the Prophet. </span>For although there had been many prophets among the Jews, they were +waiting for a particular one, according to: “The Lord your God will raise up a prophet for you” +(Dt 18:15). This is the one they are speaking of here; thus it continues: <span style="font-weight: bold">who is to come into the +world.</span></p> +<p>869 Next, we see the second effect of Christ’s miracle: the honor the people planned for Christ, +which he refused. First, we have the attempt by the people; secondly, Christ’s flight from them.</p> +<p>870 The attempt of the people is mentioned when he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">they would come to seize him and +make him king. </span>A person or thing is seized if it is taken in a way that one does not will or is not +opportune. Now it is true that God’s plan from all eternity had been to establish the kingdom of +Christ; but the time for this was not then opportune. Christ had come then, but not to reign in the +way we ask for his reign when we say, “Your kingdom come” (Mt 6:10); at that time he will +reign even as man. Another time was reserved for this: after the judgment of Christ, when the +saints will appear in glory. It was about this kingdom the disciples asked when they said: “Lord, +will you restore the kingdom to Israel at this time?” (Acts 1:6).</p> +<p>So the people, thinking he had come to reign, wanted to make hirn their king. The reason for this +is that men often want as their ruler someone who will provide them with temporal things. Thus, +because our Lord had fed them, they were willing to make him their king: “You have a mantle, +be our ruler” (Is 3:6). Chrysostom says: “See the power of gluttony. They are no longer +concerned about his breaking the Sabbath; they are no longer zealous for God. All these things +are set in the background now that their bellies are full. Now he is regarded as a prophet among +them, and they want to set him on the royal throne as their king.”</p> +<p>87 1 We see Christ’s flight when he says that he <span style="font-weight: bold">fled again into the mountains, alone. </span>We can +see frorn this that when our Lord had first seen the crowd of people he came down from the +mountain and fed them in the valley, for we would not read that he went again into the mountains +if he had not come down from them.</p> +<p>Why did Christ flee from the people, since he really is a king? There are three reasons for this. +First, because it would have detracted from his dignity to have accepted a kingdom from men: +for he is so great a king that all other kings are kings by participating in his kingship: “It is by me +that kings rule” (Prv 8:15). Another reason is that it would have been hanuful to his teaching if +he had accepted this dignity and support from men; for he had worked and taught in such a way +that everything was attributed to divine power and not to the influence of men: “Praise from men +I do not need” (above 5:41). The third reason was to teach us to despise the dignities of this +world: “I have given you an example that as I have done to you, so you should do also” (below +13:15); “Do not seek dignity from men” (Sir 7:4). And so, he refused the glory of this world, but +still endured its punishment of his own will: “Jesus endured the cross, despising the shame, for +the joy set before him” (Heb 12:2).</p> +<p>872 Matthew seems to conflict with this, for he says that “Jesus went up the mountain alone, to +pray” (Mt 14:23). However, in the opinion of Augustine, there is no conflict here, because he had +reason both to flee and to pray. For our Lord is teaching us that when a reason for flight draws +near, there is great reason to pray.</p> +<p>In the mystical sense, Christ went up into the mountain when the people he had fed were ready +to subject themselves to him, because he went up into heaven when the people were ready to +subject themselves to the truth of the faith, according to: “A congregation of people will surround +you. Return above for their sakes,” i.e., return on high so a congregatation of people may +surround you (Ps 7:8). </p> +<p>He says that Christ <span style="font-weight: bold">fled</span>, to indicate that the people could not understand his grandeur: for if we +do not understand something, we say that it flees or eludes us.</p> +<p>873 Now he considers the third effect of Christ’s miracle, the search for Christ. First, by his +disciples; secondly, by the people. As to the first, he does two things. First, he tells of the +eagerness of the disciples; and secondly, enlarges upon this (v l7b). He does two things about the +first. First, he tells that they went down to the shore. Secondly, he tells of their journey across the +sea (v 17).</p> +<p>874 Note, about the first, that Christ went up into the mountain without the knowledge of his +disciples. So, they waited there until evening came, for they expected that he would come back +to them. But their love was so great that when evening came they just had to go looking for him. +Thus he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">When evening came, his disciples went down to the sea, </span>looking for Jesus.</p> +<p>In the mystical sense, “evening” signifies our Lord’s passion or his ascension. For as long as the +disciples enjoyed Christ’s physical presence, no trouble disturbed them and no bitterness vexed +them: “Can the friends of the groom mourn as long as the groom is with them?” (Mt 9:15). But +when Christ was away, then they “went down to the sea,” to the troubles of this world: “This +great sea, stretching wide” (Ps 103:25).</p> +<p>875 He adds that they crossed, saying, <span style="font-weight: bold">After they got into the boat, they set out across the sea +to Capernaum, </span>for the love that burned within them could not endure our Lord’s absence for +very long.</p> +<p>876 Now (17b), he enlarges upon what he had already said in summary fashion. First, on their +going down to the sea; secondly, on their crossing (v 18).</p> +<p>877 As to the first, he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">It was already dark, and Jesus had not yet come to them. </span>The +Evangelist does not tell us this without a reason, for it shows the intensity of their love, since not +even night or evening could stop them.</p> +<p>In the mystical sense, the “dark” signifies the absence of love; for light is love, according to: “He +who loves his brother dwells in the light” (1 Jn 2:10). Accordingly, there is darkness in us when +Jesus, “the true light” (above 1:9) does not come to us, because his presence repells all darkness.</p> +<p>Jesus left his disciples alone for this length of time so that they might experience his absence; and +they did indeed experience it during the storm at sea: “Know and realize, that it is evil and bitter +for you to have left the Lord” (Jer 2:19). He left them, in the second place, so that they might +look for him more earnestly: “Where has your beloved gone, most beautiful of women? We will +search for him with you” (Sg 5:17).</p> +<p>878 As for their crossing, first we see the storm at sea; then Christ coming to them, and the time; +and thirdly, the effect this had.</p> +<p>879 The storm was caused by a rising wind; thus he says: <span style="font-weight: bold">The sea became rough, agitated by +a great wind. </span>This wind is a symbol for the trials and persecutions which would afflict the +Church due to a lack of love. For as Augustine says, when love grows cold, the waves of the sea +begin to swell and danger threatens the boat. Still, these winds and the storm, with its waves and +darkness, did not stop (lie progress of’ the boat or so batter it that it broke apart: “He who +perseveres to the end will be saved” (Mt 24:13); and again: “And the rains fell. and the floods +came, and the house did not collapse,” as we read in Mattliew (7:25).</p> +<p>880 Christ did not appear to them when the storm first began, but only some time later; thus he +says, <span style="font-weight: bold">After they had rowed twentyfive or thirty stadia, they saw Jesus. </span>We see from this that +our Lord allows us to be troubled for a while so our virtue may be tested; but he does not desert +us in the end, but comes very close to us: “God is faithful, and will not allow you to be tested +beyond your strength” (1 Cor 10:13).</p> +<p>According to Augustine, the twenty-five stadia they rowed are the five books of Moses. For +twenty-five is the square of five, since five times five is twenty-five. But a number that is +multiplied in this way keeps the meaning of its root. Thus, just as five signifies the old law, so +twenty-five signifies the perfection of the New Testament. Thirty, however, signifies that +perfection of the New Testament which was lacking in the law: for thirty is the result of +multiplying five by six, which is a perfect number. So, Jesus comes to those who row twenty-five +or thirty stadia, i.e., to those who fulfill the law or the perfection taught by the Gospel; and he +comes treading under foot all the waves of pride and the dignities of this present world: “You +rule the might of the sea and calm its waves” (Ps 88:10). And then we will see Christ near our +boat, because divine help is close: “The Lord is near to all who fear him” (Ps 144:18). Thus it +is clear that Christ is near to all those who seek him rightly. Now the Apostles loved Christ very +keenly: this is obvious because they tried to go to him despite the darkness, the stormy sea, and +the distance to shore. Consequently, Christ was with them.</p> +<p>881 Now we see the effect of Christ’s appearance. First, the interior effect; secondly, the exterior +effect (v 2 1 b).</p> +<p>882 The interior effect of Christ’s appearance was fear; and he mentions the fear of the disciples +at the sudden appearance of Christ when he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">and they were afraid. </span>This was a good fear, +because it was the effect of humility: “Do not be proud; rather fear” (Rom 11:20); or it was an +evil fear, because “they thought it was a ghost” (Mk 6:49); “They trembled with fear” (Ps 13:5): +for fear is especially appropriate to the carnal, because they are afraid of spiritual things.</p> +<p>Secondly, we see Christ encouraging them against two dangers. First, they are encouraged against +the danger to the faith in their intellect when he says, It is 1, to eliminate their doubts: “Look at +my hands and my feet! It is really me” (Lk 24:39). Secondly, Christ encourages them against the +danger of fear in their emotions, saying, <span style="font-weight: bold">Do not be afraid: </span>“Do not be afraid when they are +present” (Jer 1:8); “The Lord is my light and my salvation, whom sliall I fear” (Ps 26:1 ).</p> +<p>Thirdly, we see the reaction of the disciples, for <span style="font-weight: bold">They then wanted to take him into the boat. +</span>This signifies that we receive Christ by love and contemplation after servile fear has been taken +out of our hearts: “I stand at the door and knock. If any one opens it for me, I will enter” (Rv +3:20).</p> +<p>883 There were two exterior effects: the storm abated, and their boat suddenly landed, although +it had just been at a distance from the shore, for our Lord gave them a calm journey, without +danger. He himself did not enter the boat because he wished to accomplish a greater miracle. So +here we have three miracles: the walking on the sea, the quick calming of the storm, and the +sudden arrival of the boat on the land although it had been far away. We learn from this that the +faithful, in whom Christ is present, put down the swelling pride of this world, tread under their +feet its waves of tribulation, and cross quickly to the land of the living: “Your good spirit will +lead me to land” (Ps 142:10).</p> +<p>884 There are a number of difficulties here. The first concerns the literal sense: Matthew (14:22) +seems to conflict with our present account for he says that the disciples were told by Christ to go +the shore, while here it says the disciples went there to search for him. Another difficulty is that +Matthew (14:34) says that the disciples crossed over to Gennesaret, while we read here that they +came to Capernaum. The third difficulty is that Matthew (14:32) says that Christ got into the +boat, but here he did not.</p> +<p>Chrysostom settles these difficulties quite briefly by saying that the two accounts do not deal with +the same miracle. For, as he says, Christ frequently miraculously walked upon the sea in front +of his disciples, but not for the people, lest they think he did not have a real body. But, according +to Augustine, and this is the better opinion, John and Matthew are describing the same miracle. +Augustine answers the first difficulty by saying it makes no difference that Matthew says the +disciples went down to the shore because our Lord told them to. For it is possible that our Lord +did so, and they went believing that he would sail with them. And that is why they waited until +night, and when Christ did not come, they crossed by themselves.</p> +<p>There are two answers to the second difficulty. One is that Capernaum and Gennesaret are +neighboring towns on the same shore. And perhaps the disciples landed at a place near both, so +that Matthew mentions one and John the other. Or, it might be said that Matthew does not say +that they came to Gennesaret immediately, they could have come first to Capernaurn and then +to Gennesaret. [The answer to the third difficulty is not given.]</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 3</span></p> +<BLOCKQUOTE><p>22 On the next day, the crowd that stood on the other side of the sea saw that there was no second +boat there, but only one, and that Jesus had not gone into the boat, but only his disciples had +gone. 23 But other boats arrived from Tiberias, near the place where they had eaten the bread, +after having given thanks to God. 24 When therefore the people saw that Jesus was not there, nor +his disciples, they got into the boats and set off for Capernaum, looking for Jesus. 25 When they +found him on the other side of the sea, they said: “Rabbi, when did you come here?” 26 Jesus +replied and said: +<DD>“Amen, amen, I say to you: +<DD>you seek me not because you have seen miracles, +<DD>but because you have eaten of the bread +<DD>and have been filled. +<DD>27 Do not work for the food that perishes, +<DD>but for that which endures to eternal life, +<DD>which the Son of Man will give you, +<DD>for on him has God the Father set his seal.”<BR> +28 Then they said to him: “What must we do that we may perform the works of God?” 29 Jesus +replied and said to them: +<DD>“This is the work of God, +<DD>that you believe in him whom he sent.”<BR> +30 They then said to him: “What sign then are you going to give that we may see and believe +you? What work do you perform? 31 Our fathers ate ffianna in the desert, as it is written: ‘He +gave them bread from heaven to eat.’”</p></BLOCKQUOTE> +<p>885 After having described how the disciples searched for Christ, the Evangelist now shows the +people looking for him. First, he states their motive; secondly, the occasion; and thirdly, the +search itself (v 24).</p> +<p>886 The crowd of people was looking for Christ because of the miracle mentioned above, that +is, because he had crossed the sea without using any boat. They realized this because the other +evening he had not been on the shore near where he had performed the miracle of the bread, and +where there had been only one boat which had left for the opposite shore with the disciples, but +without Christ. So that morning, when they could not find Christ on this side, since he was +already on the other side although there was no other boat he could have used, they suspected that +he had crossed by walking upon the sea. And this is what he says: <span style="font-weight: bold">On the next day, </span>following +the one on which he had worked the miracle of the bread, <span style="font-weight: bold">the crowd that stood on the other +side of the sea</span>, where he had performed this miracle, <span style="font-weight: bold">saw that there was no second boat there, +but only one, </span>because the day before that was the only one there, and they had seen <span style="font-weight: bold">that Jesus +had not gone into the boat, but only his disciples had gone. </span>This one ship signifies the +Church, which is one by its unity of faith and sacraments: “One faith, one baptism” (Eph 4:5). +Again, our Lord’s absence from his disciples signifies his physical absence from them at the +ascension: “After the Lord Jesus spoke to them, he was taken up into heaven” (Mk 16:19).</p> +<p>887 It was the arrival of other boats from the opposite side of the sea that gave the people the +opportunity to look for Christ; they could cross on these and search for him. He says: <span style="font-weight: bold">But other +boats arrived, </span>from the other side, that is, <span style="font-weight: bold">from Tiberias, near the place where they had eaten +the bread, after having given thanks to God.</span></p> +<p>These other boats signify the various sects of heretics and of those who seek their own profit, and +not the good of Jesus Christ: “You seek me ... because you have eaten of the bread and have been +filled” (v 26). These groups are either separated in faith, as are the heretics, or in the love of +charity, as are the carnal, who are not properly in the Church, but next to it, insofar as they have +a feigned faith and the appearance of holiness: “They have the appearance of devotion, but deny +its power” (2 Tim 3:5); “Do not be surprised if the ministers of Satan disguise themselves” (2 +Cor 11:14).</p> +<p>888 The people were eager to find Christ. First, he shows how they looked for him; secondly, +how they questioned him after they found him (v 25).</p> +<p>889 He says, <span style="font-weight: bold">When the people saw that Jesus was not there, </span>nor <span style="font-weight: bold">his disciples, they got into +the boats, </span>which had come from Tiberias, <span style="font-weight: bold">looking for Jesus; </span>and this is praiseworthy: “Search +for the Lord while he can be found” (Is 55:6); “Seek the Lord, and your soul will have life” (Ps +68:33).</p> +<p>890 Once they found him, they questioned him. <span style="font-weight: bold">When they, </span>the people, <span style="font-weight: bold">found him, </span>Christ, <span style="font-weight: bold">on +the other side of the sea, </span>they asked him: <span style="font-weight: bold">Rabbi, when did you come here? </span>This can be +understood in two ways. In the first way, they were asking about the time only. And then, +Chrysostom says, they should be rebuked for their rudeness, because, after such a miracle, they +did not ask how he crossed without a boat, but only when he did so. Or, it can be said that by +asking <span style="font-weight: bold">when, </span>they wanted to know not just the time, but the other circumstances connected with +this miraculous crossing.</p> +<p>891 Note that now, after they have found Christ, they do not wish do make him their king, while +before, after he had fed them, they did. They wanted to make him their king then because they +were emotionally excited with the joy of their meal; but such emotions quickly pass. So it is that +things that we plan according to our emotions do not last; but matters that we arrange by our +reason last longer: “A wise man continues on in his wisdom like the sun; a fool changes like the +moon” (Sir 27:12); “The work of the wicked will not last” (Prv 11:18)</p> +<p>892 Then (v 26), our Lord begins to mention a food that is spiritual. First, he states a truth about +this spiritual food. In the second place, he clears up a misunderstanding (6:41). As to the first he +does three things. First, he presents a truth about this spiritual food; secondly, he mentions its +origin; and thirdly, he tells 4hem how this spiritual food is to be acquired (6:34). He does two +things about the first. First, he explains this spiritual food and its power; in the second place, he +tells what this food is (v 28). As to the first, he does two things. First, he rebukes them for their +disordered desires; in the second place, he urges them to accept the truth (v 27).</p> +<p>893 He says, Amen, amen, I say to you, that although you seem to be devout, <span style="font-weight: bold">you seek me not +because you have seen miracles, but because you have eaten of the bread and have been +filled. </span>As if to say: You seek me, not for the sake of the spirit, but for the sake of the flesh, +because you hope for more food. As Augustine says, these people represent those who seek Jesus +not for himself, but in order to gain certain worldly advantages: as those engaged in some +business call on clerics and prelates, not for the sake of Christ, but so that through their +intervention they might be advanced into the ranks of those who are important; and like those +who hurry to the churches, not for Christ, but because they have been urged to do so by those +who are more powerful; and like those who approach our Lord for sacred orders not because they +desire the merits of the virtues, but because they are looking for the satisfactions of this present +life, as wealth and praise, as Gregory says in his <i>Moralia</i>. This is obvious: for to perform +miracles is a work of divine power, but to eat loaves of bread which have been multiplied is +temporal. Accordingly, those who do not come to Christ because of the power they see in him, +but because they eat his bread, are not serving Christ but their own stomachs, as we see from +Philippians (3:19); and again, “He will praise you when you are good to him,” as we read in the +Psalm (48:19).</p> +<p>894 He leads them back to the truth by calling their attention to spiritual food, saying, <span style="font-weight: bold">Do not +work for the food that perishes, but for that which endures to eternal life. </span>First, he mentions +its power; secondly, that it comes from him, <span style="font-weight: bold">which the Son of Man will give you.</span></p> +<p>895 The power of this food is seen in the fact that it does not perish. In this respect we should +point out that material things are likenesses of spiritual things, since they are caused and +produced by them; and consequently they resemble spiritual things in some way. Now just as the +body is sustained by food, so that which sustains the spirit is called its food, whatever it might +be. The food that sustains the body is perishable, since it is converted into the nature of the body; +but the food that sustains the spirit is not perishable, because it is not converted into the spirit; +rather, the spirit is converted into its food. Hence Augustine says in his <i>Confessions</i>: “I am the +food of the great; grow and you will eat me. But you will not change me into yourself, as you do +bodily food, but you will be changed into me.”</p> +<p>So our Lord says: work, i.e., seek by your work, or merit by your works, <span style="font-weight: bold">not for the food that +perishes, </span>i.e., bodily food: “Food is for the stomach, and the stomach for food, but God will +destroy both” (1 Cor 6:13), because we will not always need food; but <span style="font-weight: bold">work for that which, </span>that +is, the spiritual food, <span style="font-weight: bold">endures to eternal life. </span>This food is God himself, insofar as he is the Truth +which is to be contemplated and the Goodness which is to be loved, which nourish the spirit: +“Eat my bread” (Prv 9:5); “Wisdom will feed him with the bread of life and understanding” (Sir +15:5). Again, this food is the obedience to the divine commands: “My food is to do the will of +him who sent me” (above 4:34). Also, it is Christ himself: “I am the bread of life” (6:35); “My +flesh truly is food and my blood truly is drink” (6:56): and this is so insofar as the flesh of Christ +is joined to the Word of God, which is the food by which the angels live. The difference between +bodily and spiritual food which he gives here, is like the one he gave before between bodily and +spiritual drink: “Whoever drinks this water will be thirsty again, but whoever drinks the water +that I give, will never be thirsty again” (4:13). The reason for this is that bodily things are +perishable, while spiritual things, and especially God, are eternal.</p> +<p>896 We should note that according to Augustine, in his work, <i>On the Labor of Monks, </i>that +certain monks misunderstood our Lord’s saying, <span style="font-weight: bold">Do not work for the food that perishes, </span>and +claimed that spiritual men should not perform physical work. But this interpretation is false +because Paul, who was most spiritual, worked with his hands: as we read in Ephesians, there he +says (4:28): “Let him who stole, steal no longer, rather let him work with his hands.” The correct +interpretation, therefore, is that we should direct our work, i.e., our main interest and intention, +to seeking the food that leads to eternal life, that is, spiritual goods. In regard to temporal goods, +they should not be our principal aim but a subordinate one, that is, they are to be acquired only +because of our mortal body, which has to be nourished as long as we are living this present life. +So the Apostle speaks against this opinion, saying: “If any one will not work, neither let him eat” +(2 Thes 3:10); as if to say: those who maintain that physical work is not to be done should not +eat, since eating is physical.</p> +<p>897 Next (v 27), he mentions the one who gives this spiritual food. First, we see the author of +this food; secondly, the source of his authority to give us this food. Christ is the author of this +spiritual food, and the one who gives it to us. Thus he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">which, </span>that is, the food that does not +perish, <span style="font-weight: bold">the Son of Man will give you. </span>If he had said, “the Son of God,” it would not have been +unexpected; but he captures their attention by saying that <span style="font-weight: bold">the Son of Man </span>gives this food. Yet +the Son of Man gives this food in a spiritual way, because human nature, weakened by sin, found +spiritual food distasteful, and was not able to take it in its spirituality. Thus it was necessary for +the Son of Man to assume flesh and nourish us with it: “You have prepared a table before me” +(Ps 22:5).</p> +<p>898 He adds the source of his authority to give us this food when he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">for on him has God +the Father set his seal. </span>As if to say: the Son of Man will give us this food because he surpasses +all the sons of men by his unique and preeminent fulness of grace. Thus he says, on him, i.e., on +the Son of Man, <span style="font-weight: bold">has God the Father set his seal, </span>i.e., he has significantly distinguished him +from others: “God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness above your fellows” (Ps +44:8).</p> +<p>Hilary explains it this way. <span style="font-weight: bold">God set his seal, </span>i.e., impressed with a seal. For when a seal is +impressed on wax, the wax retains the entire figure of the seal, just as the Son has received the +entire figure of the Father. Now the Son receives from the Father in two ways. One of these ways +is eternal, and <span style="font-weight: bold">set his seal </span>does not refey to this way, because when something is sealed the +nature receiving the seal is not the same as the nature impressing the seal. Rather, these words +should be understood as referring to the mystery of the incarnation, because God the Father has +impressed his Word on human nature; this Word who is “the brightness of his glory, and the +figure of his substance” (Heb 1:3).</p> +<p>Chrysostom explains it this way. God the Father has <span style="font-weight: bold">set his seal, </span>i.e., God the Father specifically +chose Christ to give eternal life to the world: “I came that they may have life” (below 10:10). For +when someone is chosen to perform some great task, he is said to be sealed for that task: “After +this, the Lord appointed (<i>designo, </i>appoint; <i>signo, </i>seal, mark) seventy other disciples” (Lk 10:1).</p> +<p>Or, it could be said that God the Father <span style="font-weight: bold">set his seal, </span>i.e., Christ was made known by the Father, +by his voice at Christ’s baptism, and by his works, as we saw in the fifth chapter.</p> +<p>899 Next (v 28), we see the nature of spiritual food. First, the Jews pose their question; in the +second place, we have the answer of Jesus Christ (v 29).</p> +<p>900 Concerning the first, we should note that the Jews, since they had been taught by the law, +believed that only God was eternal. So when Christ said that his food would endure to eternal +life, they understood that it would be a divine food. Thus when they question Christ, they do not +mention this food, but rather the work of God, saying: <span style="font-weight: bold">What must we do that we may perform +the works of God? </span>Indeed, they were not far from the truth, since spiritual food is nothing else +than performing and accomplishing the works of God: “What shall I do to gain eternal life?” (Lk +18:18).</p> +<p>901 The Lord’s answer is given when he says: <span style="font-weight: bold">This is the work of God, that you believe in him +whom he sent. </span>Here we should reflect that in Romans (4:2), the Apostle distinguished faith from +works, saying that Abraham was justified by his faith, not by his works. If this is so, why does +our Lord say here that to have faith, i.e., to believe, is a work of God? There are two answers to +this. One is that the Apostle is not distinguishing faith from absolutely all works, but only from +external works. External works, being performed by our body, are more noticeable, and so the +word “works” ordinarily refers to them. But there are other works, interior works, performed +within the soul, and these are known only to the wise and those converted in heart.</p> +<p>From another point of view, we can say that to believe can be regarded as included in our +external works, not in the sense that it is an external work, but because it is the source of these +works.</p> +<p>Thus he significantly says: <span style="font-weight: bold">that you believe in him </span>(<i>in illum</i>)<i>. </i>Now it is one thing to say: “I +believe in God,” (<i>credere Deum</i>),<i> </i>for this indicates the object. It is another thing to say: “I believe +God,” (<i>credere Deo</i>),<i> </i>for this indicates the one who testifies. And it is still another thing to say: +“I believe in God,” (<i>in Deum</i>), for this indicates the end. Thus God can be regarded as the object +of faith, as the one who testifies, and as the end, but in different ways. For the object of faith can +be a creature, as when I believe in the creation of the heavens. Again, a creature can he one who +testifies, for I believe Paul (<i>credo Paulo</i>) or any of the saints. But only God can be the end of +faith, for our mind is directed to God alone as its end. Now the end, since it has the character of +a good, is the object of love. Thus, to believe in God (<i>in Deum</i>)<i> </i>as in an end is proper to faith +living through the love of charity. Faith, living in this way, is the principle of all our good works; +and in this sense to believe is said to be a work of God.</p> +<p>902 But if faith is a work of God, how do men do the works of God? Isaiah (26:12) gives us the +answer when he says: “You have accomplished all our works for us.” For the fact that we believe, +and any good we do, is from God: “It is God who is working in us, both to will and to +accomplish” (Phil 2:13). Thus he explicitly says that to believe is a work of God in order to show +us that faith is a gift of God, as Ephesians (2:8) maintains.</p> +<p>903 Next, we see the origin of this food. First, we have the question asked by the Jews; secondly, +the answer of Christ (v 32). Three things are done about the first: first, the Jews look for a sign; +secondly, they decide what it should be; and thirdly, they bring in what is narrated in Scripture.</p> +<p>904 They look for a sign by asking Christ: <span style="font-weight: bold">What sign then are you going to give that we may +see and believe you? </span>This question is explained differently by Augustine and by Chrysostom. +Chrysostom says that our Lord was leading them to the faith. But the evidence that leads one to +the faith are miracles: “Signs were given to unbelievers” (1 Cor 14:22). And so the Jews were +looking for a sign in order to believe, Afor it is their custom to seek such signs: “For Jews +demand signs” (1 Cor 14:22). So they say: <span style="font-weight: bold">What sign then are you going to </span>give?</p> +<p>But it seems foolish to ask for a miracle for this reason, for Christ had just performed some in +their presence which could lead them to believe, as multiplying the bread and walking on the +water. What they were asking was that our Lord always provide them with food. This is clear +because the only sign they mention is the one given by Moses to their ancestors for forty years, +and they ask in this way that Christ always provide food for them. Thus they say: <span style="font-weight: bold">Our fathers +ate manna in the desert. </span>They did not say that God provided their ancestors with the manna, so +that they would not seem to be making Christ equal to God. Again, they did not say that Moses +fed their ancestors, so they would not seem to be preferring Moses to Christ, trying in this way +to influence our Lord. We read of this food: “Man ate the bread of angels” (Ps 77:25).</p> +<p>905 According to Augustine, however, our Lord had said that he would give thein food that +would endure to eternal life. Thus, he seemed to put himself above Moses. The Jews, on the other +hand, considered Moses greater than Christ; so they said: “We know that God spoke to Moses, +but we do not know where this man is from” (below 9:29). Accordingly, they required Christ to +accomplish greater things than Moses; and so they recall what Moses did, saying: <span style="font-weight: bold">Our Fathers +ate manna in the desert. </span>As if to say: What you say about yourself is greater than what Moses +did, for you are promising a food that does not perish, while the manna that Moses gave became +wormy if saved for the next day. Therefore, if we are to believe you, do something greater than +Moses did. Although you have fed five thousand men once with five barley loaves, this is not +greater than what Moses did, for he fed all the people with manna from heaven for forty years, +and in the desert too: “He gave them the bread of heaven” (Ps 77:24).</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>32 Jesus therefore said to them: +<DD>“Amen, amen, I say to you: +<DD>Moses did not give you bread from heaven, +<DD>but my Father gives you true bread from heaven. +<DD>33 For the true bread is that which descends +<DD>from heaven, and gives life to the world.” +<BR>34 They then said to him: “Lord, give us this bread always.” 35 But Jesus said to them: +<DD>“I am the bread of life. +<DD>Whoever comes to me shall not hunger; +<DD>and whoever believes in me shall never thirst. +<DD>36 But I have told you that you have both seen me +<DD>and do not believe. +<DD>37 All that the Father gives me shall come to me; +<DD>and the one who comes to me I will not cast out, +<DD>38 because I have come down from heaven, +<DD>not to do my own will, +<DD>but the will of him who sent me. +<DD>39 Now it is the will of him who sent me, the Father, +<DD>that of all that he has given me I should lose nothing, +<DD>but raise it up on the last day. +<DD>40 For this is the will of my Father, who sent me, +<DD>that every one who sees the Son and believes in him, +<DD>should have eternal life. +<DD>And I will raise him up on the last day.”</p></BLOCKQUOTE> +<p>906 Having told us the question the Jews had asked Christ, the Evangelist now gives his answer. +First, Christ tells us of the origin of this spiritual food; secondly, he proves what he has just said +(v 33).</p> +<p>907 Concerning the first, we should note that the Jews had mentioned two things to Christ +concerning the bodily food which had been given to their ancestors: the one who gave this food, +Moses, and the place, that is, from heaven. Accordingly, when our Lord tells them about the +origin of spiritual food, he does not mention these two, for he says that there is another who gives +this food and another place. He says: <span style="font-weight: bold">Amen, amen, I say to you: Moses did not give you bread +from heaven. </span>There is another who gives to you, that is, <span style="font-weight: bold">my Father; </span>and he gives, not, just +bodily bread, but <span style="font-weight: bold">the true bread from heaven.</span></p> +<p>908 But was it not true bread that their ancestors had in the desert? I answer that if you +understand “true” as contrasted with “false,” then they had true bread, for the miracle of the +manna was a true miracle. But if “true” is contrasted with “symbolic,” then that bread was not +true, but was a symbol of spiritual bread, that is, of our Lord Jesus Christ, whom that manna +signified, as the Apostle says: “All ate the same spiritual food” (1 Cor 10:3).</p> +<p>909 When the Psalm (77:24) says, “He gave them the bread of heaven,” this seems to conflict +with, <span style="font-weight: bold">Moses did not give you bread from heaven. </span>I answer that the word “heaven” can be +understood in three ways. Sometimes it can mean the air, as in “The birds of heaven ate them” +(Mt 13:4); and also in, “The Lord thundered from heaven” (Ps 14:14). Sometimes “heaven” +means the starry sky; as in, “The highest heaven is the Lord’s” (Ps 113:16), and in, “The stars +will fall from heaven” (Mt 24:19). Thirdly, it can signify goods of a spiritual nature, as in +“Rejoice and be glad, because your reward is great in heaven” (Mt 5:12). So the manna was from +heaven, not the heaven of the stars or of spiritual food, but from the air. Or, the manna was said +to be from heaven insofar as it was a symbol of the true bread from heaven, our Lord Jesus +Christ.</p> +<p>910 When he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">For the true bread is that which descends from heaven, and gives life to +the world, </span>he proves that it is from heaven by its effect. For the true heaven is spiritual in nature, +and has life by its own essence; therefore, of itself, it gives life: “It is the spirit that gives life” +(below 6:64). Now God himself is the author of life. Therefore, we know that this spiritual bread +is from heaven when it produces its proper effect, if it gives life. That bodily bread used by the +Jews did not give life, since all who ate the nianna died. But this [spiritual]<i> </i>bread does give life, +so he says: <span style="font-weight: bold">the true bread, </span>not that symbolic bread, <span style="font-weight: bold">is that which descends from heaven. </span>This +is clear, because it <span style="font-weight: bold">gives life to the world: </span>for Christ, who is the true bread, gives life to whom +he wills: “I came that they may have life” (below 10:10). He also descended from heaven: “No +one has gone up to heaven except the One who came down from heaven” (above 3:13). Thus +Christ, the true bread, gives life to the world by reason of his divinity; and he descends from +heaven by reason of his human nature, for as we said on the prior text, he came down from +heaven by assuming human nature: “He emptied himself, taking the form of a servant” (Phil 2:7).</p> +<p>911 Now he considers the acquisition of this spiritual food. First, we see the Jews asking for it; +secondly, he shows the way it is acquired (v 3 5).</p> +<p>912 We should note with respect to the first, that the Jews understood what Christ said in a +material way; and so, because they desired material things, they were looking for material bread +from Christ. Hence they said to him, <span style="font-weight: bold">Lord, give us this bread always, </span>which physically +nourishes us. The Samaritan woman also understood what our Lord said about spiritual water in +a material way, and wishing to slake her thirst, said, “Give me this water” (above 4:15). And +although these people understood what our Lord said about food in a material way, and asked for +it this way, we are expected to ask for it as understood in a spiritual way: “Give us this day our +daily bread” (Mt 6:11), because we cannot live without this bread.</p> +<p>913 Then, he shows how this bread is acquired. First, he shows what this bread is; secondly, how +to obtain it (v 37). Concerning the first, he does three things. First, he explains what this bread +is, <span style="font-weight: bold">I am the bread of life; </span>secondly, he gives the reason for this, <span style="font-weight: bold">Whoever comes to me shall +not hunger; </span>thirdly, he shows why this had to be explained (v 36).</p> +<p>914 Jesus said to them: <span style="font-weight: bold">I am the bread of life, </span>for as we saw above, the word of wisdom is the +proper food of the mind, because the mind is sustained by it: “He fed him with the bread of life +and understanding” (Sir 15:3). Now the bread of wisdom is called the bread of life to distinguish +it from material bread, which is the bread of death, and which serves only to restore what has +been lost by a mortal organism; hence material bread is necessary only during this mortal life. +But the bread of divine wisdom is life-giving of itself, and no death can affect it. Again, material +bread does not give life, but only sustains for a time a life that already exists. But spiritual bread +actually gives life: for the soul begins to live because it adheres to the word of God: “For with +you is the fountain of life,” as we see in the Psalm (35:10). Therefore, since every word of +wisdom is derived from the Only Begotten Word of God—The fountain of wisdom is the Only +Begotten of God” (Sir 1:5)—this Word of God is especially called the bread of life. Thus Christ +says, <span style="font-weight: bold">I am the bread of life. </span>And because the flesh of Christ is united to the Word of God, it also +is life-giving. Thus, too, his body, sacramentally received, is life-giving: for Christ gives life to +the world through the mysteries which he accomplished in his flesh. Consequently, the flesh of +Christ, because of the Word of the Lord, is not the bread of ordinary life, but of that life which +does not die. And so the flesh of Christ is called bread: “The bread of Asher is rich” (Gn 49:20).</p> +<p>His flesh was also signified by the manna. “Manna” means “What is this?” because when the +Jews saw it they wondered, and asked each other what it was. But nothing is more a source of +wonder than the Son of God made man, so that everyone can fittingly ask, “What is this?” That +is, how can the Son of God be the Son of Man? How can Christ be one person with two natures? +“His name will be called Wonderful” (Is 9:6). It is also a cause for wonder how Christ can be +present in the sacrament.</p> +<p>915 Next (v 35), he gives the reason for this from the effect of this [spiritual] bread. When +material bread is eaten, it does not permanently take away our hunger, since it must be destroyed +in order to build us up; and this is necessary if we are to be nourished. But spiritual bread, which +gives life of itself, is never destroyed; consequently, a person who eats it once never hungers +again. Thus he says: <span style="font-weight: bold">Whoever comes to me shall not hunger; and whoever believes in me +shall never thirst.</span></p> +<p>According to Augustine, it is the same thing to say, <span style="font-weight: bold">whoever comes</span>, as to say, <span style="font-weight: bold">whoever believes</span>: +since it is the same to come to Christ and to believe in him , for we do not come to God with +bodily steps, but with those of the mind, the first of which is faith. To eat and to drink are also +the same: for each signifies that eternal fulness where there is no want: “Blessed are they who +hunger and thirst for what is right, for they will be filled” (Mt 5:6); so that food which sustains +and that drink which refreshes are one and the same.</p> +<p>One reason why temporal things do not take away our thirst permanently is that they are not +consumed altogether, but only bit by bit, and with motion, so that there is always still more to be +consumed. For this reason, just as there is enjoyment and satisfaction from what has been +consumed, so there is a desire for what is still to come. Another reason is that they are destroyed; +hence the recollection of them remains and generates a repeated longing for those things. +Spiritual things, on the other hand, are taken all at once, and they are not destroyed, nor do they +run out; and consequently the fulness they produce remains forever: “They will neither hunger +nor thirst” (Rv 7:16); “Your face will fill me with joy; the delights in your right hand (i.e., in +spiritual goods) will last forever,” as the Psalm (16:11) says.</p> +<p>916 Then (v 36), we see why Christ had to explain these things. For someone could say: We +asked for bread; but you did not answer, “I will give it to you,” or “I will not.” Rather, you say, +I am the bread of life; and so your answer does not seem to be appropriate. But our Lord shows +that it is a good answer, saying, <span style="font-weight: bold">I have told you that you have both seen me and do not +believe. </span>This is the same as a person having bread right in front of him without his knowing it, +and then being told: Look! The bread is right before you. And so Christ says: <span style="font-weight: bold">I have told you (I +am the bread of life) that you have both seen me and do not believe, </span>i.e., you want bread, and +it is right before you; and yet you do not take it because you do not believe. In saying this he is +censuring them for their unbelief: “They have seen and hated both me and my Father” (below +15:24).</p> +<p>917 Then (v 37), he shows how this bread is acquired. First, he mentions the way to acquire it; +secondly, the end attained by those who come to him (v 37b); thirdly, he enlarges on this (v 38).</p> +<p>918 Concerning the first, we should note that the very fact that we believe is a gift of God to us: +“You are saved by grace, through faith; and this is not due to yourself, for it is the gift of God” +(Eph 2:8); “It has been granted to you not only to believe in him, but also to suffer for him” (Phil +1:29). Sometimes, God the Father is said to give those who believe to the Son, as here: <span style="font-weight: bold">All that +the Father gives me shall come to me. </span>At other times, the Son is said to give them to the Father, +as in 1 Corinthians (15~24): “He will hand over the kingdom to God and the Father.” We can see +from this that just as the Father does not deprive himself of the kingdom in giving to the Son, +neither does the Son in giving to the Father. The Father gives to the Son insofar as the Father +makes a person adhere to his Word: “Through whom (that is, the Father) you have been called +into the fellowship of his Son” (1 Cor 1:9). The Son, on the other hand, gives to the Father +insofar as the Word makes the Father known: “I have made known your name to those you have +given ine” (below 17:6). Thus Christ says: <span style="font-weight: bold">All that the Father gives me shall come to me, </span>i.e., +those who believe in me, whom the Father makes adhere to me by his gift.</p> +<p>9 19 Perhaps some might say that it is not necessary for one to use God’s gift: for many receive +God’s gift and do not use it. So how can he say: <span style="font-weight: bold">All that the Father gives me shall come to me? +</span>We must say to this that in this giving we have to include not only the habit, which is faith, but +also the interior impulse to believe. So, everything which contributes to salvation is a gift of God.</p> +<p>920 There is another question. If everything which the Father gives to Christ comes to him, as +he says, then only those come to God whom the Father gives him. Thus, those who do not come +are not responsible, since they are not given to him. I answer that they are not responsible if they +cannot come to the faith without the help of God. But those who do not come are responsible, +because they create an obstacle to their own coming by turning away from salvation, the way to +which is of itself open to all.</p> +<p>921 Then (v 37b), the end attained by those who come is mentioned. For some might say, “We +will come to you, but you will not receive us.” To exclude this he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">the one who comes to +me, </span>by steps of faith and by good works, <span style="font-weight: bold">I will not cast out. </span>By this he lets us understand that +he is already within, for one must be within before one can be sent out. Let us consider, therefore, +what is interior, and how one is cast out from it.</p> +<p>We should point out that since all visible things are said to be exterior with respect to spiritual +things, then the more spiritual something is the more interior it is. What is interior is twofold. +The first is the most profound, and is the joy of eternal life. According to Augustine, this is a +sweet and most interior retreat, without any weariness, without the bitterness of evil thoughts, +and uninterrupted by temptations and sorrows. We read of this: “Share the joy of your Lord” (Mt +25:21); and, “You will hide them in the secret of your face,” that is, in the full vision of your +essence (Ps 30:2 1). From this interior no one is cast out: “He who conquers, I will make him a +pillar in the temple of the living God; and he will no longer leave it” (Rv 3:12), because “the just +will go to everlasting life,” as we see from Matthew (25:46). The other interior is that of an +upright conscience; and this is a spiritual joy. We read of this: “When I enter into my house I will +enjoy repose” (Wis 8:16); and “The king has brought me into his storerooms” (Sg 1:3). It is from +this interior, that some are cast out.</p> +<p>So, when our Lord says, <span style="font-weight: bold">the one who comes to me I will not cast out, </span>we can understand this +in two ways. In one way, those who come to him are those who have been given to him by the +Father through eternal predestination. Of these he says: <span style="font-weight: bold">the one who comes to me, </span>predestined +by the Father, <span style="font-weight: bold">I will not cast out: </span>“God has not rejected his people, the people he chose” (Rom +11:2). In a second way, those who do go out are not cast out by Christ, rather, they cast +themselves out, because through their unbelief and sins they abandon the sanctuary of an upright +conscience. Thus we read: <span style="font-weight: bold">I will not cast out </span>such; but they do cast themselves out: “You are +the burden, and I will cast you aside, says the Lord” (Jer 23:33). It was in this way that the man +who came to the wedding feast without wedding clothes was cast out (Mt 22:13).</p> +<p>922 Next (v 3 8), he gives the reason for what he just said. First, he mentions his intention to +accomplish the will of the Father; secondly, he states what the will of the Father is (v 39); and +thirdly, he shows the final accomplishment of this will (v 40b).</p> +<p>923 Concerning the first, we should note that this passage can be read in two ways: either as +Augustine does, or following the interpretation of Chrysostom. Augustine understands it this +way: <span style="font-weight: bold">the one who comes to me I will not cast out; </span>and this is because the one who comes to +me imitates my humility. In Matthew (11:29), after our Lord said, “Come to me, all you who +labor,” he added, “Learn from me, for I am gentle and humble of heart.” Now the true gentleness +of the Son of God consists in the fact that he submitted his will to the will of the Father. Thus he +says, <span style="font-weight: bold">the one who comes to me I will not cast out, because I have come down from heaven, +not to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me. </span>Since a soul abandons God because +of its pride, it must return in humility, coming to Christ by imitating his humility; and this +humility of Christ was in not doing his own will, but the will of God the Father.</p> +<p>Here we should note that there were two wills in Christ. One pertains to his human nature, and +this will is proper to him, both by nature and by the will of the Father. His other will pertains to +his divine nature, and this will is the same as the will of the Father. Christ subordinated his own +will, that is, his human will, to the divine will, because, wishing to accomplish the will of the +Father, he was obedient to the Father’s will: “My God, I desired to do your will” (Ps 39:9). We +ask that this will be accomplished in our regard when we say, “Your will be done” (Mt 6:10). +Thus, those who do the will of God, not their own will, are not cast out. The devil, who wanted +to do his own will out of pride, was cast from heaven; and so too the first man was expelled from +paradise.</p> +<p>Chrysostom explains the passage this way. The reason I do not cast out one who comes to me is +because I have come to accomplish the will of the Father concerning the salvation of men. So, +if I have become incarnate for the salvation of men, how can I cast them out? And this is what +he says: I will not cast out one who comes, <span style="font-weight: bold">because I have come down from heaven, not to do +my own will, my </span>human will, so as to obtain my own benefit, <span style="font-weight: bold">but the will of him who sent me</span>, +that is, the Father, “He desires the salvation of all men” (1 Tim 2:4). And therefore, so far as I +am concerned, I do not cast out any person: “For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled +to God by the death of his Son, now much more, having been reconciled, we will be saved by his +life” (Rom 5:10).</p> +<p>924 Then (v 39), he shows what the Father wills; and next, why he wills it (v 40).</p> +<p>925 He says: I will not cast out those who come to me, because I have taken flesh in order to do +the will of the Father: <span style="font-weight: bold">Now it is the will of him who sent me, the Father, </span>that those who come +to me <span style="font-weight: bold">I will not cast out; </span>and so I will not cast them out. “This is the will of God, your +sanctification” (1 Thes 4:3). Therefore he says that it is the will of the Father <span style="font-weight: bold">that of all that he, +</span>the Father, <span style="font-weight: bold">has given me I should lose nothing, </span>i.e., that I should lose nothing until the time of +the resurrection. At this time some will be lost, the wicked; but none of those given to Christ +through eternal predestination will be among them: “The way of the wicked will perish” (Ps 1:7). +Those, on the other hand, who are preserved until then, will not be lost.</p> +<p>Now when he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">lose</span>, we should not understand this as implying that he needs such people +or that he is damaged if they perish. Rather, he says this because he desires their salvation and +what is good for them, which he regards as his own good.</p> +<p>926 What John later reports Christ as saying seems to conflict with this: “None of them,” that +is, of those you have given me, “have been lost except the son of perdition” (below 17:12). Thus, +some of those given to Christ through eternal predestination are lost. Accordingly, what he says +here, <span style="font-weight: bold">that of all that he has given me I should lose nothing, </span>is not true. We must say to this that +some are lost from among those given to Christ through a present justification; but none are lost +from among those given to him through eternal predestination.</p> +<p>927 Now he gives the reason for the divine will (v 40). The reason why the Father wills that I +lose nothing of all that he has given me is that the Father wills to bring men to life spiritually, +because he is the fountain of life. And since the Father is eternal, he wills, absolutely speaking, +that every one who comes to me should have eternal life. And this is what he says: <span style="font-weight: bold">For this is +the will of my Father, who sent me, that every one who sees the Son and believes in him, +should have eternal life. </span>Note that he said above: “Whoever hears my voice and believes in him +who sent me, possesses eternal life” (above 5:24), while here he says: <span style="font-weight: bold">every one who sees the +Son and believes in him. </span>We can understand from this that the Father and the Son have the same +divine nature; and it is the vision of this, through its essence, that is our ultimate end and the +object of our faith. When he says here, <span style="font-weight: bold">sees the Son, </span>he is referring to the physical sight of Christ +which leads to faith, and not to this vision through essence which faith precedes. Thus he +expressly says, <span style="font-weight: bold">every one who sees the Son and believes in him: </span>“Whoever believes in him ... +will not encounter judgment, but has passed from death to life” (above 5:24); “These things are +written that you may believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and that believing you may have +life in his name” (below 20:3 1).</p> +<p>928 This will of the Father will also be accomplished. So he adds: <span style="font-weight: bold">And I will raise him up on +the last day, </span>for he wills that we have eternal life not just in our soul alone, but also in our body, +as Christ did at his resurrection: “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); “Christ, having risen +from the dead, will not die again” (Rom 6:9).</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">LECTURE5</span></p> +<BLOCKQUOTE><p>41 The Jews therefore grumbled about him because he had said, “I amthe living bread that has +come down from heaven.” 42 And they said: “Is he not the son of Joseph? Do we not know his +father and mother? How then can he say that he has come down from heaven?” 43 Jesus +responded and said to them: +<DD>“Stop grumbling among yourselves. +<DD>44 No one can come to me +<DD>unless the Father, who sent me, draws him. +<DD>And I will raise him up on the last day. +<DD>45 It is written in the prophets; +<DD>‘They shall all be taught by God.’ +<DD>Every one who has heard the Father and has learned, +<DD>comes to me. +<DD>46 Not that any one has seen the Father, +<DD>except the one who is from God— +<DD>he has seen the Father.”</p></BLOCKQUOTE> +<p>929 Those opinions that conflict with the above teaching of Christ are now rejected. First, those +of’ the people, who were discontented; secondly, those of the disciples, who were in a state of +doubt (v 61). He does two things about the first. First, we see the people grumble about the origin +of this spiritual food; secondly, we see Christ check the dispute which arose over the eating of +this spiritual food (v 53). As to the first he does two things. First, he mentions the grumbling of +the people; secondly, how it was checked (v 43). As to the first he does two things. First, he +shows the occasion for this complaining; secondly, what those complaining said (v 42).</p> +<p>930 He continues that some of the people were grumbling over what Christ had said, that is, +because Christ had said, <span style="font-weight: bold">I am the living bread that has come down from heaven, </span>a spiritual +bread they did not understand or desire. And so they grumbled because their minds were not +fixed on spiritual things. They were following in this case the custom of their ancestors: “They +grumbled in their tents” (Ps 105:25); “Do not grumble, as some of them did” (1 Cor 10:10). As +Chrysostom says, they had not complained till now because they still hoped to obtain material +food; but as soon as they lost that hope, they began to grumble, although they pretended that it +was for a different reason. Yet they did not contradict him openly due to the respect they had for +him arising from his previous miracle.</p> +<p>931 He says those who complained said: <span style="font-weight: bold">Is he not the son of Joseph? </span>For since they were +earthly minded, they only considered Christ’s physical generation, which hindered them from +recognizing his spiritual and eternal generation. And so we see them speaking only of earthly +things, “He who is of earth is earthly and speaks of earthly things” (above 3:3 1), and not +understanding what is spiritual. Thus they said: <span style="font-weight: bold">How then can he say that he has come down +from heaven? </span>They called him the son of Joseph as this was the general opinion, for Joseph was +his foster father: “the son of Joseph (as was supposed)” (Lk 3:23).</p> +<p>932 Next (v 43), the grumbling of the people is checked. First, Christ stops this complaining; +secondly, he clears up their difficulty (v 47). As to the first he does two things. First, he checks +their complaining, secondly, he tells why they were doing it (v 44).</p> +<p>933 Jesus noticed that they were grumbling and checked them, saying, <span style="font-weight: bold">Stop grumbling among +yourselves. </span>This was good advice, for those who complain show that their minds are not firmly +fixed on God; and so we read in Wisdom (1:11): “Keep yourselves from grumbling, for it does +no good.”</p> +<p>934 The reason for their grumbling was their unbelief, and he shows this when he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">No one +can come to me </span>.... First, he shows that if one is to come to Christ, he has to be drawn by the +Father. Secondly, he shows the way one is drawn (v 45). As to the first he does three things. First, +he mentions that coming to Christ surpasses human ability; secondly, the divine help we receive +for this; and thirdly, the end or fruit of this help.</p> +<p>That we should come to Christ through faith surpasses our human ability; thus he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">No one +can come to me. </span>Secondly, divine help is effective in helping us to this; thus he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">unless the +Father, who sent me, draws him. </span>The end or fruit of this help is the very best, so he adds, <span style="font-weight: bold">And +I will raise him up on the last day.</span></p> +<p>935 He says first: It is not unexpected that you are grumbling, because my Father had not yet +drawn you to me, for <span style="font-weight: bold">No one can come to me, </span>by believing in me, <span style="font-weight: bold">unless the Father, who sent +me, draws him.</span></p> +<p>There are three questions here. The first is about his saying: <span style="font-weight: bold">unless the Father draws him. </span>For +since we come to Christ by believing, then, as we said above, to come to Christ is to believe in +him. But no one can believe unless he wills to. Therefore, since to be drawn implies some kind +of compulsion, one who comes to Christ by being drawn is compelled.</p> +<p>I answer that what we read here about the Father drawing us does not imply coercion, because +there are some ways of being drawn that do not involve compulsion. Consequently, the Father +draws men to the Son in many ways, using the different ways in which we can be drawn without +compulsion. One person may draw another by persuading him with a reason. The Father draws +us to his Son in this way by showing us that he is his Son. He does this in two ways. First, by an +interior revelation, as in: “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona, for flesh and blood has not revealed +this to you (that is, that Christ is the Son of the living God), but it was done so by my Father” (Mt +16:17). Secondly, it can be done through miracles, which the Son has the power to do from the +Father: “The very works which my Father has given me to perform ... they bear witness to me” +(above 5:36).</p> +<p>Again, one person draws another by attracting or captivating him: “She captivated him with her +flattery” (Prv 7:21). This is the way the Father draws those who are devoted to Jesus on account +of the authority of the paternal greatness. For the Father, i.e., the paternal greatness, draws those +who believe in Christ because they believe that he is the Son of God. Arius—who did not believe +that Christ was the true Son of God, nor begotten of the substance of the Father—was not drawn +in this way. Neither was Photinus—who dogniatized that Christ was a mere man. So, this is the +way those who are captivated by his greatness are drawn by the Father. But they are also drawn +by the Son, through a wonderful joy and love of the truth, which is the very Son of God himself. +For if, as Augustine says, each of us is drawn by his own pleasure, how much more strongly +ought we to be drawn to Christ if we find our pleasure in truth, happiness, justice, eternal life: +all of which Christ is! Therefore, if we would be drawn by him, let us be drawn through love for +the truth, according to: “Take delight in the Lord, and he will give you the desires of your heart” +(Ps 36:4). And so in the Song of Solomon, the bride says: “Draw me after you, and we will run +to the fragrance of your perfume” (1:4).</p> +<p>An external revelation or an object are not the only things that draw us. There is also an interior +impulse that incites and moves us to believe. And so the Father draws many to the Son by the +impulse of a divine action, moving a person’s heart from within to believe: “It is God who is +working in us, both to will and to accomplish” (Phil 2:13); “1 will draw them with the cords of +Adam, with bands of love” (Hos 11:4); “The heart of the king is in the hand of the Lord; he turns +it wherever he wills” (Prv 2 1:1).</p> +<p>936 The second problem is this. We read that it is the Son who draws us to the Father: “No one +knows the Father but the Son, and he to whom the Son wishes to reveal him” (Mt 11:26); “1 have +made your name known to those you have given me” (below 17:6). So how can it say here that +it is the Father who draws us to the Son? This can be answered in two ways: for we can speak +of Christ either as a man, or as God. As man, Christ is the way: “I am the way” (below 14:6); and +as the Christ, he leads us to the Father, as a way or road leads to its end. The Father draws us to +Christ as man insofar as he gives us his own power so that we may believe in Christ: “You are +saved by grace, through faith; and this is not due to yourself, for it is the gift of God”’ (Eph 2:8). +Insofar as he is Christ, he is the Word of God and manifests the Father. It is in this way that the +Son draws us to the Father. But the Father draws us to the Son insofar as he manifests the Son.</p> +<p>937 The third problem concerns his saying that no one can come to Christ unless the Father +draws him. For according to this, if one does not come to Christ, it is not because of himself, but +is due to the one who does not draw him. I answer and say that, in truth, no one can come unless +drawn by the Father. For just as a heavy object by its nature cannot rise up, but has to be lifted +by someone else, so the human heart, which tends of itself to lower things, cannot rise to what +is above unless it is drawn or lifted. And if it does not rise up, this is not due to the failure of the +one lifting it, who, so far as lies in him, fails no one; rather, it is due to an obstacle in the one who +is not drawn or lifted up.</p> +<p>In this matter we can distinguish between those in the state of integral nature, and those in the +state of fallen nature. In the state of integral nature, there was no obstacle to being drawn up, and +thus all could share in it. But in the state of fallen nature, all are equally held back from this +drawing by the obstacle of sin; and so, all need to be drawn. God, in so far as it depends on him, +extends his hand to every one, to draw every one; and what is more, he not only draws those who +receive him by the hand, but even converts those who are turned away from him, according to: +“Convert us, O Lord, to yourself, and we will be converted” (Lam 5:21); and “You will turn, O +God, and bring us to life,” as one version of the Psalm (84:7) puts it. Therefore, since God is +ready to give grace to all, and draw them to himself, it is not due to him if someone does not +accept; rather, it is due to the person who does not accept.</p> +<p>938 A general reason can be given why God does not draw all who are turned away from him, +but certain ones, even though all are equally turned away. The reason is so that the order of divine +justice may appear and shine forth in those who are not drawn, while the immensity of the divine +mercy may appear and shine in those who are drawn. But as to why in particular he draws this +person and does not draw that person, there is no reason except the pleasure of the divine will. +So Augustine says: “Whom he draws and whom he does not draw, why he draws one and does +not draw another, do not desire to judge if you do not wish to err. But accept and understand: If +you are not yet drawn, then pray that you may be drawn.” We can illustrate this by an example. +One can give as the reason why a builder puts some stones at the bottom, and others at the top +and sides, that it is the arrangement of the house, whose completion requires this. But why he +puts these particular stones here, and those over there, this depends on his mere will. Thus it is +that the prime reason for the arrangement is referred to the will of the builder. So God, for the +completion of the universe, draws certain ones in order that his mercy may appear in them; and +others he does not draw in order that his justice may be shown in them. But that he draws these +and does not draw those, depends on the pleasure of his will. In the same way, the reason why +in his Church he made some apostles, some confessors, and others martyrs, is for the beauty and +completion of the Church. But why he made Peter an apostle, and Stepehen a martyr, and +Nicholas a confessor, the only reason is his will. We are now clear on the limitations of our +human ability, and the assistance given to us by divine help.</p> +<p>939 He follows with the end and fruit of this help when he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">And I will raise him </span>tip <span style="font-weight: bold">on the +last day, </span>even as man; for we obtain the fruit of the resurrection through those things which +Christ did in his flesh: “For as death came through a man, so the resurrection of the dead has +come through a man” (1 Cor 15:21). So <span style="font-weight: bold">I</span>, as man, <span style="font-weight: bold">will raise him up, </span>not only to a natural life, +but even too the life of glory; and this on the last day. For the Catholic Faith teaches that the +world will be made new: “Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth” (Rv 2 1:1), and that among +the changes accompanying this renewal we believe that the motion of the heavens will stop, and +consequently, time. “And the angel I saw standing on the sea and on the land, raised his hand to +heaven” (Rv 10:5), and then it says that he swore that “time will be no more” (v 6). Since at the +resurrection time will stop, so also will night and day, according to “There will be one day, +known to the Lord, not day and night” (Zec 14:7). This is the reason he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">And I will raise +him up on the last day.</span></p> +<p>940 As to the question why the motion of the heavens and time itself will continue until then, and +not end before or after, we should note that whatever exists for something else is differently +disposed according to the different states of that for which it exists. But all physical things have +been made for man; consequently, they should be disposed according to the different states of +man. So, because the state of incorruptibility will begin in men when they arise—according to +“What is mortal will put on incorruption,” as it says in 1 Corinthians (15:54)—the corruption of +things will also stop then. Consequently, the motion of the heavens, which is the cause of the +generation and corruption of material things, will stop. “Creation itself will be set free from its +slavery to corruption into the freedom of the children of God” (Rom 8:21).</p> +<p>So, it is clear that the Father must draw us if we are to have faith.</p> +<p>941 Then (v 45), he considers the way we are drawn. First, he states the way; secondly, its +effectiveness (v 45b); and thirdly, he excludes a certain way of being drawn (v 46).</p> +<p>942 The manner in which we are drawn is appropriate, for God draws us by revealing and +teaching; and this is what he says: <span style="font-weight: bold">It is written in the prophets: They shall all be taught by +God. </span>Bede says that this comes from Joel. But it does not seem to be there explicitly, although +there is something like it in: “O children oi Zion, rejoice and be joyful in the Lord your God, +because he will give you a teacher of justice” (JI 2:23). Again, according to Bede, he says, in the +prophets, so that we might understand that the same meaning can be gathered from various +statements of the prophets. But it is Isaiah who seems to state this more explicitly: “All your +children will be taught by the Lord” (is 54:13). We also read: “I will give you shepherds after my +own heart, and they will feed you with knowledge and doctrine” (Jer 3:15).</p> +<p>943 <span style="font-weight: bold">They shall all be taught by God, </span>can be understood in three ways. In one way, so that all +stands for all the people in the world; in another way, so that it stands for all who are in the +Church of Christ, and in a third way, so it means all who will be in the kingdom of heaven.</p> +<p>If we understand it in the first way, it does not seem to be true, for he immediately adds, <span style="font-weight: bold">Every +one who has heard the Father and has learned, comes to me. </span>Therefore, if every one in the +world is taught [by God], then every one will come to Christ. But this is false, for not every one +has faith. There are three answers to this. First, one could say, as Chrysostorn does, that he is +speaking of the majority: all, i.e., very many shall be taught, just as we find in Matthew: “Many +will come from the East and the West” (Mt 8:11). Secondly, it could mean, all, so far as God is +concerned, shall be taught, but if some are not taught, that is due to themselves. For the sun, on +its part, shines on all, but some are unable to see it if they close their eyes, or are blind. From this +point of view, the Apostle says: “He desires the salvation of all men, and that all come to the +knowledge of the truth” (1 Tim 2:4). Thirdly, we could say, with Augustine, that we must make +a restricted application, so that <span style="font-weight: bold">They shall all be taught by God, </span>means that all who are taught, +are taught by God. It is just as we might speak of a teacher of the liberal arts who is working in +a city: he alone teaches all the boys of the city, because no one there is taught by anyone else. It +is in this sense that it was said above: “He was the true light, which enlightens every man coming +into this world” ( 1:9).</p> +<p>944 If we explain these words as referring to those who are gathered into the Church, it says: +They shall all, all who are in the Church, be taught by God. For we read: “All your children will +be taught by the Lord” (Is 54:13). This shows the sublimity of the Christian faith, which does not +depend on human teachings, but on the teaching of God. For the teaching of the Old Testament +was given through the prophets; but the teaching of the New Testament is given through the Son +of God himself. “In many and various ways (i.e., in the Old Testament) God spoke to our fathers +through the prophets; in these days he has spoken to us in his Son” (Heb 1:1); and again in (2:3): +“It was first announced by the Lord, and was confirined to us by those who heard him.” Thus, +all who are in the Church are taught, not by the apostles nor by the prophets, but by God himself. +Further, according to Augustine, what we are taught by men is from God, who teaches from +within: “You have one teacher, the Christ” (Mt 23:10). For understanding, which we especially +need for such teaching, is from God.</p> +<p>945 If we explain these words as applying to those who are in the kingdom of heaven, then <span style="font-weight: bold">They +shall all be taught by God, </span>because they will see his essence without any intermediary: “We +shall see him as he is” (1 Jn 3:2).</p> +<p>946 This drawing by the Father is most effective, because, <span style="font-weight: bold">Every one who has heard the Father +and has learned, comes to me. </span>Here he mentions two things: first, what relates to a gift of God, +when he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">has heard, </span>that is, through God, who reveals; the other relates to a free judgment, +when he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">and has learned, </span>that is, by an assent. These two are necessary for every teaching +of faith. <span style="font-weight: bold">Every one who has heard the Father, </span>teaching and making known, <span style="font-weight: bold">and has learned, +</span>by giving assent, comes to me.</p> +<p>He comes in three ways: through a knowledge of the truth; through the affection of love; and +through imitative action. And in each way it is necessary that one hear and learn. The one who +comes through a knowledge of the truth must hear, when God speaks within: “I will hear what +the Lord God will speak within me” (Ps 84:9); and he must learn, through affection, as was said. +The one who comes through love and desire—“If any one thirsts, let him come to me and drink” +(below 7:37)—must hear the word of the Father and grasp it, in order to learn and be moved in +his affections. For that person learns the word who grasps it according to the meaning of the +speaker. But the Word of the Father breathes forth love. Therefore, the one who grasps it with +eager love, learns. “Wisdom goes into holy souls, and makes them prophets and friends of God” +(Wis 7:27). One comes to Christ through imitative action, according to: “Come to me, all you +who labor and are burdened, and I will refresh you” (Mt 11:28). And whoever learns even in this +way comes to Christ: for as the conclusion is to things knowable, so is action to things +performable. Now whoever learns perfectly in the sciences arrives at the conclusion; therefore, +as regards things that are performable, whoever learns the words perfectly arrives at the right +action: “The Lord has opened my ear; and I do not resist” (Is 50:5).</p> +<p>947 To correct the thought that some might have that every one will hear and learn from the +Father through a vision, he adds: <span style="font-weight: bold">Not that any one has seen the Father, </span>that is, a person living +in this life does not see the Father in his essence, according to: “Man will not see me and live” +(Ex 33:20), <span style="font-weight: bold">except the one, </span>that is the Son, <span style="font-weight: bold">who is from God—he has seen the Father, </span>through +his essence. Or, <span style="font-weight: bold">Not that any one has seen the Father, </span>with a comprehensive vision: neither +man nor angel has ever seen or can see in this way; <span style="font-weight: bold">except the one who is from God, </span>i.e., the +Son: “No one knows the Father except the Son” (Mt 11:27).</p> +<p>The reason for this, of course, is that all vision or knowledge comes about through a likeness: +creatures have a knowledge of God according to the way they have a likeness to him. Thus the +philosophers say that the intelligences know the First Cause according to this likeness which they +have to it. Now every creature possesses some likeness to God, but it is infinitely distant from +a likeness to his nature, and so no creature can know him perfectly and totally, as he is in his own +nature. The Son, however, because he has received the entire nature of the Father perfectly, +through an eternal generation, sees and comprehends totally.</p> +<p>948 Note how the words used are appropriate: for above, when he was speaking of the +knowledge others have, he used the word “heard”; but now, in speaking of the Son’s knowledge, +he uses the word “seen,” for knowledge which comes through seeing is direct and open, while +that which comes through hearing comes through one who has seen. And so we have received +the knowledge we have about the Father from the Son, who saw him. Thus, no one can know the +Father except through Christ, who makes him known; and no one can come to the Son unless he +has heard from the Father, who makes the Son known.</p> +<p style="margin-bottom: 0.125in; margin-bottom: 0.125in"> </p> +<p style="text-align: center"><span style="font-weight: bold">LECTURE 6</span></p> +<BLOCKQUOTE><DD>47 “Amen, amen, I say to you: +<DD>Whoever believes in me has eternal life. +<DD>48 1 am the bread of life. +<DD>49 Your fathers ate manna in the desert, +<DD>and they are dead. +<DD>50 This is the bread that comes down from heaven, +<DD>so that if anyone eats of this [bread] +<DD>he will not die. +<DD>51 I am the living bread +<DD>that has come down from heaven. +<DD>52 If anyone eats of this bread, +<DD>he will live forever. +<DD>And the bread which I will give is my flesh, +<DD>for the life of the world.”</p></BLOCKQUOTE> +<p>949 After our Lord quieted the grumbling of the Jews, he now clears up the doubt they had +because of his saying, “I am the bread that has come down from heaven.” he intends to show here +that this is true. This is the way he reasons: The bread which gives life to the world descended +from heaven; but I am the bread that gives life to the world: therefore, I am the bread which +descended from heaven. He does three things concerning this. First, he presents the minor +premise of his reasoning, that is, <span style="font-weight: bold">I am the bread of life. </span>In the second place, he gives the major +premise, that is, that the bread that descended from heaven ought to give life (v 49). Thirdly, we +have the conclusion (v 5 1). As to the first he does two things. First, he states his point; secondly, +he expresses it as practically proved (v 48).</p> +<p>950 His intention is to show that he is the bread of life. Bread is life-giving insofar as it is taken. +Now one who believes in Christ takes him within himself, according to: “Christ dwells,in our +hearts through faith” (Eph 3:17). Therefore, if he who believes in Christ has life, it is clear that +he is brought to life by eating this bread. Thus, this bread is the bread of life. And this is what he +says: Amen, amen, I say to you: <span style="font-weight: bold">Whoever believes in me, </span>with a faith made living by love, +which not only perfects the intellect but the affections as well (for we do not tend to the things +we believe in unless we love them), <span style="font-weight: bold">has eternal life.</span></p> +<p>Now Christ is within us in two ways: in our intellect through faith, so far as it is faith; and in our +affections through love, which informs or gives life to our faith: “He who abides in love, abides +in God, and God in him” (1 Jn 4:16). So he who believes in Christ so that he tends to him, +possesses Christ in his affections and in his intellect. And if we add that Christ is eternal life, as +stated in “that we may be in his true Son, Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life” (1 +Jn 5:20), and in “In him was life” (above 1:4), we can infer that whoever believes in Christ has +eternal life. He has it, I say, in its Ciause and in hope, and he will have it at some time in reality.</p> +<p>951 Having stated his position, he expresses it as, <span style="font-weight: bold">I am the bread of life, </span>which gives life, as +clearly follows from the above. We read of this bread: “The bread of Asher will be rich, he will +furnish choice morsels,” of eternal life, “to kings” (Gn 49:20).</p> +<p>952 Then when he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">Your fathers ate manna in the desert, and they are dead, </span>he gives +the major premise, namely, the bread that descended from heaven ought to have the effect of +giving life. First, he explains this; secondly, he draws his point (v 50).</p> +<p>953 He explains his meaning through a contrasting situation. It was said above (909) that Moses +gave the Jews bread from heaven, in the sense of from the air. But bread that does not come from +the true heaven cannot give adequate life. Therefore, it is proper to the heavenly bread to give +life. So, the bread given by Moses, in which you take pride, does not give life. And he proves this +when he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">Your fathers ate manna in the desert, and they are dead.</span></p> +<p>In this statement he first reproaches them for their faults, when he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">Your fathers, </span>whose +sons you are, not only according to the flesh, but also by imitating their actions, because you are +grumblers just as “they grumbled in their tents” (Ps 105:25); this was why he said to them: “Fill +up, then, the measure of your fathers,” as we read in Matthew (23:32). As Augustine says, this +people is said to have offended God in no matter more than by grumbling against God.</p> +<p>Secondly, he mentions for how short a time this was done, saying, <span style="font-weight: bold">in the desert: </span>for they were +not given manna for a long period of time; and they had it only while in the desert, and not when +they entered the promised land (Jos 5). But the other bread [from the true heaven] preserves and +nourishes one forever. Thirdly, he states an inadequacy in that bread, that is, it did not preserve +life without end; so he says, and they are dead. For we read in Joshua (c 5) that all who grumbled, +except Joshua and Caleb, died in the desert. This was the reason for the second circumcision, as +we see here, because all who had left Egypt died in the desert.</p> +<p>954 One might wonder what kind of death God is speaking of here. If he is speaking of physical +death, there will be no difference between the bread the Jews had in the desert and our bread, +which came down from heaven, because even Christians who share the latter bread die +physically. But if he is speaking of spiritual death, it is clear that both then among the Jews and +now among the Christians, some die spiritually and others do not. For Moses and many others +who were pleasing to God did not die, while others did. Also, those who eat this bread [of the +Christians] unworthily, die spiritually: “He who eats and drinks unworthily, eats and drinks +judginent upon himself” (1 Cor 11:29).</p> +<p>We may answer this by saying that the food of the Jews has some features in common with our +spiritual food. They are alike in the fact that each signifies the same thing: for both signify Christ. +Thus they are called the same food: “All ate the same spiritual food” ( 1 Cor 10:3). He calls them +the same because each is a symbol of the spiritual food. But they are different because one [the +manna] was only a symbol; while the other [the bread of the Christians] contains that of which +it is the symbol, that is, Christ himself. Thus we should say that each of these foods can be taken +in two ways. First, as a sign only, i.e., so that each is taken as food only, and without +understanding what is signified; and taken in this way, they do not take away either physical or +spiritual death. Secondly, they may be taken in both ways, i.e., the visible food is taken in such +a way that spiritual food is understood and spiritually tasted, in order that it may satisfy +spiritually. In this way, those who ate the manna spiritually did not die spiritually. But those who +eat the Eucharist spiritually, both live spiritually now without sin, and will live physically +forever. Thus, our food is greater than their food, because it contains in itself that of which it is +the symbol.</p> +<p>955 Having presented the argument, he draws the conclusion: <span style="font-weight: bold">This is the bread that comes, +down from heaven. </span>He says, <span style="font-weight: bold">This, </span>the Gloss says, to indicate himself. But our Lord does not +understand it this way as it would be superfluous, since he immediately adds, <span style="font-weight: bold">I am the living +bread that has come down from heaven. </span>So we should say that our Lord wants to say that the +bread which can do this, i.e., give life, comes from heaven; but I am that bread: thus, I am that +bread that comes down from heaven. Now the reason why that bread which comes down from +heaven gives a life which never ends is that all food nourishes according to the properties of its +nature; but heavenly things are incorruptible: consequently, since this food is heavenly, it is not +corrupted, and as long as it lasts, it gives life. So, he who eats it, will not die. Just as if there were +some bodily food which never corrupted, then in nourishing it would always be life-giving. This +bread was signified by the tree of life in the midst of Paradise, which somehow gave life without +end: “He must not be allowed to stretch out his hand and take from the tree of life and eat, and +live forever” (Gn 3:22). So if the effect of this bread is that anyone who eats it will not die, and +I am such, then [anyone who eats of me will not die].</p> +<p>956 He does two things concerning this. First, he speaks of himself in general; secondly, in +particular, <span style="font-weight: bold">And the bread which I will give is my flesh. </span>In regard to the first, he does two +things: first, he mentions his origin; secondly his power (v 52).</p> +<p>957 He said, <span style="font-weight: bold">I am the living bread; </span>consequently, I can give life. Material bread does not give +life forever, because it does not have life in itself; but it gives life by being changed and +converted into nourishment by the energy of a living organism. <span style="font-weight: bold">That has come down from +heaven: </span>it was explained before [4671 how the Word came down. This refuted those heresies +which taught that Christ was a mere man, because according to them, he would not have come +down from heaven.</p> +<p>958 He has the power to give eternal life; thus he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">If anyone eats of this bread, </span>i.e., +spiritually, <span style="font-weight: bold">he will live, </span>not only in the present through faith and justice, but <span style="font-weight: bold">forever. </span>“Everyone +who lives and believes in me, will never die” (below 11:26).</p> +<p>959 He then speaks of his body when he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">And the bread which I will give is my flesh.</span> For +he had said that he was the living bread; and so that we do not think that he is such so far as he +is the Word or in his soul alone, he shows that even his flesh is life-giving, for it is an instrument +of his divinity. Thus, since an instrument acts by virtue of the agent, then just as the divinity of +Christ is lifegiving, so too his flesh gives life (as Damascene says) because of the Word to which +it is united. Thus Christ healed the sick by his touch. So what he said above, <span style="font-weight: bold">I am the living +bread, </span>pertained to the power of the Word; but what he is saying here pertains to the sharing in +his body, that is, to the sacrament of the Eucharist.</p> +<p>960 We can consider four things about this sacrament: its species, the authority of the one who +instituted it, the truth of this sacrament, and its usefulness.</p> +<p>As to the species of this sacrament: <span style="font-weight: bold">This is the bread; </span>“Come, and eat my bread” (Prv 9:5). The +reason for this is that this is the sacrament of the body of Christ; but the body of Christ is the +Church, which arises out of many believers forming a bodily unity: “We are one body” (Rom +12:5). And so because bread is formed from many grains, it is a fitting species for this sacrament. +Hence he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">And the bread which I will give is my flesh.</span></p> +<p>961 The author of this sacrament is Christ: for although the priest confers it, it is Christ himself +who gives the power to this sacrament, because the priest consecrates in the person of Christ. +Thus in the other sacraments the priest uses his own words or those of the Church, but in this +sacrament he uses the words of Christ: because just as Christ gave his body to death by his own +will, so it is by his own power that he gives himself as food: “Jesus took bread, he blessed it and +broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying: ‘Take and eat it, this is my body’ “ (Mt 26:26). Thus +he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">which I will </span>give; and he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">will give, </span>because this sacrament had not yet been +instituted.</p> +<p>962 The truth of this sacrament is indicated when he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">is my flesh</span>. He does not say, “This +signifies my flesh,” but it <span style="font-weight: bold">is my flesh, </span>for in reality that which is taken is truly the body of Christ: +“Who will give us his flesh so that we may be satisfied?” as we read in Job (31:3 1).</p> +<p>Since the whole Christ is contained in this sacrament, why did he just say, this <span style="font-weight: bold">is my flesh</span>? To +answer this, we should note that in this mystical sacrament the whole Christ is really contained: +but his body is there by virtue of the conversion; while his soul and divinity are present by natural +concomitance. For if we were to suppose whal is really inipossible, that is, that the divinity of +Christ is separated from his body, then his divinity would not be present in this sacrament. +Similarly, if someone had consecrated during the three days Christ was dead, his soul would not +have been present there [in the sacrament], but his body would have been, as it was on the cross +or in the tomb. Since this sacrament is the commemoration of our Lord’s passion—according to +“As often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord” (1 Cor +11:26)—and the passion of Christ depended on his weakness—according to “He was crucified +through weakness” (2 Cor 13:4)—he rather says, <span style="font-weight: bold">is my flesh, </span>to suggest the weakness through +which he died, for “flesh” signifies weakness.</p> +<p>963 The usefulness of this sacrament is great and universal. It is great, indeed, because it +produces spiritual life within us now, and will later produce eternal life, as was said. For as is +clear from what was said, since this is the sacrament of our Lord’s passion, it contains in itself +the Christ who suffered. Thus, whatever is an effect of our Lord’s passion is also an effect of this +sacrament. For this sacrament is nothing other than the application of our Lord’s passion to us. +For it was not fitting for Christ to be always with us in his own presence; and so he wanted to +make up for this absence through this sacrament. Hence it is clear that the destruction of death, +which Christ accomplished by his death, and the restoration of life, which he accomplished by +his resurrection, are effects of this sacrament.</p> +<p>964 The usefulness of this sacrament is universal because the life it gives is not only the life of +one person, but, so far as concerns itself, the life of the entire world: and for this the death of +Christ is fully sufficient. “He is the offering for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those +of the entire world” (1 Jn 2:2).</p> +<p>We should note that this sacrament is different from the others: for the other sacraments have +individual effects: as in baptism, only the one baptized receives grace. But in the immolation of +this sacrament, the effect is universal: because it affects not just the priest, but also those for +whom he prays, as well as the entire Church, of the living and of the dead. The reason for this +is that it contains the universal cause of all the sacraments, Christ. Nevertheless, when a lay +person receives this sacrament it does not benefit others <i>ex opere operato </i>[by its own power] +considered as a receiving. However, due to the intention of the person who is acting and +receiving, it can be communicated to all those to whom he directs his intention. It is clear from +this that lay persons are mistaken when they receive the Eucharist for those in purgatory.</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>53 The Jews therefore disputed among themselves, saying: “How can this man give us his flesh +to eat?” 54 Jesus then said to them: +<DD>“Amen, amen, I say to you, +<DD>unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his blood, +<DD>you will not have life in you. +<DD>55 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life; +<DD>and I will raise him up on the last day. +<DD>56 For my flesh truly is food, +<DD>and my blood truly is drink. +<DD>57 He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood +<DD>abides in me, and I in him. +<DD>58 Just as the living Father has sent me, and I live because of the Father, +<DD>so whoever eats me, +<DD>he also will live because of me. +<DD>59 This is the bread that has come down from heaven. +<DD>Unlike your fathers who ate manna and are dead, +<DD>whoever eats this bread shall live forever.” +<BR>60 These things he said teaching in the synagogue at Capernaum.</p></BLOCKQUOTE> +<p>965 Above, our Lord checked the grumbling of the Jews over the origin of this spiritual food; +here, he stops their dispute over the ealing of this same food. First, we see their dispute; +secondly, our Lord stops it (v 54); thirdly, the Evangelist mentions the place where all this +happened (v 60).</p> +<p>906 As to the first, note that the Evangelist brings in the dispute among the Jews in the form of +a conclusion, <span style="font-weight: bold">saying, The Jews therefore disputed among themselves. </span>And this is fitting: for +according to Augustine, our Lord had just spoken to them about the food of unity, which makes +into one those who are nourished on it, according to, “Let those who are just feast and rejoice +before God,” and then it continues, according to one reading, “God makes those who agree to +live in one house” (Ps 67:4). And so, because the Jews had not eaten the food of harmony, they +argued with each other:<span style="font-weight: bold"> </span>“When you fast, you argue and fight” (Is 58:4). Further, their quarreling +with others shows that they were carnal: “For while you are envious and quarreling, are you not +carnal?” (1 Cor 3:3). Therefore, they understood these words of our Lord in a carnal way, i.e., +as meaning that our Lord’s flesh would be eaten as material food. Thus they say, <span style="font-weight: bold">How can this +man give us his flesh to eat? </span>As if to say: This is impossible. Here they were speaking against +God just as their fathers did: “We are sick of this useless food” (Nm 21:5).</p> +<p>967 Our Lord stops this argument. First, he states the power that comes from taking this food; +secondly, he amplifies on it (v 55). As to the first he does three things. First, he states why it is +necessary to eat this flesh; secondly, its usefulness; and thirdly, he adds something about its truth +(v 56).</p> +<p>968 Jesus said: <span style="font-weight: bold">Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and +drink his blood, you will not have life in you. </span>As if to say: You think it is impossible and +unbecoming to eat my flesh. But it is not only possible, but very necessary, so much so that +<span style="font-weight: bold">unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you will not have, </span>i.e., you +will not be able to have, <span style="font-weight: bold">life in you, </span>that is, spiritual life. For just as material food is so necessary +for bodily life that without it you cannot exist—“They exchanged their precious belongings for +food” (Lam 1:11); “Bread strengthens the heart of man” (Ps 103:15)—so spiritual food is +necessary for the spiritual life to such an extent that without it the spiritual life cannot be +sustained: “Man does not live by bread alone, but by every word which comes from the mouth +of God” (Dt 8:3).</p> +<p>969 We should note that this statement can refer either to eating in a spiritual way or in a +sacramental way. If we understand it as referring to a spiritual eating, it does not cause any +difficulty. For that person eats the flesh of Christ and drinks his blood in a spiritual way who +shares in the unity of the Church; and this is accomplished by the love of charity: “You are one +body, in Christ” (Rom 12:5). Thus, one who does not eat in this way is outside the Church, and +consequently, without the love of charity. Accordingly, such a one does not have life in himself: +“He who does not love, remains in death” (1 Jn 3:14).</p> +<p>But if we refer this statement to eating in a sacramental way, a difficulty appears. For we read +above: “Unless one is born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of +God” (3:5). Now this statement was given in the same form as the present one: <span style="font-weight: bold">Unless you eat +the flesh of the Son of Man. </span>Therefore, since baptism is a necessary sacrament, it seems that the +Eucharist is also. In fact, the Greeks think it is; and so they give the Eucharist to newly baptized +infants. For this opinion they have in their favor the rite of Denis, who says that the reception of +each sacrament should culminate in the sharing of the Eucharist, which is the culmination of all +the sacraments. This is true in the case of adults, but it is not so for infants, because receiving the +Eucharist should be done with reverence and devotion, and those who do not have the use of +reason, as infants and the insane, cannot have this. Consequently, it should not be given to them +at all.</p> +<p>We should say, therefore, that the sacrament of baptism is necessary for everyone, and it must +be really received, because without it no one is born again into life. And so it is necessary that +it be received in reality, or by desire in the case of those who are prevented from the former. For +if the contempt within a person excludes a baptism by water, then neither a baptism of desire nor +of blood will benefit him for eternal life. However, the sacrament of the Eucharist is necessary +for adults only, so that it may be received in reality, or by desire, according to the practices of the +Church.</p> +<p>970 But even this causes difficulty: because by these words of Our Lord, it is necessary for +salvation not only to eat his body, but also to drink his blood, especially since a repast of food +is not complete without drink. Therefore, since it is the custom in certain Churches for only the +priest to receive Christ’s blood, while the rest receive only his body, they would seem to be +acting against this.</p> +<p>I answer that it was the custom of the early Church for all to receive both the body and blood of +Christ; and certain Churches have still retained this practice, where even those assisting at the +altar always receive the body and blood. But in some Churches, due to the danger of spilling the +blood, the custom is for it to be received only by the priest, while the rest receive Christ’s body. +Even so, this is not acting against our Lord’s command, because whoever receives Christ’s body +receives his blood also, since the entire Christ is present under each species, even his body and +blood. But under the species of bread, Christ’s body is present in virtue of the conversion, and +his blood is present by natural concomitance; while under the species of wine, his blood is +present in virtue of the conversion, and his body by natural concomitance.</p> +<p>It is now clear why it is necessary to receive this spiritual food.</p> +<p>971 Next, the usefulness of this food is shown: first, for the spirit or sou; secondly, for the body, +<span style="font-weight: bold">and I will raise him up on the last day.</span></p> +<p>972 There is great usefulness in eating this sacrament, for it gives eternal life; thus he says, +<span style="font-weight: bold">Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life. </span>For this spiritual food is similar +to material food in the fact that without it there can be no spiritual life, just as there cannot be +bodily life without bodily food, as was said above. But this food has more than the other, because +it produces in the one who receives it an unending life, which material food does not do: for not +all who eat material food continue to live. For, as Augustine says, it can happen that many who +do take it die because of old age or sickness, or some other reason. But one who takes this food +and drink of the body and blood of our Lord <span style="font-weight: bold">has eternal life. </span>For this reason it is compared to +the tree of life: “She is the tree of life for those who take her” (Prv 3:18); and so it is called the +bread of life: “He fed him with the bread of life and understanding” (Sir 15:3). Accordingly, he +says, <span style="font-weight: bold">eternal life, </span>because one who eats this bread has within himself Christ, who is “the true +God and eternal life,” as John says (1 Jn 5:20).</p> +<p>Now one has eternal life who eats and drinks, as it is said, not only in a sacramental way, but also +in a spiritual way. One eats and drinks sacramentally or in a sacramental way, if he receives the +sacrament; and one eats and drinks spiritually or in a spiritual way, if he attains to the reality of +the sacrament. This reality of the sacrament is twofold: one is contained and signified, and this +is the whole Christ, who is contained under the species of bread and wine. The other reality is +signified but not contained, and this is the mystical body of Christ, which is in the predestined, +the called, and the justified. Thus, in reference to Christ as contained and signified, one eats his +flesh and drinks his blood in a spiritual way if he is united to him through faith and love, so that +one is transformed into him and becomes his member: for this food is not changed into the one +who eats it, but it turns the one who takes it into itself, as we see in Augustine, when he says: “I +am the food of the robust. Grow and you will eat me. Yet you will not change me into yourself, +but you will be transformed into me.” And so this is a food capable of making man divine and +inebriating him with divinity. The same is true in reference to the mystical body of Christ, which +is only signified [and not contained], if one shares in the unity of the Church. Therefore, one who +eats in these ways <span style="font-weight: bold">has eternal life. </span>That this is true of the first way, in reference to Christ, is clear +enough. In the same way, in reference to the mystical body of Christ, one will necessarily have +eternal life if he perseveres: for the unity of the Church is brought about by the Holy Spirit: “One +body, one Spirit ... the pledge of our eternal inheritance” (Eph 4:4; 1:14). So this bread is very +profitable, because it gives eternal life to the soul; but it is so also because it gives eternal life to +the body.</p> +<p>973 And therefore he adds, <span style="font-weight: bold">and I will raise him up on the last day. </span>For as was said, one who +eats and drinks in a spiritual way shares in the Holy Spirit, through whom we are united to Christ +by a union of faith and love, and through him we become members of the Church. But the Holy +Spirit also merits the resurrection: “He who raised Jesus Christ our Lord form the dead, will raise +our mortal bodies because of his Spirit, who dwells in us” (Rom 8:11). And so our Lord says that +he will raise up to glory whoever eats and drinks; to glory, and not to condemnation, as this +would not be for their benefit. Such an effect is fittingly attributed to this sacrament of the +Eucharist because, as Augustine says and as was said above, it is the Word who raises up souls, +and it is the Word made flesh who gives life to bodies. Now in this sacrament the Word is present +not only in his divinity, but also in the reality of his flesh; and so he is the cause of the +resurrection not just of souls, but of bodies as well: “For as death came through a man, so the +resurrection of the dead has come through a man” (1 Cor 15:21). It is now clear how profitable +it is to take this sacrament.</p> +<p>974 We see its truth when he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">For my flesh truly is food. </span>I some might think that what he +was saying about his flesh and blood was just an enigma and a parable. So our Lord rejects this, +and says, <span style="font-weight: bold">my flesh truly is food. </span>As if to say: Do not think that I am speaking metaphorically, +for my flesh is truly contained in this food of the faithful, and my blood is truly contained in this +sacrament of the altar: “This is my body ... this is my blood of the new covenant,” as we read in +Matthew (26:26).</p> +<p>Chrysostom explains this statement in the following way. Food and drink are taken for man’s +refreshment. Now there are two parts in man: the chief part is the soul, and the second is the +body. It is the soul which makes man to be man, and not the body; and so that truly is the food +of man which is the food of the soul. And this is what our Lord says: <span style="font-weight: bold">my flesh truly is food, +</span>because it is the food of the soul, not just of the body. The same is true of the blood of Christ. +“He has led me to the waters that refresh” (Ps 22:2). As if to say: This refreshment is especially +for the soul.</p> +<p>Augustine explains these words this way. A thing is truly said to be such and such a thing if it +produces the effect of that thing. Now the effect of food is to fill or satisfy. Therefore, that which +truly produces fulness is truly food and drink. But this is produced by the flesh and blood of +Christ, who leads us to the state of glory, where there is neither hunger nor thirst: “They will +neither hunger nor thirst” (Rv 7:16). And so he says: <span style="font-weight: bold">For my flesh truly is food, and my blood +truly is drink.</span></p> +<p>975 Now our Lord proves that this spiritual food has such power, that is, to give eternal life. And +he reasons this way: Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood is united to me, but whoever +is united to me has eternal life: therefore, whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal +life. Here he does three things: first, he gives his major premise; secondly, the minor premise, +which he proves (v 58); and thirdly, he draws his conclusion: <span style="font-weight: bold">This is the bread that has come +down from heaven.</span></p> +<p>976 We should note, with respect to the first, that if his statement, <span style="font-weight: bold">He who eats my flesh and +drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him, </span>is referred to his flesh and blood in a mystical +way, there is no difficulty. For, as was said, that person eats in a spiritual way, in reference to +what is signified only, who is incorporated into the mystical body through a union of faith and +love. Through love, God is in man, and man is in God: “He who abides in love, abides in God, +and God in him” (1 Jn 4:16). And this is what the Holy Spirit does; so it is also said, “We know +that we abide in God and God in us, because he has given us his Spirit” (1 Jn 4:13).</p> +<p>If these words are referred to a sacramental reception, then whoever eats this flesh and drinks this +blood abides in God. For, as Augustine says, there is one way of eating this flesh and drinking +this blood such that he who eats and drinks abides in Christ and Christ in him. This is the way +of those who eat the body of Christ and drink his blood not just sacramentally, but really. And +there is another way by which those who eat do not abide in Christ nor Christ in them. This is +the way of those who approach [the sacrament] with an insincere heart: for this sacrament has +no effect in one who is insincere. There is insincerity when the interior state does not agree with +what is outwardly signified. In the sacrament of the Eucharist, what is outwardly signified is that +Christ is united to the one who receives it, and such a one to Christ. Thus, one who does not +desire this union in his heart, or does not try to remove every obstacle to it, is insincere. +Consequently, Christ does not abide in him nor he in Christ.</p> +<p>977 Now he presents his minor premise, that is, whoever is united to Christ has life. He mentions +this to show the following similarity: the Son, because of the unity he has with the Father, +receives life from the Father; therefore one who is united to Christ receives life from Christ. And +this is what he says: <span style="font-weight: bold">Just as the living Father has sent me, and I live because of the Father. +</span>These words can be explained in two ways about Christ: either in reference to his human nature, +or in reference to his divine nature.</p> +<p>If they are explained as referring to Christ the Son of God, then the “as” implies a similarity of +Christ to creatures in some respect, though not in all respects, which is, that he exists from +another. For to be from another is common to Christ the Son of God and to creatures. But they +are unlike in another way: the Son has something proper to himself, because he is from the Father +in such a way that he receives the entire fulness of the divine nature, so that whatever is natural +to the Father is also natural to the Son. Creatures, on the other hand, receive a certain particular +perfection and nature. “Just as the Father possesses life in himself, so he has given it to the Son +to have life in himself” (above 5:26). He shows this because, when speaking of his procession +from the Father, he does not say: “As I eat the Father and I live because of the Father, “ as he +said, when speaking of sharing in his body and blood, whoever eats me, he also will live because +of me. This eating makes us better, for eating implies a certain sharing. Rather, Christ says that +he lives because of the Father, not as eaten, but as generating, without detriment to his equality.</p> +<p>If we explain this statement as applying to Christ as man, then in some respect the “as” implies +a similarity between Christ as man and us: that is, in the fact that as Christ the man receives +spiritual life through union with God, so we too receive spiritual life in the communion or +sharing in this Sacrament. Still, there is a difference: for Christ as man received life through +union with the Word, to whom he is united in person; while we are united to Christ t through the +sacrament of faith. And so he says two things: <span style="font-weight: bold">sent me</span> and <span style="font-weight: bold">Father</span>. If we refer these words to +the Son of God, then he is saying, <span style="font-weight: bold">I live because of the Father, </span>because the Father himself is +living. But if they are referred to the Son of Man, then he is saying, <span style="font-weight: bold">I live because of the Father, +</span>because the Father has sent me, i.e., made me incarnate. For the sending of the Son is his +incarnation: “God sent his Son, made from a woman” (Gal 4:4).</p> +<p>978 According to Hilary, this is a rejection of the error made by Arius. For if we live because of +Christ, because we have something of his nature (as he says, “Whoever eats my flesh and drinks +my blood has eternal life”), then Christ too lives because of the Father, because he has in himself +the nature of the Father (not a part of it, for it is simple and indivisible). Therefore, Christ has the +entire nature of the Father. It is because of the Father, therefore, that the Son lives, because the +Son’s birth did not involve another and different nature [from that of the Father].</p> +<p>979 Next (v 59), he presents his two conclusions. For they were arguing about two things: the +origin of this spiritual food and its power. The first conclusion is about its origin; the second is +about its power: <span style="font-weight: bold">whoever eats this bread shall live forever.</span></p> +<p>980 With respect to the first, we should note that the Jews had been troubled because he had said, +“I am the living bread that has come down from heaven” (v 51 ). Therefore, in opposition to +them, he arrives at this same conclusion again, from his statement, “I live because of the Father,” +when he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">This is the bread that has come down from heaven. </span>For to come down from +heaven is to have an origin from heaven; but the Son has his origin from heaven, since he lives +because of the Father: therefore, Christ is the one who has come down from heaven. And so he +says, <span style="font-weight: bold">This is the bread that has come down from heaven, </span>i.e., from the life of the Father. +<span style="font-weight: bold">Come down</span>, in relation to his divinity; or <span style="font-weight: bold">come down</span>, even in his body, so far as the power that +formed it, the Holy Spirit, was from heaven, a heavenly power. Thus, those who eat this bread +do not die; as our fathers died, who ate the manna that was neither from heaven, nor was living +bread, as was said above. How those who ate the manna died is clear from what has been +mentioned before.</p> +<p>981 The second conclusion, concerning the power of this bread, is given when he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">whoever +eats this bread shall live forever. </span>This follows from his statement, “He who eats my flesh and +drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him” (v 57). For whoever eats this bread abides in me, and +I in him. But I am eternal life. Therefore, <span style="font-weight: bold">whoever eats this bread, </span>as he ought, <span style="font-weight: bold">shall live +forever.</span></p> +<p>982 Jesus said this in the synagogue, in which he was teaching at Capernaum. He used to teach +in the temple and in the synagogues in order to attract many, so that at least some might benefit: +“I have proclaimed your justice in the great assembly” (Ps 39:10).</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 8</span></p> +<BLOCKQUOTE><p>61 On hearing this, many of his disciples said: “This is a hard saying! Who can accept it?” 62 But +Jesus, knowing fully that his disciples were grumbling about this, said to them: +<DD>“Does this scandalize you? +<DD>63 What if you should see the Son of Man +<DD>ascending to where he was before? +<DD>64 It is the spirit that gives life; +<DD>flesh profits nothing. +<DD>The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. +<DD>65 But there are some of you who do not believe.” +<BR>For Jesus knew from the beginning those who would believe in him and who it was that would +betray him. 66 And he said: +<DD>“This is why I said to you, +<DD>that no one call come to me, +<DD>unless it be given him by my Father.” +<BR>67 From this time on, many of his disciples turned back, and no longer walked with him. 68 +Jesus then said to the Twelve: +<DD>“Do you too wish to leave?” +<BR>69 Simon Peter replied: “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. 70 We +have come to believe and to know that you are the Christ, the Son of God.” 71 Jesus answered +him: +<DD>“Did I not choose you Twelve? +<DD>And one of you is a devil.” +<BR>72 Now he was talking about Judas, son of Simon Iscariot, who would betray him, since he was +one of the Twelve.</p></BLOCKQUOTE> +<p>983 After our Lord put an end to the complaining and arguing among the Jews, he now removes +the scandal given to his disciples. First, we see the scandal of those disciples who left him; +secondly, the devotion of those who remained with him (v 68). Concerning the first, he does +three things: first, we see the scandal given to his disciples; secondly, the kindly way Christ takes +it away (v 62); and thirdly, the stubbornness and unbelief of those who leave him (v 67).</p> +<p>984 We should note, with respect to the first, that there were many Jews who adhered to Christ, +believed him and followed him. And although they had not left all things as the Twelve did, they +were still all called his disciples. It is of these that he says, many, that is, many of the people who +believed him, <span style="font-weight: bold">on hearing this, </span>what he had said above, said, <span style="font-weight: bold">This is a hard saying! </span>We read of +these: “They believe for a while, and in the time of testing fall away” (Lk 8:13). He says, <span style="font-weight: bold">many</span>, +because “The number of fools is infinite” (Ecc 1:15); and, “Many are called but few are chosen” +(Mt 20:16).</p> +<p>They said: <span style="font-weight: bold">This is a hard saying! </span>Now that is said to be hard which is difficult to divide, and +which offers resistance. Accordingly, a saying is hard either because it resists the intellect or +because it resists the will, that is, when we cannot understand it with our mind, or when it does +not please our will. And this saying was hard for them in both ways. It was hard for their +intellects because it exceeded the weakness of their intellects: for since they were earthly minded, +they were incapable of understanding what he said, namely, that he would give them his flesh to +eat. And it was hard for their wills, because he said many things about the power of his divinity: +and although they believed him as a prophet, they did not believe that he was God. Consequently, +it seemed to them that he was making himself greater than he was. “His letters are strong” (2 Cor +10:10), “Wisdom is exceedingly unpleasant to the unlearned” (Sir (, 21 ). And so it reads on. +<span style="font-weight: bold">Who can accept it? </span>They said this as an excuse: for since they had given themselves to him, they +should have accepted what he said. But because he was not teaching them things that were +pleasing to them, they were waiting for an occasion to leave him: “A fool does not accept words +of wisdom unless You tell him what he desires” (Prv 18:2).</p> +<p>985 Next (v 62), we see the kindly way Christ dispelled their difficulty. First, he takes notice of +it; secondly, he removes its cause (v 63); and thirdly, he mentions what the cause was (v 65).</p> +<p>986 He had noticed that they were scandalized because they had said, although privately, so he +could not hear, <span style="font-weight: bold">This is a hard saying! </span>But Christ, who in virtue of his divinity knew that they +had said this, mentions it. And this is what he says: <span style="font-weight: bold">But Jesus, knowing in himself, </span>what they +said within themselves, that is, <span style="font-weight: bold">that his disciples were grumbling about this</span>—“He did not need +anyone to give him testimony about men. He was well aware of what was in man’s heart” (above +2:25); “God searches into the hearts and loins of men” (Ps 7:10)—said to them, <span style="font-weight: bold">Does this +scandalize you? </span>As if to say: You should not be scandalized at this. Or, it can be understood less +strongly, as meaning: I know that you are scandalized at this. “He will be our sanctification,” i.e., +those who believe in Christ, but “a stumbling-stone to the two houses of Israel,” to the grumbling +disciples and the crowds (Is 8:4).</p> +<p>987 But since teachers should avoid creating difficulties for those who are listening to them, why +did our Lord mention those things that would upset the people and have them leave? I answer +that Christ had to mention such things because his teaching required it. For they had pleaded with +him for material food, when he had come to strengthen their desire for spiritual food; and so he +had to make known to them his teaching on spiritual food.</p> +<p>Nevertheless, their difficulty was not caused by any defect in what Christ was teaching, but by +their own unbelief. For if they had not understood what our Lord was saying, because of their +own earthly mindedness, they could have questioned him, as the apostles had done in similar +circumstances. According to Augustine, however, our Lord purposely permitted this situation, +to give teachers a reason for consolation and patience with those who belittle what they say, since +even the disciples presumed to disparage what Christ said.</p> +<p>988 Then (v 63), he takes away the occasion of their scandal so far as concerns the person +speaking and what he said, as Chrysostom says. First, he deals with the person who was +speaking; secondly, with what he said (v 64).</p> +<p>989 The occasion for their scandal was when they heard our Lord say divine things about +himself. And so, because they believed that he was the son of Joseph, they were upset at what +he said<span style="font-weight: bold"> </span>about<span style="font-weight: bold"> </span>himself. God takes away this reason by showing them his divinity more openly, and +says: You are upset over the things I have said about myself; <span style="font-weight: bold">What if you should see the Son +of Man ascending to where he was before? </span>What would you say then? As if to say: You can +never deny that I came down from heaven, or that I am the one who gives and teaches eternal life. +He did the same thing before with Nathanael. When Nathanael said to him, “You are the King +of Israel” our Lord, wanting to lead him to more perfect knowledge, answered him: “You will +see greater things than this” (above 1:5 0). And here too, our Lord reveals to them something +greater about himself which would happen in the future, saying, <span style="font-weight: bold">What if you should see the Son +of Man ascending to where he was before? </span>Indeed, he did ascend into heaven in the sight of +his disciples (Acts 1:9). If, therefore, he does ascend to where he was before, then he was in +heaven before: “No one has gone up to heaven except the one who came down from heaven” +(above 3:13).</p> +<p>990 Let us note that Christ is one person: the person of the Son of God and the person of the Son +of Man being the same person. Still, because of his different natures, something belongs to Christ +by reason of his human nature, that is, to ascend, which does not belong to him by reason of his +divine nature, according to which he does not ascend, since he is eternally at the highest summit +of things, that is, in the Father. It is according to his human nature that it belongs to him to ascend +to <span style="font-weight: bold">where he was before, </span>that is, to heaven, where he had not been in his human nature. (This is +in opposition to the teaching of Valentinus, who claimed that Christ had assumed a heavenly +body). Thus, Christ ascended in the sight of his apostles to where he was before according to his +divinity; and he ascended, by his own power, according to his humanity: “I came forth from the +Father, and I have come into the world. Now I am leaving the world and am going to the Father” +(below 16:28).</p> +<p>991 Augustine understands this passage differently. He said that the disciples were scandalized +when our Lord said that he would give him them his flesh to eat because they understood this in +a material minded way, as if they were literally to eat this flesh, just like the flesh of an animal. +Our Lord rejected this interpretation and said. <span style="font-weight: bold">What if you should see the Son of Man +ascending, </span>with his entire body, <span style="font-weight: bold">to where he was before? </span>Would you say that I intended to give +you my flesh to eat like you do the flesh of an animal?</p> +<p style="margin-bottom: 0.125in; margin-bottom: 0.125in"> </p> +<p>992 Then (v 64), he settles the offense they took at what he said. And, as Chrysostom says, he +distinguished two ways in which his words could be understood. And secondly, he showed which +way was appropriate here (v 64b).</p> +<p>With respect to the first, we should note that Christ’s words can be understood in two senses: in +a spiritual way, and in a material way. Thus he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">It is the spirit that gives life, </span>that is, if you +understand these words according to the spirit, i.e., according to their spiritual meaning, they will +give life. <span style="font-weight: bold">Flesh profits nothing, </span>that is, if you understand them in a material way, they will be +of no benefit to you, they will, rather, be harmful, for “If you live according to the flesh you will +die” (Rom 8:13).</p> +<p>What our Lord said about eating his flesh is interpreted in a material way when it is understood +in its superficial meaning, and as pertaining to the nature of flesh. And it was in this way that the +Jews understood them. But our Lord said that he would give himself to them as spiritual food, +not as though the true flesh of Christ is not present in this sacrament of the altar, but because it +is eaten in a certain spiritual and divine way. Thus, the correct meaning of these words is +spiritual, not material. So he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">The words that I have spoken to you</span>, about eating my flesh, +<span style="font-weight: bold">are spirit and life</span>, that is, they have a spiritual meaning, and understood in this way they give +life. And it is not surprising that they have a spiritual meaning, because they are from the Holy +Spirit: “It is the Spirit who tells mysteries” (1 Cor 14:2). And therefore, the mysteries of Christ +give life: “I will never forget your justifications, because through them you have brought me to +life” (Ps 118:93).</p> +<p>993 Augustine explains this passage in a different way, for he understands the statement, flesh +profits nothing, as referring to the flesh of Christ. It is obvious that the flesh of Christ, as united +to the Word and to the Spirit, does profit very much and in every way; otherwise, the Word +would have been made flesh in vain, and the Father would have made him known in the flesh in +vain, as we see from 1 Timothy (c 4). And so we should say that it is the flesh of Christ, +considered in itself, that profits nothing and does not have any more beneficial effect than other +flesh. For if his flesh is considered as separated from the divinity and the Holy Spirit, it does not +have different power than other flesh. But if it is united to the Spirit and the divinity, it profits +many, because it makes those who receive it abide in Christ, for man abides in God through the +Spirit of love: “We know that we abide in God and God in us, because he has given us his Spirit” +(1 Jn 4:13). And this is what our Lord says: the effect I promise you, that is, eternal life, should +not be attributed to my flesh as such, because understood in this way, <span style="font-weight: bold">flesh profits nothing. </span>But +my flesh does offer eternal life as united to the Spirit and to the divinity. “If we live by the Spirit, +let us also walk by the Spirit” “Gal 5:25). And so he adds, <span style="font-weight: bold">The words that I have spoken to you +are spirit and life, </span>i.e., they must be understood of the Spirit united to my flesh; and so +understood they are life, that is, the life of the soul. For as the body lives its bodily life through +a bodily spirit, so the soul lives a spiritual life through the Holy Spirit: “Send forth your Spirit, +and they will be created” (Ps 103:30).</p> +<p>994 Then (v 65), he indicates the reason why they were upset, that is, their unbelief. As if to say: +the cause of your difficulty is not the hardness of what I have just said, but your own unbelief. +And so first, he mentions their unbelief; secondly, he excludes an incorrect interpretation; and +thirdly, he gives the reason for their unbelief.</p> +<p>995 Our Lord indicated their unbelief when he said, <span style="font-weight: bold">But there are some of you who do not +believe</span>. He did not say, “who do not understand.” He did more than this, for he gave the reason +why they did not understand: they did not understand because they did not believe. “If you do not +believe, you will not understand,” as we read in another version of Isaiah (7:9). He said, <span style="font-weight: bold">some</span>, +in order to exclude his disciples: “All do not have faith” (2 Thes 3:2); “All do not obey the +Gospel” (Rom 10:16); “They did not believe what he said” (Ps 105:24).</p> +<p>996 The Evangelist then rejects an incorrect interpretation when he adds, For Jesus knew. As if +to say: Jesus did not say, there are some of you who do not believe, because he just recently +learned it, but because <span style="font-weight: bold">Jesus knew from the beginning</span>, i.e., of the world, <span style="font-weight: bold">those who would +believe in him, and who it was that would betray him. </span>“All things are naked and open to his +eyes” (Heb 4:13); “All things were known to the Lord God before they were created,” as we read +in Sirach (23:29).</p> +<p>997 Our Lord next mentioned the cause of their unbelief, which was the withdrawal of attracting +grace. Thus he said: This is why I said to you. As if to say: Thus it was necessary to tell you what +I told you before: <span style="font-weight: bold">that no one can come to me, </span>i.e., through faith, <span style="font-weight: bold">unless it be given him by my +Father. </span>It follows from this, according to Augustine, that the act of believing itself is given to +us by God. Why it is not given to everyone we discussed above, where our Lord used almost the +same words (6:44). They are repeated here for two reasons. First, to show that Christ received +them in the faith more for their advantage and benefit than for his own: “It has been granted to +you to believe in him” (Phil 1:29). As if to say: It is good for you to believe. Thus Augustine +says: “It is a great thing to believe: rejoice, because you have believed.” Secondly, to show that +Christ was not the son of Joseph, as they thought, but of God, for it is God the Father who draws +men to the Son, as is clear from what has been said.</p> +<p>998 Then (v 67), we see the stubbornness of the disciples: for although our Lord had rebuked +them and had taken away the cause of their difficulty so far as it concerned himself, they still +would not believe. Thus he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">From this time on, many of his disciples turned back. </span>He did +not say, “they left,” but that they <span style="font-weight: bold">turned back, </span>i.e., from the faith, which they had in a virtuous +way; and cut off from the body of Christ, they lost life, because perhaps they were not in the +body, as Augustine says. There are some who turn back in an absolute way, that is, those who +follow the devil, to whom our Lord said, “Go back, Satan” (Mt 4:10). We also read of certain +women that “Some turned back after Satan” (1 Tim 5:15). But Peter did not turn back in this +way; he rather turned after Christ: “Follow after me, Satan” (Mt 16:23). But the others followed +after Satan.</p> +<p>Then follows: they <span style="font-weight: bold">no longer walked with him, </span>that is, even though we are required to walk +with Jesus: “I will show you man what is good,” and then it continues on, “to walk attentively +with your God” (Mi 6:8).</p> +<p>999 Then (v 68), our Lord examined those disciples who remained with him. First, we see this +in the question he asked them; secondly, Peter’s answer shows the devotion of those who +remained; and thirdly, our Lord corrects Peter’s answer (v 71).</p> +<p>1000 Our Lord examined the Twelve who remained as to their willingness to stay on; and so he +said to the Twelve, that is, to the Apostles, Do you too wish to leave? He asked them this for two +reasons. First, so that they would not take pride, thinking it was due to their own goodness, in the +fact that they stayed on while the others left, and think that they were doing Christ a favor. And +so he showed that he did not need them by holding them off, but still giving them strength: “If +you live rightly, what do you give him, or what does he receive from your hand?” (Jb 35:7). +Secondly, it sometimes happens that a person would really prefer to leave another but is kept +from doing so by shame or embarrassment. Our Lord did not want them to stay with him because +they were forced to do so out of embarrassment (because to serve unwillingly is not to serve at +all), and so he took away any embarrassment in their leaving or necessity for their staying, and +left it to their own judgment whether they wanted to stay with him or leave, because “God loves +a cheerful giver” (2 Cor 9:7).</p> +<p>1001 Then, from Peter’s answer, we see the devotion of those who did not leave. For Peter—who +loved the brethren, who guarded his friendships, and had it special affection for +Christ—answered for the whole group, and said, <span style="font-weight: bold">Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the +words of eternal life. </span>Here he did three things. First, he extolled the greatness of Christ; +secondly, he praised his teaching; and thirdly, he professed his faith.</p> +<p>1002 He extolled the greatness of Christ when he said, <span style="font-weight: bold">Lord, to whom shall we go?</span> As if to say: +Are you telling us to leave you? Give us someone better to whom we can go. But then, “There +is no one like you among the strong, O Lord” (Ex 15:11); “Who is like God” (Ps 88:7). And so +you will not tell us to go. “Where can I go that is away from your spirit?” (Ps 138:7). Further, +according to Chrysostom, Peter’s words show great friendship; for to him, Christ was more +worthy of honor than father or mother.</p> +<p>1003 He praised his teaching when he said, <span style="font-weight: bold">You have the words </span>of <span style="font-weight: bold">eternal life. </span>Now Moses, +and the prophets, also spoke the words of God; but they rarely had the words of eternal life. But +you are promising eternal life. What more can we ask? “Whoever believes in me has eternal life” +(above 6:47); “Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life” (above 3:36).</p> +<p>1004 He professed his faith when he said, <span style="font-weight: bold">We have come to believe and to know that you are +the Christ, the Son of God.</span> For in our faith there are two things above all that must be believed: +the mystery of the Trinity, and the Incarnation. And these two Peter professed here. He professed +the mystery of the Trinity when he said, you are the Son of God: for in calling Christ the Son of +God he mentioned the person of the Father and that of the Son, along with the person of the Holy +Spirit, who is the love of the Father and of the Son, and the bond or nexus of both. He professed +the mystery of the Incarnation when he said, you are the Christ: for in Greek, the word “Christ” +means “anointed”; anointed, that is, with the invisible oil of the Holy Spirit. He was not anointed +according to his divine nature, because one who is anointed by the Holy Spirit is Made better by +that anointing. But Christ, so far as he is God, is not made better. Thus, Christ was anointed as +man.</p> +<p>He said, <span style="font-weight: bold">We have come to believe and to know</span>, because believing comes before knowing. And +therefore, if we wanted to know before believing, we would neither know nor be able to believe, +as Augustine says, and as in that other version of Isaiah: “If you do not believe, you will not +understand” (Is 7:9).</p> +<p>1005 Our Lord corrected Peter’s answer when he said, <span style="font-weight: bold">Did I not choose you Twelve? And one +of you is a devil. </span>First, we have the Lord’s reply: secondly, the Evangelist’s explanation of it (v +72).</p> +<p>1006 Because Peter was great-hearted and included all in his answer, <span style="font-weight: bold">We have come to believe +and to know that you are the Christ, the Son of God, </span>it seemed that all of them would arrive +at eternal life. And so our Lord excluded Judas from this community of believers. This trust was +commendable in Peter, who did not suspect any evil in his companions; but we must also admire +the wisdom of our Lord, who saw what was hidden. Thus he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">Did I not choose you +Twelve? And one of you is a devil; </span>not by nature, but by imitating the devil’s malice: “Death +came into the world -by the envy of the devil; his disciples imitate him” (Wis 2:24); “After the +morsel, Satan entered into him” (below 13:27), because Judas became like him in malice.</p> +<p style="margin-bottom: 0.125in; margin-bottom: 0.125in"> </p> +<p>1007 But if Christ chose Judas, who was later to become evil, it seems that our Lord made a +mistake in choosing him. First, we might answer this as Chrysostom does, and say that this +choice was not for predestination, but for some task, and in reference to a condition of present +justice. Sometimes a person is chosen this way, not in relation to the future, but according to +present realities; for being chosen in this way does not destroy one’s free choice or the possibility +of sinning: hence we read, “Let him who thinks that he stands, take heed so he will not fall” (1 +Cor 10:12). And so our Lord did choose Judas, but not as evil at that time; and being so chosen +did not take away his possibility of sinning. Secondly, we could answer with Augustine, who said +that our Lord did chose Judas as evil. And although he knew that he was evil, because it is +characteristic of a good person to use evil for good, God made good use of this evil in allowing +himself to be betrayed in order to redeem us. Or, we could say that the choice of the Twelve does +not refer here to the persons, but rather to the number; as if to say: I have chosen Twelve. For this +number is fittingly set apart for those who would preach the faith of the Holy Trinity to the four +corners of the world. And indeed, this number did not pass away, because Matthias was +substituted for the traitor. Or, according to Ambrose, Jesus chose Judas as evil so that when we +read that our Lord and Master was betrayed by his disciple, we might be consoled if sometimes +our friends betray us.</p> +<p>1008 We could ask here why the disciples did not say anything after our Lord said, <span style="font-weight: bold">one of you +is a devil; </span>for later on, when he says, “One of you will betray me” (below 13:21), they reply, “Is +it I, Lord?” (Mt 26:22). 1 answer that the reason for this is that our Lord was speaking here in a +general way when he said that one of them was a devil; for this could mean any kind of malice, +and so they were not disturbed. But later on, when they heard of such a great crime, that their +Master would be betrayed, they could not keep quiet. Or, we could say that when our Lord said +this, each of them had confidence in his own virtue, and so none feared for himself; but after he +said to Peter, “Follow after me, Satan” (Mt 16:23), they were afraid, and realized their own +weakness. That is why they asked in that indecisive way, “Is it I, Lord?”</p> +<p>1009 Finally, what our Lord had just said privately is explained by the Evangelist when he says, +<span style="font-weight: bold">he was talking about Judas, </span>as events proved and which will be clear below (c 13).</p> +</body> + +</html>